3 ms·

> surveillance - even and especially the very limited, court-approved, kind - is essential to law enforcement This is a meme that keeps getting repeated by pro

> surveillance - even and especially the very limited, court-approved, kind - is essential to law enforcement This is a meme that keeps getting repeated by proponents of dragnet surveillance, but they're all palpably quiet after each terror event. Because it wasn't caught despite perpetrators already usually being persons of interest and subject to said dragnet surveillance. We are far past the point of diminishing returns in terms of counter terrorism efficacy vs. surveillance cost and impact. 'Think of the children' and 'think of the terrorists' are quantifiable, provably, bullshit arguments. There is a very real cost to widespread surveillance, including financial. You can't justify that cost with preventing maybe 1-10 deaths per year when the same marginal increase in healthcare resources would save 10k-100k per year.

bayesian_horse 7y ago
Do you want to say no terrorism has been prevented by lawful surveillance? The number of 1-10 deaths per year is completely ridiculous. And distorting the fact that law enforcement is not just about preventing terrorism. Can you count the number of cases where criminals have been convicted because of surveillance? I don't think you'd like a world where criminals can evade any surveillance just by outlawing all of it. You don't even need to think about drug traffickers, terrorists or pedophiles. Just think about all the "unorganized"/private murderers that have been convicted partly because of telephone recordings or, yes, text messages.
- ernst_klim 7y ago
  > Do you want to say no terrorism has been prevented by lawful surveillance? There could be no verifiable data on how much is that. Maybe many, maybe none. Yet the facts are: terrorism is not a huge threat. There are few terrorists, even fewer successful ones. It's three times more chances of getting killed by a lightning strike here in Europe, than by a terrorist. Another fact is: the vast majority of people are good decent people, who behave well and not blowing up planes, shooting jews in synagogues etc. Hence, the surveillance measures taken to "prevent terrorism" have costs vastly surpassing the benefits, since the majority is suffering for the sake of (allegedly) diminishing of already tiny numbers [1] [2]. Not to mention the increase of risk of waking up in a totalitarian state. [1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/security/20180703STO07125/terrorism-in-the-eu-terror-attacks-deaths-and-arrests http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/security/201... [2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20190410STO36615/road-fatality-statistics-in-the-eu-infographic http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/2019...
- feanaro 7y ago
  You're talking as if unbreakable end-to-end encryption doesn't exist today. It exists and we are not suffering horribly because of it. On the other hand, we will suffer horribly under an authoritarian panopticon if it is able to come into existence.
  - missosoup 7y ago
    More people need to know the meaning of the term panopticon. Bentham and Foucault need to be mandatory high school reading.
    - rusk 7y ago
      Not everybody goes to high school; not everybody that goes to high school participates; not everybody that participates comprehends. We've had a suitable version of this, 1984, recomended for some years now. Only a small percentage of people however fully comprehend the meaning of the term "Orwellian", as evidenced by the popularity of many of the early Telescreen prototypes in the guise of smartphones, smart TVs and home voice assistants ...

bayesian_horse 7y ago

Do you want to say no terrorism has been prevented by lawful surveillance? The number of 1-10 deaths per year is completely ridiculous. And distorting the fact that law enforcement is not just about preventing terrorism. Can you count the number of cases where criminals have been convicted because of surveillance? I don't think you'd like a world where criminals can evade any surveillance just by outlawing all of it. You don't even need to think about drug traffickers, terrorists or pedophiles. Just think about all the "unorganized"/private murderers that have been convicted partly because of telephone recordings or, yes, text messages.

ernst_klim 7y ago
> Do you want to say no terrorism has been prevented by lawful surveillance? There could be no verifiable data on how much is that. Maybe many, maybe none. Yet the facts are: terrorism is not a huge threat. There are few terrorists, even fewer successful ones. It's three times more chances of getting killed by a lightning strike here in Europe, than by a terrorist. Another fact is: the vast majority of people are good decent people, who behave well and not blowing up planes, shooting jews in synagogues etc. Hence, the surveillance measures taken to "prevent terrorism" have costs vastly surpassing the benefits, since the majority is suffering for the sake of (allegedly) diminishing of already tiny numbers [1] [2]. Not to mention the increase of risk of waking up in a totalitarian state. [1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/security/20180703STO07125/terrorism-in-the-eu-terror-attacks-deaths-and-arrests http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/security/201... [2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20190410STO36615/road-fatality-statistics-in-the-eu-infographic http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/2019...
feanaro 7y ago
You're talking as if unbreakable end-to-end encryption doesn't exist today. It exists and we are not suffering horribly because of it. On the other hand, we will suffer horribly under an authoritarian panopticon if it is able to come into existence.
- missosoup 7y ago
  More people need to know the meaning of the term panopticon. Bentham and Foucault need to be mandatory high school reading.
  - rusk 7y ago
    Not everybody goes to high school; not everybody that goes to high school participates; not everybody that participates comprehends. We've had a suitable version of this, 1984, recomended for some years now. Only a small percentage of people however fully comprehend the meaning of the term "Orwellian", as evidenced by the popularity of many of the early Telescreen prototypes in the guise of smartphones, smart TVs and home voice assistants ...