3 ms·

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 pro

by 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.
    - qb45 9y ago
      “The government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement and security and intelligence services have the power they need to keep people safe. The internet presents new opportunities for terrorists and we must ensure we have the capabilities to confront this challenge.“ Either way, terrorism does contribute to bulk surveillance. And heck, it might even actually be helpful. You don't know because it's secret.
      - Fnoord 9y ago
        "“The government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement and security and intelligence services have the power they need to keep people safe. The internet presents new opportunities for terrorists and we must ensure we have the capabilities to confront this challenge.“" Your quote does not directly support mass surveillance. It might just as well be an argument for targeted surveillance. I got nothing against targeted surveillance (I'm a proponent for that).
        qb45 9y ago
        > Your quote does not directly support mass surveillance. It doesn't need to. I wanted to point out that mass surveillance is one of the costs of terrorism, regardless of its effectiveness in fighting it. And that we know little about its effectiveness because presumably there is lots of top secret stuff going on. Surely they don't want ISIS to know which channels are compromised and how, which means you can't know too.
    - observation 9y ago
      > I've yet to see the efficiency of mass surveillance in a direct relation to catching terrorism. It is possible that the libertarians are right, that mass surveillance doesn't in of itself prevent acts of terror. There's considerable evidence there's a TMI problem. Just as with any form of education, too much information can prevent learning because prioritization gets shot. What the libertarians don't address though is the possibility that mass surveillance may as a side affect hold back a higher order of terror. The feeling of being watched changes people's behaviour, known to often make them self police. This applies to future terrorists becoming more passive also. Terrorism is a very tiny subset of human behaviours after all. The supporters of mass surveillance don't want to make that argument because they rightly think it plays into the hands of the civil liberties people. Against this is 'Culture' or the side affect wouldn't be as consequential. Post World War 1 German society, Islam today, different Mafias, they have in common a normalization of political violence. To get the full value you'd need to break the society down e.g. Denazification, anti-racketeering laws...

by micv 9y ago

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.
  - qb45 9y ago
    “The government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement and security and intelligence services have the power they need to keep people safe. The internet presents new opportunities for terrorists and we must ensure we have the capabilities to confront this challenge.“ Either way, terrorism does contribute to bulk surveillance. And heck, it might even actually be helpful. You don't know because it's secret.
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      "“The government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement and security and intelligence services have the power they need to keep people safe. The internet presents new opportunities for terrorists and we must ensure we have the capabilities to confront this challenge.“" Your quote does not directly support mass surveillance. It might just as well be an argument for targeted surveillance. I got nothing against targeted surveillance (I'm a proponent for that).
      - qb45 9y ago
        > Your quote does not directly support mass surveillance. It doesn't need to. I wanted to point out that mass surveillance is one of the costs of terrorism, regardless of its effectiveness in fighting it. And that we know little about its effectiveness because presumably there is lots of top secret stuff going on. Surely they don't want ISIS to know which channels are compromised and how, which means you can't know too.
  - observation 9y ago
    > I've yet to see the efficiency of mass surveillance in a direct relation to catching terrorism. It is possible that the libertarians are right, that mass surveillance doesn't in of itself prevent acts of terror. There's considerable evidence there's a TMI problem. Just as with any form of education, too much information can prevent learning because prioritization gets shot. What the libertarians don't address though is the possibility that mass surveillance may as a side affect hold back a higher order of terror. The feeling of being watched changes people's behaviour, known to often make them self police. This applies to future terrorists becoming more passive also. Terrorism is a very tiny subset of human behaviours after all. The supporters of mass surveillance don't want to make that argument because they rightly think it plays into the hands of the civil liberties people. Against this is 'Culture' or the side affect wouldn't be as consequential. Post World War 1 German society, Islam today, different Mafias, they have in common a normalization of political violence. To get the full value you'd need to break the society down e.g. Denazification, anti-racketeering laws...