10 ms·

After Paris Attacks, C.I.A. Director Rekindles Debate Over Surveillance

89 points by dankohn1 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago
So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. Pity. But if anything the attacks prove that the whole surveillance thing isn't effective, not that we need even more of it. After all if a bunch of lowlifes and assholes are capable of setting this up without any triggers in spite of some of them already being in police databases for activities related to terrorism then clearly that approach is bankrupt. So, thanks for the 'rekindling', now please shut it down. And divert those funds to old fashioned policework, which seems to have worked pretty good in the past (RAF, IRA etc).
- CIPHERSTONE 11y ago
  Everyone talks about how this was orchestrated by some masterminds. What am I missing? Nine assholes get together in a room and decided to hit nine different places at X time. How hard is it to synchronize watch times?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Among other things you might be missing are the reports that Iraqi intelligence had warned Western governments shortly before the attacks that they had information, non-specific as to the target, of attacks ordered in one or more Western nations involved in anti-IS operations by the IS to be carried out imminently. [0] Its not that attacks like this could not be carried out locally without a remote command, its that there are reports of specific information indicating that this was not carried out locally without a remote command. [0] e.g., http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.686257 http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.686257
    - CIPHERSTONE 11y ago
      But that's not addressing the statement that the attacks themselves were masterminded. It just seems to sensationalize it.
  - tertius 11y ago
    I agree completely. "Masterminded" or "sophisticated" would be to assassinate Hollande in the stadium. There does not seem to be a very strong "theme" in the attack, which would have been sophisticated, like targeting predominantly Jewish population, or a group that offended the Islamic fundamentalist sensibilities.
  - matwood 11y ago
    That makes sense with 1 or 2 people, but when you start talking about 9+ people willing to blow themselves up that typically requires some prodding. Then there is target selection, and bomb making abilities. I know the bombs were 'simple' in relative terms, but making that many for the first time means they were very lucky or someone experienced helped. They also needed money for guns and other equipment.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      For bombs and guns a simple dead-drop would do.
  - wwayer 11y ago
    That's right: nine assholes IN A ROOM. You'd have to be stupid to plan something like this online, even with encryption. For one, the implementation of the encryption could be wrong. Second, the computer on which the encryption is running could be compromised.
- josefresco 11y ago
  How is this politicizing exactly? Is CIA directory John Brennan running for an office that I'm unaware? It seems his commentary on surveillance is pretty relevant to the discussion here. Also, "being in a database" is not enough and doesn't point to the failure of the concept of surveillance. In fact, it points to the failure to properly surveil.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    It's politicizing because he would very much like to roll back on the restrictions on his apparatus placed post Snowden, in fact, Snowden is blamed for the attacks in the most thinly veiled way here. > Also, "being in a database" is not enough and doesn't point to the failure of the concept of surveillance. In fact, it points to the failure to properly surveil. Hence my suggestion to divert funds to the police rather than to the intelligence services.
    - josefresco 11y ago
      Those restrictions directly affect (in his opinion) his job. It's not like he's scoring points for his local constituents, or trying to nuke a bill sponsored by opponents from another political party. He's saying this "hand wringing" is having an impact - pretty obvious statement from someone in the direct position to know.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        Effectively he's saying 'If I had had my hands free these attacks might not have happened', and that's several bridges too far in my opinion. There is no proof that it would have made a difference, in fact with the tools currently at his disposal given the scope of these attacks it is fairly clear it just doesn't work. Those terrorist plots (real ones, not ones all but executed by the authorities) that were foiled were foiled either by coincidence or by personal bravery of one or two people that happened to be accidentally on the scene. Maybe, I'll concede that much, if a total surveillance state were operational where each and every one of us had a continuous cops eye following us attacks like these could be prevented. But that's in my opinion not world worth living in. Open societies are vulnerable to small numbers of assholes working in a coordinated fashion. And that's something that will be very hard to fix without changing that society for ever so let's not run down that path before the victims of these crimes are even in the ground and think things over for a bit.
- imgabe 11y ago
  There's also the problem that if the surveillance is effective, they (the CIA et. al.) still can't necessarily run out and stop everything they know about without tipping their hand about how much they know, causing the adversaries to change their strategy and rendering any future surveillance ineffective. So, they either need to wait for a truly catastrophic attack, or find a better way to foil attacks without making it look like they knew something they shouldn't have been able to know. That's of course, assuming it does work, which is probably pretty charitable.
  - lhc- 11y ago
    So, you're suggesting that if surveillance works, then they can't act. But also if it doesn't work, they can't act. It sounds like the American people would be better served spending that money elsewhere if it can't actually buy us anything.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > So, they either need to wait for a truly catastrophic attack This one could have been a lot worse. What are they waiting for then, a nuke in a football stadium?
- michael_fine 11y ago
  So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. This complaint has never quite sat right with me. This was, fundamentally, a political action -- a foreign "nation" (entity?) attacking another nation's civilians. It seems a pertinent time to have the debate on what should be done in response, as well as what preventative measures should be taken in the future -- even if you are vehemently against certain preventative measures.
  - koof 11y ago
    Here's an article that echoes this sentiment: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/paris-attacks-bataclan-hollande-beirut/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/paris-attacks-bataclan-ho...
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    This statement is about a career government official cynically using the murder of a large number of people for his own ends, just as the murderers cynically used those people for their ends. Yes, it's both political. But it doesn't do any good, what would do good rather than using this to hasten the big brother state to the next level would be to attack these problems at the root. But that would require an entirely different viewpoint, one which I'm not sure America is ready for because it would ask too many questions about deeds in the recent past. If anything a good case could be made for a link between the Iraq invasion and the murders in Paris, my guess is that if the one had not happened the other wouldn't have happened either, but that's just my opinion and not something that I can prove.
    - michael_fine 11y ago
      what would do good rather than using this to hasten the big brother state to the next level would be to attack these problems at the root This certainly is a valid point, but here you're complaining that he took the wrong political action, not that he took a political action.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
- sz4kerto 11y ago
  French intelligence complained about too strict legal framework and lack of resources. French people are really sensitive when it comes to their individual freedom and don't want surveillance state.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  This isn't directed at you in particular, I've always found the idea that there must be some enforced waiting period between a horrible thing happening, and the response to that thing, to be a bit nonsensical. For instance, any time there's a shooting, the respective pro/anti gun control folks start at each other with things like "the blood hasn't even dried yet!" Okay, so? If the argument were for ensuring decisions were made with a cool head, I could understand that, but it never is, usually it's an attempt to make a non-sequitur snipe at the other side for their sincerely held beliefs. The alternative to there not being a "time to politicize the attacks" is that the government doesn't act on them; which is absurd.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Knee jerk legislation gets you eg the Dangerous Dogs Act (England), or now even more sweeping privacy invasions (UK and US).
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      There are many better ways to argue for putting thought into legislation than taking potshots at people's debating positions. The idea that something "shouldn't be politicized" is another way of saying that the government should never do anything about it. Get two people in a room talking about something, and you've got politics - moreso when we're talking about laws. "The blood hasn't even dried yet!" - meaningless, emotionally manipulative pap. "We should think long and hard before making knee-jerk decisions" - sanity.
- ebbv 11y ago
  First let me say I agree that mass surveillance is wrong and even if it did help, I wouldn't support it. But, the attitude that our side tends to have towards people who believe surveillance is worthwhile is not helpful. Responses like this are not constructive: > So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. Pity. Believe it or not the people pushing for surveillance are not villains out of a movie or TV show. They see a tragedy like Paris and they really believe that more surveillance would help prevent these kinds of things in the future. They may be misguided and wrong from our perspective, but that doesn't make them evil. When it comes to political issues it's very helpful if you can avoid reducing your opponents to caricatures. Usually they are motivated by the same thing you are; they want to fix a problem. It's just they disagree about the solution, or sometimes even what the problem is. And either way complaining about people you disagree with "politicizing" a tragedy is absurd. Immediately after the tragedy is exactly the time we should be taking steps to prevent it in the future.
  - clockwerx 11y ago
    The problem is I think you will find that no one thinks they are doing evil; yet their actions end up causing more harm than good. Stanford prison experiment, Milgram, etc show this ability to rationalize and do things socially unacceptable in an every day context. We collectively need to discuss what is right and wrong; point out gaps and bias, and opt for most benefit/least harm. Mass surveillance/security theatre appears to have high cost, little benefit and negative consequences for those its meant to protect.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Believe it or not the people pushing for surveillance are not villains out of a movie or TV show. They see a tragedy like Paris and they really believe that more surveillance would help prevent these kinds of things in the future. Having the character genuinely believe that their harmful actions will serve the greater good is pretty much the most frequent advice to writing believable villains in any context, including for movies or TV shows. > Immediately after the tragedy is exactly the time we should be taking steps to prevent it in the future. Immediately after the tragedy is when we should start taking steps to understand why it happened, and how (and at what costs) similar tragedies could be prevented. Jumping based on emotionally-driven haste into steps intended to prevent recurrence without due consideration is a great way to maximize the effect of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and to prove the adage about the paving material used in the road to perdition.
- daenz 11y ago
  > So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. Pity. You're disparaging Brennan for taking a political stance on the issue, then in the same breath also taking a political stance about the issue ("Shut it down, this proves it's ineffective!").
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. The attacks are inherently political, they can't be "politicized". Now, its true that they are being exploited to push positions that those pointing to them were pushing long before the attacks, but it only makes sense to call that "politicizing" an event when the event itself isn't political to start with (and, even them, "politicizing" isn't really the issue, what these critiques usually try to do -- but only by implication -- is to suggest that the use of the event in the policy debate is disingenuous or shallow.)
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Would you settle for 'agenda pushing'?
- ck2 11y ago
  More politics: there are a dozen states in the USA that have declared today "we refuse to take any Syrian refugees" So yes, Daesh/ISIS/ISIL has won already, this is EXACTLY what they wanted, the western world to reject refugees.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > More politics: there are a dozen states in the USA that have declared today "we refuse to take any Syrian refugees" There are a number of state governors that have said that, which might actually mean something, if the US Constitution allowed state governors the authority to make that kind of decision, rather than reserving it exclusively for the federal government.
    - ck2 11y ago
      If the governors can find a way to refuse health insurance to millions of their residents to spite the feds, they can certainly "refuse" refugees by some method, if only holding it up in courts for a year or two.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > If the governors can find a way to refuse health insurance to millions of their residents to spite the feds, they can certainly "refuse" refugees by some method, if only holding it up in courts for a year or two. Well, holding it up in courts has them losing until a decision is made, since they don't have actual physical control of immigration (this is sort of the opposite of the case with Medicaid expansion, where they had to actively do something to achieve it, and so, even if the cases challenging it hadn't been decided before the mandate went into effect, they could have effectively stalled it until the a decision.)
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    The newspapers here run polls with leading titles such as 'Do you think we should close the borders for further refugees after the Paris attacks?'... Geert Wilders jumped up another couple of seats after the attack and Islamofobia is on the rise. We're doing just great, it's almost as if we've partnered up with IS on some aspects of their agenda.
- rudolf0 11y ago
  A few specific attack failures does not necessarily mean bulk signals intelligence is useless. Frankly, both regular policework (HUMINT, usually) and SIGINT have to be employed. The question is how to limit the SIGINT so you're actually ethically collecting and analyzing what matters and what directly concerns a target, rather than slurping up everything and storing it for later scanning or "just in case".
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    It is useless against small numbers of dedicated fanatics who are willing to give up their lives to murder defenseless people. See also: Boston, Bali, 9/11, Paris and many more. Even if some get caught they will adapt their tactics until they get through. An effective response would/should take a different tack than just more surveillance of the whole population.
- mc32 11y ago
  I don't think you can conclude the attacks are proof that surveillance has failed unless you know with certainty surveillance has failed at stopping most attacks. Surveillance organs could have stopped anywhere from zero attacks to all but the ones we've witnessed. That's not to say surveillance is the answer, but its saying it may be an answer depending on effectiveness and our willingness to make this bargain.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    With the amount of fanfare surrounding those attacks that were foiled where the government all but helped push the trigger you can bet that if there were more we'd hear about them, they are desperate for justifications for their activities and nothing would help them more than foiling a major plot like the one that just killed a large number of people. See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist... It does not look as if the Snowden revelations have made America any less safe.
    - mc32 11y ago
      So do you think the lack of fireworks since the London and Madrid attacks are more about the terrorists being lazy and not wanting to attack rather than their being foiled?
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        If they're half-way clever about it they'll hit in places that are perceived as 'soft'. Note that this is the second attack on Paris. The UK is a harder target because you have to cross a border that is not as easy to traverse as a road and the Spanish police has gotten a lot more 'up-close-and-personal' with wanna-be terrorists than they were before. Belgium it turns out is an easy place to hide for these characters and that's one reason I suspect Amsterdam would be more likely than Madrid simply because it is physically a lot closer. It is also why I doubt the effectiveness of the 'double screening' for airline passengers announced today, none of these guys traveled by plane. Even so, that doesn't rule out another attack in Spain - or even Madrid - nor does it rule out an attack in London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen or anywhere else in the Schengen zone. Weapons and easily radicalized youths aplenty. It's a matter of time before the next attack, but that doesn't mean we should sit still. It means the plan of attack needs to change, possibly radically so, but not after sufficient reflection on why the current approach does not appear to work as well as it should.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > And divert those funds to old fashioned policework Not just policework, intelligence with covert agents. That's what most intelligence agencies have been giving up in favor of electronic surveillance, and we see now how ineffective it is.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Yes, that's a very good point. But it is so much more dangerous and hard than splicing into some fiber optic cable. It also requires more manpower.
- carterehsmith 11y ago
  I don't think it is that simple. Just assume that you yourself is a government official like a Brennan. So, people expect you to protect them and make sure that no terrorist attacks happen. So, how exactly do you do that? You mention some formulas that "worked" in the past, I don't think they worked - so many people died at the hands of RAF and IRA. And the times have changed, some of these old formulas do not work anymore - people can communicate without meeting in person. So, what do you propose Brennan should do? Honest question.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    I propose that he openly admits failure to do much about this sort of attack in the little window of time remaining between the activation of some terrorist cell and their actual attack. The effect of that admission would be that he would be replaced by someone who would claim the opposite, that it is of course possible to do something. The whole problem lies in the timing and the fact that our societies are extremely easy to attack by a bunch of cowards with machine guns. That there is no simple last minute defense - a silver bullet if you wish - is a harsh reality but one that we're going to have to deal with if we really want to solve this problem. So my suggestion - also made elsewhere in this thread - is to concentrate on the formative years of these people, rather than on the last two days of their lives. I suspect (but obviously can not prove) that that would be a far more fruitful, if less spectacular and less financially lucrative, avenue. Once someone has made up their mind to harm society it is extremely hard to stop them.
    - carterehsmith 11y ago
      I agree that we should "concentrate on the formative years of these people". But the thing is, it comes with the disclaimer that, it will take 15 or more years to work, and we don't really know that it will work at all. And nobody will get elected on the 15-year promise when there is a boatload of other candidates that promise an easy fix. Anyways, my point is, that government official has this, damned if you do, and damned if you don't, position. It is not clear at all what he (rather, we) should do.
mhurron 11y ago
Never let a crisis go to waste.
- mhurron 11y ago
  My goodness, has no one else ever heard that before? http://www.perc.org/blog/rahms-rule-never-let-serious-crisis-go-waste http://www.perc.org/blog/rahms-rule-never-let-serious-crisis... And further - "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Rahm Emanuel Before the bodies were cold, multiple mouth pieces were blaming encryption for the attacks. This is exactly what the quote was talking about. https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-actual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-abou...
asquabventured 11y ago
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." -- Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff January 20, 2009 – October 1, 2010 "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin - 11 November 1755
- josefresco 11y ago
  ...said in reference to the financial crisis, on the topic of regulation and reform. A lot less nefarious when you're talking about energy, health, education, tax policy, and regulatory reforms. He also went on to say "Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before." As for your (IMHO) cliché Franklin quote - that was in reference to a tax dispute. "He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it." sigh
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Genetic fallacy. That the quotes originated under particular circumstances does not invalidate them as generalities.
    - CyberDildonics 11y ago
      But it does take the weight away from them being a window into how politician's mind works. Without knowing the context it sounds like a politician stating outright what they seem to be doing all the time, which is exploiting a crisis to impose something that benefits few at the expense of many, while the context is the opposite. I'm sure politicians have this exact thought in either case, but the quote isn't the bullseye it might seem.
sbov 11y ago
"As far as I know, there’s no evidence the French lacked some kind of surveillance authority that would have made a difference" This is really all that should need to be said. Opportunists will jump on any event to push their own personal agenda, even if what they are pushing wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference in the outcome of said event.
- jfoutz 11y ago
  Perhaps we should donate copies of NSA software to our allies so they can protect themselves. </snark>
seibelj 11y ago
All the encryption tools needed are public and open source. Putting backdoors into Skype, iOS Messages, etc. isn't going to get terrorists.
Jerry2 11y ago
It's next to impossible to have privacy in societies where there are large swaths of population who want to do others harm. This is why privacy is doomed in "multicultural" societies.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  I assert that it is possible to have a multicultural society without having large swaths of population who want to do others harm.
  - Jerry2 11y ago
    There isn't a single one in the history of the world that lasted for long time. There's so much research out there that shows that multiculturalism is the root of conflicts. For example [0] and see references too. Just look at the current French republic and how that worked out for them. [1] [0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409 http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409 [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995821/Paris-attacks-have-put-a-dagger-through-the-heart-of-liberal-Europe.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1199...
    - cryoshon 11y ago
      What about the US, then? We have a form of multiculturalism where minorities are on average oppressed, but integrate rather than lash out (usually). I'm not saying we're a shining model or anything, but we have a ton of different cultures living together more or less harmoniously, even taking into account the habitual blacks vs whites squabble.
      - soylentcola 11y ago
        Humanity also has a pretty extensive history of conflict, even in more mono-cultural societies. Hell, you could take any mass of people, all from the same background, race, ethnicity, religion, etc (take your pick), put them on an island for a hundred years or two, and you'll get factions. You'll get people fighting over how they think the place ought to be run. You'll get people fighting over who gets what and why these guys have all this stuff and we have less stuff. If nothing else, it comes down to availability of resources and numbers of people (along the lines of Dunbar's number and all that). Sure, ethnicity, race, and religion are convenient signifiers of groups of people and usually when you have two or more groups with significantly different cultures, you've probably got two or more groups with some level of inequality and power imbalance so you're already halfway there. But even if you don't start out with cultural differences, they'll pop up eventually. Groups of people over a certain size will always have a harder time avoiding conflict when things get tough. It's almost in our nature to split into "us" and "them" just to manage it all.
norea-armozel 11y ago
Didn't the Iraqi government warn the French government that there was a plot to attack them a day before? I swore I read that on Google News.
- CardenB 11y ago
  Afaik, there were warning signs that authorities were aware of, but they didn't really have any idea what to actually expect. That's just what I've heard. Id appreciate if someone could come by with more info or a source.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
saturdaysaint 11y ago
Few states will countenance speed limit reductions that would reduce auto deaths that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, but we'll allow our basic rights out the window to prevent what looks like a rounding error on that? This absurdity is actually what's responsible for any of terrorism's effectiveness. It's basically a hack designed to provoke an absurd overreaction. On that count, it succeeded with flying colors in 2001 - I'm hopeful that we've learned enough in the intervening years (both in terms of the war and police state) to prevent repeating our mistakes.
- caskance 11y ago
  Most people value the ability to drive 5 mph faster more than they value the right to not be constantly monitored by the government. Sorry you had to find out this way.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    Do you have statistics that actually justify your statement? For some reason, I doubt that there has ever been a poll that directly seeks to determine whether more people care about speeding, or about surveillance overreaches. Without such a poll, this is just a meaningless appeal to the masses.
    - caskance 11y ago
      A poll would merely tell you what people say they value. What people actually value is apparent from reality.
      - rmxt 11y ago
        So your point is unfalsifiable? If you don't have evidence and accrued data, then your assertion seems like a point without value then. ("Sorry you had to find out this way.")
        caskance 11y ago
benevol 11y ago
He couldn't have been cheaper. This is how you make voters feel like stupid little kids.
narrator 11y ago
It's like a big linear regression. He is arguing for a higher surveillance coefficient to the societal equation. There are hidden variables though. Machine learning taught me a lot about politics.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
obrero 11y ago
During the Cold War Pravda said the US's military-industrial complex existed due to America's nascent imperialism. All mainstream talking heads, commentators etc. in the US said US military bases only ringed the world because of the threat of teh Soviet Union. Of course, when the USSR dissolved itself, NATO expanded east, and US bases didn't close, but open in countries it could not have been in before. As some Russians say "Everything the communists said about here was false, everything they said about the West is true". The militaruy-industrial complex has found its own form of product-market fit. Arm Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban to eliminate Afghanistan's seculat government. Work with the mullahs to overthrow Mossadegh's secular parliament in Iran. Arm Islamic fundamentalists to undermine Assad's Syrian government. Then put military bases in, and bomb in some of the countries in which these Arab nationalists live. Well after a decade of US military occupation of "Saudi" Arabia, and some decades of arming him against secular threats, Osama and company attacked the Pentagon etc. ISIS just responded to France's month long bombing campaign with bombs of their own. Then we're told we the people have to be spied on...when I was young Nixon was having burglars break into the Democratic campaign headquarters, then using the FBI to cover it up. The FBI which was bugging and intefering in Martin Luther King's campaign for all people in the US to get the freedoms which the law said we all were supposed to have. It's a self-reinforcing circle. What the hell does the US have military bases all over the world for? Not for any good purpose, I have as much suspicion of the US and French's governments intentions in Arab countries as the Arabs do.
- varjag 11y ago
  > Of course, when the USSR dissolved itself, NATO expanded east, and US bases didn't close, but open in countries it could not have been in before. A number of U.S. bases and installations did shut down, and no U.S. bases in newly joined NATO states were established.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > Well after a decade of US military occupation of "Saudi" Arabia... Having a base in a foreign country is not the same as an occupation - especially when the base is there with the permission of the foreign country, because they want your support against other foreign countries.
ck2 11y ago
What worries me most is Hillary is going to give all these agencies a blank check. We might not find out what horrors they've done to "protect us" until late next decade.
makecheck 11y ago
If "secure" communication schemes are made insecure, other methods will be used. For example, while it may be inconvenient for two people to drive halfway across town and meet face-to-face in a dark warehouse, they'd have no problem doing that if it was the only way to ensure secret communications. Especially when they're planning events that might take weeks or months to unfold, what's an extra 30 minutes of driving? If you invest billions in surveillance, you will only achieve two things: having spent billions, and making sure that criminals communicate in some other way. You will have stopped no crimes, except the people who are stupid enough that they would have been caught anyway.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Apparently they used playstations...
carsongross 11y ago
Like many modern movements, the surveillance state thrives on its failures, which makes it nearly impossible to defeat.
- x1798DE 11y ago
  I think it is a bit dangerous to consider this a failure of the surveillance state. One fundamental problem is that intelligence agencies are seen as having been given or having taken on the impossible task of preventing any political violence. While it's understandable to think that they have failed at this, given that the task is impossible, it's probably not a good idea to last the failure at their feet.
Guthur 11y ago
Unless the French intelligent services were picking on people at random they already had information on the people they should be watching as evidenced by the immediate sweeps in the aftermath. In many of these attacks the individuals are well known to the police and security services as they often have criminal backgrounds and have been in prison or custody of some kind. So either they are some sort of criminal masterminds, which I doubt, or the security services are completely inept even when they have a wealth of information or something more sinister. So in my mind more intrusive intelligence is not really the answer.
marricks 11y ago
I just submitted a link to an article about this, but since it didn't get any traction I'll place it here. I think it best represents the opposing side's argument (against surveillance): https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-actual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-abou... Here's an excerpt, > One key premise here seems to be that prior to the Snowden reporting, The Terrorists helpfully and stupidly used telephones and unencrypted emails to plot, so Western governments were able to track their plotting and disrupt at least large-scale attacks. That would come as a massive surprise to the victims of the attacks of 2002 in Bali, 2004 in Madrid, 2005 in London, 2008 in Mumbai, and April 2013 at the Boston Marathon. How did the multiple perpetrators of those well-coordinated attacks — all of which were carried out prior to Snowden’s June 2013 revelations — hide their communications from detection?
ChuckMcM 11y ago
This isn't really too surprising, nearly all Law Enforcement agencies have been using these as a pretense to undermine civil rights. And the argument is just as broken for crypto as it is for guns, people who are going to use a tool for ill, will do so regardless of laws disallowing such use. And while it would be possible to force vendors to put back doors in phones, it doesn't prevent anyone from sideloading a crypto app. One of the best counter factuals for this debate is that our terrorists are using high explosives in suicide belts and fully automatic AK47's in their acts. Both of those things are supposed to be "impossible" to get by non-authorized personnel and yet they are. Those physical things have to move through channels that the authorities already have the right to search and seize (trans-border crossings) so why not fix that problem? It is a sad situation, and I mourn for the people of Paris and all the people and in the future who have been and will be killed by extremists. But that pales in comparison to how much I mourn for the death of a free and equal society with guaranteed human rights.
Elizer0x0309 11y ago
Short term good, catastrophic long term. Much rather we tackle social issues foreign and domestic. For one, let's stop using violence to solve other people's problems. Violence is only justified in defense, as they're invading us. Everything else should be through discussion in order to foster understanding and more importantly: empathy.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > Violence is only justified in defense, as they're invading us. How about when they're shooting up our cities without invading us?
theklub 11y ago
Obviously the world will be 100% monitored in everything we do. Unless there are big changes in the government there is no stopping it.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I'm not ready to concede that just yet, just like I'm not ready to concede that even though it is trivial for a bunch of people to acquire arms and to commit mass murder that there is nothing that can be done to put a spanner in their works long before they are even aware of that particular possibility. Because if we do not solve this problem Europe will have a major civil war on its hands somewhere in the next two decades.
davidf18 11y ago
The French should consider consulting the Israeli's who have probably the most experience combatting Islamic terror. The Israelis are good at both hi-tech and HUMINT and doubtless other countries could benefit from their expertise, if they don't already. However, it is noteworthy that in the end, the Israelis had to build a security fence around their country in order to combat terror. But this was for combating terrorists from outside the country. Several of these French terrorist were French citizens and as such the Israeli the French could benefit from Israeli assistance.
godgod 11y ago
What took Brennan so long? I mean the blood in Paris was starting to dry. Isn't this all so predictable?
ccvannorman 11y ago
Saying that surveillance doesn't stop all terrorists so we should stop surveillance is like saying police don't stop all crimes so we should get rid of police.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Not all surveillance is bad but dragnet style surveillance of each and every person (abroad, because of course nobody would ever spy on American citizens) is apparently in-effective. Targeted surveillance could be an extremely effective tool against terrorism. As would be the more old-fashioned style operations (but with much more personal risk for those involved).

89 points by dankohn1 11y ago

So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. Pity. But if anything the attacks prove that the whole surveillance thing isn't effective, not that we need even more of it. After all if a bunch of lowlifes and assholes are capable of setting this up without any triggers in spite of some of them already being in police databases for activities related to terrorism then clearly that approach is bankrupt. So, thanks for the 'rekindling', now please shut it down. And divert those funds to old fashioned policework, which seems to have worked pretty good in the past (RAF, IRA etc).

CIPHERSTONE 11y ago
Everyone talks about how this was orchestrated by some masterminds. What am I missing? Nine assholes get together in a room and decided to hit nine different places at X time. How hard is it to synchronize watch times?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Among other things you might be missing are the reports that Iraqi intelligence had warned Western governments shortly before the attacks that they had information, non-specific as to the target, of attacks ordered in one or more Western nations involved in anti-IS operations by the IS to be carried out imminently. [0] Its not that attacks like this could not be carried out locally without a remote command, its that there are reports of specific information indicating that this was not carried out locally without a remote command. [0] e.g., http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.686257 http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.686257
  - CIPHERSTONE 11y ago
    But that's not addressing the statement that the attacks themselves were masterminded. It just seems to sensationalize it.
- tertius 11y ago
  I agree completely. "Masterminded" or "sophisticated" would be to assassinate Hollande in the stadium. There does not seem to be a very strong "theme" in the attack, which would have been sophisticated, like targeting predominantly Jewish population, or a group that offended the Islamic fundamentalist sensibilities.
- matwood 11y ago
  That makes sense with 1 or 2 people, but when you start talking about 9+ people willing to blow themselves up that typically requires some prodding. Then there is target selection, and bomb making abilities. I know the bombs were 'simple' in relative terms, but making that many for the first time means they were very lucky or someone experienced helped. They also needed money for guns and other equipment.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    For bombs and guns a simple dead-drop would do.
- wwayer 11y ago
  That's right: nine assholes IN A ROOM. You'd have to be stupid to plan something like this online, even with encryption. For one, the implementation of the encryption could be wrong. Second, the computer on which the encryption is running could be compromised.
josefresco 11y ago
How is this politicizing exactly? Is CIA directory John Brennan running for an office that I'm unaware? It seems his commentary on surveillance is pretty relevant to the discussion here. Also, "being in a database" is not enough and doesn't point to the failure of the concept of surveillance. In fact, it points to the failure to properly surveil.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  It's politicizing because he would very much like to roll back on the restrictions on his apparatus placed post Snowden, in fact, Snowden is blamed for the attacks in the most thinly veiled way here. > Also, "being in a database" is not enough and doesn't point to the failure of the concept of surveillance. In fact, it points to the failure to properly surveil. Hence my suggestion to divert funds to the police rather than to the intelligence services.
  - josefresco 11y ago
    Those restrictions directly affect (in his opinion) his job. It's not like he's scoring points for his local constituents, or trying to nuke a bill sponsored by opponents from another political party. He's saying this "hand wringing" is having an impact - pretty obvious statement from someone in the direct position to know.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Effectively he's saying 'If I had had my hands free these attacks might not have happened', and that's several bridges too far in my opinion. There is no proof that it would have made a difference, in fact with the tools currently at his disposal given the scope of these attacks it is fairly clear it just doesn't work. Those terrorist plots (real ones, not ones all but executed by the authorities) that were foiled were foiled either by coincidence or by personal bravery of one or two people that happened to be accidentally on the scene. Maybe, I'll concede that much, if a total surveillance state were operational where each and every one of us had a continuous cops eye following us attacks like these could be prevented. But that's in my opinion not world worth living in. Open societies are vulnerable to small numbers of assholes working in a coordinated fashion. And that's something that will be very hard to fix without changing that society for ever so let's not run down that path before the victims of these crimes are even in the ground and think things over for a bit.
imgabe 11y ago
There's also the problem that if the surveillance is effective, they (the CIA et. al.) still can't necessarily run out and stop everything they know about without tipping their hand about how much they know, causing the adversaries to change their strategy and rendering any future surveillance ineffective. So, they either need to wait for a truly catastrophic attack, or find a better way to foil attacks without making it look like they knew something they shouldn't have been able to know. That's of course, assuming it does work, which is probably pretty charitable.
- lhc- 11y ago
  So, you're suggesting that if surveillance works, then they can't act. But also if it doesn't work, they can't act. It sounds like the American people would be better served spending that money elsewhere if it can't actually buy us anything.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > So, they either need to wait for a truly catastrophic attack This one could have been a lot worse. What are they waiting for then, a nuke in a football stadium?
michael_fine 11y ago
So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. This complaint has never quite sat right with me. This was, fundamentally, a political action -- a foreign "nation" (entity?) attacking another nation's civilians. It seems a pertinent time to have the debate on what should be done in response, as well as what preventative measures should be taken in the future -- even if you are vehemently against certain preventative measures.
- koof 11y ago
  Here's an article that echoes this sentiment: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/paris-attacks-bataclan-hollande-beirut/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/paris-attacks-bataclan-ho...
- jacquesm 11y ago
  This statement is about a career government official cynically using the murder of a large number of people for his own ends, just as the murderers cynically used those people for their ends. Yes, it's both political. But it doesn't do any good, what would do good rather than using this to hasten the big brother state to the next level would be to attack these problems at the root. But that would require an entirely different viewpoint, one which I'm not sure America is ready for because it would ask too many questions about deeds in the recent past. If anything a good case could be made for a link between the Iraq invasion and the murders in Paris, my guess is that if the one had not happened the other wouldn't have happened either, but that's just my opinion and not something that I can prove.
  - michael_fine 11y ago
    what would do good rather than using this to hasten the big brother state to the next level would be to attack these problems at the root This certainly is a valid point, but here you're complaining that he took the wrong political action, not that he took a political action.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
sz4kerto 11y ago
French intelligence complained about too strict legal framework and lack of resources. French people are really sensitive when it comes to their individual freedom and don't want surveillance state.
Karunamon 11y ago
This isn't directed at you in particular, I've always found the idea that there must be some enforced waiting period between a horrible thing happening, and the response to that thing, to be a bit nonsensical. For instance, any time there's a shooting, the respective pro/anti gun control folks start at each other with things like "the blood hasn't even dried yet!" Okay, so? If the argument were for ensuring decisions were made with a cool head, I could understand that, but it never is, usually it's an attempt to make a non-sequitur snipe at the other side for their sincerely held beliefs. The alternative to there not being a "time to politicize the attacks" is that the government doesn't act on them; which is absurd.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Knee jerk legislation gets you eg the Dangerous Dogs Act (England), or now even more sweeping privacy invasions (UK and US).
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    There are many better ways to argue for putting thought into legislation than taking potshots at people's debating positions. The idea that something "shouldn't be politicized" is another way of saying that the government should never do anything about it. Get two people in a room talking about something, and you've got politics - moreso when we're talking about laws. "The blood hasn't even dried yet!" - meaningless, emotionally manipulative pap. "We should think long and hard before making knee-jerk decisions" - sanity.
ebbv 11y ago
First let me say I agree that mass surveillance is wrong and even if it did help, I wouldn't support it. But, the attitude that our side tends to have towards people who believe surveillance is worthwhile is not helpful. Responses like this are not constructive: > So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. Pity. Believe it or not the people pushing for surveillance are not villains out of a movie or TV show. They see a tragedy like Paris and they really believe that more surveillance would help prevent these kinds of things in the future. They may be misguided and wrong from our perspective, but that doesn't make them evil. When it comes to political issues it's very helpful if you can avoid reducing your opponents to caricatures. Usually they are motivated by the same thing you are; they want to fix a problem. It's just they disagree about the solution, or sometimes even what the problem is. And either way complaining about people you disagree with "politicizing" a tragedy is absurd. Immediately after the tragedy is exactly the time we should be taking steps to prevent it in the future.
- clockwerx 11y ago
  The problem is I think you will find that no one thinks they are doing evil; yet their actions end up causing more harm than good. Stanford prison experiment, Milgram, etc show this ability to rationalize and do things socially unacceptable in an every day context. We collectively need to discuss what is right and wrong; point out gaps and bias, and opt for most benefit/least harm. Mass surveillance/security theatre appears to have high cost, little benefit and negative consequences for those its meant to protect.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Believe it or not the people pushing for surveillance are not villains out of a movie or TV show. They see a tragedy like Paris and they really believe that more surveillance would help prevent these kinds of things in the future. Having the character genuinely believe that their harmful actions will serve the greater good is pretty much the most frequent advice to writing believable villains in any context, including for movies or TV shows. > Immediately after the tragedy is exactly the time we should be taking steps to prevent it in the future. Immediately after the tragedy is when we should start taking steps to understand why it happened, and how (and at what costs) similar tragedies could be prevented. Jumping based on emotionally-driven haste into steps intended to prevent recurrence without due consideration is a great way to maximize the effect of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and to prove the adage about the paving material used in the road to perdition.
daenz 11y ago
> So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. Pity. You're disparaging Brennan for taking a political stance on the issue, then in the same breath also taking a political stance about the issue ("Shut it down, this proves it's ineffective!").
dragonwriter 11y ago
> So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. The attacks are inherently political, they can't be "politicized". Now, its true that they are being exploited to push positions that those pointing to them were pushing long before the attacks, but it only makes sense to call that "politicizing" an event when the event itself isn't political to start with (and, even them, "politicizing" isn't really the issue, what these critiques usually try to do -- but only by implication -- is to suggest that the use of the event in the policy debate is disingenuous or shallow.)
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Would you settle for 'agenda pushing'?
ck2 11y ago
More politics: there are a dozen states in the USA that have declared today "we refuse to take any Syrian refugees" So yes, Daesh/ISIS/ISIL has won already, this is EXACTLY what they wanted, the western world to reject refugees.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > More politics: there are a dozen states in the USA that have declared today "we refuse to take any Syrian refugees" There are a number of state governors that have said that, which might actually mean something, if the US Constitution allowed state governors the authority to make that kind of decision, rather than reserving it exclusively for the federal government.
  - ck2 11y ago
    If the governors can find a way to refuse health insurance to millions of their residents to spite the feds, they can certainly "refuse" refugees by some method, if only holding it up in courts for a year or two.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > If the governors can find a way to refuse health insurance to millions of their residents to spite the feds, they can certainly "refuse" refugees by some method, if only holding it up in courts for a year or two. Well, holding it up in courts has them losing until a decision is made, since they don't have actual physical control of immigration (this is sort of the opposite of the case with Medicaid expansion, where they had to actively do something to achieve it, and so, even if the cases challenging it hadn't been decided before the mandate went into effect, they could have effectively stalled it until the a decision.)
- jacquesm 11y ago
  The newspapers here run polls with leading titles such as 'Do you think we should close the borders for further refugees after the Paris attacks?'... Geert Wilders jumped up another couple of seats after the attack and Islamofobia is on the rise. We're doing just great, it's almost as if we've partnered up with IS on some aspects of their agenda.
rudolf0 11y ago
A few specific attack failures does not necessarily mean bulk signals intelligence is useless. Frankly, both regular policework (HUMINT, usually) and SIGINT have to be employed. The question is how to limit the SIGINT so you're actually ethically collecting and analyzing what matters and what directly concerns a target, rather than slurping up everything and storing it for later scanning or "just in case".
- jacquesm 11y ago
  It is useless against small numbers of dedicated fanatics who are willing to give up their lives to murder defenseless people. See also: Boston, Bali, 9/11, Paris and many more. Even if some get caught they will adapt their tactics until they get through. An effective response would/should take a different tack than just more surveillance of the whole population.
mc32 11y ago
I don't think you can conclude the attacks are proof that surveillance has failed unless you know with certainty surveillance has failed at stopping most attacks. Surveillance organs could have stopped anywhere from zero attacks to all but the ones we've witnessed. That's not to say surveillance is the answer, but its saying it may be an answer depending on effectiveness and our willingness to make this bargain.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  With the amount of fanfare surrounding those attacks that were foiled where the government all but helped push the trigger you can bet that if there were more we'd hear about them, they are desperate for justifications for their activities and nothing would help them more than foiling a major plot like the one that just killed a large number of people. See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist... It does not look as if the Snowden revelations have made America any less safe.
  - mc32 11y ago
    So do you think the lack of fireworks since the London and Madrid attacks are more about the terrorists being lazy and not wanting to attack rather than their being foiled?
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      If they're half-way clever about it they'll hit in places that are perceived as 'soft'. Note that this is the second attack on Paris. The UK is a harder target because you have to cross a border that is not as easy to traverse as a road and the Spanish police has gotten a lot more 'up-close-and-personal' with wanna-be terrorists than they were before. Belgium it turns out is an easy place to hide for these characters and that's one reason I suspect Amsterdam would be more likely than Madrid simply because it is physically a lot closer. It is also why I doubt the effectiveness of the 'double screening' for airline passengers announced today, none of these guys traveled by plane. Even so, that doesn't rule out another attack in Spain - or even Madrid - nor does it rule out an attack in London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen or anywhere else in the Schengen zone. Weapons and easily radicalized youths aplenty. It's a matter of time before the next attack, but that doesn't mean we should sit still. It means the plan of attack needs to change, possibly radically so, but not after sufficient reflection on why the current approach does not appear to work as well as it should.
ekianjo 11y ago
> And divert those funds to old fashioned policework Not just policework, intelligence with covert agents. That's what most intelligence agencies have been giving up in favor of electronic surveillance, and we see now how ineffective it is.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Yes, that's a very good point. But it is so much more dangerous and hard than splicing into some fiber optic cable. It also requires more manpower.
carterehsmith 11y ago
I don't think it is that simple. Just assume that you yourself is a government official like a Brennan. So, people expect you to protect them and make sure that no terrorist attacks happen. So, how exactly do you do that? You mention some formulas that "worked" in the past, I don't think they worked - so many people died at the hands of RAF and IRA. And the times have changed, some of these old formulas do not work anymore - people can communicate without meeting in person. So, what do you propose Brennan should do? Honest question.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I propose that he openly admits failure to do much about this sort of attack in the little window of time remaining between the activation of some terrorist cell and their actual attack. The effect of that admission would be that he would be replaced by someone who would claim the opposite, that it is of course possible to do something. The whole problem lies in the timing and the fact that our societies are extremely easy to attack by a bunch of cowards with machine guns. That there is no simple last minute defense - a silver bullet if you wish - is a harsh reality but one that we're going to have to deal with if we really want to solve this problem. So my suggestion - also made elsewhere in this thread - is to concentrate on the formative years of these people, rather than on the last two days of their lives. I suspect (but obviously can not prove) that that would be a far more fruitful, if less spectacular and less financially lucrative, avenue. Once someone has made up their mind to harm society it is extremely hard to stop them.
  - carterehsmith 11y ago
    I agree that we should "concentrate on the formative years of these people". But the thing is, it comes with the disclaimer that, it will take 15 or more years to work, and we don't really know that it will work at all. And nobody will get elected on the 15-year promise when there is a boatload of other candidates that promise an easy fix. Anyways, my point is, that government official has this, damned if you do, and damned if you don't, position. It is not clear at all what he (rather, we) should do.

mhurron 11y ago

Never let a crisis go to waste.

mhurron 11y ago
My goodness, has no one else ever heard that before? http://www.perc.org/blog/rahms-rule-never-let-serious-crisis-go-waste http://www.perc.org/blog/rahms-rule-never-let-serious-crisis... And further - "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Rahm Emanuel Before the bodies were cold, multiple mouth pieces were blaming encryption for the attacks. This is exactly what the quote was talking about. https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-actual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-abou...

asquabventured 11y ago

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." -- Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff January 20, 2009 – October 1, 2010 "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin - 11 November 1755

josefresco 11y ago
...said in reference to the financial crisis, on the topic of regulation and reform. A lot less nefarious when you're talking about energy, health, education, tax policy, and regulatory reforms. He also went on to say "Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before." As for your (IMHO) cliché Franklin quote - that was in reference to a tax dispute. "He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it." sigh
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Genetic fallacy. That the quotes originated under particular circumstances does not invalidate them as generalities.
  - CyberDildonics 11y ago
    But it does take the weight away from them being a window into how politician's mind works. Without knowing the context it sounds like a politician stating outright what they seem to be doing all the time, which is exploiting a crisis to impose something that benefits few at the expense of many, while the context is the opposite. I'm sure politicians have this exact thought in either case, but the quote isn't the bullseye it might seem.

sbov 11y ago

"As far as I know, there’s no evidence the French lacked some kind of surveillance authority that would have made a difference" This is really all that should need to be said. Opportunists will jump on any event to push their own personal agenda, even if what they are pushing wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference in the outcome of said event.

jfoutz 11y ago
Perhaps we should donate copies of NSA software to our allies so they can protect themselves. </snark>

seibelj 11y ago

All the encryption tools needed are public and open source. Putting backdoors into Skype, iOS Messages, etc. isn't going to get terrorists.

Jerry2 11y ago

It's next to impossible to have privacy in societies where there are large swaths of population who want to do others harm. This is why privacy is doomed in "multicultural" societies.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
I assert that it is possible to have a multicultural society without having large swaths of population who want to do others harm.
- Jerry2 11y ago
  There isn't a single one in the history of the world that lasted for long time. There's so much research out there that shows that multiculturalism is the root of conflicts. For example [0] and see references too. Just look at the current French republic and how that worked out for them. [1] [0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409 http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409 [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995821/Paris-attacks-have-put-a-dagger-through-the-heart-of-liberal-Europe.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1199...
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    What about the US, then? We have a form of multiculturalism where minorities are on average oppressed, but integrate rather than lash out (usually). I'm not saying we're a shining model or anything, but we have a ton of different cultures living together more or less harmoniously, even taking into account the habitual blacks vs whites squabble.
    - soylentcola 11y ago
      Humanity also has a pretty extensive history of conflict, even in more mono-cultural societies. Hell, you could take any mass of people, all from the same background, race, ethnicity, religion, etc (take your pick), put them on an island for a hundred years or two, and you'll get factions. You'll get people fighting over how they think the place ought to be run. You'll get people fighting over who gets what and why these guys have all this stuff and we have less stuff. If nothing else, it comes down to availability of resources and numbers of people (along the lines of Dunbar's number and all that). Sure, ethnicity, race, and religion are convenient signifiers of groups of people and usually when you have two or more groups with significantly different cultures, you've probably got two or more groups with some level of inequality and power imbalance so you're already halfway there. But even if you don't start out with cultural differences, they'll pop up eventually. Groups of people over a certain size will always have a harder time avoiding conflict when things get tough. It's almost in our nature to split into "us" and "them" just to manage it all.

norea-armozel 11y ago

Didn't the Iraqi government warn the French government that there was a plot to attack them a day before? I swore I read that on Google News.

CardenB 11y ago
Afaik, there were warning signs that authorities were aware of, but they didn't really have any idea what to actually expect. That's just what I've heard. Id appreciate if someone could come by with more info or a source.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

saturdaysaint 11y ago

Few states will countenance speed limit reductions that would reduce auto deaths that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, but we'll allow our basic rights out the window to prevent what looks like a rounding error on that? This absurdity is actually what's responsible for any of terrorism's effectiveness. It's basically a hack designed to provoke an absurd overreaction. On that count, it succeeded with flying colors in 2001 - I'm hopeful that we've learned enough in the intervening years (both in terms of the war and police state) to prevent repeating our mistakes.

caskance 11y ago
Most people value the ability to drive 5 mph faster more than they value the right to not be constantly monitored by the government. Sorry you had to find out this way.
- rmxt 11y ago
  Do you have statistics that actually justify your statement? For some reason, I doubt that there has ever been a poll that directly seeks to determine whether more people care about speeding, or about surveillance overreaches. Without such a poll, this is just a meaningless appeal to the masses.
  - caskance 11y ago
    A poll would merely tell you what people say they value. What people actually value is apparent from reality.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      So your point is unfalsifiable? If you don't have evidence and accrued data, then your assertion seems like a point without value then. ("Sorry you had to find out this way.")
      - caskance 11y ago

benevol 11y ago

He couldn't have been cheaper. This is how you make voters feel like stupid little kids.

narrator 11y ago

It's like a big linear regression. He is arguing for a higher surveillance coefficient to the societal equation. There are hidden variables though. Machine learning taught me a lot about politics.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

obrero 11y ago

During the Cold War Pravda said the US's military-industrial complex existed due to America's nascent imperialism. All mainstream talking heads, commentators etc. in the US said US military bases only ringed the world because of the threat of teh Soviet Union. Of course, when the USSR dissolved itself, NATO expanded east, and US bases didn't close, but open in countries it could not have been in before. As some Russians say "Everything the communists said about here was false, everything they said about the West is true". The militaruy-industrial complex has found its own form of product-market fit. Arm Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban to eliminate Afghanistan's seculat government. Work with the mullahs to overthrow Mossadegh's secular parliament in Iran. Arm Islamic fundamentalists to undermine Assad's Syrian government. Then put military bases in, and bomb in some of the countries in which these Arab nationalists live. Well after a decade of US military occupation of "Saudi" Arabia, and some decades of arming him against secular threats, Osama and company attacked the Pentagon etc. ISIS just responded to France's month long bombing campaign with bombs of their own. Then we're told we the people have to be spied on...when I was young Nixon was having burglars break into the Democratic campaign headquarters, then using the FBI to cover it up. The FBI which was bugging and intefering in Martin Luther King's campaign for all people in the US to get the freedoms which the law said we all were supposed to have. It's a self-reinforcing circle. What the hell does the US have military bases all over the world for? Not for any good purpose, I have as much suspicion of the US and French's governments intentions in Arab countries as the Arabs do.

varjag 11y ago
> Of course, when the USSR dissolved itself, NATO expanded east, and US bases didn't close, but open in countries it could not have been in before. A number of U.S. bases and installations did shut down, and no U.S. bases in newly joined NATO states were established.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> Well after a decade of US military occupation of "Saudi" Arabia... Having a base in a foreign country is not the same as an occupation - especially when the base is there with the permission of the foreign country, because they want your support against other foreign countries.

ck2 11y ago

What worries me most is Hillary is going to give all these agencies a blank check. We might not find out what horrors they've done to "protect us" until late next decade.

makecheck 11y ago

If "secure" communication schemes are made insecure, other methods will be used. For example, while it may be inconvenient for two people to drive halfway across town and meet face-to-face in a dark warehouse, they'd have no problem doing that if it was the only way to ensure secret communications. Especially when they're planning events that might take weeks or months to unfold, what's an extra 30 minutes of driving? If you invest billions in surveillance, you will only achieve two things: having spent billions, and making sure that criminals communicate in some other way. You will have stopped no crimes, except the people who are stupid enough that they would have been caught anyway.

jacquesm 11y ago
Apparently they used playstations...

carsongross 11y ago

Like many modern movements, the surveillance state thrives on its failures, which makes it nearly impossible to defeat.

x1798DE 11y ago
I think it is a bit dangerous to consider this a failure of the surveillance state. One fundamental problem is that intelligence agencies are seen as having been given or having taken on the impossible task of preventing any political violence. While it's understandable to think that they have failed at this, given that the task is impossible, it's probably not a good idea to last the failure at their feet.

Guthur 11y ago

Unless the French intelligent services were picking on people at random they already had information on the people they should be watching as evidenced by the immediate sweeps in the aftermath. In many of these attacks the individuals are well known to the police and security services as they often have criminal backgrounds and have been in prison or custody of some kind. So either they are some sort of criminal masterminds, which I doubt, or the security services are completely inept even when they have a wealth of information or something more sinister. So in my mind more intrusive intelligence is not really the answer.

marricks 11y ago

I just submitted a link to an article about this, but since it didn't get any traction I'll place it here. I think it best represents the opposing side's argument (against surveillance): https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-actual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-abou... Here's an excerpt, > One key premise here seems to be that prior to the Snowden reporting, The Terrorists helpfully and stupidly used telephones and unencrypted emails to plot, so Western governments were able to track their plotting and disrupt at least large-scale attacks. That would come as a massive surprise to the victims of the attacks of 2002 in Bali, 2004 in Madrid, 2005 in London, 2008 in Mumbai, and April 2013 at the Boston Marathon. How did the multiple perpetrators of those well-coordinated attacks — all of which were carried out prior to Snowden’s June 2013 revelations — hide their communications from detection?

ChuckMcM 11y ago

This isn't really too surprising, nearly all Law Enforcement agencies have been using these as a pretense to undermine civil rights. And the argument is just as broken for crypto as it is for guns, people who are going to use a tool for ill, will do so regardless of laws disallowing such use. And while it would be possible to force vendors to put back doors in phones, it doesn't prevent anyone from sideloading a crypto app. One of the best counter factuals for this debate is that our terrorists are using high explosives in suicide belts and fully automatic AK47's in their acts. Both of those things are supposed to be "impossible" to get by non-authorized personnel and yet they are. Those physical things have to move through channels that the authorities already have the right to search and seize (trans-border crossings) so why not fix that problem? It is a sad situation, and I mourn for the people of Paris and all the people and in the future who have been and will be killed by extremists. But that pales in comparison to how much I mourn for the death of a free and equal society with guaranteed human rights.

Elizer0x0309 11y ago

Short term good, catastrophic long term. Much rather we tackle social issues foreign and domestic. For one, let's stop using violence to solve other people's problems. Violence is only justified in defense, as they're invading us. Everything else should be through discussion in order to foster understanding and more importantly: empathy.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> Violence is only justified in defense, as they're invading us. How about when they're shooting up our cities without invading us?

theklub 11y ago

Obviously the world will be 100% monitored in everything we do. Unless there are big changes in the government there is no stopping it.

jacquesm 11y ago
I'm not ready to concede that just yet, just like I'm not ready to concede that even though it is trivial for a bunch of people to acquire arms and to commit mass murder that there is nothing that can be done to put a spanner in their works long before they are even aware of that particular possibility. Because if we do not solve this problem Europe will have a major civil war on its hands somewhere in the next two decades.

davidf18 11y ago

The French should consider consulting the Israeli's who have probably the most experience combatting Islamic terror. The Israelis are good at both hi-tech and HUMINT and doubtless other countries could benefit from their expertise, if they don't already. However, it is noteworthy that in the end, the Israelis had to build a security fence around their country in order to combat terror. But this was for combating terrorists from outside the country. Several of these French terrorist were French citizens and as such the Israeli the French could benefit from Israeli assistance.

godgod 11y ago

What took Brennan so long? I mean the blood in Paris was starting to dry. Isn't this all so predictable?

ccvannorman 11y ago

Saying that surveillance doesn't stop all terrorists so we should stop surveillance is like saying police don't stop all crimes so we should get rid of police.

jacquesm 11y ago
Not all surveillance is bad but dragnet style surveillance of each and every person (abroad, because of course nobody would ever spy on American citizens) is apparently in-effective. Targeted surveillance could be an extremely effective tool against terrorism. As would be the more old-fashioned style operations (but with much more personal risk for those involved).