5 ms·

If you have a systematic approach to achieve safety and counter terrorism, without monitoring citizens, then please state it briefly. I personally have no idea

If you have a systematic approach to achieve safety and counter terrorism, without monitoring citizens, then please state it briefly. I personally have no idea how to prevent without close monitoring. Why shouldn't the burden be on the other side? Can you - can anyone - demonstrate that "close monitoring" actually makes it possible to prevent terrorism? That states will actually use it that way, when the threat of terror is so politically useful? Because without making a strong case along those lines first, you can't even take the "I'll trade privacy for safety" position in good faith at all. The 9/11 attackers were already subjects of surveillance when they attacked. The Boston Marathon bombers were already being closely monitored but were not stopped. Disciplinarians, cops for example, have dreamed of omniscience since the dawn of time. The panopticon dates to the 1790s! Despite the fact that we come closer to a state of all-seeing every day, I'm not aware of any compelling evidence that it's actually turning out to be very useful to prevent violent crime or acts of terror.

tnone 9y ago
Not only that, but those enforcing the law are no less likely to break it. Giving the authorities this level of power is just inviting the most corrupt and immoral of them to run wild with official immunity. Police live under a fundamental illusion that people can be divided into good or bad, ignoring the role of circumstances, ease of deniability and special pleading in how it actually goes down. Most of all with their own abuse of power.
justicezyx 9y ago
Could we stop this racing to bottom debate? Clearly, terrorism is a symptom. Its cause is not bad people are not monitored, but they have various reason to think harm innocent people is the only way to advance their objectives. Can anyone address such issues? Unlikely. History has shown that terrorism is seldom solved, they are extinguished, through escalation to war or complete annihilation of the weaker part. Do I support monitoring? Not always. But if I am not feeling safe, I am OK to sacrifice some privacy and take some risk of being harmed by the government. I am not saying you should agree with this, but that's my thoughts. > Can you - can anyone - demonstrate that "close monitoring" actually makes it possible to prevent terrorism? This way of reasoning seems fine, but really is just a way of showing me being using unfounded argument to support my claim. In reality, as I said, solving terrorism is not monitoring's job, but it makes me feel safe, because someone is doing something that can reduce the risk (not substantially).
jchien17 9y ago
The evidence I know of that hint at monitoring being effective is from the Italians, where they say they thwart terrorism by closely monitoring and infiltrating potential groups. I remember reading that the Italian police says it takes 20 people to monitor one person effectively (will need to find a link). That kind of man-power is hard to scale. edit: link on Italian anti-terrorist efforts: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/23/why-has-italy-been-spared-mass-terror-attacks-in-recent-years https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/23/why-has-italy-... Further debate on the SlateStarCodex subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6j8703/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_following_june/dje6yrb/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6j8703/cult...

tnone 9y ago

Not only that, but those enforcing the law are no less likely to break it. Giving the authorities this level of power is just inviting the most corrupt and immoral of them to run wild with official immunity. Police live under a fundamental illusion that people can be divided into good or bad, ignoring the role of circumstances, ease of deniability and special pleading in how it actually goes down. Most of all with their own abuse of power.

justicezyx 9y ago

Could we stop this racing to bottom debate? Clearly, terrorism is a symptom. Its cause is not bad people are not monitored, but they have various reason to think harm innocent people is the only way to advance their objectives. Can anyone address such issues? Unlikely. History has shown that terrorism is seldom solved, they are extinguished, through escalation to war or complete annihilation of the weaker part. Do I support monitoring? Not always. But if I am not feeling safe, I am OK to sacrifice some privacy and take some risk of being harmed by the government. I am not saying you should agree with this, but that's my thoughts. > Can you - can anyone - demonstrate that "close monitoring" actually makes it possible to prevent terrorism? This way of reasoning seems fine, but really is just a way of showing me being using unfounded argument to support my claim. In reality, as I said, solving terrorism is not monitoring's job, but it makes me feel safe, because someone is doing something that can reduce the risk (not substantially).

jchien17 9y ago

The evidence I know of that hint at monitoring being effective is from the Italians, where they say they thwart terrorism by closely monitoring and infiltrating potential groups. I remember reading that the Italian police says it takes 20 people to monitor one person effectively (will need to find a link). That kind of man-power is hard to scale. edit: link on Italian anti-terrorist efforts: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/23/why-has-italy-been-spared-mass-terror-attacks-in-recent-years https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/23/why-has-italy-... Further debate on the SlateStarCodex subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6j8703/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_following_june/dje6yrb/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6j8703/cult...