4 ms·

The real question is this: If all of this collection stops another 9/11 style attack where thousands of lives are saved, will it be worth it?

nullc 13y ago
How many lives are lost by the increased range that people drive because the TSA is obnoxious, or because of ever so slightly reduced preference for telecommuting because of surveillance state concerns? 9/11 was horrible but it was also noise compared to boring sources of death that we struggle with every day, and whos risks may be increased by our overreactions to 9/11.
- panarky 13y ago
  Yes, there are increased traffic deaths caused by heightened airport security. Approximately 500 additional people die each year because of this. The inconvenience of extra passenger screening and added costs at airports after 9/11 cause many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination instead, and, since airline travel is far safer than car travel, this has led to an increase of 500 U.S. traffic fatalities per year. Using DHS-mandated value of statistical life at $6.5 million, this equates to a loss of $3.2 billion per year, or $32 billion over the period 2002 to 2011 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automobi.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automo...
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Approximately 500 additional people die each year because of this. IOW, the TSA has created approximately two 9-11s since its inception.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
If it was spying alone, I think you may have a point. My concern is that this is part of a larger trend in which the federal government ignores checks and balances in "wars" of various kinds - and those wars have cost most lives than 9/11 did to begin with. So the spying in isolation? Probably worth it. The general ignoring of checks and balances and human rights generally? Definitely not worth it.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> If all of this collection stops another 9/11 style attack where thousands of lives are saved, will it be worth it? There's a Ben Franklin quote that gets tossed around a lot -- and appropriately so -- in response to questions like this, but this time I'll let Patrick Henry answer for me: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" Also, "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." And, "Fear is the passion of slaves."
mason240 13y ago
If it means the US loses its hegemony in internet/technology, then no.
alan_cx 13y ago
If this were absolutely the only use of such data slurping, then yes. The problem is, with such secrecy and an unwillingness to allow independent oversight, its hard to believe that. The problem is all the other uses of such information. And of course we have no idea what else the information is being used for. There is also the effects on people who don't know. For example, imagine the politician who wants to reign in a security service for over reach, but suspects that the security service in question might have some embarrassing data on him/her. Would such a politician take the risk? Or what if a candidate wanted to fight an election based on reigning in a security service, and the sitting politician was "helped by the security service at risk. And so on... Such information has great power to destroy what democracy we have.
IanCal 13y ago
As a contrasting question, how many lives could be saved if the money was spent elsewhere? The 'black budget' figure of $50B is just shy of 1/3rd of the total cost of universal health care in the UK, which equates to about 20 million people. A quick google gives a figure of ~22,000 [0] people dying from a lack of insurance, out of a population of 157 million (25-65), of which about 30 million were uninsured. Now this is more complicated because the uninsured are likely to be poorer, so possibly more longer term issues and the UK figure covers everyone (not just 25-65) which adds cost. I'm not too interested in creating a perfect comparison, but I feel it's fairly reasonable to say that not spending that money on healthcare costs on the order of tens of thousands of lives per year. If it's 12,000 then that equates to 4 9/11 incidents per year (in lives) I know these can't be compared quite like this but I think it does emphasise the sheer scale we're talking about. [0] http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf

nullc 13y ago

How many lives are lost by the increased range that people drive because the TSA is obnoxious, or because of ever so slightly reduced preference for telecommuting because of surveillance state concerns? 9/11 was horrible but it was also noise compared to boring sources of death that we struggle with every day, and whos risks may be increased by our overreactions to 9/11.

panarky 13y ago
Yes, there are increased traffic deaths caused by heightened airport security. Approximately 500 additional people die each year because of this. The inconvenience of extra passenger screening and added costs at airports after 9/11 cause many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination instead, and, since airline travel is far safer than car travel, this has led to an increase of 500 U.S. traffic fatalities per year. Using DHS-mandated value of statistical life at $6.5 million, this equates to a loss of $3.2 billion per year, or $32 billion over the period 2002 to 2011 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automobi.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automo...
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Approximately 500 additional people die each year because of this. IOW, the TSA has created approximately two 9-11s since its inception.

TallGuyShort 13y ago

If it was spying alone, I think you may have a point. My concern is that this is part of a larger trend in which the federal government ignores checks and balances in "wars" of various kinds - and those wars have cost most lives than 9/11 did to begin with. So the spying in isolation? Probably worth it. The general ignoring of checks and balances and human rights generally? Definitely not worth it.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> If all of this collection stops another 9/11 style attack where thousands of lives are saved, will it be worth it? There's a Ben Franklin quote that gets tossed around a lot -- and appropriately so -- in response to questions like this, but this time I'll let Patrick Henry answer for me: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" Also, "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." And, "Fear is the passion of slaves."

mason240 13y ago

If it means the US loses its hegemony in internet/technology, then no.

alan_cx 13y ago

If this were absolutely the only use of such data slurping, then yes. The problem is, with such secrecy and an unwillingness to allow independent oversight, its hard to believe that. The problem is all the other uses of such information. And of course we have no idea what else the information is being used for. There is also the effects on people who don't know. For example, imagine the politician who wants to reign in a security service for over reach, but suspects that the security service in question might have some embarrassing data on him/her. Would such a politician take the risk? Or what if a candidate wanted to fight an election based on reigning in a security service, and the sitting politician was "helped by the security service at risk. And so on... Such information has great power to destroy what democracy we have.

IanCal 13y ago

As a contrasting question, how many lives could be saved if the money was spent elsewhere? The 'black budget' figure of $50B is just shy of 1/3rd of the total cost of universal health care in the UK, which equates to about 20 million people. A quick google gives a figure of ~22,000 [0] people dying from a lack of insurance, out of a population of 157 million (25-65), of which about 30 million were uninsured. Now this is more complicated because the uninsured are likely to be poorer, so possibly more longer term issues and the UK figure covers everyone (not just 25-65) which adds cost. I'm not too interested in creating a perfect comparison, but I feel it's fairly reasonable to say that not spending that money on healthcare costs on the order of tens of thousands of lives per year. If it's 12,000 then that equates to 4 9/11 incidents per year (in lives) I know these can't be compared quite like this but I think it does emphasise the sheer scale we're talking about. [0] http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf