How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way
maia.crimew.gay
maia.crimew.gay
Corresponding news story: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/no-fly-list-us-tsa-unprotecte...
There were also prod AWS credentials in the files exposed in Jenkins.
>[...] the vast majority of people who have disputed travel and appeal to the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program are not on the terrorist watchlist. Most people on the terrorist watchlist are still able to fly within the U.S. A very small subset of people on this list are on the “No Fly” list.
[...]
>The No Fly List is a small subset of the U.S. government Terrorist Screening Database (also known as the terrorist watchlist) that contains the identity information of known or suspected terrorists. This database is maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center.
So, shouldn't this list be public information anyway? It's not even suspicious people they're watching, by the sound of it the no fly list is only for people they have concrete evidence of terrorist activity for. Imo the public has a right to know those identities.
[1]: https://alunr.com/excel-csv-import-returns-an-sylk-file-form...
A,B,Alice "Mallory" Bob,123Some planning, some building out new stuff (usually clean work), some repairing active geysers of partially processed data that's getting all over the place fouling up the works.
So the following Excel export I just did will parse perfect fine with your CSV parser but give you completely the wrong thing:
1;2,3;3,3
2;7,3;9,3
3;4,5;7,5“The CSV file format is not fully standardized. Separating fields with commas is the foundation, but commas in the data or embedded line breaks have to be handled specially. Some implementations disallow such content while others surround the field with quotation marks, which yet again creates the need for escaping if quotation marks are present in the data.
The term "CSV" also denotes several closely-related delimiter-separated formats that use other field delimiters such as semicolons.[2] These include tab-separated values and space-separated values. A delimiter guaranteed not to be part of the data greatly simplifies parsing.
Alternative delimiter-separated files are often given a ".csv" extension despite the use of a non-comma field separator. This loose terminology can cause problems in data exchange. Many applications that accept CSV files have options to select the delimiter character and the quotation character. Semicolons are often used instead of commas in many European locales in order to use the comma as the decimal separator and, possibly, the period as a decimal grouping character.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma-separated_values#Standar... mentions a few standards for csv, one of which is the MIME type text/csv, standardized in RFC 4180.
But that doesn't extend to using backslash escapes in something that's legitimately trying to be CSV. That's someone getting confused and implementing a mix of data formats, or trying to be clever and making an extended CSV format.
That, in turn, means you almost cannot use CSV in any robust solution. Even if, today, your input doesn’t have commas, quotes or newlines, can you guarantee it won’t tomorrow, next year, etc?
But... but those are the ones I listed as real special characters, unlike backslash. I don't understand the question.
But then, I am not a Bond-esque criminal organization bent for world domination.
At the very least, I don't think the company was operating like every random developer should have full-access to the no-fly list, which is what they de-facto gave them when they dumped an old copy into the test pipeline.
Eg when an airline had a public API where you could get someone's passport number and details just from their boarding pass https://mango.pdf.zone/finding-former-australian-prime-minis...
Password salts that were identical for the entire set?
"Random" initialization vectors always created from the same prng seed?
Without coders like these, hackers would really have to work for it.
(And, yes, I've encountered all of these in my career.)
Maybe? But also maybe not really?
Passport numbers change very frequently, nobody uses them to identify people.
As a perpetual foreigner I've never had to use my passport number for identification.
>passport S/Ns are being used as part of identification procedures.
Where?
Of course it does. Numbers used to identify people generally don't. Passport number identifies the individual document, mostly so it can be checked against INTERPOL's SLTD database.
Underneath all the garbage, good story. But Holy Hell, why do bloggers write so terribly and self-indulgently? That's a half hour of my life I'll never get back that shouldn't have been more than 10 minutes. Don't they have Ritalin in Australia? They really should.
This was roughly 10 years ago, so things might have changed, but at the time it seemed like federal agencies could easily append to the list, but there was no standard process to get off it. I'd guess there are obvious incentive for agencies to add ("hey look, we've found terrorists", even if nothing was actually done about it), and none to remove people from it.
1) Be a billionaire
2) Start an Airline
1. Create Tesla. 2.
You won't be extradited though.
The Swiss could maybe prosecute domestically, but its not (currently) in the public interest to do so.
The ATT "hacker" got 41 month for guessing URLs. US sentences are insane.
I was thinking the courts ruled he got tried in the wrong jurisdiction so prison had to release him. He basically GTFO'd before they had a chance to refile and is hiding in an unrecognized territory inside Moldova.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Administrative IAM's should be IP restricted as well: https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/iam-r...
> On the list were several notable figures, including the recently freed Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, alongside over 16 potential aliases for him.
> [...]
> Numerous names included aliases that were common misspellings or slightly altered versions of their names.
For non-natively-Latin names, the US government is thorough to the point of hilarity in including every possible romanization and misspelling of one, and they list full names not their individual parts so combinatorics ahoy, as well. For example, if you know a bit of any Slavic language written in Cyrillic, browse the Russian sanction lists, it’s going to give you a chuckle.
In all seriousness, this actually makes perfect sense given the prospective consumers of the lists may not have any clue about the languages the targeted people speak. It’s just that the article makes 16 aliases sound vaguely sinister, whereas if you’re a Russian—or, for that matter, a Ukrainian or a Belarusian—that’s just a reasonably low estimate for how many romanizations of your name people may think up. (Not that Bout isn’t sinister as hell.)
[1] https://www.dailydot.com/debug/no-fly-list-us-tsa-unprotecte...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/no-fly-child-redress-1...
Soon they'll give everyone a number so they can travel. And print it out in physical form too. And call it a passport.
That "solution" seems a bit backwards.
> In March 2021, crimew was indicted by a grand jury in the United States on criminal charges related to her alleged hacking activity between 2019 and 2021. The charges were unrelated to the hack of Verkada. Her home and her parents' home were raided by the Swiss police at the request of United States authorities, and her electronic devices were seized. People used the hashtag "#freetillie" to express support for her in the aftermath of the raid, and the Swiss magazine Republik compared her to Jeremy Hammond and Aaron Swartz.
Remember kids, clicking the "next page" button on court document websites is legal, doing it with javascript is a felony, off to jail with you, join the rapists and murderers!
Wut
There's probably other notable cases with the same failure mode.
One of the things you learn working in computer security: history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
I do like Mark Twain
https://www.judyrecords.com/what-happened-with-tyler-technol...
No one was actually sent to jail, but the proprietor of the site was dragged through the media as a dangerous hacker and felon.
Also, the need for recognition often drives any human endeavour - and that leads hackers, criminals, etc to boast of their exploits to at least someone … who might be under observation, or under pressure to give up information to escape severe punishment for their own activities.
Some parts of the internet never forget, and the anonymous graph is only anonymous if all of it is anonymous. 99.999% isn't good enough.
I don't agree with most of her more radical views and find her methods to be too extreme, but she clearly stood behind them and didn't hide
If we truly lived in a sane society, companies with lax security and god awful security policies would be punished.
Mine was founded by some overseas family that can still come over and start telling us what to do as they please.
So uhhh, yeah, can confirm, Canada’s laws basically revolve around keeping old money wealthy without providing any value to anyone.
Also is the monarch not commander in chief their armed forces? I thought being under the command of the queen / monarch was part of their oath. If your soldiers are sworn to do what the queen says that seems like a lot of potential power.
You read it as me talking about the military in the UK.
No I was talking about the Canadian military. They are bound to the queen and swear an oath to such, you know the one that lives in the UK.
It really illustrates the absurdity of the situation.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary_responsibility
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
If you feel it's appropriate, flag the comment.
For once.
Meanwhile, another front page article is some genius asking why there aren’t any cars in 1984.
This website is what me from 1993 thought a hacker's website would look like. A nod of respect to them for kickin' it old-school.
People comment mostly when they think they have something topical to add that hasn't been said. And pronouns are something people feel much more able to have opinions on that doing scans for open servers.
The vast vast vast majority of people of any age won't comment at all.
Good rule of thumb: NEVER assume that the views of commentators are in any way representative.
A webring! I'd completely forgotten that these were a thing.
Seriously? I know like none of the tools or terms they used, like wtf is shodan?
In general the author doesn't seem to follow the white hat guidelines, and I'd be worried what they've done is quite illegal (possibly on a federal level if the nofly list is so secret)
shodan[1] is a search engine that deals in hosts and ip addresses rather than web pages, and is a goldmine for finding everything from exposed ip webcams to jenkins instances.
Accessing computer systems owned by a US company based in the US might constitute a violation of US law, but the hacker is based in Switzerland - where US law does not apply.
As you can see in the linked Wikipedia article, accessing these systems is probably not illegal in Switzerland, thus, for all intents and purposes, no crime was committed.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/swiss-hacker-indicted-c...
In fact I don't think any countries will extradite you to North Korea. There's plenty (including many in the neighborhood of Switzerland) that extradite to the US for at least some crimes.
(I am open to missing something here)
Us law applies wherever they want. Very, very few governments will refuse a request....it's too expensive in the long run.
^^^ this killed me. i'm sure everyone who has ever interacted with a SOAP api feels the same. god bless this tiny kitten/person/hacktivist, the world needs more of this energy.
See in particular the broad definition of “protected computer.”
Oh, also secure your Jenkins servers.
The fact it still exists at all is incredible, but a disturbing precedent.
> 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.
If they truly don't care to perceive a gender then a 50 / 50 pick. When I look at it's picture I honestly couldn't tell you if I perceive more male or female so I would've done same as op and picked one randomly and then for consistency not change it, even if some unrelated party tried to confuse things by making me change it.
Seriously, though, is the list on the github yet?
Oof the international politics always come out in things like this. Twitter also publicizes all of its suspensions and bans. There's a Wikipedia article with a list of all the notable suspensions since 2010. It's interesting to see that, contrary to popular narratives, many of the international groups banned were actually far-left aligned.
The list gets really boring the more you scroll down however. The last notable ban was Paul Graham for simply sharing their Mastodon handle. A boring dystopia indeed
Paul Graham is a man, not a plural entity.
People once walketh befide their mules, but now we gots lambos
Your comment is non sequitor
In English the word can be used as a singular pronoun
Right, so if you change it, then it's changed and it's different.
Appreciate the clarification
The list that Wikipedia determines "notable suspensions" is probably not the best gauge to counter "popular narratives". What Wikipedia chooses to highlight is often the sum of actual popular narratives - not simply popular protests [1]- which is sourced almost entirely from the media and then filtered through the culture found among Wikipedia power users.
A raw database of suspensions and their rationale [2] would probably be the only useful analysis.
[1] The people most often protesting bans aren't always the people getting the most media-sourceable attention for their bans
[2] Recent leaks show that that the US state/federal gov employees (and other well connected power players) often sent lists of tens/hundreds of accounts to be banned and Twitter employees often retroactively found reasons to do so when the given reason wasn't justified. So both the rationale and "notable" part both have questionable value for general analysis
That said, I also see bans of accounts with few followers regularly being far-right (white supremacist jokes for instance). They may just not be able to gather large followings at this point and / or be on alternative platforms.
Massachusetts state police posted a photo on twitter from inside one of the emergency management command post whatever facilities.
In the background was a projector screen showing a web browser and in the toolbar was at least one link to a facebook group for one of the occupy movements.
Of course, no visible bookmarks to any of the state's numerous white supremacist or far right groups.
Those polo-shirt-and-khaki wearing clowns? From numerous accounts by witnesses, reporters, and photos on twitter they received what amounted to a police escort from the public transit station where they all parked, all the way into the city...and then from the transit station to their protest site. And then back again.
See: FBI report from a decade or two ago citing the huge problem with white supremacist groups infiltrating law enforcement.
Offtopicness is fine when it's fresh and whimsical but not when a thread gets sucked into old/repetitive arguments.
A list that details primarily terrorists having terrorists listed on it. Colour me surprised.
[EDIT]
Made me realize that 'vintage' basically means to many people 'things that are before my living memory' and it can literally only be 0 to 5 years back before they were born.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew
[3] https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/swiss-hacker-indicted-c...
However are his actions of downloading the no fly list and offering to share with journalists legal? Or does that cross into overreach and criminal activity?
And particularly for "it" and other objectifying language, it has the huge problem that it makes other people uncomfortable. Especially those who overhear without being aware of your preference (imagine sending an email to a new client with text like "in my absence, contact my colleague X, it will assist you, it is an expert").
I'd feel uncomfortable referring to anyone as "it" though, as there are some connotations with that :-/
This would indicate that maia wants to be referred to as "it" as the subject of a clause and "she" otherwise.
Do you mean that instead of saying "it's her apple" you'd say "it's she apple"?
Correct; it is massively ungrammatical.
> Do you mean that instead of saying "it's her apple" you'd say "it's she apple"?
No possessive form is indicated. But instead of saying "I gave it a dress", you would say "I gave she a dress".
Edit: looking at other comments, it seems like it might not be the correct explanation after all?
Some people desire a single set of pronouns, and indicate this using the nominative/accusative pair (she/her, they/them, ze/zer).
Other people accept either of two different sets of pronouns, and indicate this preference using the two nominative forms separated by a slash (she/they, they/he, and apparently, it/she).
“they/he” and “it/she” indicate alternatives, whereas “she/her” indicates different cases.
> This person is female and I'm not comfortable referring to her as 'it' because females are 'she'
and
> This person is a human being, and 'it' is used to refer to objects. It's demeaning to call a human being 'it' and makes me uncomfortable
The later is, at least imo, much more defensible.
I also feel uncomfortable using "it" as a pronoun, luckily this person seems comfortable with "she/her" as well so we can just use those instead.
You seem eager to reduce this to "just" a pronoun issue, but it's not the same as calling someone "he" or "she", whatever they might prefer.
No one gets to single-handedly (re)define the English language for everyone else. "It" in this usage does not fall in to normal English usage, other than to mock people. That they want to use it nonetheless or whatever reason, that's fine with me. I will always listen to that and do my best to oblige with that within reason. However, radically different meanings for words in common grammatical structures, for me, falls outside of "within reason". Other people may choose different, and that is fine too.
> Who's There?
> It's me, Bill Gates!
> "It" has a pretty clear meaning in English, and it is not as a pronoun for people. Therefore you're not Bill Gates or a person.
Whatever you have to say, say it to my face, and not in third person behind my back.
This isn’t “I don’t want to call her him because he’s a she.” The person you’re replying to has a very valid discomfort with reducing a person to an object’s pronoun. Completely understandable and defensible and beyond the apparent needs of the author.
When English got rid of ‘thou’ and “thine” those were replaced by referring to everyone with the more polite “you“, that surly helped adoption.
> I'd feel uncomfortable referring to anyone as "it" though
In Five Children and It (published in 1902), the "It" of the title is a magical creature. However, one of the characters is a human baby who is always referred to with the pronoun "it". I glossed right over that reading the book as a child, but I found it pretty disturbing rereading as an adult.
However, once rereading the book had called the phenomenon to my attention, I noticed that it's not uncommon for me to want to refer to a generic child as "it". I wouldn't refer to a specific child that way.
So referring to a person as "it" is sometimes the normal thing to do. (And, of course, intensely inappropriate at other times.) On the other hand, the intro appears to specify that maia arson crimew wants people to use "she", an exclusively subject pronoun, as the object pronoun for she. That is deeply unnatural and virtually nobody will be able to comply; it's much worse than using "it" for a person.
I guess calling a child "it" is impersonal. Calling it "it" to its face is just strange since "it" is 3rd person.
By 1902, that time was several hundred years in the past.
> Calling [a child] "it" to its face is just strange since "it" is 3rd person.
Sure, but I haven't mentioned any such usage.
While it's uncommon today (and I think uncommon even by the time that book was written), use of 'it' for babies was definitely A Thing at one point.
Claudette Colvin was called it by the police when she was arrested
But I do have a trans friend who prefers it pronouns so that’s a sample size of one in the opposite direction
I want to choose my prepositions: in, up and above.
Also, my conjunctions are: however, moreover, and whereupon.
My native language doesn't have a he/she differentiation..
It's literally identical to the concept of learning someone's name, yet humans largely don't have a problem with that.
The third person pronouns kick in when talking about them, to someone else, almost certainly in their absence.
That may happen in writing.
"He doesn't look with it": preposition and pronoun.
Oh, and don't get me started on adjectives. If a 5-foot-tall Douglas wants to be called Giant Doug, just oblige.
I thought it was the right that accused the left of being precious snowflakes who aren't able to handle being uncomfortable ever? Why should you being uncomfortable be a blocker to referring to someone as they prefer, right? Being uncomfortable is part of life.
It's not neutral but guys like to pretend it is.
I do wonder what a linguist would suggest about these two uses, though. English is a language in which context often changes outcomes.
If you approach a group and say "How are you guys?" it doesn't imply an all-male group.
If I'm in a mixed group down the pub I won't at all be surprised if somebody (usually female) walks up to the table and says "hey guys" as a greeting, intending to include male, female and enby members of said group.
If I'm on the internet I'm not going to try and use "guys" as gender neutral because I fully expect I'd be misunderstood by a decent percentage of people reading if I did.
So I wouldn't say people are necessarily pretending, it's entirely possible they're just used to it being neutral and forgetting that for a bunch of people it very much isn't.
That's socially though - when talking about people I've slept with, I acknowledge I'd expect people to read 'guys' as only referencing the male-identified ones. Though I'm more likely to use 'dudes' for that purpose myself, because confusion around 'guys' can go in both directions.
There's a difference though between "guys" as an address (which is used by plenty of female-only groups as well) and "guys" as a noun.
When my best friend came out as trans, I struggled to come up with a good way to refer to everyone as a group in a "hey everyone" kind of way. I eventually realized it's a stupid concept all together and walked into the room of my now mixed gendered friends while shouting "SUP CHODES!".
Went over very well. I recommend it.
Trespassing implies a presence, this could be seen as installing some software or code to maintain access on a system.
Now let's imagine the OP went to the airline office and found that the door was open, on a desk there was a printed version of the nofly list, he takes a picture of each page and leaves. He would face 20 times less prison time.
(This is a genuine question) but where's the actual value in having this list?
I'm afraid I regard it as yet another piece of security theatre.
Full disclosure: my passport always fails to scan at the UK Border automated gates.
I had a discussion this week with yet another border agent after getting another "seek assistance" message and having to queue for a manual check.
I pushed for more information on why, for the last couple of years, it refuses to scan.
He suggested it's because I have very common first and middle names (although my surname is not common at all), so let's say I'm called Alice Bob MacQuaffle, someone called Alice and/or Bob is "on a list" somewhere. I would bet a substantial sum there is no-one on any terrorist watch list called MacQuaffle.
This sounds like someone approved a ridiculously broad match, meaning anyone called Alice and/or Bob is inconvenienced every single time they go near a border.
I would prefer to be safe when travelling just like the next guy, but matching watch lists using common first names ... only .... really?
Someone who the US deems a danger but isn't in the US would fit this criteria.
If the bad person isn't in the US there's no need for US airlines to maintain a list of them which prevents them from getting on a plane, but then just sends them on their way to arrange other travel plans. What we want for really bad people outside of the US who should be arrested on sight at airports are warrants. Signed by judges. Not secret lists with no oversight or transparency, and not sending dangerous people back out into the American population.
Someone who is apparently so bad they can't be allowed through airport security into an aircraft, but only if that aircraft is travelling to or within the US?
Yet someone who is apparently so innocent they can't be arrested/detained/charged with anything, anywhere, and so are free to travel the rest of the world.
It sounds ridiculous even just typing that out.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/06/protonmail-logged-ip-addre...