3 ms·

> Terrorism on the other hand is a real world problem with easy to see consequences. No, it's not. Just as the risks of loss of privacy are much higher than ge

> Terrorism on the other hand is a real world problem with easy to see consequences. No, it's not. Just as the risks of loss of privacy are much higher than generally perceived, the risks of terrorism are much lower than generally perceived. Terrorism is perceived as a problem, but it really isn't, in most parts of Europe. Car crashes are a real world problem. Terrorism isn't. (Now, I am obviously not saying that governments should simply blindly ignore terrorism risks--but overall, it really isn't a big problem, and there almost certainly are risks where most of the money would be better spent trying to reduce fatalities.)

blowski 10y ago
> Terrorism is perceived as a problem, but it really isn't, in most parts of Europe Perhaps that's because the security services are doing such a fantastic job. To make sure it's not a problem in all of Europe and make sure no more children die, they can't fight the war with hands behind their backs. This is not what I believe, but it is how the argument gets phrased. How do you beat it? Not by extolling the virtues of end-to-end encryption and the importance of your civil liberties, that's for sure.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  Which wouldn't change that they obviously don't need more powers to do a fantastic job.
slg 10y ago
You are thinking of this in a vacuum and not as part of a political debate. When a politician mentions terrorism, there are coffins and mourning families to point to as victims. That is what I mean be "real" problem. It isn't about risk or pure numbers. It is about concrete effects that are easy to see and understand. What does the politician who is pro-encryption point to as a victim? If the answer is The Constitution or any other abstract ideal, you already lost the hearts and minds of the general population.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  Yeah, I am not denying that it's perceived by many people as a real problem. I am just saying that it actually isn't. Which also means that these effects aren't actually easy to understand. It's easy to be mistaken about them. That's the problem. Not accepting this misleading framing is an important step in addressing the wishes of the population for totalitarianism.

blowski 10y ago

> Terrorism is perceived as a problem, but it really isn't, in most parts of Europe Perhaps that's because the security services are doing such a fantastic job. To make sure it's not a problem in all of Europe and make sure no more children die, they can't fight the war with hands behind their backs. This is not what I believe, but it is how the argument gets phrased. How do you beat it? Not by extolling the virtues of end-to-end encryption and the importance of your civil liberties, that's for sure.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
Which wouldn't change that they obviously don't need more powers to do a fantastic job.

slg 10y ago

You are thinking of this in a vacuum and not as part of a political debate. When a politician mentions terrorism, there are coffins and mourning families to point to as victims. That is what I mean be "real" problem. It isn't about risk or pure numbers. It is about concrete effects that are easy to see and understand. What does the politician who is pro-encryption point to as a victim? If the answer is The Constitution or any other abstract ideal, you already lost the hearts and minds of the general population.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
Yeah, I am not denying that it's perceived by many people as a real problem. I am just saying that it actually isn't. Which also means that these effects aren't actually easy to understand. It's easy to be mistaken about them. That's the problem. Not accepting this misleading framing is an important step in addressing the wishes of the population for totalitarianism.