8 ms·

I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but in the UK the only thing keeping us from numerous terror attacks per year is the panopticon we've allowed our security

by micv 9y ago

I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but in the UK the only thing keeping us from numerous terror attacks per year is the panopticon we've allowed our security services to build. They are stopping numerous attacks every year. This doesn't feel like a win to me.

Fnoord 9y ago
Yet that didn't stop the Boston attacks. There are other plausible reasons to consider why terrorism has lowered in Western Europe: 1) IRA is dismantled. IRA and UK are at peace. 2) ETA is dismantled as well. That's more recently though. 3) The Iron Curtain is down. Its a well known fact Eastern Europe states were supporting terrorists such as Carlos and the RAF. In the 80s this became less feasible already. 4) Right after the Iron Curtain went down there were wars and new countries (eventually) born. After that, the region more or less stabilized. NB: This is merely my perception.
- micv 9y ago
  All of these can be true without changing my point. The security services have grown vastly more capable through experience and advancement in tech which results in modern terror groups failing vastly more often than not. The IRA were vastly more capable than the Islamic terrorists we face in the UK today, but they never had to face a security service as well equipped to deal with them.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    > The security services have grown vastly more capable through experience and advancement in tech Can you objectively prove this? Specifically that its due to 1) experience 2) advancement in tech? Terrorists also gain experience. Terrorists also advance in tech. You do realize terrorist plots were foiled in the 70s and 80s as well? Minimizing (casualties from) terrorism is of all times. Yet the so-called 'vastly more capable' security services did not stop 9/11, Madrid, London attacks, Boston, or the attack on the USS Cole. All of that happened after mid 90s, arguably when mass surveillance was possible. What your posts continue to lack is any kind of substance on the positive effect of mass surveillance. The fact targeted surveillance is much older is a fallacy. However targeted surveillance has a proven track record. I've yet to see the efficiency of mass surveillance. I'll put my money on a lot of false positives, and a cat and mouse game where the mouse is going to adapt pretty quickly to the mass surveillance. In Belgium, for example, the government wants to have all SIM cards registered. All anonymous SIM cards will be disabled in a month. Hows that going to help catch terrorists? If not only for the fact anonymous SIM cards are still sold in the neighboring The Neherlands? Finally, as I posted in the other post, we must remember the main goal of terrorism is not (merely) 'killing people' [1]. So the statistic isn't accurately describing the 'effectiveness of terrorism'. [1] Specifically: "7. The direct victims are not the ultimate target (as in a classical assassination where victim and target coincide) but serve as message generators, more or less unwittingly helped by the news values of the mass media, to reach various audiences and conflict parties that identify either with the victims’ plight or the terrorists’ professed cause;"
  - still_grokking 9y ago
    Do you have actually any proves for what you are stating? By proves I don't mean the security services saying that they have saved you from numerous terror attacks per year (but all the details have to remain secret "because of security reasons"). Without proves your comment is pure right-winged surveillance propaganda.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
micv 9y ago
I can't edit, but states on terror deaths in the UK are hilariously skewed by how much harder they are to pull off now than they used to be. We pretend the problem is no big deal because bombs don't go off that often, but for every one that gets to the mass-murder stage there're probably at least a dozen that flunk out early. The low, low price for this is our inching ever closer to police state status. No big deal, right.
- RealityVoid 9y ago
  While you might be right, do you have any data you can point to that might support your claim?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - micv 9y ago
    http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/25/five-terror-plots-thwarted-since-westminster-attack-in-march-6661876/ http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/25/five-terror-plots-thwarted-sin... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/28/britain-foiled-terror-attacks-plots-police-counter-terrorism-security-services https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/28/britain-foil... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11997853/Revealed-Britain-foils-seven-terror-attacks-in-just-six-months.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/1... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-westminster-attack-michael-fallon-terror-threat-islamist-lone-wolf-low-tech-car-truck-vehicle-a7645221.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-westmi... It's a pretty constant news feature.
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      Went to read your The Independent source (didn't read the other 3). Found: "An operation run by GCHQ, the British intelligence and security organisation, used interception warrants to monitor phones owned by individuals linked to the 2015 plot, it was reported." Whereas earlier you mentioned the panopticon. Well, the above has very little to do with mass surveillance. If anything, that just muds the water. It has to do with targeted surveillance. Which has a proven track record. I've yet to see the efficiency of mass surveillance in a direct relation to catching terrorism.
jacquesm 9y ago
Bollocks. You can't stop a lone wolf attack, in fact you apparently can't stop an attack where a fair number of people are involved in the preparation. Terrorists simply shift their attacks to the simplest form that still works and could not care less about those that get caught, they are the equivalent of probes to determine what works and what does not, they were expendable, whether they succeed or not is not relevant as long as some of them do succeed. The conclusion seems to be that low tech attacks carried out by a minimum number of people against soft targets have the highest chance to succeed. Open societies are by definition incapable of stopping terrorist attacks in a direct way. Any idiot with a driving license (or even without) can be instructed in how to turn a lorry or even a regular car into a weapon. The internet enables effective command and control and the media helpfully increase the apparent magnitude and effectiveness of an attack.
- micv 9y ago
  Bollocks. Some slip through, but vastly more attacks are stopped unless you think all of the people in prison for terrorism offences are a fiction.
  - CrystalLangUser 9y ago
    A few people in jail < total government surveillance and flippant disregard towards human privacy. I'm sure oh so many attacks are stopped, but really the government uses that as an excuse to spy and track data on anything and everything. Keeping people in fear means they can do anything.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Effectiveness of surveillance arguments get old really quick and have been hashed to death. In short: a means to an end argument is a fallacy, specifically an appeal to consequences. If you're sensitive to fearmongering then please do hang out on HN more often, maybe we'll be able to convince you of the irrationality of that position. 'vastly' indicates huge numbers, 'all of the people' indicates huge numbers as well. In reality those numbers are (1) really small and (2) do not account for those attacks where governments helped a little bit to get the ball rolling (or in fact did almost everything). Keep in mind that terrorists, just like hackers only have to succeed once in a while, that in spite of using plain comms a substantial amount of these attacks succeed and that in an open society there is no effective way of stopping terrorists to begin with. So if you really want to get to the point where each and every terrorist attack is stopped you are arguing for a police state because that would stop you from getting into your car and driving wherever you want to go as well. Otherwise what is there to stop you from driving into a bunch of pedestrians and claiming terrorism?
raverbashing 9y ago
While selling arms to sponsors of terrorism and not expelling hate preachers from the country and ignoring warnings made in relation to specific person It's almost like they want attacks to continue happening for political gain
- mistermann 9y ago
  That's what I was thinking earlier today, I heard that the "Islamic community" reported this guy on 5 separate occasions or something like that. Not successfully following up could be a number of things though, it's pretty difficult to determine which it might have been when you can hardly trust what is printed in the newspapers or comes out of politicians mouths.
  - nailer 9y ago
    This is difficult as negative views about western society are common in Muslim groups that exist within them.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      A non-Muslim would tell you with extreme certainty that that is simply not true!!! lol

by micv 9y ago

Fnoord 9y ago

Yet that didn't stop the Boston attacks. There are other plausible reasons to consider why terrorism has lowered in Western Europe: 1) IRA is dismantled. IRA and UK are at peace. 2) ETA is dismantled as well. That's more recently though. 3) The Iron Curtain is down. Its a well known fact Eastern Europe states were supporting terrorists such as Carlos and the RAF. In the 80s this became less feasible already. 4) Right after the Iron Curtain went down there were wars and new countries (eventually) born. After that, the region more or less stabilized. NB: This is merely my perception.

micv 9y ago
All of these can be true without changing my point. The security services have grown vastly more capable through experience and advancement in tech which results in modern terror groups failing vastly more often than not. The IRA were vastly more capable than the Islamic terrorists we face in the UK today, but they never had to face a security service as well equipped to deal with them.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > The security services have grown vastly more capable through experience and advancement in tech Can you objectively prove this? Specifically that its due to 1) experience 2) advancement in tech? Terrorists also gain experience. Terrorists also advance in tech. You do realize terrorist plots were foiled in the 70s and 80s as well? Minimizing (casualties from) terrorism is of all times. Yet the so-called 'vastly more capable' security services did not stop 9/11, Madrid, London attacks, Boston, or the attack on the USS Cole. All of that happened after mid 90s, arguably when mass surveillance was possible. What your posts continue to lack is any kind of substance on the positive effect of mass surveillance. The fact targeted surveillance is much older is a fallacy. However targeted surveillance has a proven track record. I've yet to see the efficiency of mass surveillance. I'll put my money on a lot of false positives, and a cat and mouse game where the mouse is going to adapt pretty quickly to the mass surveillance. In Belgium, for example, the government wants to have all SIM cards registered. All anonymous SIM cards will be disabled in a month. Hows that going to help catch terrorists? If not only for the fact anonymous SIM cards are still sold in the neighboring The Neherlands? Finally, as I posted in the other post, we must remember the main goal of terrorism is not (merely) 'killing people' [1]. So the statistic isn't accurately describing the 'effectiveness of terrorism'. [1] Specifically: "7. The direct victims are not the ultimate target (as in a classical assassination where victim and target coincide) but serve as message generators, more or less unwittingly helped by the news values of the mass media, to reach various audiences and conflict parties that identify either with the victims’ plight or the terrorists’ professed cause;"
- still_grokking 9y ago
  Do you have actually any proves for what you are stating? By proves I don't mean the security services saying that they have saved you from numerous terror attacks per year (but all the details have to remain secret "because of security reasons"). Without proves your comment is pure right-winged surveillance propaganda.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

micv 9y ago

I can't edit, but states on terror deaths in the UK are hilariously skewed by how much harder they are to pull off now than they used to be. We pretend the problem is no big deal because bombs don't go off that often, but for every one that gets to the mass-murder stage there're probably at least a dozen that flunk out early. The low, low price for this is our inching ever closer to police state status. No big deal, right.

RealityVoid 9y ago
While you might be right, do you have any data you can point to that might support your claim?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- micv 9y ago
  http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/25/five-terror-plots-thwarted-since-westminster-attack-in-march-6661876/ http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/25/five-terror-plots-thwarted-sin... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/28/britain-foiled-terror-attacks-plots-police-counter-terrorism-security-services https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/28/britain-foil... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11997853/Revealed-Britain-foils-seven-terror-attacks-in-just-six-months.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/1... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-westminster-attack-michael-fallon-terror-threat-islamist-lone-wolf-low-tech-car-truck-vehicle-a7645221.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-westmi... It's a pretty constant news feature.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    Went to read your The Independent source (didn't read the other 3). Found: "An operation run by GCHQ, the British intelligence and security organisation, used interception warrants to monitor phones owned by individuals linked to the 2015 plot, it was reported." Whereas earlier you mentioned the panopticon. Well, the above has very little to do with mass surveillance. If anything, that just muds the water. It has to do with targeted surveillance. Which has a proven track record. I've yet to see the efficiency of mass surveillance in a direct relation to catching terrorism.

jacquesm 9y ago

Bollocks. You can't stop a lone wolf attack, in fact you apparently can't stop an attack where a fair number of people are involved in the preparation. Terrorists simply shift their attacks to the simplest form that still works and could not care less about those that get caught, they are the equivalent of probes to determine what works and what does not, they were expendable, whether they succeed or not is not relevant as long as some of them do succeed. The conclusion seems to be that low tech attacks carried out by a minimum number of people against soft targets have the highest chance to succeed. Open societies are by definition incapable of stopping terrorist attacks in a direct way. Any idiot with a driving license (or even without) can be instructed in how to turn a lorry or even a regular car into a weapon. The internet enables effective command and control and the media helpfully increase the apparent magnitude and effectiveness of an attack.

micv 9y ago
Bollocks. Some slip through, but vastly more attacks are stopped unless you think all of the people in prison for terrorism offences are a fiction.
- CrystalLangUser 9y ago
  A few people in jail < total government surveillance and flippant disregard towards human privacy. I'm sure oh so many attacks are stopped, but really the government uses that as an excuse to spy and track data on anything and everything. Keeping people in fear means they can do anything.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Effectiveness of surveillance arguments get old really quick and have been hashed to death. In short: a means to an end argument is a fallacy, specifically an appeal to consequences. If you're sensitive to fearmongering then please do hang out on HN more often, maybe we'll be able to convince you of the irrationality of that position. 'vastly' indicates huge numbers, 'all of the people' indicates huge numbers as well. In reality those numbers are (1) really small and (2) do not account for those attacks where governments helped a little bit to get the ball rolling (or in fact did almost everything). Keep in mind that terrorists, just like hackers only have to succeed once in a while, that in spite of using plain comms a substantial amount of these attacks succeed and that in an open society there is no effective way of stopping terrorists to begin with. So if you really want to get to the point where each and every terrorist attack is stopped you are arguing for a police state because that would stop you from getting into your car and driving wherever you want to go as well. Otherwise what is there to stop you from driving into a bunch of pedestrians and claiming terrorism?

raverbashing 9y ago

While selling arms to sponsors of terrorism and not expelling hate preachers from the country and ignoring warnings made in relation to specific person It's almost like they want attacks to continue happening for political gain

mistermann 9y ago
That's what I was thinking earlier today, I heard that the "Islamic community" reported this guy on 5 separate occasions or something like that. Not successfully following up could be a number of things though, it's pretty difficult to determine which it might have been when you can hardly trust what is printed in the newspapers or comes out of politicians mouths.
- nailer 9y ago
  This is difficult as negative views about western society are common in Muslim groups that exist within them.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    A non-Muslim would tell you with extreme certainty that that is simply not true!!! lol