4 ms·
>>But the identification problem isn't unique. It's true of every crime there is. Criminals don't come with tags labeling them as a terrorist or a murderer or a
by tmptmp 11y ago
>>But the identification problem isn't unique. It's true of every crime there is. Criminals don't come with tags labeling them as a terrorist or a murderer or a pedophile.
Correct. But terrorism (inspired by hate ideology or religion) is significantly different in a very important respect from other crimes you mentioned; that is, the terrorist(s) generally find support and shelter amongst large number of otherwise normal citizens inspired/driven by the hate ideology or religion whereas a murderer or a pedophile generally doesn't find such shelter.
That's why
>>You're kind of making my point. Cancer kills way, way more people than terrorism. Why are we spending more resources fighting terrorism than cancer?
No, I am NOT making your point. I gave the cancer example to point out the problem of identification. But I am not entirely against you here. You may say that we must spend some more resources to fight cancer but if you say we must curtail on mass surveillance and other anti-terrorism measures to do cancer fight then I don't agree.
>>And mass surveillance has a huge cost in privacy and in money and in security itself.
Privacy is important but NOT as important as survival itself.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago> that is, the terrorist(s) generally find support and shelter amongst large number of otherwise normal citizens inspired/driven by the hate ideology or religion whereas a murderer or a pedophile generally doesn't find such shelter. That's why That's why what? > You may say that we must spend some more resources to fight cancer but if you say we must curtail on mass surveillance and other anti-terrorism measures to do cancer fight then I don't agree. But why not? If spending a dollar fighting cancer saves more lives than spending the same dollar fighting terrorism and we don't have unlimited resources then why should we make the choice that causes more loss of life? > Privacy is important but NOT as important as survival itself. Privacy is security. The information they're collecting is inherently dangerous. It's much easier to use it to plan an attack than to defend from one. If you're looking for a needle in a haystack, more data is more hay. But if you're trying to burn everything down then it tells you who is vulnerable where and when. The only way to prevent terrorists from breaking in and accessing the data is to not collect it to begin with. And terrorists aren't even the main threat. Surveillance of innocent people makes them vulnerable to anyone who has the data. Cartel hitmen, sexual predators, Richard Nixon, take your pick.
- tmptmp 11y ago>And terrorists aren't even the main threat. Surveillance of innocent people makes them vulnerable to anyone who has the data. Cartel hitmen, sexual predators, Richard Nixon, take your pick. I will not agree with your dumping of Richard Nixon with crime cartels and sexual predators. In general, the US democratic government system has proven to be much more successful and benevolent than any other system in the world, including the much touted communism (USSR, China, N. Korea). What I mean to say is Richard Nixon is hardly a threat as compared to Mao or Stalin. Granted, there is a small non-zero chance of an innocent getting hurt in some way due to privacy issues, but that doesn't and shouldn't mean we should abandon surveillance and deprive ourselves of important and timely information and put many more innocents to risk. >That's why what? (Oho sorry, but I guess, the rest of the words got deleted.) That's why surveillance of such hate groups (e.g. Wahabi mosques or extreme left/right groups) is also mandatory.