3 ms·

Compare to: what large tigers have attacked me since mass surveillance began?

by stavrianos 11y ago

strictnein 11y ago
There's a mass surveillance program intended to stop tigers from attacking you?
- stavrianos 11y ago
  Systems designed to prevent black swan events need to be evaluated against a higher standard than "there haven't been any since we started". That's not success, it's exactly what we would have expected anyways.
  - strictnein 11y ago
    We would have expected no large scale terrorist attacks in the US from 2001 until now? Absolutely no one expected that. Is it a black swan event if it was attempted 8 years earlier (WTC 1993, 6 dead, 1000 injured)?
- nitrogen 11y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Apu_About_Nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Apu_About_Nothing
rhino369 11y ago
I will fully admit that not having one happen is not good (or even so-so) evidence that it works. However, this article does the reverse. And claim that it is useless because it hasn't prevented something that never happened in the first place. My seat-belt never saved my life but I put it on anyway. 0 for 0 isn't good information in either direction.
- rmxt 11y ago
  Your seatbelt can't blackmail you, nor pull "LOVEINT" like maliciousness against you (i.e., it has no real negatives). Extensive surveillance, mass or not, is rife with the possibility for abuse.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    The chances that my seatbelt kills me are probably higher than me dying or being harmed by mass surveillance. And I'm married to an Afghan. Then again I'd probably guess that my seat-belt is significantly more effective at saving my life. Plus most of the ability for abuse exists even without a system in place. If the government wants to discredit me they can make up evidence and get a warrant. Or they can just do warrantless wiretapping. The ability to spy on all citizens exist whether it's used or not. That goes triple for metadata that companies keep anyway. As long as Google is spying, that information is ripe for being taken by government. There is still a risk that a non-rouge part of government could use mass surveillance for shitty purposes. Like hunting down jews, homosexuals, civil rights activists, etc. But the whole government would have to break bad. And they could reinstate a mass surveillance apparatus in a couple months anyway. I'm not really convinced that using the NSA to spy on suspected terrorists, spies, and drug cartels is really an significant risk to our freedom and safety in general.

Compare to: what large tigers have attacked me since mass surveillance began?

strictnein 11y ago

There's a mass surveillance program intended to stop tigers from attacking you?

stavrianos 11y ago
Systems designed to prevent black swan events need to be evaluated against a higher standard than "there haven't been any since we started". That's not success, it's exactly what we would have expected anyways.
- strictnein 11y ago
  We would have expected no large scale terrorist attacks in the US from 2001 until now? Absolutely no one expected that. Is it a black swan event if it was attempted 8 years earlier (WTC 1993, 6 dead, 1000 injured)?
nitrogen 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Apu_About_Nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Apu_About_Nothing

rhino369 11y ago

I will fully admit that not having one happen is not good (or even so-so) evidence that it works. However, this article does the reverse. And claim that it is useless because it hasn't prevented something that never happened in the first place. My seat-belt never saved my life but I put it on anyway. 0 for 0 isn't good information in either direction.

rmxt 11y ago
Your seatbelt can't blackmail you, nor pull "LOVEINT" like maliciousness against you (i.e., it has no real negatives). Extensive surveillance, mass or not, is rife with the possibility for abuse.
- rhino369 11y ago
  The chances that my seatbelt kills me are probably higher than me dying or being harmed by mass surveillance. And I'm married to an Afghan. Then again I'd probably guess that my seat-belt is significantly more effective at saving my life. Plus most of the ability for abuse exists even without a system in place. If the government wants to discredit me they can make up evidence and get a warrant. Or they can just do warrantless wiretapping. The ability to spy on all citizens exist whether it's used or not. That goes triple for metadata that companies keep anyway. As long as Google is spying, that information is ripe for being taken by government. There is still a risk that a non-rouge part of government could use mass surveillance for shitty purposes. Like hunting down jews, homosexuals, civil rights activists, etc. But the whole government would have to break bad. And they could reinstate a mass surveillance apparatus in a couple months anyway. I'm not really convinced that using the NSA to spy on suspected terrorists, spies, and drug cartels is really an significant risk to our freedom and safety in general.