Why are the majority of the comments here blaming the victim?
This is the death if a person who tried to stand against an overwhelming force. To try and stand against the cartels where the police didn't dare and instead of honouring her work or get death you mock her for not using tor.
If you seriously think that lack of cybersecurity is the problem then at least use this to highlight the lack of good easy to use security software.
In the epilogue one of his books (maybe "the drowned and the saved"?), Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi describes giving a talk to a group of schoolchildren. One boy asked him to describe the layout of the camp, and then described how he would have escaped if he had been in Auschwitz. Nothing Primo Levi could say would convince the boy that escape was impossible.
Now I'm not saying that it was impossible for this citizen journalist to hide her identity, but the comments strike me as having a similar tone. People are simply assuming that her capture and death was preventable, because it is psychologically difficult to face the alternative. Namely, that only by accepting personal risk, was this woman able to stand up to the cartels. Even if the technology to protect her identity existed, maybe a person in this woman's situation would be very unlikely to know about it.
Of constructive suggestions are great, although I'm not qualified to judge their technical merit.
Cognitive dissonance, just-world fallacy and hammers and nails.
It's difficult to read a story a soul-crushingly horrible as this and just wallow in the hopeless unjustness of it all. Coping mechanisms kick in. To preserve the comforting world view that people are in charge of their destiny, tragedy is avoidable and the world makes some sense it becomes necessary to demonstrate that the outcome was predictable and avoidable. That the victim failed themselves.
With HNs user base that manifests as a critique of information security practices.
> Why are the majority of the comments here blaming the victim?
There were few if any comments here blaming the victim at the time you posted, so I must assume it is the comments discussing proper operational security for one in her position that you are misidentifying as blaming the victim.
It's important that security failures like this be discussed and analyzed so that others who may find themselves in a similar situation can learn from them so as to be able to fight the bad guys without getting killed.
> If you seriously think that lack of cybersecurity is the problem then at least use this to highlight the lack of good easy to use security software
Security software, or lack thereof, is probably not the most important thing in this kind of operation. Physical security is more important, namely making sure the bad guys do not get access to the computer you conduct your social media operations from or that you use for communications with your fellow activists.
Doing any of your activism from your cell phone, such as accessing your social media from it, is very risky. It means that if the bad guys have some reason to detain you unrelated to your activism they might find out your secret.
In many ways, the anti-cartel activists are in a position similar to that of those who are in an underground resistance in a conquered nation, such as the French resistance in WWII. Success in that situation generally involves maintaining a dual life, with the public side being something innocuous and non-threatening to the bad guys, and the private, resistance side kept very separate.
This is not about cybersecurity or encryption. This is about a country that has been poisoned by the brutality of drug cartels for decades.
While ISIS terrorizes Iraq and Syria. Living in fear has become the norm for Mexico. But cartels cannot be bombed by drones and Mexico cannot be occupied by foreign forces. There are only two choices for those living in Mexico: either flee to the U.S. or accept living in a country where drug cartels yield more power than the government.
Victim-blaming is bad, but there is also a need for discussion of precautions that might have prevented victims from becoming victims in the first place. I think the answer lies in the tone that is used, as well as acknowledgement that sometimes precautions only become clear after the fact, and that victims who don't choose to take all precautions they could (for whatever reason) are still victims who should not be victims.
For example, this lady made what (I think is) a reasonable assumption that a pseudonym was a good enough way of protecting her identity. It wasn't a bad assumption, but because of what happened to her, we should discuss additional precautions so that people like her might fare better in future.
Another thing to consider in this discussion is that sometimes people like this lady know that they are taking a big risk, may end up murdered, but bravely proceed to take their actions anyway.
Ok that doesn't make sense to me. Her murderers weren't Cyber-security experts who tracked her down. They were a group of thugs who kidnapped her, along with other medical personnel. Only after they had her in their clutches did they realize who they had. She was probably going to die anyway, this way the cartel knew who they were killing.
So using tor or whatever would only have the minimal effect on her situation
Accusing people discussing security of 'victim blaming' is both incorrect and massively unfair. Nobody discussing security endorses murder.
Is lack of cyber security 'the' problem? No, it's one problem of many for people taking on cartels. Another is lack of resources for the Mexican government. Do I think the the Mexican government not having enough resources is the cause of the issue? Obviously not.
Nobody is saying those things are the cause of the issue, and you're probably smart enough to know that - instead, you've gone on to attack people for attention instead. Flagged.
I'm quite unfamiliar with the specifics of the whole Mexican cartel situation, but has there been any international aid or effort to help eradicate this?
>Why are the majority of the comments here blaming the victim?
I am tired of this sentiment. It is not necessarily incorrect to ascribe partial blame to someone just because they got the short end of the stick in some situation.
Being a victim does not automatically preclude one from being at fault. For example, if I jump off a cliff without a parachute, it is clearly reasonable to blame me despite the fact that I am definitively a victim of the situation.
In this case, it would be reasonable to ascribe some level of blame to both parties; we ascribe blame to the cartel for murdering people (and clearly most of the blame falls on them), and we also ascribe some measure of blame to the victim for failing to take proper precautions. This is not an affront to the victim's character or a trivialization of their death; it is a recognition of the fact that, with some more preparation, the situation could have turned out much better for the victim. It is important to address these failures so that we might learn from them in the future.
Edit: Downvoters, please comment. I am curious what you think about this. In particular, I am curious why it is never appropriate to ascribe blame to a victim of any sort.
It will only get worse unless we reverse course. Unless we do, the violence/terrorism on the border could increase dramatically. We have a historical model in alcohol prohibition and know what it does and what happens after.
We blame Mexico, Central and South America for much of this but policies and our actions there are creating these black markets where only criminals get the revenues. How is that the best solution we have? We are actively creating armies south of the border that aren't state associated, I believe that is terrorism.
Well, drug consumers can stop purchasing drugs that you know that involve the cartels. But most people that talk about the "War on Drugs" would rather blame the US drug policies instead, rather than the own up to the fact that they are contributing to the problem.
I would also like to point out that legalizing drugs would not solve the problem. The problem is corruption, not the drugs themselves. Look at Miami in the 1970s. It was a war zone, just like Mexico is today. The reason is because you could buy off any cop or government official in the city (check out the documentary "Cocaine Cowboys" for some real news footage from the time).
If drugs are legalized tomorrow, what do you think would happen? If I were the cartels, I would continue selling my product, this time legal (similar to how companies are outsourcing to China..drug companies will outsource to Mexico). My power would continue or increase, because I could just buy off any cop and/or government official and the violence would continue (ruling by fear).
Fix the corruption..and you fix the cartel issue. At this point, the US would need to bring the military in there to fix the problem.
I also don't think people would stop buying drugs in the black market if drugs were made legal. Why? MJ will not ever be legal in the sense that you can just grow it and sell it out of your house with no government intervention. It will be taxed and regulated, which means much higher prices. Many people won't want to pay those higher prices and there will still be a demand for a black market (just like software and music piracy).
I'm not against the legalization of drugs, I'm against the dishonesty. Supporters were dishonest about "medical marijuana"..which is quite honestly, a joke. There are 10 doctors in my area that will give you a prescription for MJ for pretty much anything..it will just cost you $70. The majority of people that I know that have their prescriptions just want to smoke weed.
I wish I was one of those doctors...they are probably able to retire on the proceeds.
Please..just stop the fucking dishonesty and I might support your cause.
What does "reversing course" mean? It seems to me that these are markets that build up in response to our declaration of contraband. Do you think that the U.S.A. should simply legalize some fixed subset of all drugs, or just say, "is it a chemical that some portion of our public urged their congressmen to take action on because our kids were doing it behind the school? If so, OK!" Even the definition of "legalize" seems like a messy problem, to say the least. Like it's easy to say "legalize" but where (geographically) can we find existing models of legalization along with which there is no market that incentivizes drug-related criminal behavior? (Asking sincerely because why should I just believe in "reversing course" without knowing what the plan is?)
This is why we need not only password locks and full encryption but panic passwords and hidden logins on every piece of electronics we own. That no mobile OS offers these yet is pathetic.
When twitter and facebook don't let you connect anonymously from tor, this is what the result is. If you have a major website that is used by dissidents and journalists in countries such as Mexico or Iran and you don't have a plain html form to fall back on and insist on javascript being on all the time you really do have blood on your hands.
Encryption and password locks are pointless against a cartel, presumably they will employ rubber hose cryptanalysis to get any information they want.
Seems like one solution would be to have a web browser that keeps no history, and use that to log into Twitter and report about cartels instead of an app that automatically logs you in or keeps history, or gives away the fact you have a twitter account they will demand to know about.
If it's any small comfort, whoever was seen involved in this kidnapping is now a liability, as this case has brought a lot of heat so they were almost certainly finished off in the desert by their own cartel compadres to avoid potential snitching. The blog borderlandbeat has countless posts of mass executions the cartels do on their own guys as everybody except the capos are disposable.
edit: Likely cartels have employees at telecoms in Mexico to look up logs for them, there's prob no easy solution. It wouldn't be expensive for them to hire anybody to exploit journalists with old carrier builds that are never updated either http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/09/16/shocking-android-...
HN also makes it hard to connect from Tor... "Prove you're legit" and the captcha never lets you through, even after solving it right. This is a common problem with Cloudflare sites. Cloudflare is an enormous security hole as it is and it's making it worse by actively working against Tor and making SSL certs largely untrustable (if they weren't already).
It's also a reason why we need to be able to delete our online activity permanently. Everyone who ever corresponded with felina's twitter account via private messages that didn't hide their own identity adequately is at risk. Before the account was suspended, I'm certain they went through the data.
I wouldn't be surprised if they exported all her facebook data as well, which IIRC includes content marked "deleted".
When can we stop the madness and regulate drugs rather than criminalizing them? Didn't we learn anything from prohibition?? In a time when so many people are aware of the limitations of government why do so many people think that we're going to resolve the drug problems with more government in the form courts and prisons. We're just creating a market opportunity for the cartels by inflating prices and turning their customers into criminals.
Are you suggesting that we legalise everything that is currently illegal, so that we would have no need to prohibit anything and turn nobody into criminals?
We could very well apply this logic to say, murder. Why not let us legalise murder, set up appropriate channels for people to hire hitmen to kill each other, so that the underground killers would not have any more customers and then they will gradually die out?
I think the reality is much more complicated than that. Globalization, the speed with which capital moves in an abstract way, and the Internet have caused negative externalities in developing countries.
I'm not sure if legalization of all drugs would end cartels, because they would just move onto a different good or service (i.e. prostitution/human trafficking or water if its scarce). I think the system we have in the world today is irrevocably broken, but nobody wants to have a candid discussion about it. Until we have a conversation instead of a monologue, between the developed and developing world, nothing will change.
Mexican cartels will become much less of a threat when the US decides to treat drug addiction like a disease instead of a crime and will legalize drugs to the point where the street value will drop to where crime is too high a price to pay for the profits that can be made with them.
This will probably take longer than I'm going to be around for but in the end that and only that will get the drug 'war' over and done with. It's politically hard because it would be in the eyes of some admitting defeat and in the eyes of others admitting being wrong. Those are both hard things for politicians. But if that doesn't happen the war on drugs will be the US equivalent of the war in Afghanistan for the Russians. Unwinnable, a continuous sapping of funds and energy that could go to better uses.
In the meantime we rely on people like this extremely brave woman that stood up for what was right, and I sincerely hope that those that are on the consuming side of the equation ('a man that needs a little help to dream') wise up and see that they are very much part of the problem and that they and everybody else fractionally kill people (sometimes even themselves) on a daily basis.
It's somewhat amazing that it was a seemingly unrelated kidnapping that lead to her discovery given that she seemed to be tweeting from her own phone, probably publishing from her own (unsecured?) computer etc. and the reach that the cartel are purported to have in law enforcement / military in those areas.
I sincerely hope for America's sake that there's no substance to the claims that the CIA are working with these cartels.
The CIA working with cartels abroad is not mere rumor. There is substantial evidence that this takes place.
Unfortunately, nobody in this world has the combination of power, opportunity, and desire to take the CIA down for its crimes. They are the closest thing to a god that has ever existed; and organization that is profoundly beyond the grasp of society at large. They smite as they see fit, and there is nothing that can be done about it. Even if the American democratic system were functioning as designed/desired, the CIA would have ample opportunity to burn all of their records (as the Stasi unsuccessfully attempted). Black budgets (see:their involvement in the drugs trade) is one of their many insurance policies against accountability.
We live in a surveillance state.. I don't understand why the CIA can't find the leaders of these organizations and slip arsenic in their morning coffees.
Many people here are thinking of this as a technical problem than a social one. I know we are HNers, but we do think of stuff in different perspectives too, don't we? I mean technology is not the farthest we can look.
If you're going to whistleblow on your local government online (be that a legitimate government, or a violent drug cartel), the only reasonably safe way to do it is from outside the country AND using Tor. It amazes me that people don't take these basic precautions.
Mexican cartels are known to have infiltrated ISPs, where they were able to tie IP addresses to identities. Using encryption is the only way.
EDIT: may I ask why the downvotes? Did I say something offensive or break the HN rules?
I think you were downvoted because people suspected you of glossing over the subject at hand (for the record, I upvoted you).
I would say that for some of these local journalists, you're correct in suspecting that their technical expertise isn't high...however, it's not easy to report on dangerous local conditions from outside that locality. For one thing, you've introduced another attack vector for a MITM attack -- between the local stringer and the international point-of-contact who then publishes the content.
But the bigger problem is this: the people most passionate about this kind of local reporting, well, they're passionate about it because it is in their town or neighborhood. It's generally not feasible to be a long-time resident (the type who really gives a shit about the terror that's going on in the neighborhood) and then uproot so that you can do reporting safely. For one thing, you're just not as connected to the events once you've left the area.
Tweeting outside the country is probably not an option, and it's unlikely defeating encryption is a sufficient safeguard against cartels that kidnap and torture people. Kidnapping, by the way, is how they allegedly found their target according to the article.
I'm downvoting you because you're sitting in your safe, comfortable chair and smugly mocking a woman who knowingly risked death for the good of her people, because she didn't take the "basic precaution" of leaving the country she was trying to protect first.
Because if a cartel member is looking for a whistleblower and sees that you use Tor, they're just going to respect your right to privacy and move along?
Anyway, tor wouldn't have helped the woman in the article; she was found by them going through her local app.
I agree. What this woman did was not "reasonably safe". This woman is a hero for the work she did for her community and because of the risks she took to do so. I find this level of bravery amazing as well.
>If you're going to whistleblow on your local government online (be that a legitimate government, or a violent drug cartel), the only reasonably safe way to do it is from outside the country AND using Tor.
Unless, you know, the "outside country" is one participating in those surveillance schemes, like 5-eyes, and is in bed with your local goverment and not beyond sending a tip or two (or even supporting its own thugs acting on the ground in your country).
More or less like it has been throughtout the 20th century in Latin America.
The blame rests on her. She was rich, able to afford college education and unnecessarily painting the poor equal-opportunity lacking folks on street as thieves.
Instead of tweeting against the cartels she should have tried to build a bridge to their hearts, reach to the root cause of crime and should acted like a responsible citizen. She instead chose adventurism.
US is doing a great service to these people by continuing to have a drug-prohibition and letting their uneducated/unskilled labor get safe citizenship and welfare money at the expense of American taxpayers. She should have learned something from USA.
Should we invest serious funds (billions) into creating a 1) legal drug which is 2) not addictive, and 3) far more superior than weed, cocaine, heroine, and all the other drugs.
Hybridized modern marijuana and Adderall are already the new drugs you propose. We can't manage to get either of them legalized for over the counter sale yet. Prohibition is still the root of the problem.
[+] [-] theobon|11 years ago|reply
This is the death if a person who tried to stand against an overwhelming force. To try and stand against the cartels where the police didn't dare and instead of honouring her work or get death you mock her for not using tor.
If you seriously think that lack of cybersecurity is the problem then at least use this to highlight the lack of good easy to use security software.
[+] [-] legacyfruit|11 years ago|reply
Now I'm not saying that it was impossible for this citizen journalist to hide her identity, but the comments strike me as having a similar tone. People are simply assuming that her capture and death was preventable, because it is psychologically difficult to face the alternative. Namely, that only by accepting personal risk, was this woman able to stand up to the cartels. Even if the technology to protect her identity existed, maybe a person in this woman's situation would be very unlikely to know about it.
Of constructive suggestions are great, although I'm not qualified to judge their technical merit.
[+] [-] andsosayallofus|11 years ago|reply
It's difficult to read a story a soul-crushingly horrible as this and just wallow in the hopeless unjustness of it all. Coping mechanisms kick in. To preserve the comforting world view that people are in charge of their destiny, tragedy is avoidable and the world makes some sense it becomes necessary to demonstrate that the outcome was predictable and avoidable. That the victim failed themselves.
With HNs user base that manifests as a critique of information security practices.
[+] [-] tzs|11 years ago|reply
There were few if any comments here blaming the victim at the time you posted, so I must assume it is the comments discussing proper operational security for one in her position that you are misidentifying as blaming the victim.
It's important that security failures like this be discussed and analyzed so that others who may find themselves in a similar situation can learn from them so as to be able to fight the bad guys without getting killed.
> If you seriously think that lack of cybersecurity is the problem then at least use this to highlight the lack of good easy to use security software
Security software, or lack thereof, is probably not the most important thing in this kind of operation. Physical security is more important, namely making sure the bad guys do not get access to the computer you conduct your social media operations from or that you use for communications with your fellow activists.
Doing any of your activism from your cell phone, such as accessing your social media from it, is very risky. It means that if the bad guys have some reason to detain you unrelated to your activism they might find out your secret.
In many ways, the anti-cartel activists are in a position similar to that of those who are in an underground resistance in a conquered nation, such as the French resistance in WWII. Success in that situation generally involves maintaining a dual life, with the public side being something innocuous and non-threatening to the bad guys, and the private, resistance side kept very separate.
[+] [-] walterobm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfoster|11 years ago|reply
For example, this lady made what (I think is) a reasonable assumption that a pseudonym was a good enough way of protecting her identity. It wasn't a bad assumption, but because of what happened to her, we should discuss additional precautions so that people like her might fare better in future.
Another thing to consider in this discussion is that sometimes people like this lady know that they are taking a big risk, may end up murdered, but bravely proceed to take their actions anyway.
[+] [-] xerophyte12932|11 years ago|reply
Ok that doesn't make sense to me. Her murderers weren't Cyber-security experts who tracked her down. They were a group of thugs who kidnapped her, along with other medical personnel. Only after they had her in their clutches did they realize who they had. She was probably going to die anyway, this way the cartel knew who they were killing.
So using tor or whatever would only have the minimal effect on her situation
[+] [-] nailer|11 years ago|reply
Is lack of cyber security 'the' problem? No, it's one problem of many for people taking on cartels. Another is lack of resources for the Mexican government. Do I think the the Mexican government not having enough resources is the cause of the issue? Obviously not.
Nobody is saying those things are the cause of the issue, and you're probably smart enough to know that - instead, you've gone on to attack people for attention instead. Flagged.
[+] [-] socceroos|11 years ago|reply
I'm quite unfamiliar with the specifics of the whole Mexican cartel situation, but has there been any international aid or effort to help eradicate this?
[+] [-] wyager|11 years ago|reply
I am tired of this sentiment. It is not necessarily incorrect to ascribe partial blame to someone just because they got the short end of the stick in some situation.
Being a victim does not automatically preclude one from being at fault. For example, if I jump off a cliff without a parachute, it is clearly reasonable to blame me despite the fact that I am definitively a victim of the situation.
In this case, it would be reasonable to ascribe some level of blame to both parties; we ascribe blame to the cartel for murdering people (and clearly most of the blame falls on them), and we also ascribe some measure of blame to the victim for failing to take proper precautions. This is not an affront to the victim's character or a trivialization of their death; it is a recognition of the fact that, with some more preparation, the situation could have turned out much better for the victim. It is important to address these failures so that we might learn from them in the future.
Edit: Downvoters, please comment. I am curious what you think about this. In particular, I am curious why it is never appropriate to ascribe blame to a victim of any sort.
[+] [-] drawkbox|11 years ago|reply
It will only get worse unless we reverse course. Unless we do, the violence/terrorism on the border could increase dramatically. We have a historical model in alcohol prohibition and know what it does and what happens after.
We blame Mexico, Central and South America for much of this but policies and our actions there are creating these black markets where only criminals get the revenues. How is that the best solution we have? We are actively creating armies south of the border that aren't state associated, I believe that is terrorism.
[+] [-] paulhauggis|11 years ago|reply
I would also like to point out that legalizing drugs would not solve the problem. The problem is corruption, not the drugs themselves. Look at Miami in the 1970s. It was a war zone, just like Mexico is today. The reason is because you could buy off any cop or government official in the city (check out the documentary "Cocaine Cowboys" for some real news footage from the time).
If drugs are legalized tomorrow, what do you think would happen? If I were the cartels, I would continue selling my product, this time legal (similar to how companies are outsourcing to China..drug companies will outsource to Mexico). My power would continue or increase, because I could just buy off any cop and/or government official and the violence would continue (ruling by fear).
Fix the corruption..and you fix the cartel issue. At this point, the US would need to bring the military in there to fix the problem.
I also don't think people would stop buying drugs in the black market if drugs were made legal. Why? MJ will not ever be legal in the sense that you can just grow it and sell it out of your house with no government intervention. It will be taxed and regulated, which means much higher prices. Many people won't want to pay those higher prices and there will still be a demand for a black market (just like software and music piracy).
I'm not against the legalization of drugs, I'm against the dishonesty. Supporters were dishonest about "medical marijuana"..which is quite honestly, a joke. There are 10 doctors in my area that will give you a prescription for MJ for pretty much anything..it will just cost you $70. The majority of people that I know that have their prescriptions just want to smoke weed.
I wish I was one of those doctors...they are probably able to retire on the proceeds.
Please..just stop the fucking dishonesty and I might support your cause.
[+] [-] themodelplumber|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monochr|11 years ago|reply
When twitter and facebook don't let you connect anonymously from tor, this is what the result is. If you have a major website that is used by dissidents and journalists in countries such as Mexico or Iran and you don't have a plain html form to fall back on and insist on javascript being on all the time you really do have blood on your hands.
[+] [-] dobbsbob|11 years ago|reply
Seems like one solution would be to have a web browser that keeps no history, and use that to log into Twitter and report about cartels instead of an app that automatically logs you in or keeps history, or gives away the fact you have a twitter account they will demand to know about.
There's also schemes like this which could be helpful to at risk journalists https://www.ccsl.carleton.ca/~askillen/mobiflage/ unless you are kidnapped while in PDE mode.
If it's any small comfort, whoever was seen involved in this kidnapping is now a liability, as this case has brought a lot of heat so they were almost certainly finished off in the desert by their own cartel compadres to avoid potential snitching. The blog borderlandbeat has countless posts of mass executions the cartels do on their own guys as everybody except the capos are disposable.
edit: Likely cartels have employees at telecoms in Mexico to look up logs for them, there's prob no easy solution. It wouldn't be expensive for them to hire anybody to exploit journalists with old carrier builds that are never updated either http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/09/16/shocking-android-...
[+] [-] logn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malandrew|11 years ago|reply
I wouldn't be surprised if they exported all her facebook data as well, which IIRC includes content marked "deleted".
[+] [-] coldtea|11 years ago|reply
Yeah, that would have saved her against Mexican drug cartels and a $50.000 dollars reward.
[+] [-] wfunction|11 years ago|reply
http://xkcd.com/538/
[+] [-] chuckcode|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] handle_bars|11 years ago|reply
We could very well apply this logic to say, murder. Why not let us legalise murder, set up appropriate channels for people to hire hitmen to kill each other, so that the underground killers would not have any more customers and then they will gradually die out?
[+] [-] blrgeek|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jn1234|11 years ago|reply
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023032777045793...
[+] [-] yarou|11 years ago|reply
I'm not sure if legalization of all drugs would end cartels, because they would just move onto a different good or service (i.e. prostitution/human trafficking or water if its scarce). I think the system we have in the world today is irrevocably broken, but nobody wants to have a candid discussion about it. Until we have a conversation instead of a monologue, between the developed and developing world, nothing will change.
[+] [-] dataminded|11 years ago|reply
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2014-chicago-murders
[+] [-] Natsu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
This will probably take longer than I'm going to be around for but in the end that and only that will get the drug 'war' over and done with. It's politically hard because it would be in the eyes of some admitting defeat and in the eyes of others admitting being wrong. Those are both hard things for politicians. But if that doesn't happen the war on drugs will be the US equivalent of the war in Afghanistan for the Russians. Unwinnable, a continuous sapping of funds and energy that could go to better uses.
In the meantime we rely on people like this extremely brave woman that stood up for what was right, and I sincerely hope that those that are on the consuming side of the equation ('a man that needs a little help to dream') wise up and see that they are very much part of the problem and that they and everybody else fractionally kill people (sometimes even themselves) on a daily basis.
The drug trade is supremely ugly.
[+] [-] ripb|11 years ago|reply
I sincerely hope for America's sake that there's no substance to the claims that the CIA are working with these cartels.
[+] [-] Crito|11 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, nobody in this world has the combination of power, opportunity, and desire to take the CIA down for its crimes. They are the closest thing to a god that has ever existed; and organization that is profoundly beyond the grasp of society at large. They smite as they see fit, and there is nothing that can be done about it. Even if the American democratic system were functioning as designed/desired, the CIA would have ample opportunity to burn all of their records (as the Stasi unsuccessfully attempted). Black budgets (see:their involvement in the drugs trade) is one of their many insurance policies against accountability.
[+] [-] mjfl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javert|11 years ago|reply
The US properly has jurisdiction in Mexico only when necessary to protect Americans, and we seem to not have crossed that threshhold.
[+] [-] sidcool|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GhotiFish|11 years ago|reply
Use batman?
[+] [-] judk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afro88|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shorel|11 years ago|reply
Let's see what happens.
[+] [-] leeber|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VexXtreme|11 years ago|reply
Mexican cartels are known to have infiltrated ISPs, where they were able to tie IP addresses to identities. Using encryption is the only way.
EDIT: may I ask why the downvotes? Did I say something offensive or break the HN rules?
[+] [-] danso|11 years ago|reply
I would say that for some of these local journalists, you're correct in suspecting that their technical expertise isn't high...however, it's not easy to report on dangerous local conditions from outside that locality. For one thing, you've introduced another attack vector for a MITM attack -- between the local stringer and the international point-of-contact who then publishes the content.
But the bigger problem is this: the people most passionate about this kind of local reporting, well, they're passionate about it because it is in their town or neighborhood. It's generally not feasible to be a long-time resident (the type who really gives a shit about the terror that's going on in the neighborhood) and then uproot so that you can do reporting safely. For one thing, you're just not as connected to the events once you've left the area.
[+] [-] tomengland|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cynicalkane|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vacri|11 years ago|reply
Anyway, tor wouldn't have helped the woman in the article; she was found by them going through her local app.
[+] [-] shkkmo|11 years ago|reply
(Also upvoted you.)
[+] [-] Kiro|11 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
[+] [-] coldtea|11 years ago|reply
Unless, you know, the "outside country" is one participating in those surveillance schemes, like 5-eyes, and is in bed with your local goverment and not beyond sending a tip or two (or even supporting its own thugs acting on the ground in your country).
More or less like it has been throughtout the 20th century in Latin America.
[+] [-] tn13|11 years ago|reply
Instead of tweeting against the cartels she should have tried to build a bridge to their hearts, reach to the root cause of crime and should acted like a responsible citizen. She instead chose adventurism.
US is doing a great service to these people by continuing to have a drug-prohibition and letting their uneducated/unskilled labor get safe citizenship and welfare money at the expense of American taxpayers. She should have learned something from USA.
^^#sarcasm
I hope that she is safe.
[+] [-] rokhayakebe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WildUtah|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thefreeman|11 years ago|reply