One can argue otherwise, but I think this is a very creative and considerate form of protest which btw is also non-violent.
To put this in a programmer's perspective: imagine if artists wanting to make political statements suddenly started littering your linux kernel with binary blobs which caused your boot screen to flash an image of Snowden. Let's pretend that this version of the kernel is hosted on an otherwise trusted package cache, and nobody is actually verifying checksums and so thousands of unsuspecting developers now have this tainted kernel. Funny? Innocuous? Ingenious? Perhaps, but I'd be amazed if you all didn't wipe your disks right then and there.
Edit: I don't mind downvotes (this is my most downvoted chain of comments so far). However if you do, please take some time to contribute to the discussion with a substantive argument. I fully support Snowden, these artists, and the Parks department here. My argument here is only an attempt to make better sense of what people seem to be ignoring for the sake of a political argument which many of us want to support.
In your example, the presence shows that the integrity of your system has been compromised. If this sculpture showed up inside of a high security museum display case, then your analogy would make sense.
Edit: I think I know what you mean based on your other reply to me; I'll respond there unless you want to clarify anyway.
People leave cool stuff places. It happens. I mean how many times have cell phones been left somewhere on accident say, which if it was on purpose doesn't matter either -- OH NO, PARK BENCH SSL CERT MITM ATTACKED, PURGE YOUR LUNCHBOXES
No, it's an object left/put there. So unput it there. That's what parks & recreation does all the rest of the time. Now it's a rad piece of art, not a cell phone, not an umbrella, etc.
And they're in the right, so there is that.
The Linux kernel represents a collection of modules, which are predictable and fairly reliable, and as such the Linux kernel is to a certain extent fairly deterministic. A small change compromises the integrity of the entire system, as defined by its checksums.
People on the other hand are not as predictable and not at all reliable when compared to code bases. Therefore, a collection of individuals is a fairly probabilistic system. And as such, a small change in someone's, albeit not harmful behavior, will do little to compromise the integrity of our society.
And by the say, the Linux kernel you were talking about (for which supposedly you have the checksums) is static, whereas you could better describe our society as a dynamic, ever evolving system. You wouldn't compute the checksums of a running program, now would you?
Edit: Re-reading your comment I might have missed a few parts so I'll reply back while waiting for paint to dry (fun day).
I wasn't trying to equate the two systems or their intricacies and behavior. Rather, we are given some system with rules which govern what we expect it to "be". (I could say do, but consider this the "state" of the system; if it is code, it is not executing but just lines of code in files.) When that system is changed in a way we do not expect by an action that we had prior expectations for, we generally try to revert that action. You are responsible for your system, so you can do what you like. Parks and Rec is responsible for this park, and all of its users and rightly intends to remove this unexpected modification, regardless of its origin or meaning.
I'm just realizing what a missed opportunity to be hip it was– when you let a friend provision your vagrant images with unknown docker containers with [insert unexpected behavior] just before distributing it to thousands of users... (The potential danger of the thing would be a side-effect though so this one's not so good either. I tried!)
Just displaying an image would be easy to verify with a disassembler. And it's misleading to use 'binary blob' as an analogy to a simple statue. Most binary blobs are effectively impossible to examine fully.
Have to laugh at this, because only on HN is the use of a disassembler considered "easy."
True story, I program computers for a living, and I have literally no idea how to verify anything at all with a disassembler. Or even approximately how one works.
Knowing that, you should realize that a disassembler is just one or two of those steps reversed, the "assembler" steps, which should make if pretty much self-explanatory.
And I'm talking about looking at a 20 byte function; you could figure it out if you wanted.
 I don't use Ubuntu so maybe it doesn't fully apply here. On Arch using pacman, the list of mirrors/caches is mostly commented out so that people can choose their own. They are "trustworthy" essentially until they're not, but we have signature checking to fall back on. In the physical world we don't have this, thus the setup of my (again, flawed) analogy.
Any more involved than that and it's missing the spirit of what I was trying to say, but I admit that the disassembler response made me chuckle.
The point is that you're using 'binary blob' to sound scarier than it is. With a statue there's no reason to fear it (for reasons explained in other posts). With an image displayer an expert can poke it and then announce there's no reason to fear it.
You're telling me I should be ready to wipe my disks then and there, even though it's just an image displayer, but that's an overreaction. Your analogy just strengthens the point that the park shouldn't panic.
Is the the park's reaction much different from using a disassembler? They cover it up so until someone can come to inspect it and then remove it. You can't just look at it and say "yep, that's a perfectly normal bronze sculpture alright" without inspecting it (requiring removal).
So yes very different.
And if they wanted to set up something dangerous, it would be easier to make it hidden. There's no good reason to suspect the statue is dangerous.
The reason why I brought up the potential danger of the statue is not because I or anyone expects it to be dangerous. (For a relevant incident though, remember the Boston Aqua Teen Hunger Force stuff... that got a terrible reaction, even though anyone who has ever played with electronics could tell that they were harmless. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare ) I bring it up because it is both department policy and perfectly valid from the perspective of anyone who works to ensure safety in parks. If some circumstance, however crazy, causes someone to become injured by the installation then it's going to be a much bigger headache to Parks and Rec than a bunch of us calling them fascists/communists/whatever else is going on in here.
Edit: In case I wasn't clear, the point of my analogy is that... as far as you know it's just an image on the boot screen. As far as you know, it's just a sculpture that's properly installed and isn't going to just roll off as soon as some kids try to climb it (park employees try to stop this too, but it's still common esp. at this park). If it was an official installation, presumably Parks and Rec would have enough confidence in the work itself to say "this is fine" and then take responsibility for it in the future. Perhaps a better analogy would've been if someone pulled a similar stunt on NYPL's public computers or something, shrug. (I have no righteous love for my own analogy here, I just thought it would make the issue a little more clear. I seem to have been wrong about that.)
A statue stuck in a park has no more potential to be malicious than a random rock, and has not bypassed meaningful security.
That's a big difference.
The argument of "it exists, therefore it 'could' be malicious" is trash. They 'could' alter anything in the park to be malicious. In the computer scenario I'm not worried because I know they put the image there. I'm worried because I know they could have put a malicious payload anywhere in the system, and I wouldn't be able to find it. But a park never has security. It's always true that someone could bring a malicious object into a park and stick it somewhere random.
It's okay to remove the statue, it's foolish to act like it's scary, and it's annoyingly political that it gets ultra-top-priority and covered with a tarp.
And just because department policy is to overreact doesn't make it valid to overreact. I hope Boston is mocked forever for their reaction to blinking lights, especially because they were doing it out of fear of blame. Fear of blame is a terrible motivator.
- Smuggling a heavy bronze statue into a park has bypassed
security (yes, parks have security).
- Statues have potential but very small likelihood of being
- Heavy statues have great potential to cause physical harm when
not properly built or installed.
- This potential for harm is considered minimal to non-existant
when the sculpture is commissioned or otherwise created by people with
- When some idiot goes into a park and stabs somebody, it's a
- When a passerby (or some idiot trying to climb it) gets hurt by
large, official looking part of the park, it's a city issue (lawsuit).
Your reasoning around my analogy actually illustrates my point fairly well– I'm afraid there isn't much I can do to bridge our disagreement there.
Rather than the city of Boston be mocked for their overreaction, I would be much happier if we improved our education in electronics. And other things, because education is the best way we know how to conquer fear in an institutional setting.
The idea that this had "ultra-top priority" because of its political nature is, while possible, extremely unlikely. The chance that its political nature was even noticed by the people responsible for removing it are incredibly slim, and if anything I'm surprised at how long it took for it to get a tarp over it. I've seen much quicker removals of defacements in parks across the city, by park officials to plainclothes police. Despite this, the political nature of the message is wholly irrelevant to the actual issue at hand.
Education about electronics is good, but I think fighting back against "fear of blame" is also an important thing. I'm sure someone in the organization knew that blinking lights don't make bombs. Why didn't that message get to management?
You're probably right, but that's a very naive way to approach public safety and accountability. If it was still visible right now there would probably be a few people climbing up to it to get a selfie with Snowden.
> I'm sure someone in the organization knew that blinking lights don't make bombs. Why didn't that message get to management?
That's not how bureaucracies work. (The fear of blame point is very valid though.)
The tornado example is funny because though it would probably be considered an "act of god", maybe then certain things that shouldn't get blown off would. Why? Because it's literally hydrocal glued onto a column...
"Don't borrow trouble" would be just as appropriate in response to the more conspiratorial views which I am trying to refute.
The best possible outcome of this would be that someone at the next commission meeting brings a proposal (or sends one to Laurie Cumbo, or the conservancy) to reinstall the piece. Probably couldn't go in the same location because doing anything with Preservation takes... forever... but I wouldn't be surprised if Fort Greene could muster up support of locals (as long as they don't mind attending plenty of evening meetings).
Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
In summary: It's their job. You want to give change what they do? Great! We've got a process for that, and it happens every third Monday of the month (Community Board 2 @ Brooklyn Law School). When Parks and Rec starts browsing our emails for dick pics, maybe then people can "take to the streets" with their coup. The Memorial would be a fitting location.
> Sometimes they fuck it up by overstepping their bounds and acting in ways they are not authorized to.
> I fully support the artists here– but it is precisely the job of Parks employees to assist in the removal of any form of unauthorized modifications to the park.
Deep breath. Okay, here we go:
As someone who deals with building codes every week, I understand the reason why codes exist, the reason why inspections exist. Yes, the Parks department is doing their job, of course. No big deal.
But here's the thing:
Processes of authorization, verification, etc. is just one of many ways to deal with the world and with unstable processes. It's not the way to deal; it's just one of many ways. It may appear to be a default mode of operation (get a protest permit, get a sound permit, get a building permit), and yes, it often works to maintain order, but it's not the only way, nor is it a default way. It's just one way.
What authorization/permitting processes do is that they are explicitly law-oriented (laws are not the only way to create social order within a society), and thus enforce order in a negative, punitive fashion (if you don't do this, you will be punished). Reading in the park? Okay. More than 20 people gathering for a purpose? In NYC, this counts a special event, and requires a special events permit, otherwise it is unauthorized. Think of the 'rule' as a very sharp line demarcating between what is possible, and what is not possible.
Other ways of enforcing order can be lines that are gradients, fuzzy, in which the boundary between what is okay and what is not okay is not so clear. 'Tradition', or rules of thumb generate these social phenomena -- think about the way in which you can drive a few miles over the speed limit and not be ticket. Is it codified in a 'rule'? Uh, no.
> Your act of defiance does not trump everyone else's way of life.
But see here: NYC's gorgeousness doesn't from from its rule-oriented, sharp demarcation of What-Is-Okay. It comes from tolerance, really, which is a very stretchy, flexible thing that happens between community. When someone decides to call himself an alien and play the saxophone wildly on the C train, do people call the police because that's unauthorized behavior? Not really. Why not? Isn't a little bit like the subway busker is driving a little bit over the speed limit?
My point is largely that 'tradition' or 'rules of thumb' are actually present, valid, important, and non-trivial processes for which a healthy and tolerant society is created. (Of course, not all traditions are healthy; some are incredibly harmful. But the same goes for rules and laws, of course.)
If all of a sudden, the 'no subway buskers' rule is harshly imposed, that's actually quite a deliberate judgment to ignore the category of processes called 'traditions' for the category of processes called 'rules'. It's not said as such; the excuse will be: "well, the rules are the rules". This is because rules are (by definition) much more visible and explicit ("Do not solicit for money in the subway"), while traditions are shifting, hard to pin-down. Saying "the rules are the rules" is not actually a neutral behavior - it's a stance, specifically biased towards one process that engenders society-formation through punitive measures.
And so of course, the common argument is that traditions are 'arbitrary'; no, they're not. They're decided by people; it's just that they are localized, are more in flux, emergent behavior. Think agent-based programming vs. imperative programming, for a tradition vs. rule analogy.
Tradition is hard to write down, and hard to pin down, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, and isn't important.
SO. In summary. NYC is specifically rich because it's a place where many things are okay and celebrated. I've been here for more than a decade as an adult enough to not be starry-eyed about beatniks running in its heyday -- but it's really gorgeous. It's one of the few cities that can change who you think you are. It's one of the few cities that can make you rethink your relationship to space and architecture and other people. It's one of the few cities in which public space is everywhere and alive, because of the subway and because of its parks, and in which people may not be 'friendly' but will help each other out when shit goes south, because the density and closeness -- and tolerance -- of it all brings people together.
It's not just the rules that create this kind of city -- so very much of it is the traditions, the informal processes, the difficult-to-transcribe ecologies, the behavior that emerges. Rule-oriented, legalistic processes of authorization and permitting are not the only answer to creating a society. Laws are not always the answer to dealing with other people; nor should it be a default. Let's not fetishize authorization and permitting.
 I decided to add the word deliberate here because this may be the source of some confusion in my comments. Many comments suggest that the intent is to cover up support for Snowden specifically. I believe this to have no known factual basis. If on the other hand, you consider this, and the policies which allow it, to be a general act of censorship on public art etc. then that is open to debate– I would tend to agree with it, and am happily writing to the Parks dept. today to say as much.
Maybe if they had decided to place it on a swing seat... different story... a funny one I'd say.
This whole deal with the people putting up a statue of a hero and the government tearing it down? Not what America's supposed to be about.
Combine that with the fact that most of the senators who voted for the Patriot Act probably read 1984, and didn't object to the obvious propaganda in the name Patriot Act? Not what America's supposed to be about either.
Is Snowden a hero? Maybe, I dunno. Ask your fellow citizens if they want to put a statue of him in the park. That's how democracy is supposed to work. It isn't perfect, in fact it's the worst form of a government. Except for all the others.
My family member went through this process to set up a memorial statue and it was a nightmare of bureaucracy. And this was in a tiny relatively unpopular park in a small town - not a big city.
It took about 3 years to finally happen (by that I mean approved to happen, its still not completed yet) after jumping through countless hoops and making friends with the right politicians, who then had to back the idea in order to get support by the town council.
The big reason it ended up happening was the person who she became friends with ended up becoming mayor of the town.
If no, then we could honestly say that there are not enough people who care enough about the Prison Ship Martyrs compared to the memory of Snowden.
Or when MLK asked all of the south to politely, democratically fix the whole racism thing.
Sometimes protest has to break the rules. Because protest.
You seemed, to me, to be implying that all conscientious objectors must at all times observe complete obedience to the rule of law. That approach will never keep things running sanely for long. You can clearly see throughout history that it never has. Power must always be kept in check and in support of that, some of the rules ordained by that power must always be broken.
We've tried the "trust our elected officials" approach. We got mass surveillance. Next idea?
He's one of the most successful double-agents in history, with excellent public relations. If a double-agent were to happen again in the future, they'll do what they can to study how Snowden handled his case.
No, I don't think he's a "hero". At least Manning's ideology was pure, (although naiive). Snowden is almost certainly a double-agent based on the countries he fled to and who he is working with currently. Contrast Snowden with Manning: Manning didn't contact the Chinese Embassy while fleeing to Hong Kong before releasing only some of the data. Just think about it for a second. Manning released anything and everything he got his hands on. Snowden: he's visited multiple foreign countries and has direct contact with those governments.
If you want to discuss the collections programs, lets start with how you expect police to actually deal with modern criminals (ie: Swatters) if they didn't have the ability to track the location of their phone calls. You know, practical concerns that our law enforcement are attempting to solve. If tracking telephone "metadata" is too much, then what tools are you willing to give police in their battle?
EDIT: Here come the down votes. Come on people, lets see your stuff. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
1. you say: "most successful double-agents in history"
2. you say: "probably sold US secrets to China and Russia"
The NSA's leadership has repeatedly stated that they don't believe Snowden to be a foreign agent. Unless you have more evidence than "based on the countries he fled to and who he is working with currently", your case is exceptionally weak. Additionally Snowden is not a "double agent". A double agent is a agent that is turned twice. Even if Snowden were a foreign spy, he wouldn't be a double agent, unless he was recruited to work by a foreign government to spy on the US, but then was turned by the US to feed the foreign government misinformation. A theory that no one, outside of Alex Jones, is currently advancing.
In the field of counterintelligence, a double agent (also double secret agent) is an employee of a secret intelligence service, whose primary purpose is to spy on a different target organization, but who, in fact, is a member of the target organization.
In other words, if Snowden worked for the NSA and spied on China or Russia, but at the same time was passing information over to China or Russia, he would then be a double agent. That's why it's so fishy when he repeatedly says that he specifically used to work on Chinese targets (for example: ), chose to flee the US and go to China, and his 3rd leak in the news was giving a Chinese newspaper a list of all of Chinese computers that had been targeted by the NSA.
That doesn't mean he's a double-agent, but it certainly raises some eyebrows...
Nonetheless, the Metadata debate remains important, so I'll continue to bring it up. I've read through the rest of these threads, and they're all "Snowden's a hero!!!" without even touching upon the debate that he's brought up.
EDIT: Its as if this "metadata collection" is the most evil thing in the world ever done. Good gosh. Its still hugely ironic to me that Snowden fled to the state with the "Great Firewall of China" literally spying on every Chinese blogger with police powers that make those guys _literally_ disappear if they say the wrong things...
While over here in the US, this forum gets their panties in a twist over metadata collection.
I am happy that we all hold the US to a higher standard, but I still hold my point: to take down a Swatter, the Police will need access to metatdata.
Snowden explicitly collected how the US was spying on China, went to China, and then "publicly" gave out those details. I think he was expecting the Chinese Government to take him in and protect him after the big reveal.
For whatever reason, China didn't want him. Probably because China has enough issues with their own whistle blowers. Or maybe China already knew the information Snowden had, so they didn't value him at all.
Russia apparently values Snowden very much. They like him if only because he serves as an anti-US rallying cry.
Wild speculations aside, you might want to consider the revelations on their own merits rather than a ham-fisted smear against the source. The fact remains that they have been confirmed as true and are therefore not some kind of black propaganda.
More worrying in some ways is that it seems he got everything using wget and further that there was no audit trail to understand what he got. If we believe as we are told that he was a relatively low level external contractor, that means internal security is non-existent and you can guarantee that any other competent agency also has everything (at least confirming part of your China theory above).
Fair enough. I'm more interested in the political implications anyway.
So what do we do about Swatters? Metadata collection seems to be the only useful tool against them.
Actually, I don't believe that the local police are taking advantage of their resources. I think better organization needs to be done around the metadata that is collected so that it is better distributed between the police officers in the case of a swatting incident.
But actually _having_ metadata is a necessary first step to beginning any swatting investigation. Or do you not think that the first step is figuring out the phone number that the Swatter called from?
Next: I'm not entirely sure that Swatting will ever be stopped. Nonetheless, I'd like to punish those who are swatting, and I think that if they are removed from society... that is one step towards fixing the problem.
If a swatter gets caught and his criminal record is updated such that everyone knows he is a swatter, then society will benefit from it overall.
Also, bull!@#!. _CHINA_ prevented the US from traveling after he got to Hong Kong. If the US had its way, then Snowden would be in jail right now.
CHINA prevented him from traveling after he got to Hong Kong. The US had very little power over the whole issue at that point.
There are other parties at play here.
China had an extremely important role with Snowden. They didn't care about the "passport", they were buying time looking for some other country to take him in.
I guess Russia took him in after that (Snowden didn't want to go to Russia. So I doubt that Snowden is a Russian spy... but if he knew what was good for him, he probably was forced to give some of his secrets to the Russians under the table.)
Oh stop whining. You can't just accuse someone of being a spy and expect upvotes. Accusations without evidence (hint hint) are not 'truth'.
>how you expect police to actually deal with modern criminals (ie: Swatters)
Well for most crimes the police have traditionally gotten along fine without such vast metadata. For that crime specifically maybe they could use a warrant to the phone company? That seems easy to do without NSA interception. Or the police could keep track of calls to them and not have to do anything more than find the owner of a phone number.
Snowden is the first guy I'm aware of who fled to China (and later, to Russia) to protect his own free speech. Color me a little bit suspicious of him.
> Well for most crimes the police have traditionally gotten along fine without such vast metadata. For that crime specifically maybe they could use a warrant to the phone company? That seems easy to do without NSA interception. Or the police could keep track of calls to them and not have to do anything more than find the owner of a phone number.
> (A) a judge of the court established by section 1803 (a) of this title; or
The law we're discussing requires a judge to sign off on it. Its not necessarily a "warrant" per se, but do you think elevating these powers to require a warrant would suffice?
These are the kinds of questions we need to be asking ourselves if we actually want to progress.
There aren't that many countries who would not release Snowden to the US.
Ecuador has proven itself reliable with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. It proved itself reliable _long_ before Snowden decided to pull Chinese-specific information from the US Spy agency, fly to China, release Chinese information and (probably) beg to stay.
Instead of going to a reliable country like Ecuador, he went to China. Snowden isn't a dumb guy either, he was clearly keeping up with the news. He chose China because the data he pilfered was Chinese specific.
Once in China, after the reveal, Snowden became trapped. He couldn't fly over any other country that had US influence. He furthermore got trapped in Russia (it is extremely sketchy. I think Russia wanted him, and they got him. Russia probably won't let him go.)
I don't think Snowden is working with Russia. He was trying to get to Ecuador IIRC with help from Julian Assange. But based on what he did in Hong Kong, it is clear to me that he expected help from the Chinese Government. If Snowden went to Ecuador from the start, I'd have a much easier time believing that what he was doing was for good-will.
FYI: Snowden was trying to get to Ecuador when Russia trapped him in Moscow.
Except when it's not truth but a random rant.
> If you want to discuss the collections programs, lets start with how you expect police to actually deal with modern criminals (ie: Swatters) if they didn't have the ability to track the location of their phone calls.
Notice "THEIR phone calls", not "EVERY phone calls".
Truth is, views like yours are clueless and/or dangerous and fail to see the big picture.
I'm sure you embrace the "I've got nothing to hide, so I don't care" stance. So yeah, fk the rest of the people, don't give a sh*t.
Have the police sit around doing nothing because they don't have the legal tools to look at business metadata? I'm trying to bring up an actual issue here. For a hundred years, the "metadata" standard has applied to mail, telephone records, business records and so forth as "free game" for the Police.
What makes the modern era so different that Police aren't allowed to look at metadata anymore?
2. There is vastly more metadata being stored now, and the police don't need access to most of it. We might even be better off with laws against storing it.
It's been free-game for a hundred years. Keep up with the law dude. USPS "metadata" has been copied and tracked. Such information was used for the Anthrax cases of early 2000s... and other such crimes.
It is illegal for police to read the contents of an envelope, but they can (and have been) scanning the outside of envelopes and storing that metadata for police use for decades.
The difference between snail-mail and the business records provision is... terrorism was added to the words. But I'd bet what they were doing was legal before the Patriot Act was made.
> 2. There is vastly more metadata being stored now, and the police don't need access to most of it. We might even be better off with laws against storing it.
That doesn't answer the question. How do you expect to track down a Swatter without using metadata?
>How do you expect to track down a Swatter without using metadata?
As I said in my other post, you don't actually need call records to find a swatter. They called the police, the police have the number, tada. I'm not arguing against deleting everything that could possibly classify as metadata, I'm saying we should cut down the types of metadata available. And we need to stop the government from making copies of private data 'just in case' and declaring it not to be a search/seizure until some later stage.
And if the Swatter used another phone to call a Google Voice number to create a local line in another city, they will need Metadata to figure out what that _OTHER_ telephone number is.
Otherwise, they have a phone number to a fake google-account created in TOR. That's not very useful.
Phone Number 555-0000 called Google-Voice 555-9991, which THEN called the Police. Only having "555-9991" is completely worthless. You need metadata analysis to unravel the proxies.
Furthermore, executing a warrant generally requires a name and a case. You don't got a name yet, you're trying to build a case without warrant powers at this point of the Police game.
Do you think these Swatters are dumb or something? They aren't using their personal phone numbers to call the police, they're actually redirecting themselves a little bit.
> I'm not arguing against deleting everything that could possibly classify as metadata, I'm saying we should cut down the types of metadata available. And we need to stop the government from making copies of private data 'just in case' and declaring it not to be a search/seizure until some later stage.
The legal standard between 1940s (since the closure of the Office of Censorship, which straight up allowed the US Agents to read mail and censor them), and now has been that metadata collection doesn't need a warrant.
Metadata collection is NOT search/seizure in Smith v. Maryland. Its how things have operated for literally decades.
Now if you don't like it, that's fine. But know that you're moving from the status-quo. This is how the government has operated since the 1970s at very least (see again... Smith v. Maryland).
Going back to the cases before that was Olmstead v. United States, 1928, which collection of straight-up data was considered not search/seizure btw. (So we've actually cut back upon collection from a historical perspective. Police powers were greater in the 1920s than today)
If the police can't get access to limited phone metadata with oversight, the solution is to give them a way to get limited phone metadata with oversight, not to give them access to all the phone metadata.
>Now if you don't like it, that's fine. But know that you're moving from the status-quo. This is how the government has operated since the 1970s at very least
Fine, I want a change from the status quo. But it's not just that, I'm saying two things.
1. It is important that metadata (and data) collection does not expand because of the ease of technology.
2. I would prefer metadata collection to be rolled back a few decades and limited.
It's 1 that really worries me, and no amount of historical collection is going to comfort that.
Thanks for the disappointing enlightenment.
Did you read the business records provision?
Read it again. It requires the agencies to check off with a Judge. It already _has_ oversight built into it. If something is wrong with the oversight, then tell me what you think is wrong with it.
In addition, the NSA collects data before asking for permission. And I am doubtful that their oversight is effective.
But I don't want to argue about it for hours. I just want less metadata to be collected. Because even without the government it gets abused.
Snowden's first revealed document was the court order where the NSA / FBI was asking for permission from the FISA courts. Now I don't think you've even read Snowden's docs.
> But I don't want to argue about it for hours.
Fair enough. I hope that in our short discussion, you learned how things actually work.
> I just want less metadata to be collected. Because even without the government it gets abused.
You're welcome to have your opinion, but your opinion was tainted by horribly inaccurate facts. I thank you for being a good sport and listening to me through this.
In any case, now you know the specific law that grants the powers. You can now write to a Senator / House Representative and argue specifically against the law on your own. Even if you are on the "other side" of this debate, we Americans are much better off when all sides understand the debate. Our political system also works out well when discussions like what you and I just had happen more often.
Summary: Business Records Provision of the Patriot Act. Know it well, so you can criticize it. Take it down and the metadata of the NSA should fall.
Good luck on the political battlefield. Again, thank you for working with me in this debate.
Okay I'll be more specific. Without specific permission pertaining to a specific case, they collect whatever they feel like to sort out later. I don't like that.
>I hope that in our short discussion, you learned how things actually work.
I learned there has been more access to metadata than I previously thought, but my main worry is and has been the exploding amount of metadata and analysis, which I do have a pretty good grasp on.
Thanks for the discussion.
> Okay I'll be more specific. Without specific permission pertaining to a specific case, they collect whatever they feel like to sort out later. I don't like that.
How do you expect the Police to go after a swatter then? The creation of 'nameless warrants' is looked down upon in general, and is grossly illegal in many jurisdictions. You cannot get a warrant unless a specific person is named.
Without a warrant, police cannot continue investigating. Police need access to the metadata to get a name so that they can get a warrant.
I know John Doe warrants exist, but their use is highly criticized. And it should be! We can't have the police getting nameless warrants regularly. With that said, we have to give the Police enough room to maneuver so that they can build a case before they are granted the high-powers of a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment promises _due process_. Metadata, in my opinion is a "reasonable" search. Or at least, we should _define_ metadata as the part that can be reasonably searched. (After all, not all data is innately private. The data that is "public" should be easily searched by the Police without warrants). The debate really should be about determining which bits of data are "public" and which bits aren't.
Well we're talking about a 'nameless warrant' to only access something they could access at-will before, so I don't see that as a real problem.
>we should _define_ metadata as the part that can be reasonably searched.
That sounds like a mess. Metadata has a pretty clear meaning already when it comes to communication.
>The debate really should be about determining which bits of data are "public" and which bits aren't.
Maybe, but things are much more complicated than public and not public.
No. A warrant means they can start accessing data. Install bugs, tracking devices... the whole works. All fourth amendment protections are gone once a judge grants the Police a warrant.
The question is whether or not you want "Metadata" to be part of that pool or not. Personally speaking, I don't.
> Maybe, but things are much more complicated than public and not public.
Which is why discussion of this issue is important. The fact is, you expect something from the Police that is different than the Status Quo for the past decades.
It frustrates me to no end when all the YCombinator posters around here complain and protest in obscure ways (ie: putting Snowden up as a statue in a park), and then they don't really try and learn the intricacies of the law and try to find changes that everyone actually agrees upon.
The reason our political system is borked is because no one is actually discussing the law or how to change it. Our Congressmen get vague clues (ie: SOPA BAD!!), but they really are struggling to understand our opinion in general.
Are you serious? We're talking about a new thing that only restricts access compared to before. It would not be the same as a warrant today. That objection is ridiculous.
>Status Quo for the past decades.
Part of the problem is that it used to take manpower to spy on people, and a lot of that is getting replaced with computers that do it for nearly free. It's not a legal change, but it changes the end result in a terrible way.
Okay, I'm gonna cut off the conversation at this point. YCombinator is not a good forum for discussion. I see you're frustrated so we'll just let it end here.
I strongly disagree with your opinion, so I'm thinking its best to just agree to disagree at this point.
Why don't you trust FISA? And if you don't trust it, what reforms to the FISA courts are you proposing?
Or are you just a lazy armchair protester who doesn't even think about how to improve the world around you? Hey look, I can fling insults at you too and be unhelpful!!
Seriously, the FISA system is documented, and it is part of the debate. Do you actually have an argument, or are you just gonna leave it there?
Which as far as I'm aware, none of what has been revealed by Snowden has been shown to be illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.
As "oversight" goes, that sounds rather a lot like, "That's nice, son. You run along and play, now..."
Almost all of the sitting members of the court are former law enforcement in some way, and many of them have evinced strongly statist and authoritarian views in the rulings they've made in the trial courts they also sit in.
So I'd also like to see some membership on the panel that doesn't seem hand-picked to yes-man (nearly) every request that comes along. I'm not suggesting this as a definitive proposal for changing the court, but what about including members from (or elected by) demonstrably pro-liberty organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever, with some kind of veto-like power?
I legitimately believe that there is value in being able to investigate suspected "bad" actors — and that sometimes those investigations must be surreptitious, or that actor will become aware of the suspicion and change his behavior. I don't buy the leap from that being the case to, "We can look into anyone at any time for any reason, or no reason at all, and then use whatever we find against you down the road, or hand it off to sibling agencies for 'parallel construction' type purposes." (And don't even try to suggest that doesn't happen. We know it does.)
So there's two thoughts off the top of my head.
Step 1. Police don't kick a person's door down and shoot everyone based upon a single unconfirmed report.
>What makes the modern era so different that Police aren't allowed to look at metadata anymore?
The volume of available metadata.
No one has died to Swatting yet, (thank goodness). But the success rate at catching swatters has been less than stellar.
I'm more concerned about the "catching swatters" part. Why the general police forces of the US seem unable to catch them bothers me greatly.
>He's one of the most successful double-agents in history, with excellent public relations.
>Snowden is almost certainly a double-agent based on the countries he fled to
All that speculation, then this gem:
>EDIT: Truth hurts, doesn't it?
But no. It's not cause your post is full of accusations and dubious speculation based on nothing and provides no evidence. It's cause you struck a nerve and showed the sheep here the truth and they can't handle it. That's definitely what it is.
I upvoted you! Of course this account I created is going to probably die because I express the unpopular opinion too!
It's a wonderful piece of work with excellent sentiment behind it. Unfortunately it doesn't suit the government and mainstream media narrative, so I'm sure the act of its erection will be decried as liberal terrorism and vandalism, the piece taken down and Snowden-related news once again brushed over.
Consider the mentality of obscuring the bust with something that is even uglier. It is not a statement on the aesthetics of the work. It is literally saying "You may not look upon this unsanctioned idea"
“The park is such a symbol of American liberty; that’s what it’s all about, the founding principals of it,” she said. “It (the bust) is almost appropriate but inappropriate to do it (put up illegally).”
As if the establishment of American liberty didn't involve breaking any laws in the first place.
Imagine if McDonald's just decided to put up giant golden arches in the park. There's a reason the procedures exist.
I do think this is a clever and interesting thing to do, and I hope this ends with the statue staying somehow. But I really don't see the point in comparing this with the establishment of the nation.
Also, I wonder if Sasha would be pinged by the government about who is behind the act, and if Sasha would give them up, adding some irony(?), referencing 1984.
Also if you read the article in the parent post you would notice that your second correction should be directed at it not me, as I accurately copy pasted that quotation.
Though it might make more sense to use "'ve" when correcting to emphasize that it's not a spoken vs. written speech difference, it's a transcription error.
They're fully in their right to remove it, but simply making it unrecognizable feels like a political act.
I hope, for the sake of the work that went into the piece, that it isn't destroyed.
Shameful that something so harmless is immediately covered up (quite literally) because it challenges the state.
The U.S. is getting scarier by the day, folks.
It really does remind one of soviet style suppression.
This is part of the problem with our side of the debate. We take it as a forgone conclusion that everyone agrees that Snowden is morally right and that the government is morally wrong. We need to do a better job of convincing the general public why issues like this are important. Erecting a statue of Snowden doesn't do anything besides antagonizing both sides of the debate.
EDIT: As this post currently stands at -2 karma, I have to say I am a little disappointed in HN. This isn't Reddit, we shouldn't have brigades of people downvoting comments that bring up gray areas in this debate. I don't think I said anything unreasonable in this comment. However if you do and downvote me, the least you could do is comment about how I am off base.
Some skaterz 'tag' is going to take weeks or months to be covered/removed. However, if instead they it was a picture likely to draw both political and media attention plus cause some individuals distress at a memorial they are going to move quickly.
The fact is in this case it was inflammatory toward the US government so we are quick to declare democracy and freedom of speech is ending. I don't think the parks department who franticly called a worker to get there and cover it up is part of this broader conspiracy to deprive americans of freedom of expression. They moved quickly on something they knew would get a lot of attention.
I might have agreed with you that erecting a statue does nothing. But that it was promptly covered with a tarp is more revealing than I would have expected.
The Weather Underground protested by blowing up a statue. This is pretty classy.
Dragnet surveillance is totalitarianism. I guess there are apologists for totalitarianism, but why, if we are a democracy, do we listen to those who actively advocate for tyranny?
EDIT: Haven't heard any objection to my points yet, primarily that it's not possible to argue in good faith that someone can be both be well-informed about the effects of dragnet surveillance and still be pro-surveillance.
As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended. And with a history filled with governments always overstepping their bounds, the only real solution is to create something that cannot be read, as any limit that depends upon 'please don't' is only a temporary patch.
Isn't this potentially the real problem? It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The Internet doesn't have to be completely different than the offline world. The police can knock down my door if there is a threat of child abuse or terrorism, but aren't allowed to do the same for a traffic violation. Why would that system need to be different online? We just need to make the process of acquiring and executing a warrant more transparent. That political debate would take precedence over any technical problem like designing a distributed system that could accommodate this type of request.
The problem is that current technology allows the government to hide behind 'you have no proof we did anything wrong' and 'state secret' defenses. Maybe a system that makes it clear when communications are being monitored, but the government is going to oppose that as much as a system that can't be monitored.
Also, there are few other considerations:
No foreign company is going to kick in your door, but they would be willing to hack your computer/listen to your chatter in an attempt to steal company secrets. Any weak point for the government is a weak point for all others.
Also, government is made up of some individuals that I do not want anywhere near any backdoors of my systems. Not to say everyone in government is incompetent.
Maybe they are if you are head of R&D for some massive project, at which point you would be taking extra precautions.
I think looking at issues with this lens is how the whole idea of "you're either with us or against us" gets started. It's possible to be less opinionated than that.
I think everyone should take a step back and actually analyze the situation for what it is, rather than immediately grabbing the pitch fork.
He doesn't mean ideologically, he means technically. You're either encrypted or you're not.
This isn't about being opinionated, it truly is about whether or not we allow the government to monitor all the things.
The only options are all or none, there is no "just monitor some of the things" option.
For example, those who want a system that protects jounalist in oppressive countries but that does not protect child predators have lots of positions to pick, but those positions (and the groups that hold them) can easily be divided along the lines of those who support a system that protects both and those that support a system that protects neither (it technically protects neither while it will often be sold as protecting one but not the other, and as such the majority of the group may fully believe it does protect one but not the other).
My view is that this kind of thing is a part of what intelligence services are supposed to prevent, not implement, and they are therefore seriously failing to do their taxpayer-funded jobs. Not really sure of the point of employing smart people to protect you if they then use all of their wiles to weaken individual and state security.
Talk to Old Lady A or middle-aged man B in any number of flyover states; the average American.
They have no concept of what type of data is available about them online. They have no worries about being watched by any agency, because they literally do not understand what is being watched.
Many, many people over the age of 40(ish) make assumptions about what is possible and what is not based solely on past experience. When it was nearly impossible to gather data, house data, and retrieve data about a monstrously large group, no one bothered. Therefore, average Americans from that time period have no idea what is possible.
Like the OP said - take the time to educate folks about what is possible and why they should worry, instead of argue for right versus wrong. All that does is make people pick sides, however irrational the side is.
The result would have been exactly the same if somebody put a bust of Hillary Clinton with letters "Clinton, 45th president of USA", even though Clinton would be a pretty safe choice for a lot of people (including those who hate Snowden).
How exactly does covering it up help with that? I agree that there are valid reasons for wanting to remove it, but covering it up before that is just ridiculous.
Edit: Oh sorry, you meant how does covering up help with the potential of it falling... Not much, except to possibly prevent people from being interested in it and going near it. Only the people who know what it is already would be interested. But I don't think it's actually going to fall, just that if they're going to remove it there's no surprise that it's covered. It's not uncommon at all to see tarped statues in Parks when any sort of maintenance is being done for a variety of reasons.
I'm on a the fence about Snowden, however disrespecting a war memorial to prove a point seems to border on tasteless. How about putting a Snowden statue in front of an AT&T store; that would be better messaging in terms of protest without disrespecting actual war heros.
If by "one" you mean "you", maybe.
No-one is getting gulag-ed or shot for doing this. To liken this response to Soviet-era human rights abuses betrays a pretty myopic view, IMO.
Oh yeah, and we have the world's largest prison population by far.
So maybe not a real Soviet style gulag, just a bunch of smaller gulag-like places to store our undesirables.
Sure, it's not as bad as the USSR, but why is this sort of thing permitted whatsoever in a democracy again?
Graffiti is rarely covered up so quickly unless it is found to be particularly offensive. My personal belief is that this statue was deemed to be politically offensive and inciting as well as likely to draw media exposure and so was quickly removed from view even though this is not a required step in the process of restoring the monument to its former state.
http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/fort-greene-park/inspection... For fun.
So the right thing to do now is to put up a politically innocuous statue and see how long it lasts, or to find cases that are closer to this situation than graffiti, which is both commonplace and relatively less obtrusive, and less likely to be taken for an "official" statement of anything.
I used to live beside a park where a local artist erected an extremely strange Transformer-like statue in a central location that took several weeks to be removed, but it wasn't in the US and it was in the poorer area of a small town, so there are too many differences to draw any useful conclusions from it.
Not sure what China or France doing things has to do with how we do things in the US.
I notice this little detail in the Tiananmen Square protest in 1989, five years after 1984. After the students build the parts of the statute named Goddess of Democracy, the state security bureau declared that any truck drivers helping them would lose their license. At first this amused me a little bit, seeing how pathetic the security bureau was, but soon I feel so frustrated and disappointed be cause it hasn't been any better about politics after 26 years. Of course they have learned how to frame citizen under the coat of "Rule by law". Government without its chain is just like the Smaug.
Playing devil's advocate here, but would have they done differently with an other bust? maybe it's just forbidden to put a statue in a park without authorization.
Bonus points for a Vine of them covering it up while kids cry in the background.
"Anonymous benefactor donates $30k statue to city park"
That is the scary part, although not new. Is the authorities deeming information and political statements as dangerous and needing to be censored. Make sure more people don't hear about this and start asking questions like why do some people venerate as a here, this guy the government says is a traitor.
What? Wrong. That's just silly. Really it is.
Art comes in all forms, including the goat f*cking variety  but that's another dimension of this argument that you aren't arguing against so I won't delve into it here.
It really is. The facade of democracy is very quickly being peeled back to reveal something utterly terrifying. The response from the people has been the most disappointing and depressing thing though. The random sampling in NYC, of all places in the US, by Oliver's show was a brutal reminder of the mindset of the average person there.
If the US (or UK) cared at all about democracy like they always claim they'd move to something better (e.g. Open list, party list, full on proportional representation, or a number of other alternatives). Heck even run off voting (i.e. multiple votes) in FPTP is superior like the Alternative Vote.
But instead we have FPTP, and why? So we have this revolving door of "sameness" and monied politicians. Essentially bribery and corruption exist in the West, they're just completely legal and out in the open.
> But instead we have FPTP, and why?
Its the simplest and most naive electoral system so Joe Bloggs understands it. Its just "the person who gets the most votes wins". The problems this system causes are ephemeral statistical problems that require more than a 10 second soundbite to explain or even to detect happening. So from Joe Bloggs point of view, you want to change his fundamental right to vote based on the fact that your intellectual busywork has concluded that the wrong person can win the election. That's how the UK failed to get Alternative Vote passed in 2011.
You can't bribe an officer of the USA govt, it's called facilitation payment and it's legal.
This is made even more funny by the fact that the USA law prohibits foreigners from engaging in that same behavior with other foreigners, in foreign countries. Foreigners have been convicted and indicted in USA for providing facilitation payments, in third countries, to third country citizens.
Yes. People should be free to elect whoever they want to represent them. I'm not a National Front supporter, but they clearly have support and why should they be withheld from running in a free election simply because others dislike their campaign platform?
The idea of "Only X parties that conform to Y beliefs should be able to run/hold government" is a very dangerous one.
I would rather see a world full of governments made up of mixed up groups of representatives than that which the US currently has - two sides of the same coin being flipped every 4 years with a very small number of families establishing themselves as political dynasties.
There's ~350m people in the US. There is no way the diversity of views in that 350m people is represented in the two parties that hold power there. Similarly, there are 350m people and yet those who hold the office of President are, and have been for decades, close relatives of former Presidents. 2016 is just around the corner and it's looking like the US may well have another Clinton or Bush in office. How the hell is that right?
A nation's power structure should be free to change as the people want it to. The government is supposed to represent and serve the people, not the other way around.
We're seeing former outlying political entities in Europe experiencing a large increase in support - UKIP in the UK, Syriza in Greece, Sinn Fein in Ireland, the separatists in Spain, etc. - because a hell of a lot of people feel the ruling entities there are no longer representing the people and are demanding change.
That is something that should be welcomed and embraced. A nation should be free to make its own choices and deal with the consequences, not be shackled to approved political ideologies.
While I disagree with everything they stand for, it isn't for me or anyone else to decide who should or shouldn't get their voices heard.
If they have enough citizens to vote for them, absolutely they should get a seat. In fact giving extremists a voice somewhat counter-acts extremism as they feel like they have an outlet for their perceived issues.
That's debatable. The ridiculous amount of coverage they have had in France has certainly improved their popularity.
The only good thing about them getting more power is that they can clearly demonstrate that they are just as incompetent and corrupt as the other parties.
[Citation needed]. Sure, they have about 25% of the public now, but the next presidential elections are not before 2017, and two years is a long time in politics.
>The response from the people has been the most disappointing
Which one is it? Is it that democracy has failed, or is it that the majority don't care about this particular topic?
The way the government and the media demonized Snowden and fed the public misinformation was designed to get people to not care about this issue.
By attacking Snowden and misrepresenting the facts (such as congressmen claiming he was certainly working for foreign intelligence agencies), they muddied the waters and left people confused and consequently apathetic.
Look, I emphatically believe in what Snowden did (though I may have some quibbles with his methods, his reasons were exemplary). I don't think that justifies what amounts to glorified — if tastefully done, and in keeping with the aesthetics of the monument — vandalism.
This is a war memorial. How might it feel to those who have lost loved ones in one of this country's innumerable wars, to have the monument to their loss, their sacrifice, appropriated for someone else's speech?
>appropriated for someone else's ends?
Appropriated for the same ends for which the original memorial was commemorating. The ends are the same.
Let's also include some perspective. The monument does not appear to be irreparably harmed. So, vandalism, technically, but definitely not comparable to the Sack of Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_%28455%29
Art is not a democratic thing at all. This is the same that Banksy does. Is also the "monna-lissa with moustache" from Duchamp, the picasso's versions of velazquez paintings, and the impresionists showing his pictures in the "salon des refusees". People changed his point of view for better and just learned to deal with it.
What was claimed as inaceptable vandalism and breaking of the rules yesterday, is just culture today.
More interestingly, the success of a work of art is not linked to the objet permanence. If damaged o destroyed will spawn more controversy and will spread the idea (the real work of art), probably spawning a miriad of "photoshop restaurations" on internet.
A very smart move.
This is the top of Fort Greene park, not Arlington Cemetery. The park runs concerts, movies, and food stands here. On a given warm day it's full of sun bathers, picnics, couples making out, personal training sessions, yoga, martial arts, &c. It seems disingenuous to suddenly pull out the "loss, sacrifice" card only when confronted with controversial speech.
It has been argued before http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe...
If there's a case to be made protecting graffiti on private property I would say there is a case for protecting graffiti on public property if it is the public's will to do so http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
As for political speech I am quite okay with the rule that you can put up any bust that you have made for your own money, as a private citizen, so long as it is of that quality. I doubt the rule would be abused much.
The roof is held up by statues of service members from various branches... and a Blackshirt.
Every once in a while that gets covered (to signify anti fascism) or uncovered (to signify respect for the artist's intention). It used to be various local administration officials covering and uncovering it. Now it's just random people putting up tarps at night or cutting them down.
The town's official policy at this point is "we ran out of tarps in the early 1990s and don't care anymore".
I wonder how long that tarp will stay :)
No wait - "symbolic". That's the word I was looking for.
Step forward 150 years and this might be the one and only memorial 'made at the time' to the work of our hero.
I'm not sure that the Prison Ship Martyrs would have minded. And I disagree that hosting a "demonstration / gathering would have been more impactful as well as being respectful". It certainly wouldn't have been more impactful, as I am fairly confident that I wouldn't have even heard of it had that occurred. As for disrespecting the monument, I can imagine war heroes preferring temporary or even permanent defacement of their memorial as preferable to the memorial remaining in tact while freedom is destroyed instead.
Would we know about it on HN?
On a tangent, I think Jon's demeanor was a bit to jerkish for my taste. I appreciate the desire to not look like a softball interviewer, but some of his jokes and remarks and mannerisms were embarrassing either in its insult to Ed/Julian or in its pure unfunny character.
Considering it was intended to be a temporary art installation, the MIT Hacks reference seems appropriate: " It is a traditional courtesy to leave a note or even engineering drawings behind, as an aid to safe de-installation of a hack."-nightworks
The difference is that this was intended to be temporary and decisions were made to ensure safe removal, which I appreciate, but no instructions were left to a staff, possibly unfamiliar with the removal procedures, leading to risk of damage to the monument.
I also think it unfair to assume the victims for which the memorial was for would believe this is a valid usage - while the theme is close, the artists are equating Prisoners of War losing their life in a situation they had no control over ( at that point), versus a situation very much in the hands of snowden (ignoring the injustices, there are and have been many decision open to him). Having researched a bit more, equating the situation of a single person, to the thousands (~11,500) who were effectively murdered due to the inhumane conditions of their captivity is distasteful at best.
This is an opinion I know, and I appreciate this is a civil conversation if unpopular. I urge more reading on the memorial itself and its reason.
The materials needed to create a bust of this type cost thousands of dollars, and the pair ponied up the cash. It then took a little over six months to sculpt, mold, cast and ship to New York. Had the sculptor charged market rates, he said it would have cost tens of thousands of dollars. “The amount of work that goes into this kind of stuff, it’s easily a 30 grand project,” said the 30-something sculptor. “If it were bronze, it could be a $100,000 piece of artwork, maybe more.”
[From the article]
EDIT: Already too late :(
Step 2: thousands of little versions of the bust begin showing up around the country
Step 3: ...
Bummer I missed it. I was just a few blocks from the park. They should have done on the weekend.
note: jack from "the shining" shows up
What it does is look for different versions (sizes and croppings) of the exact same picture, and if that fails, look for images with similar colors (Jack from the Shining).
Lindsay Lohan: http://bit.ly/19ZkFgk
Matt Damon: http://bit.ly/1xYl5il
If you took your own picture of Obama that had never been posted online before and did a reverse image search, it wouldn't work.
It couldn't get the query, but it does get similar images, including at least one other that's also of the Golden Gate bridge. I unfortunately don't have any personal pictures of celebrities, but here's one of a slightly-askew photo of my computer screen that includes Obama's face (but deliberately not all of the original picture):
It managed to guess that one correctly, even though it didn't have the exact original image.