3 ms·

The smart ones never used such unsecured communications in the first place. I don't understand why people always trot this argument out. The dumb terrorists ar

The smart ones never used such unsecured communications in the first place. I don't understand why people always trot this argument out. The dumb terrorists are capable of killing and injuring innocents also.

tekromancr 13y ago
Stupid terrorists are like stupid bomb makers. A self solving problem. If they didn't use encrypted communication before I can't imagine they will start now.
walshemj 13y ago
Even if the higher echelons are better at security the shock troops (disposable) are not always so. And to reverse what the IRA said the NSA/GCHQ "only have to be lucky once you have to be lucky always" - BP would not have broken tunny if a bored/lazy wireless operator had not broken the rules and screwed up a message.
talmand 13y ago
Just because you don't understand doesn't make it wrong. I agree that dumb terrorists are capable of killing and injuring innocents, in fact I would say the dumb ones are the most dangerous because they are rather difficult to identify beforehand; regardless of spying capabilities our government has. But none of this has anything to do with my disagreement with the top comment in that all of the world's terrorists suddenly stopped using Verizon to discuss their dastardly plans just because of Snowden.
- brown9-2 13y ago
  Apologies, I misread your comment. I've seen a lot of people trot out "well the smart terrorists already knew this" line in defense of these leaks purportedly having harmed national security, that it's proof that these leaks could not have harmed national security. (which then is a bit ironic to claim that these leaks are not dangerous because terrorists already knew this, but that these leaks are important for civil liberties because apparently Americans did not know this)
  - talmand 13y ago
    First off, I don't necessarily feel apologies is warranted for this discussion. Yes, I find that defense somewhat questionable in some terms because I do believe the leaks do in fact harm national security. The problem is that it seems that these programs are dangerously close to crossing the line of leading into a surveillance state and that the reason it may have crossed that line is because the people who have the responsibility to reign such things in have apparently failed to do so. Therefore, yes, national security was harmed but I'm willing to sacrifice that somewhat to make sure our liberties are still intact. I don't feel the need to trade liberties for security if that security is essentially making the populace prisoners to the state for "their own safety". I also enjoy seeing the contradictions such as you describe. The reports are full of "but" moments that no one seems to be addressing. The media is a big fail on all this.

tekromancr 13y ago

Stupid terrorists are like stupid bomb makers. A self solving problem. If they didn't use encrypted communication before I can't imagine they will start now.

walshemj 13y ago

Even if the higher echelons are better at security the shock troops (disposable) are not always so. And to reverse what the IRA said the NSA/GCHQ "only have to be lucky once you have to be lucky always" - BP would not have broken tunny if a bored/lazy wireless operator had not broken the rules and screwed up a message.

talmand 13y ago

Just because you don't understand doesn't make it wrong. I agree that dumb terrorists are capable of killing and injuring innocents, in fact I would say the dumb ones are the most dangerous because they are rather difficult to identify beforehand; regardless of spying capabilities our government has. But none of this has anything to do with my disagreement with the top comment in that all of the world's terrorists suddenly stopped using Verizon to discuss their dastardly plans just because of Snowden.

brown9-2 13y ago
Apologies, I misread your comment. I've seen a lot of people trot out "well the smart terrorists already knew this" line in defense of these leaks purportedly having harmed national security, that it's proof that these leaks could not have harmed national security. (which then is a bit ironic to claim that these leaks are not dangerous because terrorists already knew this, but that these leaks are important for civil liberties because apparently Americans did not know this)
- talmand 13y ago
  First off, I don't necessarily feel apologies is warranted for this discussion. Yes, I find that defense somewhat questionable in some terms because I do believe the leaks do in fact harm national security. The problem is that it seems that these programs are dangerously close to crossing the line of leading into a surveillance state and that the reason it may have crossed that line is because the people who have the responsibility to reign such things in have apparently failed to do so. Therefore, yes, national security was harmed but I'm willing to sacrifice that somewhat to make sure our liberties are still intact. I don't feel the need to trade liberties for security if that security is essentially making the populace prisoners to the state for "their own safety". I also enjoy seeing the contradictions such as you describe. The reports are full of "but" moments that no one seems to be addressing. The media is a big fail on all this.