3 ms·

Ok, (edit: not new. Idk why I said new.) New conspiracy theory: the attacks were allowed to happen (not intentionally caused, just allowed to happen, or perhaps

by drdeca 11y ago

Ok, (edit: not new. Idk why I said new.) New conspiracy theory: the attacks were allowed to happen (not intentionally caused, just allowed to happen, or perhaps just not worked quite as hard to prevent) in order to get public support for further government powers. It's known that governments have had plans as to how to get support from a tragedy if one happens. Is it that far fetched that preventing tragedies which are more likely but have a benefit to them for the government, would be considered at a somewhat lower priority than one which is less likely, but does not have any side benefit for the government? Now, I'm not claiming that this is the case, not really, but it is something that comes to mind, and the most likely version of it does not seem that absurd?

beedogs 11y ago
We'll know you're right when they strong-arm Apple et al into providing backdoors to their encryption. (Which will of course do absolutely nothing at all to stop people from obtaining and using strong crypto.)
jusben1369 11y ago
Is this really a new conspiracy theory? This is pretty much the same thing we hear after any major terrorist attack.
- drdeca 11y ago
  Yes, that's true. I suppose it isn't new. I guess it's new in the sense that it was applied to a particular attack, but that's not really a great reason to call it new. Good point. However, I do think the minimal form of it I expressed in a way that seemed more likely than most of the time I see it?
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
As another commenter mentioned, that's an old conspiracy theory. It's already being discussed in the press (see link below). It's problematic that even when you have a growing surveillance state, the state has less incentive to act to protect or attempt to prevent attacks on "soft targets" ie: the public at large even when they have solid information supporting an imminent attack. Or worded a bit more strongly, a state hoping to garner support for more sweeping anti-civil liberties measures has an incentive to allow such attacks to happen even when they could be prevented. As a practical matter of how this could occur, a small group of intelligence analysts could selectively withhold important information from decision makers, or decision makers could selectively ignore key pieces of information. Either can get you the result of allowing an attack while leaving plausible excuses as to why it wasn't deliberate. http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/paris-attacks-raises-questions-about-what-french-authorities http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/paris-attacks-raises-quest...

by drdeca 11y ago

beedogs 11y ago

We'll know you're right when they strong-arm Apple et al into providing backdoors to their encryption. (Which will of course do absolutely nothing at all to stop people from obtaining and using strong crypto.)

jusben1369 11y ago

Is this really a new conspiracy theory? This is pretty much the same thing we hear after any major terrorist attack.

drdeca 11y ago
Yes, that's true. I suppose it isn't new. I guess it's new in the sense that it was applied to a particular attack, but that's not really a great reason to call it new. Good point. However, I do think the minimal form of it I expressed in a way that seemed more likely than most of the time I see it?

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

As another commenter mentioned, that's an old conspiracy theory. It's already being discussed in the press (see link below). It's problematic that even when you have a growing surveillance state, the state has less incentive to act to protect or attempt to prevent attacks on "soft targets" ie: the public at large even when they have solid information supporting an imminent attack. Or worded a bit more strongly, a state hoping to garner support for more sweeping anti-civil liberties measures has an incentive to allow such attacks to happen even when they could be prevented. As a practical matter of how this could occur, a small group of intelligence analysts could selectively withhold important information from decision makers, or decision makers could selectively ignore key pieces of information. Either can get you the result of allowing an attack while leaving plausible excuses as to why it wasn't deliberate. http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/paris-attacks-raises-questions-about-what-french-authorities http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/paris-attacks-raises-quest...