7 ms·

I think we should really investigate the writers of these two new pieces of legislation. These people are a bigger threat for all our values than all the terror

by reacweb 11y ago

I think we should really investigate the writers of these two new pieces of legislation. These people are a bigger threat for all our values than all the terrorists of the world. The only good answer to terrorism is to not surrender freedom.

jacquesm 11y ago
The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless. Politicians like these are just opportunists and would use any hot button issue to get their way because they know that's the easiest way to railroad through their pet laws. It's easy to get people to vote against their own interest, all you need is fear. There are many such tricks, another is to bring the important stuff up for vote in the last little bit before a session closes and to waste as much of the session prior to that by debating some inane point of some un-important issue at great length leaving insufficient time to debate the important stuff. It's all tricks and psychology, reason has little to do with it.
- dschiptsov 11y ago
  > using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted This practice is culturally independent and it is as old as human corruption. Egyptians and ancient Chinese and Romans were already experts.)
- Angostura 11y ago
  The slightly less cynical view is that they know that the next time something happens they know that - if encryption is involved, they will be absolutely pilloried by the popular press, opposition etc. for "not doing everything that can be done". It takes a certain determination to stand up to that kind of threat.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Whether encryption is or is not involved is immaterial, we already know that you can pull off attacks like these without it, so you may assume that it is also possible pulling off attacks like these with it. That law does nothing at all to prevent future attacks and the popular press being clueless isn't news either.
  - rubyfan 11y ago
    That's why we enshrine certain rights and protect them constitutionally. It doesn't seem to stop policy makers from attacking them though.
  - gherkin0 11y ago
    > The slightly less cynical view is that they know that the next time something happens they know that - if encryption is involved, they will be absolutely pilloried by the popular press, opposition etc. for "not doing everything that can be done". And the slightly more cynical view is that they are using the attacks to push through legislation that they wanted for other reasons AND they're using a story of hypothetical public opinion after hypothetical future events to make themselves seem more sympathetic. And this is also not this is "doing everything that can be done." The Paris attackers didn't even use encryption and the attacks were not prevented, so there's a lot more things that they'd need to do before banning Tor and open wifi would even make a difference. So they'd still open to criticism from the same angle; score one for cynicism.
- ams6110 11y ago
  It's not really cynical so much as realistic. Do you really need more proof than "never let a crisis go to waste."
- s_q_b 11y ago
  The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless. I agree. However, I believe the reason for this is more legislative laziness than anything else. In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer. The executive's law enforcement and intelligence agencies typically have a wish list that they repeatedly ask the legislature to enact, because it would make their jobs easier. The legislature, under tremendous pressure to do anything and fast, does not attempt to really analyze the legislation, but rather uses every parliamentary trick to rush it through. The executive uses these expanded powers to check off national security goals it already had in mind (see e.g. the hundreds of arrests during the French state of emergency.) The end result is threefold: First the executive is emboldened to at least look like they're increasing security at home and abroad. At its worst, it either draws the nation into a war on territory chosen by the terrorists (see e.g. Afghanistan, the rock upon which the Soviet military machine shattered), or needless wars of choice which drain economic and military effectiveness (see e.g. Iraq) Second, the country experiences an economic shock far out proportion to the actual attack, due to the fear of the populace, which directly and indirectly depresses multiple sectors of the economy. Third, the country produces highly visible, although not necessarily highly effective, responses at the expense of sacrifice of civil liberties and personal convenience. What's more is that terrorists count on this reaction. They know that the costs of the response will vastly outweigh the actual damage of the attack.These particular non-state actors are deemed "terrorists" for a reason. Because their most powerful weapons are not airliners, or bombs, or assault rifles. Their most powerful weapon is fear. They use that fear to cause nations to make poor decisions, then exploit those decisions to advance their causes. The only solution which I can devise is simply not let fear arbitrate our decisions. We must announce, as one voice, that we are no longer afraid.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer. Ah, but therein lies a little problem: we probably can't be made safer and eventually this will become obvious to the general population as well. Terrorists have it super easy in soft bellied countries like the west. We have but two choices: change our societies drastically for the worse or accept the fact that complete safety and societies such as the ones that we live in are mutually incompatible.
- paulddraper 11y ago
  The more cynical view is that the government perpetrates the attack to provide the opportunity, ala 9/11 conspiracy theories.
  - s_q_b 11y ago
    No, that's the insane view.
    - Kristine1975 11y ago
      Why? Pseudo-Operations are a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Flag#Pseudo-operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Flag#Pseudo-operations >Similar false flag tactics were also employed during the Algerian civil war, starting in the middle of 1994. Death squads composed of Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité (DRS) security forces disguised themselves as Islamist terrorists and committed false flag terror attacks.
      - s_q_b 11y ago
        God, I can't wait until you find out about Operation Gladio... Conspiracy theories are comforting, in a way, because they project the belief that somebody is in control. The truth is far more terrifying: no one is in control.
        Kristine1975 11y ago
        Not sure what your point is? Are you saying what I quoted (or Operation Gladio for that matter) is just a conspiracy theory?
        jacquesm 11y ago
        His point is that even though false flag operations are a thing there is no evidence that these are false flag operations. The simplest explanation is that what you're looking at is real, any conspiracy theory would require an enormous departure from the facts as we know them today. The second part of his point is that by positing a conspiracy theory you are presenting a view that there is an overarching plan to all this, whereas the reality is more like a bunch of headless chickens trying to run in three directions at once.
- laotzu 11y ago
  >It’s true that many governments have been set up during such storms; but in those cases it was the governments themselves that destroyed the state. Usurpers always create or select times of disturbance and public fear to get destructive laws passed—laws that the people would never have adopted when they were thinking coolly. One of the surest ways of distinguishing a legislator’s work from a tyrant’s is through the question: When did he choose to act? -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
- hokkos 11y ago
  Instead of having the conspirationnist view maybe you could have the simplest one, that politics don't want another attack like that and asked the secret services what tool they would need and secret services being secret service they told them they wanted to be capable to tap everywhere. It is the role of the elected politics to be reasonable about that and say no to the stupid and impossible demands.
dovdov 11y ago
You don't say that terrorism is just a tool of totalitarian regimes cloaked as democratic states? That would be outrageous. ;]
- leaveyou 11y ago
  "I'm telling you, the man and the dog are definitely working together".. but of course, "let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories".

by reacweb 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless. Politicians like these are just opportunists and would use any hot button issue to get their way because they know that's the easiest way to railroad through their pet laws. It's easy to get people to vote against their own interest, all you need is fear. There are many such tricks, another is to bring the important stuff up for vote in the last little bit before a session closes and to waste as much of the session prior to that by debating some inane point of some un-important issue at great length leaving insufficient time to debate the important stuff. It's all tricks and psychology, reason has little to do with it.

dschiptsov 11y ago
> using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted This practice is culturally independent and it is as old as human corruption. Egyptians and ancient Chinese and Romans were already experts.)
Angostura 11y ago
The slightly less cynical view is that they know that the next time something happens they know that - if encryption is involved, they will be absolutely pilloried by the popular press, opposition etc. for "not doing everything that can be done". It takes a certain determination to stand up to that kind of threat.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Whether encryption is or is not involved is immaterial, we already know that you can pull off attacks like these without it, so you may assume that it is also possible pulling off attacks like these with it. That law does nothing at all to prevent future attacks and the popular press being clueless isn't news either.
- rubyfan 11y ago
  That's why we enshrine certain rights and protect them constitutionally. It doesn't seem to stop policy makers from attacking them though.
- gherkin0 11y ago
  > The slightly less cynical view is that they know that the next time something happens they know that - if encryption is involved, they will be absolutely pilloried by the popular press, opposition etc. for "not doing everything that can be done". And the slightly more cynical view is that they are using the attacks to push through legislation that they wanted for other reasons AND they're using a story of hypothetical public opinion after hypothetical future events to make themselves seem more sympathetic. And this is also not this is "doing everything that can be done." The Paris attackers didn't even use encryption and the attacks were not prevented, so there's a lot more things that they'd need to do before banning Tor and open wifi would even make a difference. So they'd still open to criticism from the same angle; score one for cynicism.
ams6110 11y ago
It's not really cynical so much as realistic. Do you really need more proof than "never let a crisis go to waste."
s_q_b 11y ago
The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless. I agree. However, I believe the reason for this is more legislative laziness than anything else. In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer. The executive's law enforcement and intelligence agencies typically have a wish list that they repeatedly ask the legislature to enact, because it would make their jobs easier. The legislature, under tremendous pressure to do anything and fast, does not attempt to really analyze the legislation, but rather uses every parliamentary trick to rush it through. The executive uses these expanded powers to check off national security goals it already had in mind (see e.g. the hundreds of arrests during the French state of emergency.) The end result is threefold: First the executive is emboldened to at least look like they're increasing security at home and abroad. At its worst, it either draws the nation into a war on territory chosen by the terrorists (see e.g. Afghanistan, the rock upon which the Soviet military machine shattered), or needless wars of choice which drain economic and military effectiveness (see e.g. Iraq) Second, the country experiences an economic shock far out proportion to the actual attack, due to the fear of the populace, which directly and indirectly depresses multiple sectors of the economy. Third, the country produces highly visible, although not necessarily highly effective, responses at the expense of sacrifice of civil liberties and personal convenience. What's more is that terrorists count on this reaction. They know that the costs of the response will vastly outweigh the actual damage of the attack.These particular non-state actors are deemed "terrorists" for a reason. Because their most powerful weapons are not airliners, or bombs, or assault rifles. Their most powerful weapon is fear. They use that fear to cause nations to make poor decisions, then exploit those decisions to advance their causes. The only solution which I can devise is simply not let fear arbitrate our decisions. We must announce, as one voice, that we are no longer afraid.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer. Ah, but therein lies a little problem: we probably can't be made safer and eventually this will become obvious to the general population as well. Terrorists have it super easy in soft bellied countries like the west. We have but two choices: change our societies drastically for the worse or accept the fact that complete safety and societies such as the ones that we live in are mutually incompatible.
paulddraper 11y ago
The more cynical view is that the government perpetrates the attack to provide the opportunity, ala 9/11 conspiracy theories.
- s_q_b 11y ago
  No, that's the insane view.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    Why? Pseudo-Operations are a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Flag#Pseudo-operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Flag#Pseudo-operations >Similar false flag tactics were also employed during the Algerian civil war, starting in the middle of 1994. Death squads composed of Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité (DRS) security forces disguised themselves as Islamist terrorists and committed false flag terror attacks.
    - s_q_b 11y ago
      God, I can't wait until you find out about Operation Gladio... Conspiracy theories are comforting, in a way, because they project the belief that somebody is in control. The truth is far more terrifying: no one is in control.
      - Kristine1975 11y ago
        Not sure what your point is? Are you saying what I quoted (or Operation Gladio for that matter) is just a conspiracy theory?
        jacquesm 11y ago
        His point is that even though false flag operations are a thing there is no evidence that these are false flag operations. The simplest explanation is that what you're looking at is real, any conspiracy theory would require an enormous departure from the facts as we know them today. The second part of his point is that by positing a conspiracy theory you are presenting a view that there is an overarching plan to all this, whereas the reality is more like a bunch of headless chickens trying to run in three directions at once.
laotzu 11y ago
>It’s true that many governments have been set up during such storms; but in those cases it was the governments themselves that destroyed the state. Usurpers always create or select times of disturbance and public fear to get destructive laws passed—laws that the people would never have adopted when they were thinking coolly. One of the surest ways of distinguishing a legislator’s work from a tyrant’s is through the question: When did he choose to act? -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
hokkos 11y ago
Instead of having the conspirationnist view maybe you could have the simplest one, that politics don't want another attack like that and asked the secret services what tool they would need and secret services being secret service they told them they wanted to be capable to tap everywhere. It is the role of the elected politics to be reasonable about that and say no to the stupid and impossible demands.

dovdov 11y ago

You don't say that terrorism is just a tool of totalitarian regimes cloaked as democratic states? That would be outrageous. ;]

leaveyou 11y ago
"I'm telling you, the man and the dog are definitely working together".. but of course, "let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories".