2 ms·
This, of course, makes the assumption that such monitoring actually does make our security stronger. But there's a lot of reason to doubt this. Most recently,
by CWuestefeld 11y ago
This, of course, makes the assumption that such monitoring actually does make our security stronger. But there's a lot of reason to doubt this.
Most recently, the shooting at Garland, TX. It seems the FBI knew about this ahead of time, and did a spectacularly bad job of warning the local authorities. But the attack was averted anyway, and according to the police chief there...
What does this all mean? Not much says Police Chief Bates, "Please note that the contents of that email would not have prevented the shooting nor would it have changed the law enforcement response in any fashion."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/11/406025002/texas-police-were-warned-about-gunmen-at-muhammad-cartoon-event-and-they-werent http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/11/406025002/tex...
- VikingCoder 11y agoNo, it makes the assumption that the public can be convinced that monitoring makes our security stronger. There's an enormous world of difference between those two things.