4 ms·

- does anyone have actual proof that surveillance does not effectively curb terrorism or something along those lines? - i keep seeing the same arguments everyw

- does anyone have actual proof that surveillance does not effectively curb terrorism or something along those lines? - i keep seeing the same arguments everywhere "ThEy WaNt To CoNtRoL Us" etc - how do you propose catching terrorists then?

sevenzero 4mo ago
How much of this is actually to "catch" terrorists? Its mostly for surveillance, intimidation, suppression. Usually it's the state that defines who a terrorist is, and usually terrorists are ALL people opposing the current regime.
- DrScientist 4mo ago
  Case in point - in the UK you can currently be put into prison for a long stretch under terrorism charges for holding up a sign with just 4 words.
  - deaux 4mo ago
    Last I checked River->Sea is 6 words. Unless it's a phrase about a different subject, but I can't imagine since the UK only tends to arrest sign holders as part of protecting Bibi's interests.
    - DrScientist 4mo ago
      You don't get prison for that. It starts "I support" and ends action. It's just the most recent and egregious misuse of anti-terrorism laws - doing the sort of thing that they claimed it never would be used for when they were brought in. Secret courts, evidence the defence isn't allowed to see nevermind challenge, judges trying to restrict what the defence can say, long prison terms for simply holding up a sign. The treatment of Julian Assange was a warning of what was to come. These are worrying trends.
      - deaux 4mo ago
        By pure coincidence, I learned today that there's also another four words that will at least get you prosecuted in the UK: "You have a conscience". https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-lawyer-faces-renewed-contempt-proceedings/ https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-lawyer-faces...
        DrScientist 4mo ago
        Same Filton case. You had the bizarre situation that some of defendants dismissed their lawyers because the lawyers were constrained in what they could say in the defence of their clients - so the defendents did there own closing speeches.
  - amiga386 4mo ago
    The four words you're referring to are "I support Palestine Action", and there's nobody in prison "for a long stretch" just for saying that. There have been over 3000 people arrested for showing support for this proscribed organisation, and over 700 charged, but none actually prosecuted yet. It was only just decided two weeks ago that the government's act of proscribing Palestine Action was lawful. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/15/arrested-protesters-devastated-appeal-court-rules-palestine-action-ban-lawful https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/15/arrested-pro... Obviously, I think the Terrorism Act shouldn't silence speech like it does. Palestine Action are a pack of bumbling thugs, and the government's real reason for proscription is that those idiots successfully broke into an RAF base. Egg on face for military so government strikes back with proscription. The law does allow for these sorts of penalties you describe. But I think you will find that if the CPS does prosecute these cases, especially against people who literally stood in front of police stations and displayed those four words and no more, i.e. they dared the government to prosecute them for speech, I don't think they will be "put in prison for a long stretch". They may not even be prosecuted at all. They would have to do more, i.e. actually break into places and physically damage them, like Palestine Action have repeatedly done, to get a long prison sentence. But the threat of prison for speech is there in the law, that's why I don't like that law.
    - Cider9986 4mo ago
      You shouldn't be judged based on your speech, only your actions. That's the problem with the Terrorism Act.
    - DrScientist 4mo ago
      As you say the max penalty is 14 years in prison. I would argue the state harassment of these protestors is the actual terrorism - using state violence for political means. As you say there is also an underlying reason - but it's not the painting of the planes on the RAF base - it was well underway before then. The main driver was the Filton case. A really concerning development recently is that the judge has decided to sentence people on the basis of terrorism, despite the people not being convicted for terrorism charges - just criminal damage. Now they are recorded as terrorist for life - despite no jury ever convicting them of that. https://www.opendemocracy.net/inside-the-palestine-action-trial-that-could-redefine-protest-as-terrorism/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/inside-the-palestine-action-tr...
t-3 4mo ago
What's so wrong about expecting police to get warrants and do police work legally and aboveboard? If Law Enforcement doesn't follow the law, how can we trust them to impartially investigate and enforce it? Giving more power to unaccountable groups with a well-documented and lengthy history of malfeasance is just a bad idea, we should be reforming and abolishing these institutions to create a transparent and just legal system in line with the liberal democratic principles that underly our whole civilization rather than the type of surveillance state most associated with totalitarian regimes that terrorize their own people.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
buckle8017 4mo ago
Says a coward posting anonymously online.
- vivzkestrel 4mo ago
  you are gonna start attacking a person for asking a reasonable question? i have been very active on HN for a long time now
- N_Lens 4mo ago
  Don’t bother, probably a paid actor or bot.
illithid0 4mo ago
This is a classic logical error. It is not the job of the citizenry to prove that surveillance doesn't curb terrorism in order to preserve privacy. It is the job of the government to prove that surveillance DOES curb terrorism to such a degree that privacy MUST be degraded. Only then we can have a conversation.
- vivzkestrel 4mo ago
  but has there ever been a study conducted like say on arxiv or something that tells you what or what is not achieved by surveillance?
DrScientist 4mo ago
The funny thing is that quite often people who actually perform attacks are well known to the security services ( because they have been frequently referred to them - rather than some online trawl ). cf UK manchester bombers. In the end the only effective way to stop terrorism ( since it's so easy to just drive a car into a crowd of people ), is to create a society where people don't want to do it - which is what we mostly have - as terrorism, while terrible, is fortunately still quite rare.
Cider9986 4mo ago
There's not even that much terrorism and there wasn't much even before these authoritarian measures. More people die in the US from cars every month than died from 9/11. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Yes, who cares what it originally meant: https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
john_strinlai 4mo ago
>how do you propose catching terrorists then how did police ever do anything over the past hundreds of years?
- vivzkestrel 4mo ago
  the terrorists are using signal messenger, in game chat messages and all sorts of sophisticated tooling, they are literally getting trained by it. how do you propose beating someone tech savy without using tech?
  - john_strinlai 4mo ago
    >how do you propose beating someone tech savy without using tech? no one said "without using tech".
esseph 4mo ago
"Terrorists" are by far the least likely to cause me a problem directly in the US. I'm more likely to die by police or be imprisoned by the State than I am to die in a terrorist attack.
beej71 4mo ago
Of course it curbs terrorism. But it's not worth it. Think of everything that improved when the Taliban came into power. Crime went down. Public services improved. It wasn't worth it. The cure you propose is worse than the disease. I don't want you to prevent me from stubbing my toe by cutting my foot off. You're just going to have to find another way and do the best you can under those constraints.
duesabati 4mo ago
I really can't believe there are people that still think this is about terrorism in 2026, at least not on HN
mdp2021 4mo ago
In front of the loss of Anonimity (the prospected loss of Dignity), "safety" has utterly no importance. You do not trade Dignity for "safety".
pcthrowaway 4mo ago
> - does anyone have actual proof that surveillance does not effectively curb terrorism or something along those lines? Watching Andor again, I couldn't help but think that if the Empire had just included facial recognition in the intake of their labour death camps they could have prevented a lot of terrorism (Andor wouldn't have instigated the prisoner uprising, and the rebellion may not have won if he hadn't escaped). On the other hand, if you're not one of the pro-Empire viewers, maybe you consider the rebels freedom fighters rather than terrorists.
HappMacDonald 4mo ago
Well, primarily because surveillance is terrorism. Terrorists are not mustache-twirling villians planting bombs in old-folks homes just to provide a simple target for the protagonist to foil. They are simply anyone who uses terror as a means of control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

sevenzero 4mo ago

How much of this is actually to "catch" terrorists? Its mostly for surveillance, intimidation, suppression. Usually it's the state that defines who a terrorist is, and usually terrorists are ALL people opposing the current regime.

DrScientist 4mo ago
Case in point - in the UK you can currently be put into prison for a long stretch under terrorism charges for holding up a sign with just 4 words.
- deaux 4mo ago
  Last I checked River->Sea is 6 words. Unless it's a phrase about a different subject, but I can't imagine since the UK only tends to arrest sign holders as part of protecting Bibi's interests.
  - DrScientist 4mo ago
    You don't get prison for that. It starts "I support" and ends action. It's just the most recent and egregious misuse of anti-terrorism laws - doing the sort of thing that they claimed it never would be used for when they were brought in. Secret courts, evidence the defence isn't allowed to see nevermind challenge, judges trying to restrict what the defence can say, long prison terms for simply holding up a sign. The treatment of Julian Assange was a warning of what was to come. These are worrying trends.
    - deaux 4mo ago
      By pure coincidence, I learned today that there's also another four words that will at least get you prosecuted in the UK: "You have a conscience". https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-lawyer-faces-renewed-contempt-proceedings/ https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-lawyer-faces...
      - DrScientist 4mo ago
        Same Filton case. You had the bizarre situation that some of defendants dismissed their lawyers because the lawyers were constrained in what they could say in the defence of their clients - so the defendents did there own closing speeches.
- amiga386 4mo ago
  The four words you're referring to are "I support Palestine Action", and there's nobody in prison "for a long stretch" just for saying that. There have been over 3000 people arrested for showing support for this proscribed organisation, and over 700 charged, but none actually prosecuted yet. It was only just decided two weeks ago that the government's act of proscribing Palestine Action was lawful. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/15/arrested-protesters-devastated-appeal-court-rules-palestine-action-ban-lawful https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/15/arrested-pro... Obviously, I think the Terrorism Act shouldn't silence speech like it does. Palestine Action are a pack of bumbling thugs, and the government's real reason for proscription is that those idiots successfully broke into an RAF base. Egg on face for military so government strikes back with proscription. The law does allow for these sorts of penalties you describe. But I think you will find that if the CPS does prosecute these cases, especially against people who literally stood in front of police stations and displayed those four words and no more, i.e. they dared the government to prosecute them for speech, I don't think they will be "put in prison for a long stretch". They may not even be prosecuted at all. They would have to do more, i.e. actually break into places and physically damage them, like Palestine Action have repeatedly done, to get a long prison sentence. But the threat of prison for speech is there in the law, that's why I don't like that law.
  - Cider9986 4mo ago
    You shouldn't be judged based on your speech, only your actions. That's the problem with the Terrorism Act.
  - DrScientist 4mo ago
    As you say the max penalty is 14 years in prison. I would argue the state harassment of these protestors is the actual terrorism - using state violence for political means. As you say there is also an underlying reason - but it's not the painting of the planes on the RAF base - it was well underway before then. The main driver was the Filton case. A really concerning development recently is that the judge has decided to sentence people on the basis of terrorism, despite the people not being convicted for terrorism charges - just criminal damage. Now they are recorded as terrorist for life - despite no jury ever convicting them of that. https://www.opendemocracy.net/inside-the-palestine-action-trial-that-could-redefine-protest-as-terrorism/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/inside-the-palestine-action-tr...

t-3 4mo ago

What's so wrong about expecting police to get warrants and do police work legally and aboveboard? If Law Enforcement doesn't follow the law, how can we trust them to impartially investigate and enforce it? Giving more power to unaccountable groups with a well-documented and lengthy history of malfeasance is just a bad idea, we should be reforming and abolishing these institutions to create a transparent and just legal system in line with the liberal democratic principles that underly our whole civilization rather than the type of surveillance state most associated with totalitarian regimes that terrorize their own people.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

buckle8017 4mo ago

Says a coward posting anonymously online.

vivzkestrel 4mo ago
you are gonna start attacking a person for asking a reasonable question? i have been very active on HN for a long time now
N_Lens 4mo ago
Don’t bother, probably a paid actor or bot.

illithid0 4mo ago

This is a classic logical error. It is not the job of the citizenry to prove that surveillance doesn't curb terrorism in order to preserve privacy. It is the job of the government to prove that surveillance DOES curb terrorism to such a degree that privacy MUST be degraded. Only then we can have a conversation.

vivzkestrel 4mo ago
but has there ever been a study conducted like say on arxiv or something that tells you what or what is not achieved by surveillance?

DrScientist 4mo ago

The funny thing is that quite often people who actually perform attacks are well known to the security services ( because they have been frequently referred to them - rather than some online trawl ). cf UK manchester bombers. In the end the only effective way to stop terrorism ( since it's so easy to just drive a car into a crowd of people ), is to create a society where people don't want to do it - which is what we mostly have - as terrorism, while terrible, is fortunately still quite rare.

Cider9986 4mo ago

There's not even that much terrorism and there wasn't much even before these authoritarian measures. More people die in the US from cars every month than died from 9/11. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Yes, who cares what it originally meant: https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

john_strinlai 4mo ago

>how do you propose catching terrorists then how did police ever do anything over the past hundreds of years?

vivzkestrel 4mo ago
the terrorists are using signal messenger, in game chat messages and all sorts of sophisticated tooling, they are literally getting trained by it. how do you propose beating someone tech savy without using tech?
- john_strinlai 4mo ago
  >how do you propose beating someone tech savy without using tech? no one said "without using tech".

esseph 4mo ago

"Terrorists" are by far the least likely to cause me a problem directly in the US. I'm more likely to die by police or be imprisoned by the State than I am to die in a terrorist attack.

beej71 4mo ago

Of course it curbs terrorism. But it's not worth it. Think of everything that improved when the Taliban came into power. Crime went down. Public services improved. It wasn't worth it. The cure you propose is worse than the disease. I don't want you to prevent me from stubbing my toe by cutting my foot off. You're just going to have to find another way and do the best you can under those constraints.

duesabati 4mo ago

I really can't believe there are people that still think this is about terrorism in 2026, at least not on HN

mdp2021 4mo ago

In front of the loss of Anonimity (the prospected loss of Dignity), "safety" has utterly no importance. You do not trade Dignity for "safety".

pcthrowaway 4mo ago

> - does anyone have actual proof that surveillance does not effectively curb terrorism or something along those lines? Watching Andor again, I couldn't help but think that if the Empire had just included facial recognition in the intake of their labour death camps they could have prevented a lot of terrorism (Andor wouldn't have instigated the prisoner uprising, and the rebellion may not have won if he hadn't escaped). On the other hand, if you're not one of the pro-Empire viewers, maybe you consider the rebels freedom fighters rather than terrorists.

HappMacDonald 4mo ago

Well, primarily because surveillance is terrorism. Terrorists are not mustache-twirling villians planting bombs in old-folks homes just to provide a simple target for the protagonist to foil. They are simply anyone who uses terror as a means of control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon