5 ms·

> The context here is that France and Germany have suffered a spate of terrorist attacks over the past year, including a co-ordinated attack in Paris in Novembe

> The context here is that France and Germany have suffered a spate of terrorist attacks over the past year, including a co-ordinated attack in Paris in November 2015 that killed 130; a July 2016 attack in Nice where a truck driver ploughed into crowds celebrating Bastille Day; and a stabbing in a church in Northern France that killed an elderly priest. To put this in perspective, about 700 people would die from homicide in France in a normal year, and about 600,000 would die of all causes (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=fr&v=26 http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=fr&v=26). The unusually high amount of terrorism in the last year, accounts for 0.03% of all deaths. That terrorism is seen as an urgent problem just highlights the irrationality of decision-making in a democracy. It poses no significant mortality risk to Europeans.

erelde 10y ago
I agree with your idea, but I think you should add a few logical links in your statements to make it clearer. (and I live very near la Bastille, so according to the politicians I should be shocked) Furthermore, the people who did those crimes did not use any form of encryption but discussed on their playstation while playing Call of Duty. So there's that too.
- kikimaru 10y ago
  Does anyone have any proof of this? Sounds like fear-mongering bullshit to me.
akerro 10y ago
Fact: The attack in November in Paris was coordinated using unencrypted text messages. Conclusion: Let's ban PGP! People are dying! http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/11/paris-police-find-phone-with-unencrypted-sms-saying-lets-go-were-starting/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/11/paris-police-fi...
- sevenless 10y ago
  Yes Minister calls this "politician's logic". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trw1PbQt_Yo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trw1PbQt_Yo Something must be done; this is something; therefore, we must do it.
- guillermau 10y ago
  Fact: The attack in November in Paris was coordinated text messages. Conclusion: Let's ban reading and writing ! Fact: The attackers who attack Paris in November were recruited online by Isis. Conclusion: Let's ban internet for non commercial use !
mafribe 10y ago
no significant mortality risk to Europeans. This is "Whataboutism". The rational behind being wary about terrorism is as follows. 1. Normal homicides are random individual actions, and they are under reasonable control by standard policing. In other words, if we continue policing as we do now, normal homicide rate will remain constant. 2. Terrorism is not random individual action, but rather organised violence by large groups seeking power. If we continue policing as we do now, terrorism will increase, up to a point where the terrorists take over and are the new rulers. (Compare for example with the reaction to the AIDS epidemics in the early 1980s. The lazy whatabout-ist could have said (and indeed did say): "Oh AIDS just affects a few gays and needle-sharing heroin addicts, whatabout the orders of magnitude more who die of the flu and cancer, no need to worry about AIDS".) If you believe the two 'axioms' above, then it's perfectly reasonable to adapt policing in the light of the current wave of terrorism that's been spreading in Europe (and not only there). Note that I'm not saying that encryption should or should not be banned, or that either way is/isn't a good way of fighting terrorism. I'm just pointing out the weakness of the "but whatabout XYZ" argument.
- leereeves 10y ago
  > If we continue policing as we do now, terrorism will increase, up to a point where the terrorists take over and are the new rulers. That cannot be accepted as an 'axiom' without proof.
  - mafribe 10y ago
    Exactly what would you accept as proof? A deduction in ZFC or Homotopy Type Theory? Or an empirical experiment, where we split the world into two parts, one were we police terrorism as the french are doing now, and one where terrorists are treated like random robberies and crimes of spurned lovers; then wait for 200 years and see which side does better?
    - leereeves 10y ago
      Does the snark mean you don't have an actual argument supporting the 'axiom' (really just a premise) that "terrorists will take over the world"? You can't avoid the need to prove your premises by calling them 'axioms'.
Aeolun 10y ago
I think you are misrepresenting the issue. 700 would die from homicide in a normal year. +/- 150 died from terrorism in 2015, 2016 is on track to have a slightly lower number (100), That means the increase in homicide from recent terrorism is anywhere between 14 and 21%. That's not insignificant however you look at it. Those 600,000 people are going to die either way, but those 150 people a year are still up in the air. Doesn't mean that cancer isn't a bigger issue on the grand scale, but having people see terrorism as a natural disaster is a bit of a stretch.
- sevenless 10y ago
  This seems to be confusing proportions with absolute numbers. Newspapers do this all the time about health statistics, going from a very small number of additional deaths to scaremonger about a '300% increase in cancer'. Terrorism in the last year is a significant proportion of the total number of homicides in France, but the percentage increase doesn't mean the absolute number is relevant. If you didn't worry about being murdered in France before 2015, there's no reason to worry about dying in a terrorist attack after 2015. Moreover, we might expect terrorist attacks to regress to the mean, so 2015 would be unusually bad under that additional assumption. If the number of homicides increased by 14-20% due to some other cause, it likely wouldn't be seen as an urgent policy issue. > Those 600,000 people are going to die either way In fact, many will die from avoidable causes, like medical errors.
zakk 10y ago
Nonsense. Accounting for all deaths together is a great way of losing focus on each problem. Drownings account for roughly as many deaths as police in the USA. Should we seek for different, specific solutions or treat all deaths as if they were the same, losing touch with the real topic? Terrorism is a deliberate attempt to destabilize the state and must be fought differently with respect to, say, flu.
- Qantourisc 10y ago
  We are proposing laws we would normally not consider. Destabilization successful.
  - zakk 10y ago
    You are implying that a new law to address a new phenomenon will necessarily destabilize the country. Of course it's not so, some laws are required to face a new threat and stabilize the country.
- sevenless 10y ago
  Even if this is true, and terrorism threatens the existence of the state, states have no right to exist. New states often come into being, and states often stop existing (East Germany, USSR). This isn't inherently good or bad. There are ethical rationales for opposing terrorism, but defending the existence of particular national governments isn't one of them.
  - zakk 10y ago
    > states have no right to exist Quite a big assumption you make. If states have no right to exist, they obviously have no right of making new laws. Here we are discussing about a law proposal, so apparently everyone believes in the right of a country to exist and to regulate citizen's life through laws. I'm sorry.
    - sevenless 10y ago
      > If states have no right to exist, the obviously have no right of making new laws. That doesn't follow. States do make new laws, and people will go along with those laws, because the nature of a state is to compel people to follow its laws (by definition). It still doesn't mean that it's bad that any state should stop existing, or that we should oppose terrorism on the sole ground that it threatens states. Put it another way: a referendum to split the state into two (like the Scottish independence referendum), also threatens the state. That would not be a reason to oppose the referendum.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

erelde 10y ago

I agree with your idea, but I think you should add a few logical links in your statements to make it clearer. (and I live very near la Bastille, so according to the politicians I should be shocked) Furthermore, the people who did those crimes did not use any form of encryption but discussed on their playstation while playing Call of Duty. So there's that too.

kikimaru 10y ago
Does anyone have any proof of this? Sounds like fear-mongering bullshit to me.

akerro 10y ago

Fact: The attack in November in Paris was coordinated using unencrypted text messages. Conclusion: Let's ban PGP! People are dying! http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/11/paris-police-find-phone-with-unencrypted-sms-saying-lets-go-were-starting/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/11/paris-police-fi...

sevenless 10y ago
Yes Minister calls this "politician's logic". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trw1PbQt_Yo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trw1PbQt_Yo Something must be done; this is something; therefore, we must do it.
guillermau 10y ago
Fact: The attack in November in Paris was coordinated text messages. Conclusion: Let's ban reading and writing ! Fact: The attackers who attack Paris in November were recruited online by Isis. Conclusion: Let's ban internet for non commercial use !

mafribe 10y ago

no significant mortality risk to Europeans. This is "Whataboutism". The rational behind being wary about terrorism is as follows. 1. Normal homicides are random individual actions, and they are under reasonable control by standard policing. In other words, if we continue policing as we do now, normal homicide rate will remain constant. 2. Terrorism is not random individual action, but rather organised violence by large groups seeking power. If we continue policing as we do now, terrorism will increase, up to a point where the terrorists take over and are the new rulers. (Compare for example with the reaction to the AIDS epidemics in the early 1980s. The lazy whatabout-ist could have said (and indeed did say): "Oh AIDS just affects a few gays and needle-sharing heroin addicts, whatabout the orders of magnitude more who die of the flu and cancer, no need to worry about AIDS".) If you believe the two 'axioms' above, then it's perfectly reasonable to adapt policing in the light of the current wave of terrorism that's been spreading in Europe (and not only there). Note that I'm not saying that encryption should or should not be banned, or that either way is/isn't a good way of fighting terrorism. I'm just pointing out the weakness of the "but whatabout XYZ" argument.

leereeves 10y ago
> If we continue policing as we do now, terrorism will increase, up to a point where the terrorists take over and are the new rulers. That cannot be accepted as an 'axiom' without proof.
- mafribe 10y ago
  Exactly what would you accept as proof? A deduction in ZFC or Homotopy Type Theory? Or an empirical experiment, where we split the world into two parts, one were we police terrorism as the french are doing now, and one where terrorists are treated like random robberies and crimes of spurned lovers; then wait for 200 years and see which side does better?
  - leereeves 10y ago
    Does the snark mean you don't have an actual argument supporting the 'axiom' (really just a premise) that "terrorists will take over the world"? You can't avoid the need to prove your premises by calling them 'axioms'.

Aeolun 10y ago

I think you are misrepresenting the issue. 700 would die from homicide in a normal year. +/- 150 died from terrorism in 2015, 2016 is on track to have a slightly lower number (100), That means the increase in homicide from recent terrorism is anywhere between 14 and 21%. That's not insignificant however you look at it. Those 600,000 people are going to die either way, but those 150 people a year are still up in the air. Doesn't mean that cancer isn't a bigger issue on the grand scale, but having people see terrorism as a natural disaster is a bit of a stretch.

sevenless 10y ago
This seems to be confusing proportions with absolute numbers. Newspapers do this all the time about health statistics, going from a very small number of additional deaths to scaremonger about a '300% increase in cancer'. Terrorism in the last year is a significant proportion of the total number of homicides in France, but the percentage increase doesn't mean the absolute number is relevant. If you didn't worry about being murdered in France before 2015, there's no reason to worry about dying in a terrorist attack after 2015. Moreover, we might expect terrorist attacks to regress to the mean, so 2015 would be unusually bad under that additional assumption. If the number of homicides increased by 14-20% due to some other cause, it likely wouldn't be seen as an urgent policy issue. > Those 600,000 people are going to die either way In fact, many will die from avoidable causes, like medical errors.

zakk 10y ago

Nonsense. Accounting for all deaths together is a great way of losing focus on each problem. Drownings account for roughly as many deaths as police in the USA. Should we seek for different, specific solutions or treat all deaths as if they were the same, losing touch with the real topic? Terrorism is a deliberate attempt to destabilize the state and must be fought differently with respect to, say, flu.

Qantourisc 10y ago
We are proposing laws we would normally not consider. Destabilization successful.
- zakk 10y ago
  You are implying that a new law to address a new phenomenon will necessarily destabilize the country. Of course it's not so, some laws are required to face a new threat and stabilize the country.
sevenless 10y ago
Even if this is true, and terrorism threatens the existence of the state, states have no right to exist. New states often come into being, and states often stop existing (East Germany, USSR). This isn't inherently good or bad. There are ethical rationales for opposing terrorism, but defending the existence of particular national governments isn't one of them.
- zakk 10y ago
  > states have no right to exist Quite a big assumption you make. If states have no right to exist, they obviously have no right of making new laws. Here we are discussing about a law proposal, so apparently everyone believes in the right of a country to exist and to regulate citizen's life through laws. I'm sorry.
  - sevenless 10y ago
    > If states have no right to exist, the obviously have no right of making new laws. That doesn't follow. States do make new laws, and people will go along with those laws, because the nature of a state is to compel people to follow its laws (by definition). It still doesn't mean that it's bad that any state should stop existing, or that we should oppose terrorism on the sole ground that it threatens states. Put it another way: a referendum to split the state into two (like the Scottish independence referendum), also threatens the state. That would not be a reason to oppose the referendum.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]