6 ms·

There's nothing in the world that can provide "freedom from terrorism" which makes it even an even uglier lie. Even if it could, I'd still be against it though,

by staunch 11y ago

There's nothing in the world that can provide "freedom from terrorism" which makes it even an even uglier lie. Even if it could, I'd still be against it though, because there are many ways to fight terrorism that don't involve sacrificing the freedom our ancestors bought with blood. The FBI needs leadership that understand how to operate within American principles.

belorn 11y ago
Freedom from terrorism is only modern times bogyman. A hundred years ago, it was anarchists! 50 years ago, it was communists. In 50 years into the future, a new fooist will replace terrorists and the same fight will start all over again. I think what society need is some government reforms that require lawmakers to do cost-benefit analyses with tests and proofs. If they want to ban encryption, they should be forced to provide evidence that it actually work, and that the cost to society is less than current methods to fight terrorism. It would also likely get rid of many current inefficient methods, like security theater at airports.
- ericd 11y ago
  Proving a policy change's future effects is generally impossible. Congress does have panels of people who write reports on the possible/likely effects of legislation. Not sure how frequently they use them, though.
- omegaham 11y ago
  This. It boggles my mind how scared people are of terrorism, especially domestic terrorism. If you live in Pakistan, where suicide bombings happen all the time, I can understand being scared of terrorism. But in the US? Come on. You know what I'm scared of? I have to drive two hours four days a week. I am much, much more likely to die in my car. Hell, I was more likely to die in my car while I was in the military. Most people know someone who either got injured or died in a car crash. It happens all the time. How many people know someone who died in a terrorist attack? But we're surrendering our freedom for the latter, which is a ridiculous phantom bogeyman, while we vigorously defend our right to die on the roadways.
  - leesalminen 11y ago
    >>> How many people know someone who died in a terrorist attack? You may not want to pose this question to a New Yorker. I get your point, but it is a bit of a loaded question.
    - skidoo 11y ago
      He asked about people dying in a terrorist attack, not in clandestine government activities.
      - iplaybilliards 11y ago
        In support of this, please see September Clues on YouTube. While we cannot say what exactly happened on 9/11, September Clues proves without a doubt what didn't happen on 9/11.
    - click170 11y ago
      It may be a loaded question but his point stands, fear is not based on rationality or we would be spending tens of billions of dollars a year trying to prevent car accidents that is currently being spent "fighting terrorism".
    - klodolph 11y ago
      NYC population is 8.4M. Auto fatality rate in U.S. is ~12/10,000/year since 2001. If NYC follows US, then ~10k die per year in auto accidents. The term "loaded question" refers to questions which presume facts. For example, "why did you kill him?" Is loaded because it presumes that you did kill him. The question you are referring to is not loaded.
      - adventured 11y ago
        That's not even remotely close, on either number. There were 294 motor vehicle fatalities in NYC in 2013. The US has been averaging about ~32,000 motor vehicle deaths per year the last several years. Your 12/10000 rate would indicate 360,000 people per year; that's off by a factor of ten. * http://dmv.ny.gov/statistic/2013nyc.pdf http://dmv.ny.gov/statistic/2013nyc.pdf * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in...
- josteink 11y ago
  > In 50 years into the future, a new fooist will replace terrorists and the same fight will start all over again. Cryptoists. Or maybe I'm overly optimistic thinking crypto-users will first be targetted in 50 years time. Probably more like 5? Maybe 10?
- thenewerguy 11y ago
  The question I want to ask is, looking at the history of human society (especially in the 20th century), is it more reasonable to fear terrorists or totalitarian governments? Just in terms of absolute numbers of people killed, it seems that the latter wins by orders of magnitude [1,2,3,etc]. So assuming we want to prevent death and hardship (the precise reason this guy wants to restrict encryption), we should be focused on preventing the rise of totalitarianism. That means we should be extremely wary of all of this surveillance infrastructure that's springing up everywhere, and of any calls to make our communications even less secure than they already are. It's not that today's government is totalitarian or even has those tendencies, it's that we're making it easier for it to happen in the future, and that's a real danger in my opinion. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_...
madaxe_again 11y ago
Hell, they just need to watch Star Wars. the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers It's like they just don't understand causality, at all.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
If we aren't willing to ban alcohol even though it is a major factor in many accidents, deaths, murders, domestic abuse cases, child abuse cases, and rapes... then why should we ban something that would help stop a far less dangerous problem?

by staunch 11y ago

belorn 11y ago

Freedom from terrorism is only modern times bogyman. A hundred years ago, it was anarchists! 50 years ago, it was communists. In 50 years into the future, a new fooist will replace terrorists and the same fight will start all over again. I think what society need is some government reforms that require lawmakers to do cost-benefit analyses with tests and proofs. If they want to ban encryption, they should be forced to provide evidence that it actually work, and that the cost to society is less than current methods to fight terrorism. It would also likely get rid of many current inefficient methods, like security theater at airports.

ericd 11y ago
Proving a policy change's future effects is generally impossible. Congress does have panels of people who write reports on the possible/likely effects of legislation. Not sure how frequently they use them, though.
omegaham 11y ago
This. It boggles my mind how scared people are of terrorism, especially domestic terrorism. If you live in Pakistan, where suicide bombings happen all the time, I can understand being scared of terrorism. But in the US? Come on. You know what I'm scared of? I have to drive two hours four days a week. I am much, much more likely to die in my car. Hell, I was more likely to die in my car while I was in the military. Most people know someone who either got injured or died in a car crash. It happens all the time. How many people know someone who died in a terrorist attack? But we're surrendering our freedom for the latter, which is a ridiculous phantom bogeyman, while we vigorously defend our right to die on the roadways.
- leesalminen 11y ago
  >>> How many people know someone who died in a terrorist attack? You may not want to pose this question to a New Yorker. I get your point, but it is a bit of a loaded question.
  - skidoo 11y ago
    He asked about people dying in a terrorist attack, not in clandestine government activities.
    - iplaybilliards 11y ago
      In support of this, please see September Clues on YouTube. While we cannot say what exactly happened on 9/11, September Clues proves without a doubt what didn't happen on 9/11.
  - click170 11y ago
    It may be a loaded question but his point stands, fear is not based on rationality or we would be spending tens of billions of dollars a year trying to prevent car accidents that is currently being spent "fighting terrorism".
  - klodolph 11y ago
    NYC population is 8.4M. Auto fatality rate in U.S. is ~12/10,000/year since 2001. If NYC follows US, then ~10k die per year in auto accidents. The term "loaded question" refers to questions which presume facts. For example, "why did you kill him?" Is loaded because it presumes that you did kill him. The question you are referring to is not loaded.
    - adventured 11y ago
      That's not even remotely close, on either number. There were 294 motor vehicle fatalities in NYC in 2013. The US has been averaging about ~32,000 motor vehicle deaths per year the last several years. Your 12/10000 rate would indicate 360,000 people per year; that's off by a factor of ten. * http://dmv.ny.gov/statistic/2013nyc.pdf http://dmv.ny.gov/statistic/2013nyc.pdf * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in...
josteink 11y ago
> In 50 years into the future, a new fooist will replace terrorists and the same fight will start all over again. Cryptoists. Or maybe I'm overly optimistic thinking crypto-users will first be targetted in 50 years time. Probably more like 5? Maybe 10?
thenewerguy 11y ago
The question I want to ask is, looking at the history of human society (especially in the 20th century), is it more reasonable to fear terrorists or totalitarian governments? Just in terms of absolute numbers of people killed, it seems that the latter wins by orders of magnitude [1,2,3,etc]. So assuming we want to prevent death and hardship (the precise reason this guy wants to restrict encryption), we should be focused on preventing the rise of totalitarianism. That means we should be extremely wary of all of this surveillance infrastructure that's springing up everywhere, and of any calls to make our communications even less secure than they already are. It's not that today's government is totalitarian or even has those tendencies, it's that we're making it easier for it to happen in the future, and that's a real danger in my opinion. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_...

madaxe_again 11y ago

Hell, they just need to watch Star Wars. the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers It's like they just don't understand causality, at all.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

If we aren't willing to ban alcohol even though it is a major factor in many accidents, deaths, murders, domestic abuse cases, child abuse cases, and rapes... then why should we ban something that would help stop a far less dangerous problem?