4 ms·

It's folly to assume that "terrorism" is some really concrete class of crime that can be easily prevented using known methods, and I'd further argue that the ef

It's folly to assume that "terrorism" is some really concrete class of crime that can be easily prevented using known methods, and I'd further argue that the efficacy of surveillance to this end is unknown, but I'd venture to say it's pretty insignificant. Knowing this, a better way of phrasing the same question is: What tradeoffs are we willing to make to reduce the risk of terrorism, and where is the right balance? I would argue that, since the risk of terrorism is so low, the tradeoffs we're currently making are grossly out of proportion. If we want to prevent deaths in aggregate, we should be pouring government money into fighting disease and starvation in poorer countries. Much better ROI there. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/the_comparative.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/the_comparati...

rhino369 12y ago
Fighting terrorism isn't just about preventing X number of deaths. The 9-11 attacks were profoundly disruptive in economic and social costs. Just in direct costs like buildings being knocked over, air travel being stopped, being not being able to get to work, was 200 billion dollars. That's a little less than the GDP of Finland wiped out in one attack. That is not to mention the cost of fighting the war on terrorism. All in it probably cost 5 Trillion. You could say, hey, we didn't need to fight the war on terrorism. But the attacks were world changing events for the US. They caused fear, anger, confusion, and a need for revenge. Whether it is rational or not, nobody is going to work in a skyscraper if every 20 months one gets knocked over. Just look at Israel and Palestine for what happens to cultures who expect terrorism (on both sides). It is caustic to a free society. It is hard to tell how low the risk of terrorism is in a vacuum. There are certainly enough suicide bomb volunteers and other jihadists. Crossing the US border is pretty easy. Some amount of intelligence is needed to make sure nobody is plotting something big.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  How much of those costs were the direct result of the planes slamming into the buildings, rather than the (over) reaction to that event?
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Cockpit door locks. The rest we could have probably done without, especially the 'war on terrorism', which as a by-product makes more terrorists.
- orthecreedence 12y ago
  What's the economic cost of car crashes? Or obesity? How many lives are lost in terrorist attacks vs slipping on banana peels? What little terrorism actually exists is caused by the US government's own actions. So not only do we pay taxes to create terrorists with our sociopolitical skylarkings, we pay taxes to "fight terrorists" that are created by it. On top of this we all get spied on in the process. I smell a raw deal.

rhino369 12y ago

Fighting terrorism isn't just about preventing X number of deaths. The 9-11 attacks were profoundly disruptive in economic and social costs. Just in direct costs like buildings being knocked over, air travel being stopped, being not being able to get to work, was 200 billion dollars. That's a little less than the GDP of Finland wiped out in one attack. That is not to mention the cost of fighting the war on terrorism. All in it probably cost 5 Trillion. You could say, hey, we didn't need to fight the war on terrorism. But the attacks were world changing events for the US. They caused fear, anger, confusion, and a need for revenge. Whether it is rational or not, nobody is going to work in a skyscraper if every 20 months one gets knocked over. Just look at Israel and Palestine for what happens to cultures who expect terrorism (on both sides). It is caustic to a free society. It is hard to tell how low the risk of terrorism is in a vacuum. There are certainly enough suicide bomb volunteers and other jihadists. Crossing the US border is pretty easy. Some amount of intelligence is needed to make sure nobody is plotting something big.

Karunamon 12y ago
How much of those costs were the direct result of the planes slamming into the buildings, rather than the (over) reaction to that event?
jacquesm 12y ago
Cockpit door locks. The rest we could have probably done without, especially the 'war on terrorism', which as a by-product makes more terrorists.
orthecreedence 12y ago
What's the economic cost of car crashes? Or obesity? How many lives are lost in terrorist attacks vs slipping on banana peels? What little terrorism actually exists is caused by the US government's own actions. So not only do we pay taxes to create terrorists with our sociopolitical skylarkings, we pay taxes to "fight terrorists" that are created by it. On top of this we all get spied on in the process. I smell a raw deal.