3 ms·

Every person has the potential to be radicalised. You are suggesting surveillance to target thoughtcrime.

by aw3c2 11y ago

mercer 11y ago
While I agree that everyone has that potential in theory, it is much more likely for radicalization to occur among certain groups, third-generation muslim immigrants in particular. And perhaps in a broader sense targeting people in particular socio-economic groups might also be useful (jobless, young, low education,etc.). The way I see it, targeted surveillance of these at-risk groups should be possible, and specifically in relation to terrorism or extremism in general it might even be effective. There are volumes of studies on how radicalization occurs, or how cults work, and what problems are caused by jobless young men disconnected from society around them (both by upbringing and through various forms of racism/classism, hidden or otherwise). The process is not exactly mysterious. That said, I get the impression that there's a huge gap between what researchers know about these processes, and how this is used by police, 'neighborhood watchers', and schools, and possibly even intelligence agencies. I'll also add that regardless of how effective targeted surveillance might be, on a 'gut' level I feel uncomfortable with this scenario and would not be in favor of it. I can't quite articulate why at this point, but personally I'd still prefer not significantly changing our way of life over the, so far, infrequent terrorist attacks. Perhaps the best answer is to simply not let it phase us and continue with life. Most other solutions feel like (partly) playing into the hands of terrorists. But I don't think that's a realistic option, sadly, and perhaps it's easy for me to say these things without having felt the effects of such terrorist attacks personally.
- CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
  Maybe it's the same gut feeling I have. It's not the targeted survielence as such, but the consequences of institutionalize the process by which you select who should be monitored. It's one thing to monitor an individual you have good reasons to suspect are involved with a serious crime. Another to start monitoring people based on some vague selection criteria based on probability. I see two scary implementations of such a process 1. Machine Learning. Some algorithm monitoring as much data as possible ("it's not survielence no human is watching...") will select people to suspect. Lots of hard to diagnose false positives will get their life's destroyed. 2. Some arbitration process where people decide who to suspect. Even more false positives, and frankly miss use of power for political reasons. In both scenarios people will also start to become very anxious about having dissenting opinions, or non standard interests in fear of getting "flagged" by one of the above mechanisms. In the end the system won't be used to create a free world but as another weapon to wield by those happen to have the most influence at any given moment.

Every person has the potential to be radicalised. You are suggesting surveillance to target thoughtcrime.

by aw3c2 11y ago

Every person has the potential to be radicalised. You are suggesting surveillance to target thoughtcrime.

While I agree that everyone has that potential in theory, it is much more likely for radicalization to occur among certain groups, third-generation muslim immigrants in particular. And perhaps in a broader sense targeting people in particular socio-economic groups might also be useful (jobless, young, low education,etc.). The way I see it, targeted surveillance of these at-risk groups should be possible, and specifically in relation to terrorism or extremism in general it might even be effective. There are volumes of studies on how radicalization occurs, or how cults work, and what problems are caused by jobless young men disconnected from society around them (both by upbringing and through various forms of racism/classism, hidden or otherwise). The process is not exactly mysterious. That said, I get the impression that there's a huge gap between what researchers know about these processes, and how this is used by police, 'neighborhood watchers', and schools, and possibly even intelligence agencies. I'll also add that regardless of how effective targeted surveillance might be, on a 'gut' level I feel uncomfortable with this scenario and would not be in favor of it. I can't quite articulate why at this point, but personally I'd still prefer not significantly changing our way of life over the, so far, infrequent terrorist attacks. Perhaps the best answer is to simply not let it phase us and continue with life. Most other solutions feel like (partly) playing into the hands of terrorists. But I don't think that's a realistic option, sadly, and perhaps it's easy for me to say these things without having felt the effects of such terrorist attacks personally.

CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
Maybe it's the same gut feeling I have. It's not the targeted survielence as such, but the consequences of institutionalize the process by which you select who should be monitored. It's one thing to monitor an individual you have good reasons to suspect are involved with a serious crime. Another to start monitoring people based on some vague selection criteria based on probability. I see two scary implementations of such a process 1. Machine Learning. Some algorithm monitoring as much data as possible ("it's not survielence no human is watching...") will select people to suspect. Lots of hard to diagnose false positives will get their life's destroyed. 2. Some arbitration process where people decide who to suspect. Even more false positives, and frankly miss use of power for political reasons. In both scenarios people will also start to become very anxious about having dissenting opinions, or non standard interests in fear of getting "flagged" by one of the above mechanisms. In the end the system won't be used to create a free world but as another weapon to wield by those happen to have the most influence at any given moment.