6 ms·

"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 surround

"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?
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "Who said anything about foreign operations or foreign terrorists?" Was I supposed to assume that "somewhere in the world" meant something different? "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?" Sure: yes. Yes, the FBI will be impeded when they are held accountable for their actions and when their actions are not secret. This is no different from warrant requirements, Miranda rights, the second amendment, the right to an attorney, etc. A democratic society where civil rights are valued gives up some law enforcement power in order to preserve its democracy and civil rights. "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?" When you are asking to use my tax dollars to fight terrorism, you had better be able to convince me that (a) there are terrorists to fight and (b) that you are effective at doing so. Otherwise I want tax money spent building better schools, paying for universal healthcare, paying for scientific research, paying for competent public defenders, etc. Sorry, but you cannot scare me with hypothetical terrorists. Since you are a fan of asking pedantic questions, I have one for you: do you believe that the war on terror will ever end, or do you believe that it will always be necessary to violate basic civil rights in the name of fighting terrorists?
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>Do you deny the theoretical possibility that somewhere on this planet there are people actively attempting to hurt people in the US? Personally, I'm more worried about the Yellowstone Caldera. Its eruption is long overdue, and when it does it will damage the entire continent and kill millions. Why isn't the government doing anything about that?
  - GFischer 13y ago
    If I were in the U.S., I'd be more worried about the San Andreas fault and the "big one" due on San Francisco any time soon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault#The_University_of_California_study_on_.22the_next_big_one.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault#The_Universit... "The 2008 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) has estimated that the probability of an M ≥ 6.7 earthquake within the next 30 years on the northern and southern segments of the San Andreas fault as 21% and 59%, respectively."
    - Retric 13y ago
      A M 7 earhquake in California is bearly newsworthy and far from a significant threat. A low to mid 8 would cause significant property dammamge but few deaths. Even a 9 would only cause local problems. The Yellowstone Calder on the other hand would easily kill 50+% of everyone in the US with a low end eruption. Or put another way it's a significant threat to people livening in India. PS: A great way of comparing threats is to multiply risk times death totals over a decade. On that scale terrorists and eathquakes are a joke.
      - DanBC 13y ago
        In 1989 a 7.1 earthquake cause over $5bn of damage (excluding damage to roads, bridges, and State buildings.) (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001498.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001498.htm) Wikipedia doesn't show many > 7 earthquakes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquakes_in_California#List_of_earthquakes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquakes_in_California#List...) (but maybe they have a weird inclusion criteria?)
- youngerdryas 13y ago
  This site is filled with knuckleheads who actually think that the fall of the US would be a good thing, but they mostly live with their parents and have certainly never run a business never mind any government. Every man is a king now that the internet is here so clowns can spout off bullshit. We are at war with Muslim extremists, pretending we aren't is not helpful.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Unless you'd care to show otherwise, you like data to support your assertions re:HN's demographics. We--by which I assume you mean the United States--are at war with whatever seems to be most profitable to the powers-that-be at the time, whether that is drugs, Muslims, or our own citizens. There is a very valid concern that such a policy of scaremongering and sly abuse of power could result in Bad Things (tm) if the beast decides that a war on one of us would be a worthwhile expenditure of time. To pretend otherwise is foolish. There are people out there that wish us harm, as there always have been. Part of the burden of doing great things is the acceptance of the fact that you'll be targeted by those less capable--and part of the requirement is that you bull ahead and don't let it bother you.
    - youngerdryas 13y ago
      > the United States--are at war with whatever seems to be most profitable to the powers-that-be at the time This is a good example of a knucklehead comment. There is no profit in fighting cave dwelling extremists who want to make sure girls don't go to school. Instead of wishing for the demise of the US you should be saying thank Christ the Americans are in charge. HN can be a bag full of stupid on non-technical issues. I am going to start actively campaigning for the US to stop paying for the EU's defense.
      - it_learnses 13y ago
        lol thank Christ? Who's letting the creationists in to a scientific news site? Go back to faux news.
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.

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?
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "Who said anything about foreign operations or foreign terrorists?" Was I supposed to assume that "somewhere in the world" meant something different? "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?" Sure: yes. Yes, the FBI will be impeded when they are held accountable for their actions and when their actions are not secret. This is no different from warrant requirements, Miranda rights, the second amendment, the right to an attorney, etc. A democratic society where civil rights are valued gives up some law enforcement power in order to preserve its democracy and civil rights. "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?" When you are asking to use my tax dollars to fight terrorism, you had better be able to convince me that (a) there are terrorists to fight and (b) that you are effective at doing so. Otherwise I want tax money spent building better schools, paying for universal healthcare, paying for scientific research, paying for competent public defenders, etc. Sorry, but you cannot scare me with hypothetical terrorists. Since you are a fan of asking pedantic questions, I have one for you: do you believe that the war on terror will ever end, or do you believe that it will always be necessary to violate basic civil rights in the name of fighting terrorists?
enraged_camel 13y ago
>>Do you deny the theoretical possibility that somewhere on this planet there are people actively attempting to hurt people in the US? Personally, I'm more worried about the Yellowstone Caldera. Its eruption is long overdue, and when it does it will damage the entire continent and kill millions. Why isn't the government doing anything about that?
- GFischer 13y ago
  If I were in the U.S., I'd be more worried about the San Andreas fault and the "big one" due on San Francisco any time soon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault#The_University_of_California_study_on_.22the_next_big_one.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault#The_Universit... "The 2008 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) has estimated that the probability of an M ≥ 6.7 earthquake within the next 30 years on the northern and southern segments of the San Andreas fault as 21% and 59%, respectively."
  - Retric 13y ago
    A M 7 earhquake in California is bearly newsworthy and far from a significant threat. A low to mid 8 would cause significant property dammamge but few deaths. Even a 9 would only cause local problems. The Yellowstone Calder on the other hand would easily kill 50+% of everyone in the US with a low end eruption. Or put another way it's a significant threat to people livening in India. PS: A great way of comparing threats is to multiply risk times death totals over a decade. On that scale terrorists and eathquakes are a joke.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      In 1989 a 7.1 earthquake cause over $5bn of damage (excluding damage to roads, bridges, and State buildings.) (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001498.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001498.htm) Wikipedia doesn't show many > 7 earthquakes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquakes_in_California#List_of_earthquakes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquakes_in_California#List...) (but maybe they have a weird inclusion criteria?)
youngerdryas 13y ago
This site is filled with knuckleheads who actually think that the fall of the US would be a good thing, but they mostly live with their parents and have certainly never run a business never mind any government. Every man is a king now that the internet is here so clowns can spout off bullshit. We are at war with Muslim extremists, pretending we aren't is not helpful.
- angersock 13y ago
  Unless you'd care to show otherwise, you like data to support your assertions re:HN's demographics. We--by which I assume you mean the United States--are at war with whatever seems to be most profitable to the powers-that-be at the time, whether that is drugs, Muslims, or our own citizens. There is a very valid concern that such a policy of scaremongering and sly abuse of power could result in Bad Things (tm) if the beast decides that a war on one of us would be a worthwhile expenditure of time. To pretend otherwise is foolish. There are people out there that wish us harm, as there always have been. Part of the burden of doing great things is the acceptance of the fact that you'll be targeted by those less capable--and part of the requirement is that you bull ahead and don't let it bother you.
  - youngerdryas 13y ago
    > the United States--are at war with whatever seems to be most profitable to the powers-that-be at the time This is a good example of a knucklehead comment. There is no profit in fighting cave dwelling extremists who want to make sure girls don't go to school. Instead of wishing for the demise of the US you should be saying thank Christ the Americans are in charge. HN can be a bag full of stupid on non-technical issues. I am going to start actively campaigning for the US to stop paying for the EU's defense.
    - it_learnses 13y ago
      lol thank Christ? Who's letting the creationists in to a scientific news site? Go back to faux news.

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.