Moreover, depending on the contents of the list, this likely offers proof of what is generally suspected, that the no fly list is a form of discrimination and authoritarian overreach, targeting people that haven't been convicted of a crime but are "suspected" due to race, religion, etc. The whole thing is probably unconstitutional/illegal, but it's hard to prove that since it's been secret.
This seems like a clear case of hacktivism- trying to expose an unethical government program for what it is, so that it can be stopped.
The problem is to define "demonstrate" and the criteria. Remember the gatekeeper is now an unemployed gal who "know lot's of things about cyber security" according to her main page. Seems likely a competent bad actor could easily impersonate a well-meaning reporter...
Yes, security through obscurity isn't security, but this also seems incredibly irresponsible for any "security researcher". AFAIK, just basic standard good practice is to report the flaws and allow a reasonable interval before publishing, and there seems to be no hint of this.
Modern society really is held together with duct tape, baling twine, and a few pieces of bubble gum...
[EDIT: pronouns]
...and it has a Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/maia_arson_crimew), and has demonstrated in other cases (cf. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/feelyou-mental-health-app-dat...) that it has at least a reasonable grasp on what to leak and what not to leak.
> CommuteAir added that the server, which was taken offline prior to publication after being flagged by the Daily Dot, did not expose any customer information based on an initial investigation.
As a side note, maia uses it/its pronouns.
I do have to say that, while it's polite to use people's preferences, when just reading an article and posting a quick comment, it's pretty casual, and (almost always) no offense is meant, so none should be taken. Note that the bulk of the comments here are all over the map, and I'm sure no one means to be offensive.
White hat hacking assumes that the hacked party is doing normal or ethical business, and that helping them secure it would be generally beneficial.
Also, I'm pretty confident that Maia, as a famous hacker and cybersecurity expert, isn't going to be easily duped by someone impersonating a journalist, and knows how to verify such things.
She appears to have talent in connecting these data sources, but she's also in way over her head when it comes to motivation. On the world chessboard, she's a pawn. I can easily imagine that she's being egged on to do harm to the quasi-neutral but not isolated society that is now her life raft.
You literally immediately falsified that assertion:
> and only offers to if someone can demonstrate they will use it responsibly.
And nobody ever lies of course.
Hypothetically she might get scammed by someone and irresponsibly disclose but let's not condemn her for it yet.
"Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead"
If people had such an innate propensity to divulge secrets, surely the employees who setup that faulty jenkins server would have already sent you a copy of the no fly list, right?
That isn't really a counter-example to my point which is just that it is stupidly naive to suggest that Maia is somehow exempt from these concerns.
If you want to argue that its all pointless secrecy theater, then I'd agree with that entirely.
Probably thousands of airline and US government employees have had access to this list over the years. Yet neither you nor me can see anything on it, here in January 2023.
Wait, I thought Maia was offering to share who was on the no-fly list, not this stolen sensitive data this comment is claiming
In fact, the government does do harm with it, by putting people on it without telling them (they might send a letter, that's not guaranteed), and you only get to find out a few hours before your flight when you get rejected at security.
Furthermore, this particular government fails to properly secure info all the time. Seems the last two presidents have been just leaving classified papers strewn all over the place.
No, I'll trust the gay hackers over the government, thank you very much.
Or, to put it another way, governments can make people disappear by publishing such lists and having the police be busy somewhere else when a mob happens.
How would they know? How would they prove it?
There's a known case a few years ago where a woman was trapped away from the US for 3 years - her estranged husband put her on the list when she went to visit her parents, and boom, she's not allowed into the US and no-one will tell her why, making it easy for him to get divorced and keep the house.
(If she'd known what had happened, and been able to put her hands on enough money, she could maybe have flown to Canada/Mexico and entered overland; all she knew was she was denied boarding)
How does one "put her on the list"? It's not that easy.
If you are a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, and the TSC determines that you are on the No Fly List, DHS TRIP will send you a letter informing you of your status on the No Fly List and providing the option to submit and receive additional information.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-you-think-y...
Is my only way to discover if I am allowed on an airplane is to buy a ticket and get subsequently denied on the boarding gate/security? No FOIA request, or anything similar, to circumnavigate this?
Thank you.
Should they let you know not to book a flight?
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/passenger-support/travel-redress-...
The TSA comment above is pretty straight forward but to be fair the wiki article is filled with instances of speculation.
In fact, the US doesn't have super reliable systems to stop fugitives at airports except on entry.
For instance, "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms but god help you if you're here irregularly or on a tourist visa and do not meet one of the exemptions. Sure non-immigrants are persons but federal law doesn't give a fuck.
Throwing in all these constraint when the constitution clearly say "the people" without qualification which magically means basically everyone one place but not most everyone somewhere else seems kind of arbitrary to me, but then again the courts seem to have held up visitors aren't people so hey. This is why I'm not a lawyer because really such fuckery makes my brain melt. If I were the sole sitting justice of the supreme court I'd say the qualification is a person is one unit of people and thus they have the rights of the people. IMO if you're one of "the people" then when the constitution uses "the people" unqualified elsewhere that's you -- which by symmetry means if you can't own a gun you're not a person and have none of the other rights of the people.
At least the 7th circuit agrees with you, (United States v. Meza-Rodriguez) even if there are other federal appeals circuits that don't. So this is something that will likely go to the Supreme Court eventually.
https://casetext.com/case/state-v-ibrahim
Granted, this is a Washington State court ruling on the basis of the WA state constitution (which has a stronger RKBA provision than the federal one). But there were similar rulings in other states, and if I remember correctly, at least one of them cited the federal constitution.
As far as the "exemptions" go, it might simply be that nobody ever challenged them before - I mean, as a non-immigrant alien who can get kicked out quite easily in any case, why would you go and antagonize the feds if you can just buy an Alaska hunting license online for $60 and make them happy that the requisite checkbox has a mark in it? But also, until Bruen, the courts tended to defer to various onerous licensing restrictions and requirements even for citizens.
The Equal Protection clause protects citizens and non-citizens alike, e.g. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)
The first amendment protects aliens once they are admitted to the US, Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)
There is a right to travel that is an extension of the first amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression.
If you really want to know shoot me an email.
[0] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t7QPqgvkNp42zejlBBxi...
[1] https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov
[2] ftp://ofacftp.treas.gov
Publishing the list as-is would also imply that you believe the state is infallible and can't err when putting people on this list. There are thousands of people out there who have redress numbers because they have the same name as someone on the list. Can you imagine if getting a redress number is necessary for employment? Leaking the list would ironically increase the state's control.
(edit: Again, I'm not disagreeing with letting individuals find out if they themselves are on the list, just disagreeing with the method)
What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you understand the repercussions of it being found someone is on a no-fly list (because we all know the US government makes mistakes).
Those Americans on list have a right to question their accuser in court before a right (to travel) is restricted. When did we agree to suspend due process, 14th amendment?
Don’t be so naive. Lists of people are almost inherently dangerous things. I don’t like that a no-fly list exists in the first place but it would be completely irresponsible to just publish it and wash your hands of it.
Maybe there are reasons this is short sighted or I’m missing a greater point. I’d be interested to hear ideas in any case.
Breaking into private S3 buckets because you are bored is not considered an appropriate “Step 1” by the _professional community_ (people who get paid to do this for a living) at large.
Among people who plan to be financially rewarded for their work and also not be in handcuffs, Step 1 is usually to “Get written permission”.
It's almost like you're talking about how a lawnmower decided to run a child over and then incriminate itself by boasting about it on social media. It makes no sense!
I know she picked that pronoun herself, but I really wish she didn't. It just makes communication difficult.
But that really didn’t have much to do with what I was discussing. That was a separate argument about how we use “it” to refer to objects as a rule. Humans are objects, but we also generally prefer to think of them as objects of a higher order variety. In conversation, we take advantage of this to parse and interpret context more quickly. Choosing to do otherwise makes it more difficult to know if the “it” I just used in this sentence is Maia, some other object, or an abstract point I’m making in this discussion. Anyway, that’s why I prefer she/her.
I'm not sure how the under 20 is adjusting but in my groups of mid 20 to late 30 nobody is trying to disrespect anyone by not using preferred pronouns, but it just slips out from decades of usage, and people just end up replacing pronouns with the person's actual name after multiple times apologizing. The having to remember multiple names when meeting someone just doesn't seem tenable long term.
Oh god i hope. As a german, we have pronouns for all nouns. So far no societal backlash against those, but they just seem totally useless to me (beside maybe a teeny tiny bit of "forward error correction"). You just have to learn them. Surest way to spot an immigrant. Then there is job titles. In the US, "nurse" seems to be used for both genders, but the words origin is female. Yeah, we have that as well for many jobs. Others usually have suffixes. Ofc we want to be welcoming to all. You can imagine the job listings...
is a great non-gender pro-noun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You says the singular "you" didn't occur until Modern English, and the singular form 'ye' died out in the 1600s with early Modern English.
The King James Bible, published 1611, uses "ye" as the singular form of the formal "you", as in "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version further notes:
] In a period of rapid linguistic change the translators avoided contemporary idioms, tending instead towards forms that were already slightly archaic, like verily and it came to pass.[87] The pronouns thou/thee and ye/you are consistently used as singular and plural respectively, even though by this time you was often found as the singular in general English usage, especially when addressing a social superior (as is evidenced, for example, in Shakespeare). ...
] Another sign of linguistic conservatism is the invariable use of -eth for the third person singular present form of the verb, as at Matthew 2:13: "the Angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dreame".
One issue is that song's use of "ye" seems to be from the 1750s, so about 150 years after the KJV usage, which in turn was somewhat archaic. English changes.
Another is how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_(pronoun) says:
> In Early Modern English, ye functioned as both an informal plural and formal singular second-person nominative pronoun. "Ye" is still commonly used as an informal plural in Hiberno‐English and Newfoundland English
So it's possible that the KJV uses "ye" only for formal singular second-person, even if was also used more widely used for informal plural, and as that informal plural became more widely used, it became the go-to way to translate the Latin, which is in plural.
And then I read https://www.etymonline.com/word/you?ref=etymonline_crossrefe... and my eyes roll up in confusion.
Most likely I misunderstood the text I copied from the KJV entry, and "ye" and "you" are both plural forms?
I give up.
Sadly. Overloading "you" and "they" feels rather clunky. I wish it got rid of "he" and "she" instead - gendering pronouns is completely useless, and that's coming from someone whose native tongue genders much more than just pronouns...
After Foo and Bar went to the store, they went to the bank.
If we don’t need a singular-only you, why would we need a singular-only they?
(Not trying to make any point here, just thought it might be useful for context.)
I'm not a language historian, so I don't have an opinion on your last question.
Hi, fellow autist here.
Yes, it feels like my brain hits some speedbumps with that particular pronoun. I wouldn't say I get "freaked out" though; it's just unfamiliar yet.
Despite what other comments claim, I doubt this is agrammatical. "It" is part of the same grammatical class (the class of pronouns!!) and so fits anywhere "he" or "she" does.
> "It" refers to inanimate objects, things which can't have free will
Could you bring yourself to see the choice of "it/its" pronouns exactly as a self-identification with things that feel no agency of their own? I don't know why Maia claims those pronouns, but I'd get this motivation for sure.
(I'm going to presume here that crimew doesn't actually want to be considered an object, because we don't generally respect objects' pronoun choices. So calling them an "it" in the grammatical way would be paradoxically self-defeating; we call objects he/she all the time and they usually don't complain.)
This is also why I will always defend the use of "they" as valid. There has to be at least one universal pronoun.
A lot of people who like to cry 'transphobic!' may wish to understand that there are people who need accommodation in our society other than trans people, and that heralding chosen pronouns as truly inviolable will sometimes make other people less comfortable.
That said, I have so far managed to avoid any such accusations in this thread, thankfully.
As for competing needs and such, in this case it’s as easy as using she/her (as maia lists that as one of its pronouns), in other cases it’s usually acceptable to use they/them or no pronouns at all. The only thing that is generally absolutely unacceptable is (knowingly) using the wrong gendered pronouns or using gendered pronouns when the person only uses non-gendered pronouns.
It may do so in English, but it is Swiss, so probably also speaks German, where 'it' - 'es' is Genus Neutrum, exactly meaning neutral gender. For example 'the child' - 'das Kind' is neutrally gendered. Hope this makes sense.
So, at most it could be said that "it" doesn't normally refer to persons... but even that's not true if you include sci-fi in your definition of "English language". When dealing with topics such as non-standard biological sex and/or gender fluidity, older sci-fi works would often use "it" for such people without any implication of non-personhood.
Graciously, though, they’re at least feigning caution with handing out the no-fly list.