3 ms·
But the parent argument is that loss of privacy hasn't decreased the probability of terrorism attacks. "It's not working but lets keep doing it just because" is
by itchyjunk 9y ago
But the parent argument is that loss of privacy hasn't decreased the probability of terrorism attacks. "It's not working but lets keep doing it just because" isn't a sound argument. There might be number thrown about x many threats were stopped which may or may not be true(would still like to see numbers if someone has some reliable ones). But the loss of privacy is unquestionably true (unless I am missing something here).
How much of my personal information do you need before you can guarantee 0 terrorism attacks. If the answer is "never 0 with any mount of loss of privacy", I am not sure if it's a worthwhile goal (or a price to pay).
- trophycase 9y agoTerrorism, like gun violence, is the act of another person interfering with my life. Falling down stairs is an accident. It's pretty easy to see how one elicits fear and outrage and demands to take action and the other doesn't.
- soraminazuki 9y agoFYI, there’s nothing in the parent argument that suggests we shouldn’t do anything to stop terrorism. It’s only saying that sacrificing our privacy rights isn’t worth the false assurance of safety mass surveillance provides.