5 ms·

Probably mainly smoke and mirrors. I've lost count of the number of UK stories where some terrorist or criminal was known to authorities, or already on a watch

Probably mainly smoke and mirrors. I've lost count of the number of UK stories where some terrorist or criminal was known to authorities, or already on a watch list. They never manage to catch or prevent despite all these huge surveillance programmes. Then the news almost inevitably follows up that they've found out there were public exchanges of messages on Twitter 2 days before the incident or some such. It would be comical were it not for people dying. My take is it's utterly irrelevant. The chance, even with Daish and current events, of dying in a terrorist attack are less than by falling off a ladder. Something like 20 times less. It's firmly down there with the silly and odd causes of death. I see no war on ladders.

sandworm101 10y ago
>> I see no war on ladders. Have you tried to buy a large ladder lately? They come covered in so many warning stickers you'd think you were buying pesticide. Snowmobiles come with fewer warnings.
- jawbone3 10y ago
  You are comparing the invasion of afganistan with warning stickers, just clarifying.
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    And what an enlightening comparison it is. Whilst one has had significantly more resources spent on it than the other, you do have to wonder - would spending the same on ladders make much difference? Is the ladder safety market saturated and the invading foreign nations not?
- rasz_pl 10y ago
  in US maybe, the land of "do not swallow" stickers on baseball bats
throwaway1892 10y ago
> ... the number of UK stories where some terrorist or criminal was known to authorities, or already on a watch list It was the case of most of the terrorists who've attacked France those last years.
Fnoord 10y ago
> Probably mainly smoke and mirrors. That is because CCTV does not directly decrease crime. Instead, it tries to increase the chance the alleged criminal gets seen, profiled, and caught later on which means the alleged criminal won't be able to commit crime for a while due to jail time. Mass surveillance and CCTV are notoriously bad at avoiding crime or terrorism from happening on the short term though, and as long as there is incentive to either, they'll remain happening.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  No idea why you're being downvoted, you're completely right [1]. CCTV does nothing to reduce crime, and can lull people into a false sense of security - as the GP illustrates. It perhaps increases convictions. To reduce we'd need Police near enough to react quickly. Visible Police on the beat again would probably have other societal benefits. But they keep rolling out the security blanket. Someone is making a mint selling CCTV. It would be better if we stopped letting the terrorists win repeatedly by completely changing our society in response. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/17/why-cctv-does-not-deter-crime https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/17/why-cctv-...
lostboys67 10y ago
"known to " can mean anything from: They went to Syria and stared in a beheading video to: Went to a couple of sermons by a dodgy cleric

sandworm101 10y ago

>> I see no war on ladders. Have you tried to buy a large ladder lately? They come covered in so many warning stickers you'd think you were buying pesticide. Snowmobiles come with fewer warnings.

jawbone3 10y ago
You are comparing the invasion of afganistan with warning stickers, just clarifying.
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  And what an enlightening comparison it is. Whilst one has had significantly more resources spent on it than the other, you do have to wonder - would spending the same on ladders make much difference? Is the ladder safety market saturated and the invading foreign nations not?
rasz_pl 10y ago
in US maybe, the land of "do not swallow" stickers on baseball bats

throwaway1892 10y ago

> ... the number of UK stories where some terrorist or criminal was known to authorities, or already on a watch list It was the case of most of the terrorists who've attacked France those last years.

Fnoord 10y ago

> Probably mainly smoke and mirrors. That is because CCTV does not directly decrease crime. Instead, it tries to increase the chance the alleged criminal gets seen, profiled, and caught later on which means the alleged criminal won't be able to commit crime for a while due to jail time. Mass surveillance and CCTV are notoriously bad at avoiding crime or terrorism from happening on the short term though, and as long as there is incentive to either, they'll remain happening.

anexprogrammer 10y ago
No idea why you're being downvoted, you're completely right [1]. CCTV does nothing to reduce crime, and can lull people into a false sense of security - as the GP illustrates. It perhaps increases convictions. To reduce we'd need Police near enough to react quickly. Visible Police on the beat again would probably have other societal benefits. But they keep rolling out the security blanket. Someone is making a mint selling CCTV. It would be better if we stopped letting the terrorists win repeatedly by completely changing our society in response. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/17/why-cctv-does-not-deter-crime https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/17/why-cctv-...

lostboys67 10y ago

"known to " can mean anything from: They went to Syria and stared in a beheading video to: Went to a couple of sermons by a dodgy cleric