6 ms·

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 o

by 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.
    - spacecop 10y ago
      Tips fedora Lol, these suggestions are ridiculous, could you possibly be more out of touch with the billions of other people that surround you
      - Retra 10y ago
        You're never going to find a solution to a hard problem by appealing to the whims of the masses.
        blowski 10y ago
        Finding a solution which appeals only to Hacker News readers isn't a solution if you live in a democracy.
        waqf 10y ago
        One of you is answering the question "What should the country collectively [i.e. the government and people, negotiating and communicating with each other through elections and media] do about the destruction caused by terrorism?". One of you is answering the question "What should the government do about popular fears of terrorism, which might cause the government to lose elections?". You're in violent agreement that the easy answer to question 1 doesn't solve question 2, and the easy answer to question 2 doesn't solve question 1. Why not moot some other answers to those questions, instead of sitting on your high respective horses?
  - krapp 10y ago
    The solution is accepting that the potential for crime, even mass murder, is a necessity for a free society, and that it's better for some terrorists to succeed than for everyone to live under a government that sees all, knows all, hears all and cannot possibly be risen up against. The greater threat to life and liberty always comes from a government's response to terrorism, not from any act of terrorism itself. Treat terrorism as just another crime, nothing special, nothing existentially critical. Nothing to fight a war against the entire world over. Governments already have the tools they need to fight terrorists without limiting encryption, they simply choose not to use the tools they have, because they would rather use terrorism as a pretext for grabbing power.
    - ricksplat 10y ago
      On your first paragraph, that sounds like the absurdist end of the libertarian spectrum and I'd expect more moderately minded people would take some issue with that line of thinking ... With regards to "Treat terrorism as just another crime, nothing special," I feel that the problem with terrorism, as it is called is the fact that it is coordinated and targeted. It is more like "organised crime" but it has the specific goal literally of creating terror, whereas the interests of organised crime are purely commercial and if you don't get in their way they won't get in yours. The issue is with people going around creating terror in a coordinated way, which undermines the authority of the state, and many people's feeling of safety. Of course that still leaves the question of how do you respond to it, but simply "accepting that the potential for crime, even mass murder, is a necessity for a free society" is similar to me to accepting that a waterfall software development model is a natural emergent phenomenon, inevitable and should thus be embraced. It's a mode of thought that never has a happy ending. Just to yank myself back on topic again, terrorism is thought to be similar to a child who wants his way and keeps escalating negative attention seeking tactics to the point where you either acquiesce (thus reinforcing the negative behaviour), or you smack the child (at best only a temporary solution, that could lead to further escalations if not sooner, then later in life - could even put you in front of a judge). "Smacking the child" is what the west has been trying so far. My personal opinion is that there is no universal generalised "third option", though intricate behavioural theories abound. I would take the opinion that every child is an individual and must be dealt with, and respected as such. It may be as simple as giving them something else to occupy themselves.
  - yodsanklai 10y ago
    Why do you think that there is a solution? IMHO it's a mistake to think that there are solutions to everything. Sometimes, not doing anything is the best we can do. I know it sounds cliché to say that, but I'd rather see my gvt taking actions on things that could easily be improved. For instance, many teenagers smoke in front of every high school in my country. I see that as a much bigger threat than terrorism, and one that is much easier to address.
reitanqild 10y ago
> There has been a significant increase in the frequency and effectiveness of terrorist attacks in Europe. People are growing more worried about it. This is important to understand. Also it is important to understand that right now Europeans are losing security for no good reason: We could help a lot more refugees in surrounding countries than we can integrate here. It is really that simple IMO. Seens we are allowing this stream of immigrants not because we are good-harted but because we are stupid. This means we could be more secure and help more refugees if we stopped playing for cheap political correctness points and started to think about how we could help as many as possible.
- kiba 10y ago
  We are getting a flow of immigrants because the civil war in Syria did not stop, and instead rage on and on destroying the infrastructure and economy there that is needed to sustain the civilian population there. We are squeamish because we do not want to send young men and women to die in some godforsaken country, doing god know what for god knows how long. Remember the last time that happened? Oh yes, the Iraqi occupation that seem to go on forever and forever, draining the blood and treasure of the United States. Either we pay it now, or we pay it later.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    > Remember the last time that happened? Wait, what?! The Iraq occupation is what caused this madness. The solution is certainly not doing another one.
    - repsilat 10y ago
      No, not the occupation. To the extent the recent actions (or inaction) of the West can be blamed, you can blame it on getting rid of Saddam, or you can blame it on leaving Iraq too early, or you can blame it on policy in Syria. You can't blame it on sticking around in Iraq. Iraq was getting objectively better after the surge -- a (flawed) democracy was emerging, the economy was taking off, violent deaths were way down from their peak. You can argue that Maliki forced the US out and let the country go to hell (in which case "deposing Saddam" is the Western sin), or argue that the US could have stayed if it wanted (in which case if you're a Democrat you can blame it on "deposing Saddam, because we couldn't stick around forever," and if you're a Republican you can blame it on Obama wanting to get out before the job was done to score political points.) Other than that, though, you're left with earlier Western actions (Bush I, Sykes Picot...) or Assad or Maliki or every crazy Wahhabi cleric in the region of you want to give Arabs some credit and capacity for self-determination too.
ptaipale 10y ago
> we're not going to do that by saying "my privacy is more important than reducing terrorism". You are absolutely right. That is the wrong dichotomy to make. The message should be "you cannot reduce terrorism by taking my privacy; you maybe can reduce terrorism by acting on the terrorists". A lot of this has to do with the fact that people in general are very tired of a situation where criminals and illegal immigrants cannot be deported. For instance, in my country, an asylum seeker was convicted of violence and firearms offences but couldn't be deported nor detained; eventually he went on to a shooting rampage to murder his former girlfriend and kill four of her colleagues shooting around at a mall, using a pistol he obtained illegally from the Balkans. Action by politicians? Make it more difficult to get a legal permit for a firearm.
belorn 10y ago
> We need to make those people feel safe again If we look historically, people do feel safer if people dressed like military are walking around with fake/unloaded guns. It worked very effectively after 9/11 to make people feel safe in airports, and the lack of any "real" weapons helped in eliminating the risk of having people with guns around large group of people. However that only worked as long you can keep up the illusion and keep people in the dark. It might simply not be possible to create security that is effective, cheap, and make people feel safe.
- kwhitefoot 10y ago
  It might have made you feel safe but it certainly didn't do it for me.
ionised 10y ago
It's not one person's privacy though, it's everybody's privacy. And yes, that is more important than a vague attempt at reducing terrorism because your privacy is your liberty and without it democracy and free society crumbles. Which ironically, is pretty much what islamic extremists want.

by blowski 10y ago

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.
  - spacecop 10y ago
    Tips fedora Lol, these suggestions are ridiculous, could you possibly be more out of touch with the billions of other people that surround you
    - Retra 10y ago
      You're never going to find a solution to a hard problem by appealing to the whims of the masses.
      - blowski 10y ago
        Finding a solution which appeals only to Hacker News readers isn't a solution if you live in a democracy.
        waqf 10y ago
        One of you is answering the question "What should the country collectively [i.e. the government and people, negotiating and communicating with each other through elections and media] do about the destruction caused by terrorism?". One of you is answering the question "What should the government do about popular fears of terrorism, which might cause the government to lose elections?". You're in violent agreement that the easy answer to question 1 doesn't solve question 2, and the easy answer to question 2 doesn't solve question 1. Why not moot some other answers to those questions, instead of sitting on your high respective horses?
- krapp 10y ago
  The solution is accepting that the potential for crime, even mass murder, is a necessity for a free society, and that it's better for some terrorists to succeed than for everyone to live under a government that sees all, knows all, hears all and cannot possibly be risen up against. The greater threat to life and liberty always comes from a government's response to terrorism, not from any act of terrorism itself. Treat terrorism as just another crime, nothing special, nothing existentially critical. Nothing to fight a war against the entire world over. Governments already have the tools they need to fight terrorists without limiting encryption, they simply choose not to use the tools they have, because they would rather use terrorism as a pretext for grabbing power.
  - ricksplat 10y ago
    On your first paragraph, that sounds like the absurdist end of the libertarian spectrum and I'd expect more moderately minded people would take some issue with that line of thinking ... With regards to "Treat terrorism as just another crime, nothing special," I feel that the problem with terrorism, as it is called is the fact that it is coordinated and targeted. It is more like "organised crime" but it has the specific goal literally of creating terror, whereas the interests of organised crime are purely commercial and if you don't get in their way they won't get in yours. The issue is with people going around creating terror in a coordinated way, which undermines the authority of the state, and many people's feeling of safety. Of course that still leaves the question of how do you respond to it, but simply "accepting that the potential for crime, even mass murder, is a necessity for a free society" is similar to me to accepting that a waterfall software development model is a natural emergent phenomenon, inevitable and should thus be embraced. It's a mode of thought that never has a happy ending. Just to yank myself back on topic again, terrorism is thought to be similar to a child who wants his way and keeps escalating negative attention seeking tactics to the point where you either acquiesce (thus reinforcing the negative behaviour), or you smack the child (at best only a temporary solution, that could lead to further escalations if not sooner, then later in life - could even put you in front of a judge). "Smacking the child" is what the west has been trying so far. My personal opinion is that there is no universal generalised "third option", though intricate behavioural theories abound. I would take the opinion that every child is an individual and must be dealt with, and respected as such. It may be as simple as giving them something else to occupy themselves.
- yodsanklai 10y ago
  Why do you think that there is a solution? IMHO it's a mistake to think that there are solutions to everything. Sometimes, not doing anything is the best we can do. I know it sounds cliché to say that, but I'd rather see my gvt taking actions on things that could easily be improved. For instance, many teenagers smoke in front of every high school in my country. I see that as a much bigger threat than terrorism, and one that is much easier to address.

reitanqild 10y ago

> There has been a significant increase in the frequency and effectiveness of terrorist attacks in Europe. People are growing more worried about it. This is important to understand. Also it is important to understand that right now Europeans are losing security for no good reason: We could help a lot more refugees in surrounding countries than we can integrate here. It is really that simple IMO. Seens we are allowing this stream of immigrants not because we are good-harted but because we are stupid. This means we could be more secure and help more refugees if we stopped playing for cheap political correctness points and started to think about how we could help as many as possible.

kiba 10y ago
We are getting a flow of immigrants because the civil war in Syria did not stop, and instead rage on and on destroying the infrastructure and economy there that is needed to sustain the civilian population there. We are squeamish because we do not want to send young men and women to die in some godforsaken country, doing god know what for god knows how long. Remember the last time that happened? Oh yes, the Iraqi occupation that seem to go on forever and forever, draining the blood and treasure of the United States. Either we pay it now, or we pay it later.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  > Remember the last time that happened? Wait, what?! The Iraq occupation is what caused this madness. The solution is certainly not doing another one.
  - repsilat 10y ago
    No, not the occupation. To the extent the recent actions (or inaction) of the West can be blamed, you can blame it on getting rid of Saddam, or you can blame it on leaving Iraq too early, or you can blame it on policy in Syria. You can't blame it on sticking around in Iraq. Iraq was getting objectively better after the surge -- a (flawed) democracy was emerging, the economy was taking off, violent deaths were way down from their peak. You can argue that Maliki forced the US out and let the country go to hell (in which case "deposing Saddam" is the Western sin), or argue that the US could have stayed if it wanted (in which case if you're a Democrat you can blame it on "deposing Saddam, because we couldn't stick around forever," and if you're a Republican you can blame it on Obama wanting to get out before the job was done to score political points.) Other than that, though, you're left with earlier Western actions (Bush I, Sykes Picot...) or Assad or Maliki or every crazy Wahhabi cleric in the region of you want to give Arabs some credit and capacity for self-determination too.

ptaipale 10y ago

> we're not going to do that by saying "my privacy is more important than reducing terrorism". You are absolutely right. That is the wrong dichotomy to make. The message should be "you cannot reduce terrorism by taking my privacy; you maybe can reduce terrorism by acting on the terrorists". A lot of this has to do with the fact that people in general are very tired of a situation where criminals and illegal immigrants cannot be deported. For instance, in my country, an asylum seeker was convicted of violence and firearms offences but couldn't be deported nor detained; eventually he went on to a shooting rampage to murder his former girlfriend and kill four of her colleagues shooting around at a mall, using a pistol he obtained illegally from the Balkans. Action by politicians? Make it more difficult to get a legal permit for a firearm.

belorn 10y ago

> We need to make those people feel safe again If we look historically, people do feel safer if people dressed like military are walking around with fake/unloaded guns. It worked very effectively after 9/11 to make people feel safe in airports, and the lack of any "real" weapons helped in eliminating the risk of having people with guns around large group of people. However that only worked as long you can keep up the illusion and keep people in the dark. It might simply not be possible to create security that is effective, cheap, and make people feel safe.

kwhitefoot 10y ago
It might have made you feel safe but it certainly didn't do it for me.

ionised 10y ago

It's not one person's privacy though, it's everybody's privacy. And yes, that is more important than a vague attempt at reducing terrorism because your privacy is your liberty and without it democracy and free society crumbles. Which ironically, is pretty much what islamic extremists want.