6 ms·

As an ordinary citizen, I'm definitely wary and suspicious of government surveillance. I probably prefer a slightly increased risk of terrorism vs an increase i

by outlace 10y ago

As an ordinary citizen, I'm definitely wary and suspicious of government surveillance. I probably prefer a slightly increased risk of terrorism vs an increase in government surveillance powers. But I wonder if I was the president and faced with a constant threat and paranoia of a terrorist attack under my watch if I would compromise my own usual ideals to protect the country. It's definitely a rock and a hard place situation.

skylan_q 10y ago
An option: Stop immigration from places that are prone to terrorist attacks happening and then you won't have to give up nearly as much privacy in the name of fighting terror at home.
- pjc50 10y ago
  The 9/11 hijackers were mostly on tourist visas from a place with almost no history of terror attacks: http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-of-9-11-terrorists http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-... And of course most deaths from terrorism in the US are from "mass shooters", who tend to be self-radicalised US nationals with fringe political beliefs.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The 9/11 hijackers were mostly on tourist visas from a place with almost no history of terror attacks: Your source (correctly) says they were mostly from Saudi Arabia, which has a rather extensive history over several decades of terrorist attacks (both attacks in Saudi Arabia, and attackers outside of Saudi Arabia by Saudi nationals and/or with Saudi sponsors.) There is no sense in which Saudi Arabia is (or could be fairly described in 2001 as) "a place with almost no history of terror attacks."
    - BeetleB 10y ago
      Prior to 2001, it had a very low history. Two bombings in the country in the 90's. UAE had no history.
    - skylan_q 10y ago
      Your source (correctly) says they were mostly from Saudi Arabia, which has a rather extensive history over several decades of terrorist attacks That's a detail that doesn't matter. What matters is that we open the doors to men who have high risk of radicalization and ties to rich Saudis, bigot.
- smileysteve 10y ago
  > you won't have to give up nearly as much privacy in the name of fighting terror at home Needs citation. - FBI screening has been ineffective (Boston, Orlando) - FBI self reporting has been ineffective (Ft. Lauderdale) - Expired Visas (under GWB) has been ineffective (9/11) - Facebook and Apple Prism programs have been ineffective (San Bernardino) - TSA fails internal tests. (Richard Reid) - Russian intelligence agencies reporting to U.S. intelligence agencies has been ineffective. (Boston) - Enhanced Background and Psychological tests ineffective (Orlando, Charleston) - Intelligence Briefings have been ineffective (9/11, Richard Reid)
  - skylan_q 10y ago
    You're right. You've changed my mind. They need to get rid of all counter-terrorism operations and ignore the problem because all attempts to stop any attacks have been without effect.
- jimnotgym 10y ago
  The London Underground bombers came from Leeds...they were not immigrants at all!
  - skylan_q 10y ago
    What's your point? That not all terrorists are from abroad? We know that. Why is it necessary to bring in people who have high risks of radicalizing? Homegrown terror isn't a reason to stop trying altogether.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
It would call for special skills and oratory, normally associated with Leadership. We should be a better country than this. We need a leader that will inspire us to be our better selves. We haven't had much of that lately; we'll have to wait at least 4 more years for another chance to elect a Leader.
K0SM0S 10y ago
Honestly, given the near-unanimous stance, towards surveillance, of most governments in most developed countries (NA, EU, etc.) it's becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss their motivations as simply "stupid" or "misguided" or "power-hungry". I mean, it's impossible that all of them are uneducated about history (how surveillance is a double-edged sword that never fails to backfire), or just plain authoritarian at heart. "Because we can" isn't satisfactory either. So there must be another explanation. I don't know what the Presidents / Prime Ministers / Intelligence Agencies of this world know, but if they all respond to current threats in the same inexplicable way, there must be some 'logical enough' underlying motivation. Definitely pointing at a "rock and a hard place" indeed. The other cold reality is that, for all the horror, terrorism isn't a threat to civilization, we're talking ~25k deaths/year worldwide (DoD/UN figures, cf. Wiki), which is orders of magnitude less than other threats like cancer or alcoholism or smoking tobacco (~2.5m deaths/year _each_). Terrorism is emotionally horrific, but demographically it doesn't even register. Nowadays it doesn't even really affect stock markets that much (e.g. in France, despite everything that happened in recent years). So based on the data we have as citizens, it doesn't make sense to spend so much (money, political capital, loss of freedom) to avoid so 'little' demographic/economic risk. Not saying we shouldn't fight against it, or protect citizens, but A) mass surveillance is a bad means to fight terrorism, good ol'fashionned spying is the way and B) the huge means (CIA etc.) are totally not proportional to the very risk we're trying to avoid. So what's the _real_ reason for surveillance? What is it about Big Brother-ing citizens that is so necessary that the public does not know about? How is it even possible that after a decade and a half post 9/11 no official in any country ever talked about the _real_ reasons behind this apparent unbalance between counter-terrorist means and terrorism consequences? I am everything but a conspiracy lunatic, so I don't accept the idea that people in power are organizing, all together, a dystopian reality a la 1984 --doesn't make sense to me. So what gives? What are this rock and this hard place, exactly?
- burkaman 10y ago
  How is it inexplicable? When you're tasked with stopping individual suicidal extremists hiding within your citizenry, the obvious first step is "I need more information". There doesn't need to be any conspiracy or hidden threat, it is a natural and logical response. Politicians aren't robots, obviously they care more about terrorism than tobacco. And they aren't spending political capital by setting up surveillance, they're gaining it. Obama took huge hits every time he said "ISIS is the JV", "terrorism isn't an existential threat", "chill out everyone". Imagine if he said he was diverting NSA funding to fight the tobacco industry. Basically, if you don't understand politicians, talk to the people voting for them. The NSA exists because people want it to.
dandelion_lover 10y ago
>>I probably prefer a slightly increased risk of terrorism vs an increase in government surveillance powers. This is exactly what any educated person should prefer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias

by outlace 10y ago

skylan_q 10y ago

An option: Stop immigration from places that are prone to terrorist attacks happening and then you won't have to give up nearly as much privacy in the name of fighting terror at home.

pjc50 10y ago
The 9/11 hijackers were mostly on tourist visas from a place with almost no history of terror attacks: http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-of-9-11-terrorists http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-... And of course most deaths from terrorism in the US are from "mass shooters", who tend to be self-radicalised US nationals with fringe political beliefs.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The 9/11 hijackers were mostly on tourist visas from a place with almost no history of terror attacks: Your source (correctly) says they were mostly from Saudi Arabia, which has a rather extensive history over several decades of terrorist attacks (both attacks in Saudi Arabia, and attackers outside of Saudi Arabia by Saudi nationals and/or with Saudi sponsors.) There is no sense in which Saudi Arabia is (or could be fairly described in 2001 as) "a place with almost no history of terror attacks."
  - BeetleB 10y ago
    Prior to 2001, it had a very low history. Two bombings in the country in the 90's. UAE had no history.
  - skylan_q 10y ago
    Your source (correctly) says they were mostly from Saudi Arabia, which has a rather extensive history over several decades of terrorist attacks That's a detail that doesn't matter. What matters is that we open the doors to men who have high risk of radicalization and ties to rich Saudis, bigot.
smileysteve 10y ago
> you won't have to give up nearly as much privacy in the name of fighting terror at home Needs citation. - FBI screening has been ineffective (Boston, Orlando) - FBI self reporting has been ineffective (Ft. Lauderdale) - Expired Visas (under GWB) has been ineffective (9/11) - Facebook and Apple Prism programs have been ineffective (San Bernardino) - TSA fails internal tests. (Richard Reid) - Russian intelligence agencies reporting to U.S. intelligence agencies has been ineffective. (Boston) - Enhanced Background and Psychological tests ineffective (Orlando, Charleston) - Intelligence Briefings have been ineffective (9/11, Richard Reid)
- skylan_q 10y ago
  You're right. You've changed my mind. They need to get rid of all counter-terrorism operations and ignore the problem because all attempts to stop any attacks have been without effect.
jimnotgym 10y ago
The London Underground bombers came from Leeds...they were not immigrants at all!
- skylan_q 10y ago
  What's your point? That not all terrorists are from abroad? We know that. Why is it necessary to bring in people who have high risks of radicalizing? Homegrown terror isn't a reason to stop trying altogether.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

It would call for special skills and oratory, normally associated with Leadership. We should be a better country than this. We need a leader that will inspire us to be our better selves. We haven't had much of that lately; we'll have to wait at least 4 more years for another chance to elect a Leader.

K0SM0S 10y ago

Honestly, given the near-unanimous stance, towards surveillance, of most governments in most developed countries (NA, EU, etc.) it's becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss their motivations as simply "stupid" or "misguided" or "power-hungry". I mean, it's impossible that all of them are uneducated about history (how surveillance is a double-edged sword that never fails to backfire), or just plain authoritarian at heart. "Because we can" isn't satisfactory either. So there must be another explanation. I don't know what the Presidents / Prime Ministers / Intelligence Agencies of this world know, but if they all respond to current threats in the same inexplicable way, there must be some 'logical enough' underlying motivation. Definitely pointing at a "rock and a hard place" indeed. The other cold reality is that, for all the horror, terrorism isn't a threat to civilization, we're talking ~25k deaths/year worldwide (DoD/UN figures, cf. Wiki), which is orders of magnitude less than other threats like cancer or alcoholism or smoking tobacco (~2.5m deaths/year _each_). Terrorism is emotionally horrific, but demographically it doesn't even register. Nowadays it doesn't even really affect stock markets that much (e.g. in France, despite everything that happened in recent years). So based on the data we have as citizens, it doesn't make sense to spend so much (money, political capital, loss of freedom) to avoid so 'little' demographic/economic risk. Not saying we shouldn't fight against it, or protect citizens, but A) mass surveillance is a bad means to fight terrorism, good ol'fashionned spying is the way and B) the huge means (CIA etc.) are totally not proportional to the very risk we're trying to avoid. So what's the _real_ reason for surveillance? What is it about Big Brother-ing citizens that is so necessary that the public does not know about? How is it even possible that after a decade and a half post 9/11 no official in any country ever talked about the _real_ reasons behind this apparent unbalance between counter-terrorist means and terrorism consequences? I am everything but a conspiracy lunatic, so I don't accept the idea that people in power are organizing, all together, a dystopian reality a la 1984 --doesn't make sense to me. So what gives? What are this rock and this hard place, exactly?

burkaman 10y ago
How is it inexplicable? When you're tasked with stopping individual suicidal extremists hiding within your citizenry, the obvious first step is "I need more information". There doesn't need to be any conspiracy or hidden threat, it is a natural and logical response. Politicians aren't robots, obviously they care more about terrorism than tobacco. And they aren't spending political capital by setting up surveillance, they're gaining it. Obama took huge hits every time he said "ISIS is the JV", "terrorism isn't an existential threat", "chill out everyone". Imagine if he said he was diverting NSA funding to fight the tobacco industry. Basically, if you don't understand politicians, talk to the people voting for them. The NSA exists because people want it to.

dandelion_lover 10y ago

>>I probably prefer a slightly increased risk of terrorism vs an increase in government surveillance powers. This is exactly what any educated person should prefer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias