9 ms·

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. "There's a security problem in Europe at the moment". What are you talking about? The number

by Blahah 10y ago

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. "There's a security problem in Europe at the moment". What are you talking about? The number of people harmed in terrorism-related events in Europe in any given year is dwarfed by the number of people who harm themselves by accident or stupidity in those same countries. And dwarfed to an even greater extent by the number of people killed by police in the USA, or killed in mass shootings that don't get attributed to terrorism in the USA. It is the media attention given to the situation, not the situation itself, that is terrifying. Europe is extremely safe and does not have a security problem. The entire western world has a problem with xenophobia. It can't control its own politicians who lead military assaults on middle eastern or north african nations for purportedly moralistic reasons. Assaults that are guaranteed to alienate entire generations of people and incite preditable retaliatory violence. Nothing about the proposed privacy intrusions helps protect people from 'terrorism'. It feeds a cycle of ineffectual security theatre and provocation of western-produced radical activism that makes us all less safe. With one hand we create and promote terrorism, and with the other we strip ourselves of our freedoms and march toward technological totalitarianism.

tasqa 10y ago
I simply cannot upvote your comment enough. Very consise and to the point IMHO.
- sdoering 10y ago
  And I can only second this.
- astronautjones 10y ago
  Indeed, you've put it better than most have. The voice of reason seems to be getting drowned out more each day
  - lettergram 10y ago
    #thankthemedia
blowski 10y ago
The reason I push on this argument is that by making it, we as a community sound like we're waving away the concerns of the majority. "Oh a lorry killed loads of children? Don't worry about it love, loads more people commit suicide every year." So those who do pander to those concerns end up winning the vote, and then they can trash our civil liberties. This is precisely how we British have ended up voting to leave the EU. There has been a significant increase in the frequency and effectiveness of terrorist attacks in Europe. People are growing more worried about it. We need to make those people feel safe again, and we're not going to do that by saying "my privacy is more important than reducing terrorism". The argument you make at the end is the strongest point: on the one hand we are nurturing terrorism by not dealing with the fallout of globalisation, and our governments have been sold an expensive algorithm that they believe can handle the problem, when in reality it will make us even less secure. Meanwhile, the media can sell more advertising with the increased attention, so they're quite happy to add fuel to the fire. However, all these arguments end up being lost in whether it will work or not, and the Donald Trumps will always win that argument because they go to a lower denominator. If we want to win it, we need to show more genuine empathy.
- maker1138 10y ago
  The solution to the problem is not preventing people from communicating securely.
  - blowski 10y ago
    So what is the solution? If we spend all our time arguing what the solution isn't, we leave a big vacuum which is then filled with even more garbage ideas.
    - mtanski 10y ago
      It doesn't make the Politicians Fallacy anymore valid.
    - bsder 10y ago
      The solution is to go on with your life. You cannot stop terrorism, but you can take out it's sting. We seem to have forgotten the lessons about the IRA, et al. In addition, when people say "solutions" what they mean is "something that doesn't inconvenience me or require me to do anything". However if you want "real" solutions, here are some: 1) Start denouncing ALL religion as the force for stupidity that it actually is. "I believe in an imaginary sky being with no evidence and you can't convince me otherwise" should be LAUGHED AT as the absurdity it is. 2) Get everybody off of petroleum so that there isn't any money for people to fight about over in the middle east. 3) Quit supporting dictators and bombing countries for geopolitical reasons. 4) Start fixing double digit unemployment rates instead of making them worse with "free trade" agreements that only allow companies to use open borders while preventing workers from doing the same. 5) Make mental health care a much bigger priority than it currently is. Unfortunately, these solutions don't feed into people's preconceived biases and xenophobia and don't put more money into rich people's pockets. So they are all non-starters.
vehementi 10y ago
> It is the media attention given to the situation, not the situation itself, that is terrifying. In a very real sense, the media is causing the demoralization / fear in the US / West. Given we will spend trillions(?) of dollars fighting the terrorism that we ostensibly believe is causing that demoralization (due to its real harm on the country), why aren't we spending any trillions against the media? Not to censor the media directly, but, say, giving news outlets millions of dollars for every happy or accurate story they write, if we're going to spend that money anyway.
- ctack 10y ago
  You just need to spend it on education.
TillE 10y ago
The recent attacks in Germany are a particularly relevant example. Aside from the fact that zero people have thus far been killed by Islamist terrorists in Germany (since...I'm not sure when), every single incident was perpetrated by one person acting entirely on his own. And the thing in Reutlingen which keeps getting lumped in was a "normal" murder. No amount of domestic "anti-terrorism" law enforcement would have the slightest impact on any of this, not until you crank it to the level of a genuine police state with zero freedom.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  > No amount of domestic "anti-terrorism" law enforcement would have the slightest impact on any of this, not until you crank it to the level of a genuine police state with zero freedom. Also remember that Allied resistance in occupied Europe during WW2 was able to bomb military targets, produce submachine guns from scratch and distribute propaganda, while under heavy physical surveillance by the Nazis. Thus we know that practically any police state will not be able to stop determined fighters.
  - jon-wood 10y ago
    While you make a good point the secret police forces of the 20th century would have killed for some of the surveillance tools they'd have access to of they tried it over today. No need to steam open letters and read them physically, phone taps which can automatically surveil entire cities making connections between people, cameras able to follow people's vehicles without carefully coordinated follow teams. Who knows how the resistance would have faired under those conditions.
  - kbart 10y ago
    Surveillance technologies have went a long way since WWII. Now, when everybody caries a bugged device in their pocket and cameras are ubique, it's no brainer. Of course, I do not advocate losing our freedom in the name of security, but mass surveillance is only a political matter, we already have technology means to achieve it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
marcoperaza 10y ago
>I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. And if his views were genuine, would you then be rude? I find this implication troubling and corrosive to open discussion. >It is the media attention given to the situation, not the situation itself, that is terrifying. Europe is extremely safe and does not have a security problem. I couldn't disagree more. If such incidents were rare two decades ago and increasingly common today, then clearly something is going wrong. In fact, you try to make that same argument later in your post, saying that we creating the terrorism through our actions and making ourselves less safe. Which one is it? There's a difference between self-inflicted harm and violence inflicted on strangers. Terrorist attacks in France over the last year are almost 50% on top of the normal murder rate. And while most murder victims are killed by people they were in personal conflict with, the victims of terrorism are random. There is good reason to fear them more.
- sdoering 10y ago
  Regarding potential terrorism death in Europe, two to four decades ago was a very dangerous time here. Be it Ireland, Spain or Germany - the 70s, 80s and 90s had a way higher death toll from terror in any given year. We had the RAF in Germany, ETA in Spain, IRA in Ireland/Britain and so on. Not to talk about Securitate in Romania and so on. So statistically speaking we non the less have to fear less then our parents had to fear. I am not saying, that we should just ignore it. No - on the contrary - but first we shouldn't give in to the media crazed panic and throw our freedoms in front of this Angst-Train. We should identify the problems, look for valid solutions and then fight the causes, not the symptoms. In my eyes having our nations (living in Germany) export war and terror into the world, then take in the refugees without helping them cope with what they went through is a recipe for disaster. We should take in refugees, as this is just basic humanity calling, but we also have the obligation to help these people with more then "just" shelter. We also have the obligation to elect leaders wo are not trying every day to set the world on fire. Maybe in the long run this would help a "little bit" as well. And yes - one might call me a naive idealist.
- Blahah 10y ago
  > And if his views were genuine, would you then be rude? I find this implication troubling and corrosive to open discussion. No, I would have been more extensive and detailed in my answer. Instead I went for a few short points in rhetorical language. The other reply to your comment has addressed the other points.
olympusmons 10y ago
The first line of your response very concisely illustrates my growing unease with discussions related to privacy on hacker news. The fact that you're having to "hold back" is sadly indicative of why debates on sensitive topics like this are turning into echo chambers. I suspect that many who hold the minority view keep quiet to avoid being yelled at. I don't intend to take sides here. I've only ever come here to read and understand other's opinions on topics that seem too complex to tackle on my own. I have a lot of respect for this community, but sadly its becoming harder and harder to keep reading. For example, you make some good points here but it takes tremendous effort to consider them on merit because the language in which they're expressed sounds condescending and attacking (even though you say you're holding back). I do hope that you, and anyone else reading this, will not take this personally and instead reflect upon the virtues of more open and tolerant dialogue. And very sorry for singling you out; it's not just you.
- jknoepfler 10y ago
  Reasonable argumentation is a precious social resource that we should cultivate, promote, and protect. I think you express a view common to many here, and I hope this forum is able to continue fostering a culture of reasonable disagreement over combative, substanceless posturing. I happen to agree with the commenter you responded to on many points, but also found the presentation combative rather than constructive. I second your appeal to use more precise language, although I sympathize with the anger implicit in the poster's comment.
- Blahah 10y ago
  Some excellent points, and I'm happy to be challenged on my behaviour. I didn't mean I was holding back from something sinister, but from making detailed and thorough arguments. Because I was only highlighting some issues with the Devil's advocate position, I used short points with rhetorical flourishes. I agree none of this was conducive to a well-reasoned and objective debate. Often I don't consider I'm writing for an audience that comes here to learn - perhaps in future I should.
  - olympusmons 10y ago

by Blahah 10y ago

tasqa 10y ago

I simply cannot upvote your comment enough. Very consise and to the point IMHO.

sdoering 10y ago
And I can only second this.
astronautjones 10y ago
Indeed, you've put it better than most have. The voice of reason seems to be getting drowned out more each day
- lettergram 10y ago
  #thankthemedia

blowski 10y ago

The reason I push on this argument is that by making it, we as a community sound like we're waving away the concerns of the majority. "Oh a lorry killed loads of children? Don't worry about it love, loads more people commit suicide every year." So those who do pander to those concerns end up winning the vote, and then they can trash our civil liberties. This is precisely how we British have ended up voting to leave the EU. There has been a significant increase in the frequency and effectiveness of terrorist attacks in Europe. People are growing more worried about it. We need to make those people feel safe again, and we're not going to do that by saying "my privacy is more important than reducing terrorism". The argument you make at the end is the strongest point: on the one hand we are nurturing terrorism by not dealing with the fallout of globalisation, and our governments have been sold an expensive algorithm that they believe can handle the problem, when in reality it will make us even less secure. Meanwhile, the media can sell more advertising with the increased attention, so they're quite happy to add fuel to the fire. However, all these arguments end up being lost in whether it will work or not, and the Donald Trumps will always win that argument because they go to a lower denominator. If we want to win it, we need to show more genuine empathy.

maker1138 10y ago
The solution to the problem is not preventing people from communicating securely.
- blowski 10y ago
  So what is the solution? If we spend all our time arguing what the solution isn't, we leave a big vacuum which is then filled with even more garbage ideas.
  - mtanski 10y ago
    It doesn't make the Politicians Fallacy anymore valid.
  - bsder 10y ago
    The solution is to go on with your life. You cannot stop terrorism, but you can take out it's sting. We seem to have forgotten the lessons about the IRA, et al. In addition, when people say "solutions" what they mean is "something that doesn't inconvenience me or require me to do anything". However if you want "real" solutions, here are some: 1) Start denouncing ALL religion as the force for stupidity that it actually is. "I believe in an imaginary sky being with no evidence and you can't convince me otherwise" should be LAUGHED AT as the absurdity it is. 2) Get everybody off of petroleum so that there isn't any money for people to fight about over in the middle east. 3) Quit supporting dictators and bombing countries for geopolitical reasons. 4) Start fixing double digit unemployment rates instead of making them worse with "free trade" agreements that only allow companies to use open borders while preventing workers from doing the same. 5) Make mental health care a much bigger priority than it currently is. Unfortunately, these solutions don't feed into people's preconceived biases and xenophobia and don't put more money into rich people's pockets. So they are all non-starters.

vehementi 10y ago

> It is the media attention given to the situation, not the situation itself, that is terrifying. In a very real sense, the media is causing the demoralization / fear in the US / West. Given we will spend trillions(?) of dollars fighting the terrorism that we ostensibly believe is causing that demoralization (due to its real harm on the country), why aren't we spending any trillions against the media? Not to censor the media directly, but, say, giving news outlets millions of dollars for every happy or accurate story they write, if we're going to spend that money anyway.

ctack 10y ago
You just need to spend it on education.

TillE 10y ago

The recent attacks in Germany are a particularly relevant example. Aside from the fact that zero people have thus far been killed by Islamist terrorists in Germany (since...I'm not sure when), every single incident was perpetrated by one person acting entirely on his own. And the thing in Reutlingen which keeps getting lumped in was a "normal" murder. No amount of domestic "anti-terrorism" law enforcement would have the slightest impact on any of this, not until you crank it to the level of a genuine police state with zero freedom.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
> No amount of domestic "anti-terrorism" law enforcement would have the slightest impact on any of this, not until you crank it to the level of a genuine police state with zero freedom. Also remember that Allied resistance in occupied Europe during WW2 was able to bomb military targets, produce submachine guns from scratch and distribute propaganda, while under heavy physical surveillance by the Nazis. Thus we know that practically any police state will not be able to stop determined fighters.
- jon-wood 10y ago
  While you make a good point the secret police forces of the 20th century would have killed for some of the surveillance tools they'd have access to of they tried it over today. No need to steam open letters and read them physically, phone taps which can automatically surveil entire cities making connections between people, cameras able to follow people's vehicles without carefully coordinated follow teams. Who knows how the resistance would have faired under those conditions.
- kbart 10y ago
  Surveillance technologies have went a long way since WWII. Now, when everybody caries a bugged device in their pocket and cameras are ubique, it's no brainer. Of course, I do not advocate losing our freedom in the name of security, but mass surveillance is only a political matter, we already have technology means to achieve it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

marcoperaza 10y ago

>I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. And if his views were genuine, would you then be rude? I find this implication troubling and corrosive to open discussion. >It is the media attention given to the situation, not the situation itself, that is terrifying. Europe is extremely safe and does not have a security problem. I couldn't disagree more. If such incidents were rare two decades ago and increasingly common today, then clearly something is going wrong. In fact, you try to make that same argument later in your post, saying that we creating the terrorism through our actions and making ourselves less safe. Which one is it? There's a difference between self-inflicted harm and violence inflicted on strangers. Terrorist attacks in France over the last year are almost 50% on top of the normal murder rate. And while most murder victims are killed by people they were in personal conflict with, the victims of terrorism are random. There is good reason to fear them more.

sdoering 10y ago
Regarding potential terrorism death in Europe, two to four decades ago was a very dangerous time here. Be it Ireland, Spain or Germany - the 70s, 80s and 90s had a way higher death toll from terror in any given year. We had the RAF in Germany, ETA in Spain, IRA in Ireland/Britain and so on. Not to talk about Securitate in Romania and so on. So statistically speaking we non the less have to fear less then our parents had to fear. I am not saying, that we should just ignore it. No - on the contrary - but first we shouldn't give in to the media crazed panic and throw our freedoms in front of this Angst-Train. We should identify the problems, look for valid solutions and then fight the causes, not the symptoms. In my eyes having our nations (living in Germany) export war and terror into the world, then take in the refugees without helping them cope with what they went through is a recipe for disaster. We should take in refugees, as this is just basic humanity calling, but we also have the obligation to help these people with more then "just" shelter. We also have the obligation to elect leaders wo are not trying every day to set the world on fire. Maybe in the long run this would help a "little bit" as well. And yes - one might call me a naive idealist.
Blahah 10y ago
> And if his views were genuine, would you then be rude? I find this implication troubling and corrosive to open discussion. No, I would have been more extensive and detailed in my answer. Instead I went for a few short points in rhetorical language. The other reply to your comment has addressed the other points.

olympusmons 10y ago

The first line of your response very concisely illustrates my growing unease with discussions related to privacy on hacker news. The fact that you're having to "hold back" is sadly indicative of why debates on sensitive topics like this are turning into echo chambers. I suspect that many who hold the minority view keep quiet to avoid being yelled at. I don't intend to take sides here. I've only ever come here to read and understand other's opinions on topics that seem too complex to tackle on my own. I have a lot of respect for this community, but sadly its becoming harder and harder to keep reading. For example, you make some good points here but it takes tremendous effort to consider them on merit because the language in which they're expressed sounds condescending and attacking (even though you say you're holding back). I do hope that you, and anyone else reading this, will not take this personally and instead reflect upon the virtues of more open and tolerant dialogue. And very sorry for singling you out; it's not just you.

jknoepfler 10y ago
Reasonable argumentation is a precious social resource that we should cultivate, promote, and protect. I think you express a view common to many here, and I hope this forum is able to continue fostering a culture of reasonable disagreement over combative, substanceless posturing. I happen to agree with the commenter you responded to on many points, but also found the presentation combative rather than constructive. I second your appeal to use more precise language, although I sympathize with the anger implicit in the poster's comment.
Blahah 10y ago
Some excellent points, and I'm happy to be challenged on my behaviour. I didn't mean I was holding back from something sinister, but from making detailed and thorough arguments. Because I was only highlighting some issues with the Devil's advocate position, I used short points with rhetorical flourishes. I agree none of this was conducive to a well-reasoned and objective debate. Often I don't consider I'm writing for an audience that comes here to learn - perhaps in future I should.
- olympusmons 10y ago