4 ms·
I would add that much of the supposed non-government threat we face, at least in the case of terrorism, was actually created and continues to be sustained by go
by danenania 11y ago
I would add that much of the supposed non-government threat we face, at least in the case of terrorism, was actually created and continues to be sustained by government policies.
Government has gotten us all involved in an endless war of attrition in which the average person has almost nothing to gain and everything to lose. If the priority was really to keep the population safe, things would be handled very differently.
- mc32 11y agoIt's not that simple. Terrorism or violence can happen anywhere and not be precipitated by any externalities. People can conspire, people can be crazy, or unhinged. Columbine, for example. And even if we accept that terrorism is a reaction, they exist in many countries and would inflict more harm if they could. Terrorism is not a thing which only threatens the US, it exists in Europe, Africa, Asia, the middle east, etc. But yes people will have to come to terms with how to deal with the issue of privacy (secrecy) vs openness (accessibility) How it's managed will change over time, surely.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoThe fear is, once they have their hooks into us, there's no getting out. We could easily settle into a dystopian oligarchy or whatever and never be able to get out. This kind of surveillance is a new thing in the world.
- cm2187 11y agoTerrorism is dwarfed by gang violence and drug violence in the US in term of casualties. Terrorism is like the buzz of a mosquito. The psychological impact is disproportionate to the actual impact and law enforcement agencies are exploiting this buzz. They are labeling any controversial law "anti-terrorist", presenting any controversial case as an "anti-terrorist" case, etc... We should not over-react the other way but we should simply tell them "no". In a free country, two individuals should be able to have a private conversation without the State listening and recording.
- outlace 11y agoBut gangs aren't trying to secure nuclear weapons.
- lucisferre 11y agoAnd the fact that "terrorists" have been so far completely unsuccessful should maybe make you question whether they actually are.
- cjslep 11y agoWhat proof is there that terrorists are trying to secure nuclear weapons? How would they smuggle it unnoticed across the world? Why would they want to target the city you live in? These questions must be weighted by each person for him or herself. I've chosen for some nicer car insurance. I still don't have nuclear terrorism insurance. I still sleep well at night after working in defense in this area and having friends working on these very issues.
- iamcreasy 11y agoYou are claiming this on what ground? Source please. Or stop spreading misinformation.
- AnthonyMouse 11y agoYou use that word, acquire. You mean steal. The idea that a terrorist organization is going to manufacture nuclear weapons is ridiculous. But the solution to "someone might steal a nuclear weapon" is not "spy on everybody in the world" -- the solution is to secure the nuclear weapons. Which is a thing governments do that nobody is objecting to and that has nothing to do with mass surveillance.
- outlace 11y agoSorry, didn't mean to suggest tacit approval for carte blanche government surveillance. I'm just implying that just because terrorism has a low death toll now, doesn't mean that it will [since terrorists are seeking to exact as much damage as possible]
- stcredzero 11y agoGovernment has gotten us all involved in an endless war of attrition in which the average person has almost nothing to gain and everything to lose. After WWII, the US government and foreign policy got reconfigured in such a way as to assure the United States could defend itself from a nuclear superpower and to have access to the resources to re-fight World War II. The original goal in all of the above was to keep the population safe. Things have evolved a little since then, however.