4 ms·

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 resul

by 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]

by micv 9y ago

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]