4 ms·

> Without some form of surveillance, you're never going to catch terrorists or other bad actors. The article: Surveillance fails to catch terrorist. Your argu

• nostrademons 7y ago
  There's a base rate fallacy here: take a look at total deaths from terrorism in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#U.S._totals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States... After September 11, the typical number of deaths from terrorism in a given year was...0, give or take a few, with a disconcerting uptick since 2013. Great, our efforts to curb terrorism are working! From 1975-2001, the typical number of deaths from terrorism in a given year was...2. Wait, the massive surveillance state has saved 2 lives a year? What? We saved more lives by posting a guard at the Caltrain tracks in Palo Alto to keep people from killing themselves. By the numbers, terrorism just wasn't a problem, because rational people don't blow themselves up to make a point. Mentally ill people do, and a significant number of mass shootings are not counted in the terrorism statistics but actually kill far more people. But by making terrorism into a big bogeyman that's going to kill you, it feeds into the interests of the media, of the state, and of the military-industrial complex, and so there are a lot of powerful forces shaping the discourse around terrorism that aren't necessarily reflective of reality.
  • npo9 7y ago
    “We’re not catching them because they aren’t there” seems like a valid hypothesis, but I’m not sure I fully buy into it.