5 ms·

People here live in a bubble. We're afraid of an orwelian society, but in the case of france, we're still unable to catch those guys eventhough they : - killed

by bsaul 12y ago

People here live in a bubble. We're afraid of an orwelian society, but in the case of france, we're still unable to catch those guys eventhough they : - killed people in the center of Paris, including cops protecting the area. - left their id card at the back of the car - had 2 car accident while running away inside Paris and changed the car twice - stopped at a gas station a few kilometers away from paris to get some gas,where the owner recognized them. - were already under monitoring by the counter terrorism, for having tried to go to war in iraq ten years ago. - have 8000 cops chasing them all over the country, and 24 hours later, they lost their tracks, for the second time. We don't live in an orwelian society. We REALLY don't.

kossTKR 12y ago
1) The inability to instantly catch potentially well trained and prepared people on the run in a large capital, does not exclude a surveillance state. 2) The revelations of the recent years has not garnered so much attention because of live tracking abilities, but because of the intelligence services almost incredible omnipresence, their ability to store and therefore retrieve data over many years and lastly the enormity, sophistication and agression of the whole endeavour. You should know that if you have followed the debate even slightly. 3) Plenty of people in the hacker and rights communities has pointed to the fact that the this grand effort will probably both be failing in catching terrorists with enough technical training and be used to target non-terrorist activity in the end, i.e. regular citizens. Your argument is a classic straw-mans argument. *added 4) For me to grasp that technically minded individuals like yourself, is accusing the vast majority of the most intelligent people in the computer science community of crying wolf, and to be living in a fantasy after the ever increasing revelations over the past years - is very difficult. Arguments like yours based on completely made up premises makes me hope people like you are either a paid shills, completely out of the loop or just an infinitely small minority. We need to stand up for our rights more than ever today.
joepie91_ 12y ago
Whether a society is Orwellian or not, is not measured by how easy it is to catch evildoers.
- the_af 12y ago
  This. The purpose of an Orwellian society is not to catch criminals.
  - drawkbox 12y ago
    Exactly, in Orwellian societies there should always be an enemy to justify more control and surveillance. Even better if they are on the run for a while then later you can pull them out for the 2 minutes of hate. Wars on Terrorism, terror cells, terrorists in caves, Eastasia/Eurasia, and on and on are used to beef up defense, tracking and police force through fear.
    - dmix 12y ago
      I was watching a BBC documentary on Vikings and they cited multiple occurrences of early British leaders using the threat of Viking invasions in order to influence the populace. But the number of occurrences of invasions actually taking place in historical records are nearly non-existent. So to further this point, the threat doesn't actually have to be tangible or to actually have taken place to be well utilized. Considering the vast number of tangible, actually occurring, problems that are being neglected there seems to be a long history of poor resource allocation in human culture thanks to fear.
pyre 12y ago
> We don't live in an orwelian society. We REALLY don't. 1. This is France, so it really only speaks to how things are happening in France. The majority of the people on this site are probably concentrated in Bay Area, which is not in France. Life in East Germany under the Stasi was pretty bad, but it also didn't describe conditions everywhere. 2. You could almost view this in the same light as DRM on media. The criminals easily skirt it, but the normal people are left paying the price (a degraded experience in the case of DRM; a watchful government eye in the case of surveillance).
- jasonm23 12y ago
  > The majority of the people on this site are probably concentrated in Bay Area Please, we're everywhere.
  - kevinbluer 12y ago
    "the majority" though?
  - pyre 12y ago
    The majority only need be greater than 50%. Note: I've never been to the Bay Area, so this isn't some "omg, we're all SanFran start-up bros" line of thought.
jsprogrammer 12y ago
The "problem" seems to be with how fast you can communicate the sightings and how quickly you can deploy an arresting force on to the moving targets.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Well it's just more proof that mass surveillance doesn't work...to catch terrorists or those willing to commit massacres. If someone wants to go at a subway station tomorrow and start stabbing random people or shooting them (especially in US), a surveillance state isn't going to stop that. What does work, however, is being able to use mass surveillance for economic espionage, high-level blackmail, spying and building cases against activists and those wanting to "harm the government" (in a "revealing the truth" kind of way), selective oppression, and so on.
existencebox 12y ago
Perhaps that makes it even more terrifying though; a society with Orwellian capabilities (surveillance, spying, death and imprisonment) but without that singularity of vision or execution? These capabilities in the hands of people who frankly don't deserve to be within an ocean's width of power is what I fear, not the society as depicted in 1984 itself.
rodgerd 12y ago
> - left their id card at the back of the car They left other peoples' ID in the car as a false lead. Perhaps when you're enough of a grown-up to have readin comprehension 101 you can join the adults talking, but until then...
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  > They left other peoples' ID in the car as a false lead. Incorrect.
  - rodgerd 12y ago
    Quite correct. The first person arrested off the ID in the car turned out to be sitting in his classroom at the time the attacks took place.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      The two suspects were identified and the manhunt began because an ID one of them left behind in their car. Police arrest the wrong person? Sure, but the ID wasn't faked to lead them to someone else or anything like that according to any reporting I've seen. > His identification card was found in the vehicle abandoned after Wednesday's attack, Cazeneuve said. > "It was their only mistake," Dominique Rizet, BFMTV's police and justice consultant, said earlier. http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/08/europe/paris-charlie-hebdo-shooting-suspects/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/08/europe/paris-charlie-hebdo-sho...
pluma 12y ago
This argument is based on a simple assumption: - surveillance is effective That assumption has already proven to be incorrect.
bigbugbag 12y ago
I understand your frustration that those guys have not been caught yet (they will eventually) but now I feel the same frustration but didn't we know that "anti-terrorism" laws and surveillance are ineffective in practice ? I remember this objection being made at the time these laws were proposed. Then again this is actually beneficial to a surveillance state as this can be used to put even more surveillance and get the population to accept it. This is no different as using CP and piracy as pretexts for Internet censorship, or from a web company running on investor story time admitting that advertising revenue currently sucks but this means there is much room for improvement. If you drank the koolaid and actually believe that surveillance was effective in preventing terrorism or catching terrorists afterwards, well I'm sorry you got duped.
- bsaul 12y ago
  i'm sorry but the argument saying that surveillance would only affect innocent civilians is just as sily as saying it would only affect terrorists. Either the state has the effective ability to track people's activity, or it doesn't. My comment was just to show that, currently, the state's ability to monitor people ( in general, in france) is, contrarely to what all the posts about privacy on HN tend to suggest,still very very limited.

by bsaul 12y ago

kossTKR 12y ago

1) The inability to instantly catch potentially well trained and prepared people on the run in a large capital, does not exclude a surveillance state. 2) The revelations of the recent years has not garnered so much attention because of live tracking abilities, but because of the intelligence services almost incredible omnipresence, their ability to store and therefore retrieve data over many years and lastly the enormity, sophistication and agression of the whole endeavour. You should know that if you have followed the debate even slightly. 3) Plenty of people in the hacker and rights communities has pointed to the fact that the this grand effort will probably both be failing in catching terrorists with enough technical training and be used to target non-terrorist activity in the end, i.e. regular citizens. Your argument is a classic straw-mans argument. *added 4) For me to grasp that technically minded individuals like yourself, is accusing the vast majority of the most intelligent people in the computer science community of crying wolf, and to be living in a fantasy after the ever increasing revelations over the past years - is very difficult. Arguments like yours based on completely made up premises makes me hope people like you are either a paid shills, completely out of the loop or just an infinitely small minority. We need to stand up for our rights more than ever today.

joepie91_ 12y ago

Whether a society is Orwellian or not, is not measured by how easy it is to catch evildoers.

the_af 12y ago
This. The purpose of an Orwellian society is not to catch criminals.
- drawkbox 12y ago
  Exactly, in Orwellian societies there should always be an enemy to justify more control and surveillance. Even better if they are on the run for a while then later you can pull them out for the 2 minutes of hate. Wars on Terrorism, terror cells, terrorists in caves, Eastasia/Eurasia, and on and on are used to beef up defense, tracking and police force through fear.
  - dmix 12y ago
    I was watching a BBC documentary on Vikings and they cited multiple occurrences of early British leaders using the threat of Viking invasions in order to influence the populace. But the number of occurrences of invasions actually taking place in historical records are nearly non-existent. So to further this point, the threat doesn't actually have to be tangible or to actually have taken place to be well utilized. Considering the vast number of tangible, actually occurring, problems that are being neglected there seems to be a long history of poor resource allocation in human culture thanks to fear.

pyre 12y ago

> We don't live in an orwelian society. We REALLY don't. 1. This is France, so it really only speaks to how things are happening in France. The majority of the people on this site are probably concentrated in Bay Area, which is not in France. Life in East Germany under the Stasi was pretty bad, but it also didn't describe conditions everywhere. 2. You could almost view this in the same light as DRM on media. The criminals easily skirt it, but the normal people are left paying the price (a degraded experience in the case of DRM; a watchful government eye in the case of surveillance).

jasonm23 12y ago
> The majority of the people on this site are probably concentrated in Bay Area Please, we're everywhere.
- kevinbluer 12y ago
  "the majority" though?
- pyre 12y ago
  The majority only need be greater than 50%. Note: I've never been to the Bay Area, so this isn't some "omg, we're all SanFran start-up bros" line of thought.

jsprogrammer 12y ago

The "problem" seems to be with how fast you can communicate the sightings and how quickly you can deploy an arresting force on to the moving targets.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Well it's just more proof that mass surveillance doesn't work...to catch terrorists or those willing to commit massacres. If someone wants to go at a subway station tomorrow and start stabbing random people or shooting them (especially in US), a surveillance state isn't going to stop that. What does work, however, is being able to use mass surveillance for economic espionage, high-level blackmail, spying and building cases against activists and those wanting to "harm the government" (in a "revealing the truth" kind of way), selective oppression, and so on.

existencebox 12y ago

Perhaps that makes it even more terrifying though; a society with Orwellian capabilities (surveillance, spying, death and imprisonment) but without that singularity of vision or execution? These capabilities in the hands of people who frankly don't deserve to be within an ocean's width of power is what I fear, not the society as depicted in 1984 itself.

rodgerd 12y ago

> - left their id card at the back of the car They left other peoples' ID in the car as a false lead. Perhaps when you're enough of a grown-up to have readin comprehension 101 you can join the adults talking, but until then...

res0nat0r 12y ago
> They left other peoples' ID in the car as a false lead. Incorrect.
- rodgerd 12y ago
  Quite correct. The first person arrested off the ID in the car turned out to be sitting in his classroom at the time the attacks took place.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    The two suspects were identified and the manhunt began because an ID one of them left behind in their car. Police arrest the wrong person? Sure, but the ID wasn't faked to lead them to someone else or anything like that according to any reporting I've seen. > His identification card was found in the vehicle abandoned after Wednesday's attack, Cazeneuve said. > "It was their only mistake," Dominique Rizet, BFMTV's police and justice consultant, said earlier. http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/08/europe/paris-charlie-hebdo-shooting-suspects/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/08/europe/paris-charlie-hebdo-sho...

pluma 12y ago

This argument is based on a simple assumption: - surveillance is effective That assumption has already proven to be incorrect.

bigbugbag 12y ago

I understand your frustration that those guys have not been caught yet (they will eventually) but now I feel the same frustration but didn't we know that "anti-terrorism" laws and surveillance are ineffective in practice ? I remember this objection being made at the time these laws were proposed. Then again this is actually beneficial to a surveillance state as this can be used to put even more surveillance and get the population to accept it. This is no different as using CP and piracy as pretexts for Internet censorship, or from a web company running on investor story time admitting that advertising revenue currently sucks but this means there is much room for improvement. If you drank the koolaid and actually believe that surveillance was effective in preventing terrorism or catching terrorists afterwards, well I'm sorry you got duped.

bsaul 12y ago
i'm sorry but the argument saying that surveillance would only affect innocent civilians is just as sily as saying it would only affect terrorists. Either the state has the effective ability to track people's activity, or it doesn't. My comment was just to show that, currently, the state's ability to monitor people ( in general, in france) is, contrarely to what all the posts about privacy on HN tend to suggest,still very very limited.