6 ms·

This is a terrible reason. These men were the definition of the type of thing a system like this should catch. intelligence agencies had been warned about one o

by Phlarp 13y ago

This is a terrible reason. These men were the definition of the type of thing a system like this should catch. intelligence agencies had been warned about one of them multiple times and they were both using the internet to self radicalize. The fact that the Boston bombings still happened should be proof enough that these systems either A) Do not work or B) are not being used against this type of threat. If it isn't in defense of incidents of domestic terror, what the fuck is it for?

derefr 13y ago
Or... the system catches things like this all the time, this is just one that slipped through, and if the system wasn't in place, there would be many, many more incidents of this type. Maybe. (This is normally "bear-repellent amulet" type thinking, but I think there's a specific exemption in this case, in that there are good reasons why you'd see no evidence of the system's effectiveness: the government doesn't like to get the public riled up by terrorist threats--terrorism is entirely about riling-up, after all--and so, when the terrorism is caught ahead of time, you'd imagine they'd sweep it under the rug. I might be wrong, though; this still might be a bad justification!)
- MisterWebz 13y ago
  So if the system catches things like this all the time, how come they only stopped 54 (no wait, that's the old figure, the new figure is 1 or 2) terror plots?
  - minor_nitwit 13y ago
    *Perhaps 1 or 2. Perhaps not.
- lurchpop 13y ago
  Except, they can't point to any plots that have actually been thwarted. First it was 52 plots thwarted, then 2, then none.
- jscn 13y ago
  > the government doesn't like to get the public riled up by terrorist threats I'm quite sure that's exactly what the government likes to do. That's the very reason that "terrorism" is in the headlines as much as it is: it serves the government by allowing them to extend their powers and budgets enormously. Feed scary stories about "terrorism" to an uncritical public and they'll beg you to take away their "freedom" in exchange for greater "security".
  - hox 13y ago
    The government is not the media. Terrorism headlines are sensational and grab attention, thus advertising dollars. Don't confuse the two.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  > there are good reasons why you'd see no evidence of the system's effectiveness: the government doesn't like to get the public riled up by terrorist threats http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lDZjiPok3w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lDZjiPok3w Yes, it's a pointed example ("TERRIFIC ACTS OF ATROCITY!!!!1111"), but if you're going to tell me that "terrorism is entirely about riling-up", and therefore politics and powermongering aren't, I think pretty much all of known, including recent, history utterly destroys that argument.
- dreamfactory 13y ago
  > if the system wasn't in place, there would be many, many more incidents of this type Because it was happening all the time before
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  There's no exemption. That's just 100% "bear-repellent amulet".
AndrewKemendo 13y ago
>If it isn't in defense of incidents of domestic terror, what the fuck is it for? Terrorism is a small subset of what the intelligence community supports. The majority of intelligence collection is used for strategic military planning and political decision making. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Comm...

by Phlarp 13y ago

derefr 13y ago

Or... the system catches things like this all the time, this is just one that slipped through, and if the system wasn't in place, there would be many, many more incidents of this type. Maybe. (This is normally "bear-repellent amulet" type thinking, but I think there's a specific exemption in this case, in that there are good reasons why you'd see no evidence of the system's effectiveness: the government doesn't like to get the public riled up by terrorist threats--terrorism is entirely about riling-up, after all--and so, when the terrorism is caught ahead of time, you'd imagine they'd sweep it under the rug. I might be wrong, though; this still might be a bad justification!)

MisterWebz 13y ago
So if the system catches things like this all the time, how come they only stopped 54 (no wait, that's the old figure, the new figure is 1 or 2) terror plots?
- minor_nitwit 13y ago
  *Perhaps 1 or 2. Perhaps not.
lurchpop 13y ago
Except, they can't point to any plots that have actually been thwarted. First it was 52 plots thwarted, then 2, then none.
jscn 13y ago
> the government doesn't like to get the public riled up by terrorist threats I'm quite sure that's exactly what the government likes to do. That's the very reason that "terrorism" is in the headlines as much as it is: it serves the government by allowing them to extend their powers and budgets enormously. Feed scary stories about "terrorism" to an uncritical public and they'll beg you to take away their "freedom" in exchange for greater "security".
- hox 13y ago
  The government is not the media. Terrorism headlines are sensational and grab attention, thus advertising dollars. Don't confuse the two.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
> there are good reasons why you'd see no evidence of the system's effectiveness: the government doesn't like to get the public riled up by terrorist threats http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lDZjiPok3w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lDZjiPok3w Yes, it's a pointed example ("TERRIFIC ACTS OF ATROCITY!!!!1111"), but if you're going to tell me that "terrorism is entirely about riling-up", and therefore politics and powermongering aren't, I think pretty much all of known, including recent, history utterly destroys that argument.
dreamfactory 13y ago
> if the system wasn't in place, there would be many, many more incidents of this type Because it was happening all the time before
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
There's no exemption. That's just 100% "bear-repellent amulet".

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

>If it isn't in defense of incidents of domestic terror, what the fuck is it for? Terrorism is a small subset of what the intelligence community supports. The majority of intelligence collection is used for strategic military planning and political decision making. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Comm...