3 ms·

I mean if someone is actively speaking of commiting a terror attack on some telegram channel it makes sense to not just ignore it because "he's not done it yet"

I mean if someone is actively speaking of commiting a terror attack on some telegram channel it makes sense to not just ignore it because "he's not done it yet". No absolute either in freedom or security is sustainable.

throwaway48476 2y ago
The likelihood of someone saying on telgram they will commit a terrorist act is inversely proportional to the likelihood they will commit a terrorist attack. Governments are very good at catching the talkers but hopeless at catching the doers. Going after talkers generally is very useful for creating an atmosphere of fear as well.
- davidguetta 2y ago
  Which govs ? There's like every year at least 10 terror attacks which are stopped by intelligences agency in France alone so AFAIk it's just not true
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    I can speak for America, if you read indictments of domestic terrorists 'caught' before the act they always had help from someone on the federal payroll. (CHS 1..n) The reality is that mind reading technology doesn't exist so you can't stop people. The effort/reward favors manufacturing terrorists rather than catching them.
    - davidguetta 2y ago
      Are you speaking of like gun shooters ? Yeah this could be a different breed than the islamic terrorists we have here
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        No, shooters are just charged with murder. Here I'm referring to the cases where the charge is terrorism.
  - zo1 2y ago
    Committing crazy violence and "terrorist"-like incidents is ridiculously easy. I'm still trying to process and figure out why it doesn't happen more often everywhere, all the time. Even if you expand it to include government-level backing and support, it should be happening more and yet it isn't. Why.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Most people are fat, lazy, and believe violence has no power. The security model is predicted on ~0% of people having malintent. I think its a lot of security through obscurity.
gruez 2y ago
>I mean if someone is actively speaking of commiting a terror attack on some telegram channel it makes sense to not just ignore it because "he's not done it yet". That's a much higher bar than the one mentioned in the EU legislation. >No absolute either in freedom or security is sustainable. But nobody was arguing for this?

throwaway48476 2y ago

The likelihood of someone saying on telgram they will commit a terrorist act is inversely proportional to the likelihood they will commit a terrorist attack. Governments are very good at catching the talkers but hopeless at catching the doers. Going after talkers generally is very useful for creating an atmosphere of fear as well.

davidguetta 2y ago
Which govs ? There's like every year at least 10 terror attacks which are stopped by intelligences agency in France alone so AFAIk it's just not true
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  I can speak for America, if you read indictments of domestic terrorists 'caught' before the act they always had help from someone on the federal payroll. (CHS 1..n) The reality is that mind reading technology doesn't exist so you can't stop people. The effort/reward favors manufacturing terrorists rather than catching them.
  - davidguetta 2y ago
    Are you speaking of like gun shooters ? Yeah this could be a different breed than the islamic terrorists we have here
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      No, shooters are just charged with murder. Here I'm referring to the cases where the charge is terrorism.
- zo1 2y ago
  Committing crazy violence and "terrorist"-like incidents is ridiculously easy. I'm still trying to process and figure out why it doesn't happen more often everywhere, all the time. Even if you expand it to include government-level backing and support, it should be happening more and yet it isn't. Why.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Most people are fat, lazy, and believe violence has no power. The security model is predicted on ~0% of people having malintent. I think its a lot of security through obscurity.

gruez 2y ago

>I mean if someone is actively speaking of commiting a terror attack on some telegram channel it makes sense to not just ignore it because "he's not done it yet". That's a much higher bar than the one mentioned in the EU legislation. >No absolute either in freedom or security is sustainable. But nobody was arguing for this?