4 ms·

What American security planners are worried about is exactly that marginal increase. Suppose Yemen (sorry to pick on Yemen) becomes a secure base for bad guys

What American security planners are worried about is exactly that marginal increase. Suppose Yemen (sorry to pick on Yemen) becomes a secure base for bad guys who manage to bomb an airplane, a subway, or a major sporting event somewhere in the world "merely" half a dozen times a year. You can argue all you want about how you'd still be more likely to die from a traffic accident, but that won't change the political pressure for action. Frankly, a lot of that pressure would be rational: The costs of disruptive attacks of course go way beyond the mere casualties, even if everyone involved is perfectly stoic. Now you're looking at the potential for a military incursion, dramatically escalated security at transportation hubs and public events, and/or a bunch of other responses that you might find a whole lot more distasteful than the intelligence agency of a democratic government keeping tabs on phone calls in an unstable country.

dllthomas 13y ago
I know that's what they're worried about (assuming good faith on their part). The potential downside is not tiny[1], but the question is what change in the likelihood is produced by the change in policy. Remember that we are not talking about forgoing all intelligence gathering; we are specifically talking about focusing on HUMINT and targetted surveillance instead of mass surveillance. Resources spent on mass surveillance are not spent elsewhere. I contend that the change from shifting resources to mass surveillance is likely to be small (if it's even in the desired direction). And a small change is something I want to bear if it is the price of respecting the rights of innocent people, because I am not a coward. [1] Though if we keep our heads - which is what I've advocated consistently - it can be small. Sadly, I don't think that's likely, but we should continue to push for it. Fear of terrorism is how democracies fall - anyone saying "you need to be freaking out about terrorism" is the enemy.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  That's perfectly reasonable. I think you might be overestimating our ability to target HUMINT and other focused intelligence methods in a way that would cause a smaller sum of collateral harm to the innocent than less intrusive mass surveillance for the same amount of intelligence value. Bang-for-the-human-rights-buck, as it were. But you've identified the key tradeoff, and I don't feel like I know enough to argue further exactly where our policy should come down on it. [A]nyone saying "you need to be freaking out about terrorism" is the enemy. I am unaware of anyone in a serious position to affect public opinion or policy who is saying this. Which is good, because I don't think it's helpful in a democracy to brand anyone who's participating non-violently as an "enemy".
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    'I am unaware of anyone in a serious position to affect public opinion or policy who is saying this. Which is good, because I don't think it's helpful in a democracy to brand anyone who's participating non-violently as an "enemy".' It was a paraphrase, of course, but the meme is not uncommon - particularly amongst those who stand to profit from security contracts or wish to attack political opponents suggesting saner courses of action. Its prevalence has certainly decreased since 2002. I stand by my use of the term; the force is well deserved, for a substantial threat to our freedom. And, for clarity, it has certainly included politicians and media personalities. I would note, however, that 1) "enemy" status is transient, and 2) violence (or even other exercise of power, like surveillance) is not always the appropriate way to respond to an enemy - almost never so if they aren't acting violently themselves.
bediger4000 13y ago
What American security planners are worried about is exactly that marginal increase. Can I inquire as to how you know that? American security planners haven't exactly been forthcoming about their motivations and rationalizations.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
> Now you're looking at the potential for a military incursion, dramatically escalated security at transportation hubs and public events, and/or a bunch of other responses that you might find a whole lot more distasteful than the intelligence agency of a democratic government keeping tabs on phone calls in an unstable country. You're assuming those things are inevitable. The argument seems to be that we are bound to act irrationally so let's just give in to it and do something harmful and ineffective. The right answer is to keep our heads in all cases. Let's suppose you're right and the predominant cost of terrorist attacks is our overreaction to them. Isn't it then obvious that the solution is to prohibit the overreaction? Amend the constitution. Make it much more difficult for the government to engage the military in a foreign excursion. Prohibit all of this TSA security theater entirely. Take away from Congress the ability to self-inflict damage -- that's the actual problem so that's what the solution has to fix.

dllthomas 13y ago

I know that's what they're worried about (assuming good faith on their part). The potential downside is not tiny[1], but the question is what change in the likelihood is produced by the change in policy. Remember that we are not talking about forgoing all intelligence gathering; we are specifically talking about focusing on HUMINT and targetted surveillance instead of mass surveillance. Resources spent on mass surveillance are not spent elsewhere. I contend that the change from shifting resources to mass surveillance is likely to be small (if it's even in the desired direction). And a small change is something I want to bear if it is the price of respecting the rights of innocent people, because I am not a coward. [1] Though if we keep our heads - which is what I've advocated consistently - it can be small. Sadly, I don't think that's likely, but we should continue to push for it. Fear of terrorism is how democracies fall - anyone saying "you need to be freaking out about terrorism" is the enemy.

twoodfin 13y ago
That's perfectly reasonable. I think you might be overestimating our ability to target HUMINT and other focused intelligence methods in a way that would cause a smaller sum of collateral harm to the innocent than less intrusive mass surveillance for the same amount of intelligence value. Bang-for-the-human-rights-buck, as it were. But you've identified the key tradeoff, and I don't feel like I know enough to argue further exactly where our policy should come down on it. [A]nyone saying "you need to be freaking out about terrorism" is the enemy. I am unaware of anyone in a serious position to affect public opinion or policy who is saying this. Which is good, because I don't think it's helpful in a democracy to brand anyone who's participating non-violently as an "enemy".
- dllthomas 13y ago
  'I am unaware of anyone in a serious position to affect public opinion or policy who is saying this. Which is good, because I don't think it's helpful in a democracy to brand anyone who's participating non-violently as an "enemy".' It was a paraphrase, of course, but the meme is not uncommon - particularly amongst those who stand to profit from security contracts or wish to attack political opponents suggesting saner courses of action. Its prevalence has certainly decreased since 2002. I stand by my use of the term; the force is well deserved, for a substantial threat to our freedom. And, for clarity, it has certainly included politicians and media personalities. I would note, however, that 1) "enemy" status is transient, and 2) violence (or even other exercise of power, like surveillance) is not always the appropriate way to respond to an enemy - almost never so if they aren't acting violently themselves.

bediger4000 13y ago

What American security planners are worried about is exactly that marginal increase. Can I inquire as to how you know that? American security planners haven't exactly been forthcoming about their motivations and rationalizations.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago

> Now you're looking at the potential for a military incursion, dramatically escalated security at transportation hubs and public events, and/or a bunch of other responses that you might find a whole lot more distasteful than the intelligence agency of a democratic government keeping tabs on phone calls in an unstable country. You're assuming those things are inevitable. The argument seems to be that we are bound to act irrationally so let's just give in to it and do something harmful and ineffective. The right answer is to keep our heads in all cases. Let's suppose you're right and the predominant cost of terrorist attacks is our overreaction to them. Isn't it then obvious that the solution is to prohibit the overreaction? Amend the constitution. Make it much more difficult for the government to engage the military in a foreign excursion. Prohibit all of this TSA security theater entirely. Take away from Congress the ability to self-inflict damage -- that's the actual problem so that's what the solution has to fix.