4 ms·

> until terrorism ceases to be a force in the world I think you're basically implying this, but I think it's worth elaborating: there is no particular reason f

> until terrorism ceases to be a force in the world I think you're basically implying this, but I think it's worth elaborating: there is no particular reason for terrorism to cease being a force in the world if things stay grossly similar to the way they are today. Unlike, say, war, which requires state actors to maintain aggression, terrorism requires just one individual with an idea. Even addressing root causes won't eliminate terrorism entirely. Unless people cease to be afraid (perhaps due to improved numeracy / statistical thinking), the threat of terrorism will forever loom.

mozumder 10y ago
Which is why government allows for surveillance directly in its constitution. Search warrants have always existed. There is no government without a search warrant, since no government allows privacy against the state's will. Until you are your own king, you will always have to live under the permission of government.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  Right, but there is a procedure behind obtaining a search warrant, which is nothing at all like giving the government blanket surveillance powers.
  - slarrick 10y ago
    I'm not well versed on the details of U.S. government surveillance, but is it not the case that collection of phone logs, for instance, does not entail the government directly infringing on or even caring about 99.999999% of the public's private activity? My understanding is that these types of surveillance programs technically exist so that logs can be pulled up retroactively or algorithmically in rare but important cases. I am asking because I am intellectually curious. It seems to me that _on average_ people could stand to gain from surveillance and possibly predictive algorithms for crime. I would like to better grasp the other side of the argument.
    - hedora 10y ago
      That argument has been made by repressive regimes to justify all sorts of witch hunts: "Our records say you were friends with John; you should have known he would be branded a subversive traitor. Why didn't you turn him in first?" Stats make this even worse: "Sorry. The computer said we have to lock you up for your own good." Also, the framers of the US constitution had a deep mistrust of government (they just overthrew the brits!). The right of revolution is something they teach (at least used to teach) in US schools: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution Tl;dr: If law enforcement is too effective then you can't defend yourself from unjust governments. This is why we have juries and the right to bear arms / form [state in addition to federal] militias.
      - slarrick 10y ago
        Thank you for your reply. Your argument makes sense to me, however I am still having some difficulty understanding how ultimately surveillance is anything but negligible in aiding law enforcement to oppress U.S. citizens - compared to the government's already existing enormously superior weaponry. IF the government were out to get me, I can't imagine how I could stop them, even if they had only basic information about me. UNLESS I am a criminal mastermind, in which case it seems like the government would NEED information about me to stop me, which would probably be a good thing? I dunno... do you at least see where I'm coming from? I haven't formed a concrete opinion about it all, and I am a student of cyber-security. Presently considering all points of view. EDIT: I guess your point is that the surveillance information can be used to /justify/ an attack on a citizen, so that the public accepts it. But somehow I imagine the government could already easily falsify records to do exactly that without deep troves of info?
        hedora 10y ago
        The ideas I presented are from a long time ago. Arguably, modern military technology made grass roots revolutions impossible in first world countries (or will soon, given drones, etc). Dragnet surveillance creates capabilities like "shoot the 1% of people in this city most likely to oppose me." A more effective / socially acceptable version is already being implemented in China. They have a number that measures how good of a citizen you are. As I understand it, it can be used to vet people for all sorts of things (employment, credit, housing, law enforcement targeting, etc). So, now, if you say something wrong in private, you might end up begging for food on the side of the road. Of course, the input to the score is secret; presumably it can be adjusted up or down by (abusive?) people in authority. Even if I am wrong about the details of the Chinese system (maybe it has great checks and balances for all I know), it is easy to see how government agents could abuse such a system.
- wybiral 10y ago
  The scope of that surveillance should be kept in check though. Search warrants seem reasonable to me (assuming the process of obtaining a warrant is somewhat restrictive) but broad unchecked surveillance isn't reasonable to me. Giving a government too much access and control seems bad for both the government and the people.
  - mozumder 10y ago
    I get that but a lot of people are questioning any surveillance.
    - wybiral 10y ago
      That's fair. But regarding this statement: > Until you are your own king, you will always have to live under the permission of government. My complaint is that a government should exist to facilitate the well being of its people. They should have to operate under the permission of us, not the other way around.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        The US government does operate under the permission of the people. There have been candidates who are strongly opposed to the NSA's surveillance programs. They didn't win. The election of Donald Trump should shatter any illusions that the political establishment has a stranglehold on power.
marcoperaza 10y ago
>Unless people cease to be afraid (perhaps due to improved numeracy / statistical thinking) I disagree with that approach to framing terrorism because attacks are not just random violence, they are responses to the specific actions or perceived actions of individuals and governments. Charlie Hebdo and the various cartoonists that have drawn political comics of Mohammed, have (to my knowledge) all found themselves at the receiving end of terrorist attacks, or at least credible threats that require them to change their way of life. Thus there are now broad topics where we don't actually have the freedom of speech that technically exists on paper.
- carbocation 10y ago
  I was careful not to call the attacks random. Rather, for any individual, it is unlikely that they will be involved in a terrorist attack. The Charlie Hebdo attacks are much more targeted (like an assassination), and seem qualitatively different from what people typically think of when terrorism comes to mind.

mozumder 10y ago

Which is why government allows for surveillance directly in its constitution. Search warrants have always existed. There is no government without a search warrant, since no government allows privacy against the state's will. Until you are your own king, you will always have to live under the permission of government.

Cyph0n 10y ago
Right, but there is a procedure behind obtaining a search warrant, which is nothing at all like giving the government blanket surveillance powers.
- slarrick 10y ago
  I'm not well versed on the details of U.S. government surveillance, but is it not the case that collection of phone logs, for instance, does not entail the government directly infringing on or even caring about 99.999999% of the public's private activity? My understanding is that these types of surveillance programs technically exist so that logs can be pulled up retroactively or algorithmically in rare but important cases. I am asking because I am intellectually curious. It seems to me that _on average_ people could stand to gain from surveillance and possibly predictive algorithms for crime. I would like to better grasp the other side of the argument.
  - hedora 10y ago
    That argument has been made by repressive regimes to justify all sorts of witch hunts: "Our records say you were friends with John; you should have known he would be branded a subversive traitor. Why didn't you turn him in first?" Stats make this even worse: "Sorry. The computer said we have to lock you up for your own good." Also, the framers of the US constitution had a deep mistrust of government (they just overthrew the brits!). The right of revolution is something they teach (at least used to teach) in US schools: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution Tl;dr: If law enforcement is too effective then you can't defend yourself from unjust governments. This is why we have juries and the right to bear arms / form [state in addition to federal] militias.
    - slarrick 10y ago
      Thank you for your reply. Your argument makes sense to me, however I am still having some difficulty understanding how ultimately surveillance is anything but negligible in aiding law enforcement to oppress U.S. citizens - compared to the government's already existing enormously superior weaponry. IF the government were out to get me, I can't imagine how I could stop them, even if they had only basic information about me. UNLESS I am a criminal mastermind, in which case it seems like the government would NEED information about me to stop me, which would probably be a good thing? I dunno... do you at least see where I'm coming from? I haven't formed a concrete opinion about it all, and I am a student of cyber-security. Presently considering all points of view. EDIT: I guess your point is that the surveillance information can be used to /justify/ an attack on a citizen, so that the public accepts it. But somehow I imagine the government could already easily falsify records to do exactly that without deep troves of info?
      - hedora 10y ago
        The ideas I presented are from a long time ago. Arguably, modern military technology made grass roots revolutions impossible in first world countries (or will soon, given drones, etc). Dragnet surveillance creates capabilities like "shoot the 1% of people in this city most likely to oppose me." A more effective / socially acceptable version is already being implemented in China. They have a number that measures how good of a citizen you are. As I understand it, it can be used to vet people for all sorts of things (employment, credit, housing, law enforcement targeting, etc). So, now, if you say something wrong in private, you might end up begging for food on the side of the road. Of course, the input to the score is secret; presumably it can be adjusted up or down by (abusive?) people in authority. Even if I am wrong about the details of the Chinese system (maybe it has great checks and balances for all I know), it is easy to see how government agents could abuse such a system.
wybiral 10y ago
The scope of that surveillance should be kept in check though. Search warrants seem reasonable to me (assuming the process of obtaining a warrant is somewhat restrictive) but broad unchecked surveillance isn't reasonable to me. Giving a government too much access and control seems bad for both the government and the people.
- mozumder 10y ago
  I get that but a lot of people are questioning any surveillance.
  - wybiral 10y ago
    That's fair. But regarding this statement: > Until you are your own king, you will always have to live under the permission of government. My complaint is that a government should exist to facilitate the well being of its people. They should have to operate under the permission of us, not the other way around.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      The US government does operate under the permission of the people. There have been candidates who are strongly opposed to the NSA's surveillance programs. They didn't win. The election of Donald Trump should shatter any illusions that the political establishment has a stranglehold on power.

marcoperaza 10y ago

>Unless people cease to be afraid (perhaps due to improved numeracy / statistical thinking) I disagree with that approach to framing terrorism because attacks are not just random violence, they are responses to the specific actions or perceived actions of individuals and governments. Charlie Hebdo and the various cartoonists that have drawn political comics of Mohammed, have (to my knowledge) all found themselves at the receiving end of terrorist attacks, or at least credible threats that require them to change their way of life. Thus there are now broad topics where we don't actually have the freedom of speech that technically exists on paper.

carbocation 10y ago
I was careful not to call the attacks random. Rather, for any individual, it is unlikely that they will be involved in a terrorist attack. The Charlie Hebdo attacks are much more targeted (like an assassination), and seem qualitatively different from what people typically think of when terrorism comes to mind.