9 ms·

I don't mean to downplay the importance of this tragedy for the people involved, but it's interesting to observe the media reaction to this event with a more de

by rtl49 11y ago

I don't mean to downplay the importance of this tragedy for the people involved, but it's interesting to observe the media reaction to this event with a more detached frame of mind than I was capable of as a child. The attacks have played right into the hands of parties with political interests lying in wait. For months articles on one or the other side of the encryption "debate" have been produced by news organizations at a low hum. Now that something, anything, loosely relevant has occurred, they can now point to this as further evidence in support of whatever position was espoused over the course of the preceding months. It strikes a person who pays attention to such things as rather methodical.

Swizec 11y ago
> It strikes a person who pays attention to such things as rather methodical. There's a reason journalists are also referred to as vultures. If you're interesting in how media spin works, I have found Trust Me, I'm Lying by Ryan Holiday eye opening. It focuses more on the marketing aspect, but it works for anything. He for instance described how you can spin controversy out of nothing in order to promote products.
qrendel 11y ago
I agree with the general comment about people rushing to politicize events, but it doesn't seem just "loosely relevant" either. Governments claim they need to backdoor software or outlaw encryption to prevent attacks. They're spending hundreds of billions of dollars (just in the US) and still failing to do so. Some people think allowing refugees will lead to more violence. Others don't want millions left to suffer because of the actions of a few radicals. These are all pretty big issues directly related to the events. How long should we wait before it's appropriate to analyze them in public discourse? Imo, worse than appearing eager to capitalize on others' suffering is all the speculation before having hard details about the matter. But some pundit inevitably lights a match in a room full of fireworks (figuratively speaking), and everyone else rushes to defend their position as well.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  They're spending hundreds of billions of dollars (just in the US) and still failing to do so. How do you know how many attacks would have taken place if not for that spending?
  - qrendel 11y ago
    I realize the statement was ambiguous between "prevent some attacks" or "prevent all attacks." It was an attempt to state one position taken by those actively involved in the debate: multiple terrorist attacks have still occurred (Paris, Boston marathon, etc), despite massive growth of the national security complex. Which makes discussion of the efficacy of intelligence agencies relevant to current events - my response to the comment I was replying to. But to answer your question, to the best of my knowledge, it's widely reported that there is no evidence of terrorist attacks that have been prevented. NSA claims of 54 terrorist attacks being prevented are widely reported as false[1], mass surveillance and security theater is considered by (at least some) experts an ineffective way to stop terrorists[2], and most of the people arrested for terrorism seem to be mentally ill individuals entrapped by law enforcement[3], as well as a whole host of other sources effectively implying "none" that I don't think are worth taking the time to exhaustively cite. You can always search for "terrorist attacks prevented by NSA." If there are any examples, I'd be interested in knowing. Alternatively, it could be that efforts of law enforcement raise barriers to terrorism such that much is prevented indirectly, but that would be a speculative conclusion until there's some evidence it's actually the case. Successful terrorists able to plan and communicate in plaintext using SMS and discussing their goals in their English-language propaganda (Dabiq) doesn't really lend credence to the preventative costs argument, either. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/claim-on-attacks-thwarted-by-nsa-spreads-despite-lack-of-evidence https://www.propublica.org/article/claim-on-attacks-thwarted... [2] https://digg.com/2015/why-mass-surveillance-cant-wont-and-never-has-stopped-a-terrorist https://digg.com/2015/why-mass-surveillance-cant-wont-and-ne... [3] https://www.ted.com/talks/trevor_aaronson_how_this_fbi_strategy_is_actually_creating_us_based_terrorists https://www.ted.com/talks/trevor_aaronson_how_this_fbi_strat...
sliverstorm 11y ago
Basically, everyone has already made up their minds whether encryption/guns/drugs/etc are good or bad, and use global events as "proof" of why they are right. It's not just the news anchors that do it. When was the last time you read someone say, "And this latest attack has changed my mind...". Almost never. Mostly it's "And this latest attack proves my agenda is right..."
- mindslight 11y ago
  Presumably there's a large amount of people undecided or unopinionated about these topics, being browbeaten by the telescreen. It can't all be sociological normalization, can it?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I think very few people are undecided about these things. These are "gut feeling" judgments. What is the appropriate trade-off between security and freedom? What is an acceptable amount of immigration and how much should we require people to integrate? Nobody sits there and does a cost-benefit utilitarian analysis of those questions, if one was even possible. They start with broad principles (e.g. surveillance is per se bad) and interpret facts to fit into their preconceptions.
    - noobermin 11y ago
      Honest question, people say this a lot, but why do we just have to do it without resisting it? I'd hope that the point of education to avoid that kind of reasoning (or lack thereof) as much as possible, not just to give our preconceived notions a tapestry of intellectualism.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        The fact is that for these sorts of high-level questions, there is no educated answer. There are no double-blind studies you can rely on to come to an educated conclusion. So instead you have people, even educated people, viewing everything through the lens of their chosen principles.
hockeybias 11y ago
I believe this falls under the category of 'human nature'.
felipeerias 11y ago
All of the Paris terrorists who have been identified so far were European citizens. Yet countries are closing their borders to Syrian refugees all the same.
mikeash 11y ago
Just try to find a public figure, any public figure, on any side, who has changed their mind on any policy question as a result of recent events or the information that has come to light from them. It's obvious if you pay any attention that approximately nobody is examining facts and then reaching conclusions. They all reached their conclusions long ago, and now they use facts to justify those conclusions when suitable.
- e40 11y ago
  It's obvious if you pay any attention that approximately nobody is examining facts and then reaching conclusions. They all reached their conclusions long ago, and now they use facts to justify those conclusions when suitable. That's all you need to say about Washington. Fix that and most/all of the other problems would evaporate. Reminds me of reading about the drug decriminalization in Portugal. I was astounded that a bi-partisan committee just decided to look at the facts instead of doing the usual thing. Portugal seems lightyears ahead of the US, in this regard.
  - Sharlin 11y ago
    It's nothing Washington-specific. It is about very well-known biases intrinsic to the human condition. Sometimes, some people rise above the crude tribal politics and things like Portugal happen.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/kasich-walks-back-plan-to-create-new-government-agency-after-paris-attacks/2015/11/18/9ba5433c-8e42-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/kasic...
  - mikeash 11y ago
    That's one.... I admit my statement is a bit hyperbolic, but those who actually change their minds make up a frighteningly small minority.

by rtl49 11y ago

Swizec 11y ago

> It strikes a person who pays attention to such things as rather methodical. There's a reason journalists are also referred to as vultures. If you're interesting in how media spin works, I have found Trust Me, I'm Lying by Ryan Holiday eye opening. It focuses more on the marketing aspect, but it works for anything. He for instance described how you can spin controversy out of nothing in order to promote products.

qrendel 11y ago

I agree with the general comment about people rushing to politicize events, but it doesn't seem just "loosely relevant" either. Governments claim they need to backdoor software or outlaw encryption to prevent attacks. They're spending hundreds of billions of dollars (just in the US) and still failing to do so. Some people think allowing refugees will lead to more violence. Others don't want millions left to suffer because of the actions of a few radicals. These are all pretty big issues directly related to the events. How long should we wait before it's appropriate to analyze them in public discourse? Imo, worse than appearing eager to capitalize on others' suffering is all the speculation before having hard details about the matter. But some pundit inevitably lights a match in a room full of fireworks (figuratively speaking), and everyone else rushes to defend their position as well.

ikeboy 11y ago
They're spending hundreds of billions of dollars (just in the US) and still failing to do so. How do you know how many attacks would have taken place if not for that spending?
- qrendel 11y ago
  I realize the statement was ambiguous between "prevent some attacks" or "prevent all attacks." It was an attempt to state one position taken by those actively involved in the debate: multiple terrorist attacks have still occurred (Paris, Boston marathon, etc), despite massive growth of the national security complex. Which makes discussion of the efficacy of intelligence agencies relevant to current events - my response to the comment I was replying to. But to answer your question, to the best of my knowledge, it's widely reported that there is no evidence of terrorist attacks that have been prevented. NSA claims of 54 terrorist attacks being prevented are widely reported as false[1], mass surveillance and security theater is considered by (at least some) experts an ineffective way to stop terrorists[2], and most of the people arrested for terrorism seem to be mentally ill individuals entrapped by law enforcement[3], as well as a whole host of other sources effectively implying "none" that I don't think are worth taking the time to exhaustively cite. You can always search for "terrorist attacks prevented by NSA." If there are any examples, I'd be interested in knowing. Alternatively, it could be that efforts of law enforcement raise barriers to terrorism such that much is prevented indirectly, but that would be a speculative conclusion until there's some evidence it's actually the case. Successful terrorists able to plan and communicate in plaintext using SMS and discussing their goals in their English-language propaganda (Dabiq) doesn't really lend credence to the preventative costs argument, either. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/claim-on-attacks-thwarted-by-nsa-spreads-despite-lack-of-evidence https://www.propublica.org/article/claim-on-attacks-thwarted... [2] https://digg.com/2015/why-mass-surveillance-cant-wont-and-never-has-stopped-a-terrorist https://digg.com/2015/why-mass-surveillance-cant-wont-and-ne... [3] https://www.ted.com/talks/trevor_aaronson_how_this_fbi_strategy_is_actually_creating_us_based_terrorists https://www.ted.com/talks/trevor_aaronson_how_this_fbi_strat...

sliverstorm 11y ago

Basically, everyone has already made up their minds whether encryption/guns/drugs/etc are good or bad, and use global events as "proof" of why they are right. It's not just the news anchors that do it. When was the last time you read someone say, "And this latest attack has changed my mind...". Almost never. Mostly it's "And this latest attack proves my agenda is right..."

mindslight 11y ago
Presumably there's a large amount of people undecided or unopinionated about these topics, being browbeaten by the telescreen. It can't all be sociological normalization, can it?
- rayiner 11y ago
  I think very few people are undecided about these things. These are "gut feeling" judgments. What is the appropriate trade-off between security and freedom? What is an acceptable amount of immigration and how much should we require people to integrate? Nobody sits there and does a cost-benefit utilitarian analysis of those questions, if one was even possible. They start with broad principles (e.g. surveillance is per se bad) and interpret facts to fit into their preconceptions.
  - noobermin 11y ago
    Honest question, people say this a lot, but why do we just have to do it without resisting it? I'd hope that the point of education to avoid that kind of reasoning (or lack thereof) as much as possible, not just to give our preconceived notions a tapestry of intellectualism.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      The fact is that for these sorts of high-level questions, there is no educated answer. There are no double-blind studies you can rely on to come to an educated conclusion. So instead you have people, even educated people, viewing everything through the lens of their chosen principles.

hockeybias 11y ago

I believe this falls under the category of 'human nature'.

felipeerias 11y ago

All of the Paris terrorists who have been identified so far were European citizens. Yet countries are closing their borders to Syrian refugees all the same.

mikeash 11y ago

Just try to find a public figure, any public figure, on any side, who has changed their mind on any policy question as a result of recent events or the information that has come to light from them. It's obvious if you pay any attention that approximately nobody is examining facts and then reaching conclusions. They all reached their conclusions long ago, and now they use facts to justify those conclusions when suitable.

e40 11y ago
It's obvious if you pay any attention that approximately nobody is examining facts and then reaching conclusions. They all reached their conclusions long ago, and now they use facts to justify those conclusions when suitable. That's all you need to say about Washington. Fix that and most/all of the other problems would evaporate. Reminds me of reading about the drug decriminalization in Portugal. I was astounded that a bi-partisan committee just decided to look at the facts instead of doing the usual thing. Portugal seems lightyears ahead of the US, in this regard.
- Sharlin 11y ago
  It's nothing Washington-specific. It is about very well-known biases intrinsic to the human condition. Sometimes, some people rise above the crude tribal politics and things like Portugal happen.
ikeboy 11y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/kasich-walks-back-plan-to-create-new-government-agency-after-paris-attacks/2015/11/18/9ba5433c-8e42-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/kasic...
- mikeash 11y ago
  That's one.... I admit my statement is a bit hyperbolic, but those who actually change their minds make up a frighteningly small minority.