9 ms·

The sad thing here is that there is a real war on terror, no matter what you hear. There are actual violent-minded individuals that the state has an obligation

The sad thing here is that there is a real war on terror, no matter what you hear. There are actual violent-minded individuals that the state has an obligation to track and protect us from. But the powers granted to the state to do this are humongously broad. It's ludicrous to have the FBI be able to write letters and retrieve any of your online activity it wants -- all without you knowing about it. The IRS has even more power. It can pull your records without the NSLs. All you have to be is "interesting" to them. (Don't know if they've exercised this power yet, but it's coming) So when corporations like Google complain, out trots the assistant director to give classified testimony about all these evil folks in the world. Yes, sure. But one doesn't justify the other. I'm really happy somebody is doing something about bad guys right now. What I worry about is a few years down the road when all of this security state nonsense is used for political reasons. Some people think you have to be afraid of the government knowing too much about you. Some people think you have to be afraid of corporations knowing too much about you. Some people worry that we can easily find out too much about just about anybody (facial recognition Google glass tied back to something like Spokeo isn't far off). But it's not an either-or choice. All of these factors work together, as we see in this case. This is not going to end well.

betterunix 13y ago
"There are actual violent-minded individuals that the state has an obligation to track and protect us from." It is hard to say, given the secrecy that surrounds all this. Who are our enemies right now? Who is the government trying to protect us from? We are meant to take it as a given that there are terrorists out there and that the government is actively protecting us from them -- yet so far, we have only heard about plots that either succeeded, or that never had a realistic chance of succeeding. We need to know the danger and how it is being addressed. If the government will not even tell us who is a suspected terrorist and why they are under suspicion, we have no choice but to assume that they are abusing their power.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Do you deny the theoretical possibility that somewhere on this planet there are people actively attempting to hurt people in the US? Do you further, or alternatively deny that alerting those people to the fact that the FBI knows about them would harm the FBI's ability to stop them from harming people in the US? This should be an argument of degrees and to what extent, not an argument about the existence of a threat in the first place, or that the government should be absolutely open about everything. Such a position is quite extremist and completely impractical.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "Do you deny the theoretical possibility that somewhere on this planet there are people actively attempting to hurt people in the US?" No, but (a) that is irrelevant to the issue of NSLs, which are a purely domestic matter, (b) we are spending real money on fighting these hypothetical enemies, and (c) we have yet to be shown evidence that this money is being used effectively. "Do you further, or alternatively deny that alerting those people to the fact that the FBI knows about them would harm the FBI's ability to stop them from harming people in the US?" The FBI is not supposed to be conducting foreign operations. They jurisdiction ends with the borders of this nation and its embassies. "This should be an argument of degrees and to what extent, not an argument about the existence of a threat in the first place," You are basically admitting that when it comes to the war on terror, nothing is temporary. We will always be fighting the war on terror. What rights we give up in the name of fighting terrorists will be permanently lost. This is a matter of civil liberties. The secret list of suspected terrorists has come to include journalists, political dissidents, anti-war protesters, and so forth. Being on the list means losing your privacy rights, being harassed while you travel even within US borders, and potentially being assassinated by the government. We need to able to judge this program and decide if it is something we want in our society. Secrecy is incompatible with that.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Who said anything about foreign operations or foreign terrorists? Domestic terrorists, the ones actually here, are very much under the purview of the FBI. I asked in my previous comment, "Do you further, or alternatively deny that alerting those people to the fact that the FBI knows about them would harm the FBI's ability to stop them from harming people in the US?" Can you answer this? I have another question: do you believe your/the public's judgement is going to be the best method by which to determine the efficacy of a counter-terrorism strategy, even assuming the program can be communicated in such a way so as to not compromise it's ability to be effective?
- walshemj 13y ago
  Because its a "wicked" problem to put it in SV speak how do you know out of say 10k Suspects who is going to go nuts and behead a squaddie in broad daylight - I am sure that the FBI NCIS etc are worried that something could happen in the USA Unfortunately you have to be able to monitor suspects and having some judicial oversight is the best solution we have come up with. The problem is I think in the US that you have the FBI which have mostly a traditional policing role as well as CT and security so you get procedures meant only for serious cases available to you average copper. Might have been better to split the FBI in two and have a federal police force and a separate version of MI5 - you have so many intelligence services whats one more :-)
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "how do you know out of say 10k Suspects who is going to go nuts and behead a squaddie in broad daylight" This is kind of like asking, "How do you know who in a town of 10,000 people will murder their spouse?" When did America become a country where people who might commit a crime tomorrow are targeted for surveillance or other investigation?
    - walshemj 13y ago
      Yes and your point is? This is exactly the point the boss of MI5 made over the Woolwich killings. Are you seriously saying if you where caught in a third country (and expelled) trying to cross to a failed state with an Islamic insurgency that the FBI should not be able to tap their phones which is what you are implying.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        My point is that in this country, we do not conduct surveillance on everyone who might commit a crime. We conduct surveillance on people suspected of having already committed specific crimes, or for whom there is strong evidence that they are about to commit a specific crime. We do not just conduct surveillance of people who might be criminals -- we demand that the police have a good reason for labeling people as suspects ("probably cause"). There is some room for conducting searches or surveillance without a warrant, but nothing even remotely close to the FBI's behavior with NSLs. The abuses of power are already evident. The FBI has not limited themselves to surveillance of militants or their leaders. Peaceful anti-war protesters have been targeted. Leftist professors have been targeted. Programmers writing cryptography software have been targeted. There should be no surprise that the FBI has abused its power, because no conclusions can be drawn about the criteria used to select surveillance targets. The criteria, like the list of suspects, is a secret. "Are you seriously saying if you where caught in a third country (and expelled) trying to cross to a failed state with an Islamic insurgency that the FBI should not be able to tap their phones which is what you are implying." This is a hard sentence to parse. What are you saying? That I am claiming foreign terrorists should not be the targets of FBI surveillance? Well, this may be news to you, but the FBI is not supposed to investigate crimes committed outside US borders, with the exception of crimes committed within our embassies (and certain crimes committed on military bases). Yes, I am saying that the FBI should not be investigating foreign terrorists. Yes, I am saying that the only reason the FBI should be investigating a foreign terrorist is if they come to this country and commit terrorist acts or organize a conspiracy to do so. To summarize it for you: Yes, civil rights and democracy trump the war on terror.
redblacktree 13y ago
> What I worry about is a few years down the road when all of this security state nonsense is used for political reasons. Why do you think this isn't happening presently? Are you aware of the IRS's targeted scrutiny of certain groups applying for 501c3 status? This does not directly relate to the NSLs being discussed here, but it is an indication of how politics enters government agencies. Frankly, I would be surprised if these NSLs aren't currently being used for political ends, by whomever has access to their use.
- sinnerswing 13y ago
  Nothing new here. Anyone remember this? This was 3 years ago. "A US government-mandated backdoor allowed China to hack into Gmail" "In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access." http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hackin...
- DannoHung 13y ago
  Yeah, but those were groups who have as one of their political purposes tax avoidance... I mean... it's like sending a police officer to a store where someone has threatened to rob it beforehand. If the FBI wants to investigate someone who has said they're determined to kill people with a bomb, I don't have a problem with them surveiling that person.
  - AutoCorrect 13y ago
    and you want to give up as much of your income as possible for taxes? Ludicrous argument.
    - zero_intp 13y ago
      I think yours might be more short sighted. I, quite explicitly, feel compelled to pay taxes. To say that you will always minimize your taxes explicitly denotes your misanthropy and failure to value civilization.
scotch_drinker 13y ago
When you have a war on amorphous things like drugs and terror, the tactics, tools and strategies of the people waging said war will necessarily be amorphous as well. The war is broad, hence the tactics are broad. We as citizens should define what the war is and thus be able to define the tactics. Until we decide that the war on Terror is ridiculously broad in scope, we will continue to face tactics by our own government that are infringements on our rights.
theklub 13y ago
The easier its made to track people the fewer trackers should be needed and the process should become far more transparent. Of course everything I hear about our "homeland security" leads me to believe the exact opposite is true.
forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
"There are actual violent-minded individuals that the state has an obligation to track and protect us from." ...And some of them are IN the government. Where do you think Hitler came from? He won a democratic election. Also Mussolini. Where Stalin came from? From the government itself. Government (centralized power) attracts power freaks as dung does to the flies. The mechanism democracy has for protecting itself is people's supervision. They are destroying the feedback look of people controlling power. Out of sight, out of mind in democracy means there is no democracy at all, as people can't see what they supposedly control. Most people don't object the government tracking individuals, what people object is the removal of the knowledge about it. If they inspect my house, I know it, why I can't with my digital info?
- pathy 13y ago
  Hilter's rise to power was through an election but prior to that there was lots of violence etc caused by the Nazi's so it shouldn't have been any surprise that he was a violent individual. Mussolini led a coup d'etat to take a power. And Soviet hardly had a peaceful start and Stalin played a part in that. None of these exactly popped out of nowhere from within the government. Last I checked none of the current 'western' governments rose to power via fear and intimidation. That said, yes power attracts people who want power. I can't dispute that.
- walshemj 13y ago
  No he got the enabling act passed by arresting and killing the opposition deputies I am sure that roberts rules of order don't suggest murder as valid form of political action :-)
ChuckMcM 13y ago
Its a question of response. And there are two broad policy approaches, both based on the transparency; In the first there is full transparency for the state and full opacity for the people. This is the current policy of the US Government and attempts to both mitigate conspiracies by making them hard to maintain, and enhance discovery by detecting people trying to maintain cover. In the second there is full transparency for both the state and the citizens (which is to say it goes both ways). This enhances discovery (both inside and outside the state) but also makes operations harder (on both sides). It is asserted that the first policy converges on a totalitarian state solution, it is also asserted that the second policy converges on anarchy. As neither of those end points are stable, I don't agree that they are convergent so much as inflection or transition points.
Lagged2Death 13y ago
What I worry about is a few years down the road when all of this security state nonsense is used for political reasons. The use of the public's fear of terrorism to push for new "security" powers and other unrelated goals -- what I would call "used for political reasons" -- started within hours of the 9/11 attacks. Worrying about "a few years down the road" is decades too late. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500249_162-520830.html http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500249_162-520830.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations#September_11th_aftermath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_lin...
jacquesm 13y ago
> The sad thing here is that there is a real war on terror, no matter what you hear. No there isn't. That's the whole trick. It's a mind thing, as long as enough people believe there is a war on terror there is a war on terror, when they stop believing they'll resort to good old police-work and the judicial system to back it all up. See Spain and the bombings there, the UK and the bombings there, India and the bombings there and so on. Everybody else seems to treat it as a series of acts by loosely organized and funded individuals that don't seem to have a common goal or even coherency about their deeds. And the best bit: it doesn't work. You can't declare 'war' on lone wolves or small cells if they're careful enough. Any idiot (you, me, any other visitor here) could turn around and become a terrorist tomorrow, there would be no other outward distinguishing factor, just that bit that flipped in our heads. And by the time there would be an outside observable factor (objects going 'foom') it would be way too late.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  I think the best summary of the war on terror can be found in the fact that the US is forcibly feeding the "terrorists" in Guantanamo while parts of the government are trying their best to cut the money for food stamps for people that are starving.
  - lotsofcows 13y ago
    Even with the quotes, that's still too strong a statement. Until they have been processed by a court they are innocent. The USA has held innocent people without a trial for over a decade. Some of those people were children when "arrested". This situation weighs against every American and yet it's still ongoing.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      Actually it is even worse. The majority of the people on hunger strike are Yemen nationals that had been cleared for release in 2010 but stopped from Congress after the guy that could not shove the stick of dynamite up his arse properly (underwear bomber) scared them.
analyst74 13y ago
> What I worry about is a few years down the road when all of this security state nonsense is used for political reasons. Everything is political, every decision that affects more than a handful of people are more or less political decisions. There will always be some people whose freedom and wills be violated, whether through vote of majority or tyranny of the few. In the eyes of those who truly believe freedom for everyone, the reality is bleak.
jrs235 13y ago
Perhaps if these individuals were so dangerous, it would actually benefit everyone if they knew they were being watched and that not so many of these NSLs had the gag order attached. Just [the individual and even public] knowing the govt might be on to their activities might be enough to stop it in its tracks. Except then this creates the culture of fear and suspicion... welcome back 1984 references!
declan 13y ago
A counterargument: "You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist" http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-ki... In reality, you're more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than be killed by a terrorist. You're 1,000 times more likely to die in a car accident than be killed by a terrorist. And so on. And one reason why the U.S. has been targeted by more Islamic terrorist attacks than say, the liberal democracy of Switzerland, is that we meddle far more in the Middle East countries that terrorists call home. It's policy blowback. On HN, especially, we should be able to do simple statistical calculations of what we really should be worrying about. You're more likely to die from falling in the shower than being eaten by a shark, but one threat gets a lot more media coverage than the other. It is true that some fraction of terrorists would happily kill hundreds of millions of Americans, if they had the ability. So it makes sense to concentrate on existential WOMD threats, improve cargo container scanning for suitcase nukes, place radiation scanners in major population centers, fund defenses against biological agents, etc. To its credit, FedGov is doing that. But it's also doing far more than that, domestically and abroad. HomelandSec "anti-terror" grants have been used to fund cultural centers, zombie apocalypse demonstrations, armored vehicles for one-stoplight towns, snow-cone machines, etc. And people involved in the HomelandSec apparatus have incentives to exaggerate because their salaries or funding levels or relative prominence are tied to the perceived nature of the threat.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Beware the framing argument. If privacy advocates get stuck arguing about whether people "should" worry about terrorists, they are going to lose, because people do worry about terrorists. They've demonstrated it repeatedly in polls and elections.

betterunix 13y ago

"There are actual violent-minded individuals that the state has an obligation to track and protect us from." It is hard to say, given the secrecy that surrounds all this. Who are our enemies right now? Who is the government trying to protect us from? We are meant to take it as a given that there are terrorists out there and that the government is actively protecting us from them -- yet so far, we have only heard about plots that either succeeded, or that never had a realistic chance of succeeding. We need to know the danger and how it is being addressed. If the government will not even tell us who is a suspected terrorist and why they are under suspicion, we have no choice but to assume that they are abusing their power.

diminoten 13y ago
Do you deny the theoretical possibility that somewhere on this planet there are people actively attempting to hurt people in the US? Do you further, or alternatively deny that alerting those people to the fact that the FBI knows about them would harm the FBI's ability to stop them from harming people in the US? This should be an argument of degrees and to what extent, not an argument about the existence of a threat in the first place, or that the government should be absolutely open about everything. Such a position is quite extremist and completely impractical.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Do you deny the theoretical possibility that somewhere on this planet there are people actively attempting to hurt people in the US?" No, but (a) that is irrelevant to the issue of NSLs, which are a purely domestic matter, (b) we are spending real money on fighting these hypothetical enemies, and (c) we have yet to be shown evidence that this money is being used effectively. "Do you further, or alternatively deny that alerting those people to the fact that the FBI knows about them would harm the FBI's ability to stop them from harming people in the US?" The FBI is not supposed to be conducting foreign operations. They jurisdiction ends with the borders of this nation and its embassies. "This should be an argument of degrees and to what extent, not an argument about the existence of a threat in the first place," You are basically admitting that when it comes to the war on terror, nothing is temporary. We will always be fighting the war on terror. What rights we give up in the name of fighting terrorists will be permanently lost. This is a matter of civil liberties. The secret list of suspected terrorists has come to include journalists, political dissidents, anti-war protesters, and so forth. Being on the list means losing your privacy rights, being harassed while you travel even within US borders, and potentially being assassinated by the government. We need to able to judge this program and decide if it is something we want in our society. Secrecy is incompatible with that.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Who said anything about foreign operations or foreign terrorists? Domestic terrorists, the ones actually here, are very much under the purview of the FBI. I asked in my previous comment, "Do you further, or alternatively deny that alerting those people to the fact that the FBI knows about them would harm the FBI's ability to stop them from harming people in the US?" Can you answer this? I have another question: do you believe your/the public's judgement is going to be the best method by which to determine the efficacy of a counter-terrorism strategy, even assuming the program can be communicated in such a way so as to not compromise it's ability to be effective?
walshemj 13y ago
Because its a "wicked" problem to put it in SV speak how do you know out of say 10k Suspects who is going to go nuts and behead a squaddie in broad daylight - I am sure that the FBI NCIS etc are worried that something could happen in the USA Unfortunately you have to be able to monitor suspects and having some judicial oversight is the best solution we have come up with. The problem is I think in the US that you have the FBI which have mostly a traditional policing role as well as CT and security so you get procedures meant only for serious cases available to you average copper. Might have been better to split the FBI in two and have a federal police force and a separate version of MI5 - you have so many intelligence services whats one more :-)
- betterunix 13y ago
  "how do you know out of say 10k Suspects who is going to go nuts and behead a squaddie in broad daylight" This is kind of like asking, "How do you know who in a town of 10,000 people will murder their spouse?" When did America become a country where people who might commit a crime tomorrow are targeted for surveillance or other investigation?
  - walshemj 13y ago
    Yes and your point is? This is exactly the point the boss of MI5 made over the Woolwich killings. Are you seriously saying if you where caught in a third country (and expelled) trying to cross to a failed state with an Islamic insurgency that the FBI should not be able to tap their phones which is what you are implying.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      My point is that in this country, we do not conduct surveillance on everyone who might commit a crime. We conduct surveillance on people suspected of having already committed specific crimes, or for whom there is strong evidence that they are about to commit a specific crime. We do not just conduct surveillance of people who might be criminals -- we demand that the police have a good reason for labeling people as suspects ("probably cause"). There is some room for conducting searches or surveillance without a warrant, but nothing even remotely close to the FBI's behavior with NSLs. The abuses of power are already evident. The FBI has not limited themselves to surveillance of militants or their leaders. Peaceful anti-war protesters have been targeted. Leftist professors have been targeted. Programmers writing cryptography software have been targeted. There should be no surprise that the FBI has abused its power, because no conclusions can be drawn about the criteria used to select surveillance targets. The criteria, like the list of suspects, is a secret. "Are you seriously saying if you where caught in a third country (and expelled) trying to cross to a failed state with an Islamic insurgency that the FBI should not be able to tap their phones which is what you are implying." This is a hard sentence to parse. What are you saying? That I am claiming foreign terrorists should not be the targets of FBI surveillance? Well, this may be news to you, but the FBI is not supposed to investigate crimes committed outside US borders, with the exception of crimes committed within our embassies (and certain crimes committed on military bases). Yes, I am saying that the FBI should not be investigating foreign terrorists. Yes, I am saying that the only reason the FBI should be investigating a foreign terrorist is if they come to this country and commit terrorist acts or organize a conspiracy to do so. To summarize it for you: Yes, civil rights and democracy trump the war on terror.

redblacktree 13y ago

> What I worry about is a few years down the road when all of this security state nonsense is used for political reasons. Why do you think this isn't happening presently? Are you aware of the IRS's targeted scrutiny of certain groups applying for 501c3 status? This does not directly relate to the NSLs being discussed here, but it is an indication of how politics enters government agencies. Frankly, I would be surprised if these NSLs aren't currently being used for political ends, by whomever has access to their use.

sinnerswing 13y ago
Nothing new here. Anyone remember this? This was 3 years ago. "A US government-mandated backdoor allowed China to hack into Gmail" "In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access." http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hackin...
DannoHung 13y ago
Yeah, but those were groups who have as one of their political purposes tax avoidance... I mean... it's like sending a police officer to a store where someone has threatened to rob it beforehand. If the FBI wants to investigate someone who has said they're determined to kill people with a bomb, I don't have a problem with them surveiling that person.
- AutoCorrect 13y ago
  and you want to give up as much of your income as possible for taxes? Ludicrous argument.
  - zero_intp 13y ago
    I think yours might be more short sighted. I, quite explicitly, feel compelled to pay taxes. To say that you will always minimize your taxes explicitly denotes your misanthropy and failure to value civilization.

scotch_drinker 13y ago

When you have a war on amorphous things like drugs and terror, the tactics, tools and strategies of the people waging said war will necessarily be amorphous as well. The war is broad, hence the tactics are broad. We as citizens should define what the war is and thus be able to define the tactics. Until we decide that the war on Terror is ridiculously broad in scope, we will continue to face tactics by our own government that are infringements on our rights.

theklub 13y ago

The easier its made to track people the fewer trackers should be needed and the process should become far more transparent. Of course everything I hear about our "homeland security" leads me to believe the exact opposite is true.

forgottenpaswrd 13y ago

"There are actual violent-minded individuals that the state has an obligation to track and protect us from." ...And some of them are IN the government. Where do you think Hitler came from? He won a democratic election. Also Mussolini. Where Stalin came from? From the government itself. Government (centralized power) attracts power freaks as dung does to the flies. The mechanism democracy has for protecting itself is people's supervision. They are destroying the feedback look of people controlling power. Out of sight, out of mind in democracy means there is no democracy at all, as people can't see what they supposedly control. Most people don't object the government tracking individuals, what people object is the removal of the knowledge about it. If they inspect my house, I know it, why I can't with my digital info?

pathy 13y ago
Hilter's rise to power was through an election but prior to that there was lots of violence etc caused by the Nazi's so it shouldn't have been any surprise that he was a violent individual. Mussolini led a coup d'etat to take a power. And Soviet hardly had a peaceful start and Stalin played a part in that. None of these exactly popped out of nowhere from within the government. Last I checked none of the current 'western' governments rose to power via fear and intimidation. That said, yes power attracts people who want power. I can't dispute that.
walshemj 13y ago
No he got the enabling act passed by arresting and killing the opposition deputies I am sure that roberts rules of order don't suggest murder as valid form of political action :-)

ChuckMcM 13y ago

Its a question of response. And there are two broad policy approaches, both based on the transparency; In the first there is full transparency for the state and full opacity for the people. This is the current policy of the US Government and attempts to both mitigate conspiracies by making them hard to maintain, and enhance discovery by detecting people trying to maintain cover. In the second there is full transparency for both the state and the citizens (which is to say it goes both ways). This enhances discovery (both inside and outside the state) but also makes operations harder (on both sides). It is asserted that the first policy converges on a totalitarian state solution, it is also asserted that the second policy converges on anarchy. As neither of those end points are stable, I don't agree that they are convergent so much as inflection or transition points.

Lagged2Death 13y ago

What I worry about is a few years down the road when all of this security state nonsense is used for political reasons. The use of the public's fear of terrorism to push for new "security" powers and other unrelated goals -- what I would call "used for political reasons" -- started within hours of the 9/11 attacks. Worrying about "a few years down the road" is decades too late. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500249_162-520830.html http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500249_162-520830.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations#September_11th_aftermath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_lin...

jacquesm 13y ago

> The sad thing here is that there is a real war on terror, no matter what you hear. No there isn't. That's the whole trick. It's a mind thing, as long as enough people believe there is a war on terror there is a war on terror, when they stop believing they'll resort to good old police-work and the judicial system to back it all up. See Spain and the bombings there, the UK and the bombings there, India and the bombings there and so on. Everybody else seems to treat it as a series of acts by loosely organized and funded individuals that don't seem to have a common goal or even coherency about their deeds. And the best bit: it doesn't work. You can't declare 'war' on lone wolves or small cells if they're careful enough. Any idiot (you, me, any other visitor here) could turn around and become a terrorist tomorrow, there would be no other outward distinguishing factor, just that bit that flipped in our heads. And by the time there would be an outside observable factor (objects going 'foom') it would be way too late.

venomsnake 13y ago
I think the best summary of the war on terror can be found in the fact that the US is forcibly feeding the "terrorists" in Guantanamo while parts of the government are trying their best to cut the money for food stamps for people that are starving.
- lotsofcows 13y ago
  Even with the quotes, that's still too strong a statement. Until they have been processed by a court they are innocent. The USA has held innocent people without a trial for over a decade. Some of those people were children when "arrested". This situation weighs against every American and yet it's still ongoing.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Actually it is even worse. The majority of the people on hunger strike are Yemen nationals that had been cleared for release in 2010 but stopped from Congress after the guy that could not shove the stick of dynamite up his arse properly (underwear bomber) scared them.

analyst74 13y ago

> What I worry about is a few years down the road when all of this security state nonsense is used for political reasons. Everything is political, every decision that affects more than a handful of people are more or less political decisions. There will always be some people whose freedom and wills be violated, whether through vote of majority or tyranny of the few. In the eyes of those who truly believe freedom for everyone, the reality is bleak.

jrs235 13y ago

Perhaps if these individuals were so dangerous, it would actually benefit everyone if they knew they were being watched and that not so many of these NSLs had the gag order attached. Just [the individual and even public] knowing the govt might be on to their activities might be enough to stop it in its tracks. Except then this creates the culture of fear and suspicion... welcome back 1984 references!

declan 13y ago

A counterargument: "You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist" http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-ki... In reality, you're more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than be killed by a terrorist. You're 1,000 times more likely to die in a car accident than be killed by a terrorist. And so on. And one reason why the U.S. has been targeted by more Islamic terrorist attacks than say, the liberal democracy of Switzerland, is that we meddle far more in the Middle East countries that terrorists call home. It's policy blowback. On HN, especially, we should be able to do simple statistical calculations of what we really should be worrying about. You're more likely to die from falling in the shower than being eaten by a shark, but one threat gets a lot more media coverage than the other. It is true that some fraction of terrorists would happily kill hundreds of millions of Americans, if they had the ability. So it makes sense to concentrate on existential WOMD threats, improve cargo container scanning for suitcase nukes, place radiation scanners in major population centers, fund defenses against biological agents, etc. To its credit, FedGov is doing that. But it's also doing far more than that, domestically and abroad. HomelandSec "anti-terror" grants have been used to fund cultural centers, zombie apocalypse demonstrations, armored vehicles for one-stoplight towns, snow-cone machines, etc. And people involved in the HomelandSec apparatus have incentives to exaggerate because their salaries or funding levels or relative prominence are tied to the perceived nature of the threat.

snowwrestler 13y ago
Beware the framing argument. If privacy advocates get stuck arguing about whether people "should" worry about terrorists, they are going to lose, because people do worry about terrorists. They've demonstrated it repeatedly in polls and elections.