7 ms·

1) If you were good at detecting terror attacks, wouldn't you want to keep it secret from terrorists about how you actually do it? This is such an obvious point

1) If you were good at detecting terror attacks, wouldn't you want to keep it secret from terrorists about how you actually do it? This is such an obvious point (a direct counterpart to Dr. Strangelove's "the whole point of a doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret"), yet so many of those who argue against surveillance don't even consider it, thereby revealing that their primary concern is not even remotely close to actually solving the problem of terrorist attacks. Now, someone who completely doesn't care about whether terrorist attacks happen or not -- is that a rational party to have discussion with? 2) Don't democracies have well-established principles on how to deal with entities in power that try to place themselves outside of law -- without actually preventing those entities from wielding any power whatsoever? Wasn't that the entire point of having a president with a fixed term rather than a king?

mindcrime 11y ago
Now, someone who completely doesn't care about whether terrorist attacks happen or not -- is that a rational party to have discussion with? I doubt there is anybody who truly "doesn't care if terrorist attacks happen". But there are people (like myself) who can look at the numbers, realize that you are MANY times more likely to die by slipping and falling in your own bathroom, being in a car crash, drowning in your own pool, or being beaten to death by a cop, than you are to die in a terrorist attack. And after looking at that, I can say that I don't accept a trade-off that involves any loss of freedom, or increase in government scope/power, in order to reduce what is already a minuscule risk. Don't democracies have well-established principles on how to deal with entities in power that try to place themselves outside of law -- without actually preventing those entities from wielding any power whatsoever? Wasn't that the entire point of having a president with a fixed term rather than a king? Yes, and I will argue that it was the point, or at least part of the point, of the Second Amendment. (Yeah, I know this point isn't without controversy).
- etangent 11y ago
  > But there are people (like myself) who can look at the numbers, realize that you are MANY times more likely to die by slipping and falling in your own bathroom That's another example of a wrong argument often used. All animals (and yes, humans are animals) pay more attention to predators than to random accidents, and there is an evolutionary reason for that.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    There's an evolutionary reason for all manner of cognitive biases. That doesn't mean that behavior is correct.
    - etangent 11y ago
      "Correct" is not the issue here. The issue is that the behavior exists, is powerful, and must be accounted for. If you have a country-wide fascist freakout against a minority group, it doesn't matter whether the source was "correct" (technical term: adaptive) bias or a maladaptive one.
      - woodman 11y ago
        So what argument would you recommend? You've clearly come out against using logic, and suggested to the "geeks" that vestigial evolutionary behavior "must be accounted for". How do you suggest that be done, emotional manipulation? What bloody shirt do we have to wave?
        etangent 11y ago
        "Vestigial" is the wrong/insensitive word. If I make an appeal to evolutionary biology, it is because I am also a geek, not because I have some overarching pseudo-Darwinian worldview. When applicable, its not wrong to refer to biology to understand why humans work the way they do. When dealing with a software system, wouldn't you want to understand the principles upon which it is built? Please don't tell me that you would feel the same way if a member of your family, for example, had died in a boating accident versus, say, had been beheaded with cold blood with a knife in some insane semi-religious ceremony (if you would feel the same way, a lot of people would qualify you as a sociopath, and they probably wouldn't be wrong). Vengeance is one of the primary drives of human behavior, it will always exist, it is very often a bad thing, but it must be acknowledged if you want to be taken seriously. Note for example that in rare cases when it is justified, lack of feeling of vengeance will make you look either like a cold-blooded psychopath or a complete coward. It is rational to try to understand the limits of rationality. A perfectly rational being might rationally conclude that life is not worth living and commit suicide, leaving no progeny. Defending oneself and one's family from threats that have agency (predators, other members of your species) is and always will be categorically different from defending from threats that don't have agency, such as bad weather. I recommend to consider the threat posed by terrorism as seriously as you consider global warming, or interplanetary exploration, or whatever it is you consider to be a serious issue. It may not be as serious to you, and that's okay, but at least respect the fact that it is a very serious issue to many other people. Then you can have a serious discussion over which steps are and are not appropriate. As a coincidence, you will also find that people will listen to your arguments against surveillance more seriously when you respectfully acknowledge their own wants and desires, such as desire for peace/security.

mindcrime 11y ago

Now, someone who completely doesn't care about whether terrorist attacks happen or not -- is that a rational party to have discussion with? I doubt there is anybody who truly "doesn't care if terrorist attacks happen". But there are people (like myself) who can look at the numbers, realize that you are MANY times more likely to die by slipping and falling in your own bathroom, being in a car crash, drowning in your own pool, or being beaten to death by a cop, than you are to die in a terrorist attack. And after looking at that, I can say that I don't accept a trade-off that involves any loss of freedom, or increase in government scope/power, in order to reduce what is already a minuscule risk. Don't democracies have well-established principles on how to deal with entities in power that try to place themselves outside of law -- without actually preventing those entities from wielding any power whatsoever? Wasn't that the entire point of having a president with a fixed term rather than a king? Yes, and I will argue that it was the point, or at least part of the point, of the Second Amendment. (Yeah, I know this point isn't without controversy).

etangent 11y ago
> But there are people (like myself) who can look at the numbers, realize that you are MANY times more likely to die by slipping and falling in your own bathroom That's another example of a wrong argument often used. All animals (and yes, humans are animals) pay more attention to predators than to random accidents, and there is an evolutionary reason for that.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  There's an evolutionary reason for all manner of cognitive biases. That doesn't mean that behavior is correct.
  - etangent 11y ago
    "Correct" is not the issue here. The issue is that the behavior exists, is powerful, and must be accounted for. If you have a country-wide fascist freakout against a minority group, it doesn't matter whether the source was "correct" (technical term: adaptive) bias or a maladaptive one.
    - woodman 11y ago
      So what argument would you recommend? You've clearly come out against using logic, and suggested to the "geeks" that vestigial evolutionary behavior "must be accounted for". How do you suggest that be done, emotional manipulation? What bloody shirt do we have to wave?
      - etangent 11y ago
        "Vestigial" is the wrong/insensitive word. If I make an appeal to evolutionary biology, it is because I am also a geek, not because I have some overarching pseudo-Darwinian worldview. When applicable, its not wrong to refer to biology to understand why humans work the way they do. When dealing with a software system, wouldn't you want to understand the principles upon which it is built? Please don't tell me that you would feel the same way if a member of your family, for example, had died in a boating accident versus, say, had been beheaded with cold blood with a knife in some insane semi-religious ceremony (if you would feel the same way, a lot of people would qualify you as a sociopath, and they probably wouldn't be wrong). Vengeance is one of the primary drives of human behavior, it will always exist, it is very often a bad thing, but it must be acknowledged if you want to be taken seriously. Note for example that in rare cases when it is justified, lack of feeling of vengeance will make you look either like a cold-blooded psychopath or a complete coward. It is rational to try to understand the limits of rationality. A perfectly rational being might rationally conclude that life is not worth living and commit suicide, leaving no progeny. Defending oneself and one's family from threats that have agency (predators, other members of your species) is and always will be categorically different from defending from threats that don't have agency, such as bad weather. I recommend to consider the threat posed by terrorism as seriously as you consider global warming, or interplanetary exploration, or whatever it is you consider to be a serious issue. It may not be as serious to you, and that's okay, but at least respect the fact that it is a very serious issue to many other people. Then you can have a serious discussion over which steps are and are not appropriate. As a coincidence, you will also find that people will listen to your arguments against surveillance more seriously when you respectfully acknowledge their own wants and desires, such as desire for peace/security.