The Snoopers Charter (Draft Communications Data Bill) is currently being pushed by the UK Government. The timing of Egypt and France is almost beyond belief. Opposition to it surely will fall off a cliff now.

But the opposite argument could be made: look, our British security apparatus is so good, that 1) other countries are being hit, despite "us" being much more involved in topical overt conflicts, and 2) "we" pretty much know right away who caused what (see response to the bombed Russian plane). Clearly they are working fine as they are and they don't need any more powers.

In fact, French and Russian security services are known for their heavy touch. Fat lot of good it's doing for them.

Given the unusually extreme nature of this (at least from the witness reports of the mayhem as it's ongoing), I fear a mass surveillance bill might actually be one of the lesser worries.

Meaning that the violence is a worse worry? Or meaning that you worry about other bills besides just surveillance?

Expansion of executive and police powers, I'd assume. In the worst case, you might even hear calls for internment.

I presume you mean internment of minorities, immigrants, and/or refugees?

Brown people, yes.

What this means is that France surveillance and intelligence already failed.

And wholesale US intelligence failed also, either that or they kept the intelligence to themselves.

Possibly we knew but couldn't risk warning DGSE and compromising our sources.

which is sickening, and i would also question the use of these sources, will they only be placed at risk if the target is the US, or perhaps only when it is US VIPs on US soil. What if they are never to be at risk? Where is their value?

Or a fairly simple, and unfortunately satisfying, explanation; this attack is an official action intended to provide a political climate conducive to power consolidation.

Too bad it smells like a conspiracy theory.

Too bad people still watch TV and get dog trained/brainwashed to stop thinking after hearing phrases like "conspiracy theory".

why is that any more likely than it being a home grown terrorist attack? But my point stands, the US may well have had prior knowledge but want the french onside for future anti-terror wars, if that isnt the case then the millions or billions spent on intelligence gathering since 2001 has been a complete waste.

I agree but several attacks were foiled as well this year

Edit for source: http://www.dw.com/en/france-arrests-islamic-state-supporter-...

Such as?

Everything you don't hear about.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That also applies to your argument.

This probably won't be a popular opinion on Hacker News, but it is it possible to compromise with a limited amount of mass surveillance?

I believe it was LA that had a plane fly above the city and record 24/7. It was just enough resolution to make out cars and people, but not identify anyone. Less invasive than security cameras in that sense. And I don't think it was live. It was just something the police could go back to and look at after a crime as committed, and see where the criminals went or came from.

Given some conditions, like the recordings be deleted after a few days, and that it requires a warrant to look at, I think that would be ok.

Why? This sort of thing is flashy but not a real danger you need to be concerned about (think shark attack not car crash), so even if you take the premise that mass surveillance could stop it (dubious), it's probably not worth paying much for, certainly not any abridgements of our rights.

I mostly agree. This would be more useful for everyday crime than terrorism. And I think that makes it worth it.

Didn't the French parliament pass a bill recently granting the intelligence and security apparatus greater powers to persecute and watch over people without warrants?

Apparently this method is not working at all.

Surveillance is like XML; if it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it.

It's working fine, thank you very much. Of course it has little to do with terrorism, but in the political theater one has to make excuses for the unwashed masses.

How awesome, awesome comment. People are dying and the only thing you care about is "totally total mass surveillance law"....

People are ALWAYS dying. Far more from preventable accidents, disease, and war than from terrorism. That does NOT make terrorism any less despicable. But those who use fear of atrocities to push their own oppressive agendas are little better than terrorists themselves. It's a sad truth that there's no question that many surveillance advocates will use an event like this to push their own agendas.

You are talking as if terrorism was a natural disaster, something you can compare statistically and impossible to confront. Terrorism makes you feel fear, even if it's irrational it impacts you and the society you live.

Terrorism does not make me feel fear. It makes me sad. Sad that there are so many lives lost, sad that so many people are still incapable of thinking critically, sad that we're again one step further from an actual solution. it's mostly a sad affair. But fear, no.

Don't you think that the September 11 attacks produced fear? May be you are different but this is the normal feeling if you are seeing the Twin Towers collapsing while you take your children to preschool.

I'm far from a 'surveillance advocate' and yet I think that it is pretty tasteless of those on the opposite side of that fence to do exactly the same thing.

Fine. How about when somebody creates a thread proposing increased surveillance you combat it there? Or perhaps lay out a powerful argument against it if someone proposes increased surveillance in this thread? Right now there is an active crime with mass fatalities (and some of use know people in France in the Paris area) and really, it's inappropriate, a bit tasteless, and frankly counterproductive to bring it up gratuitously here. If you delete your comment, I'll delete mine.

Care for the living or cry for the dead. Making sure that the living don't sign off too much of their freedom while under shock, duress and scare is indeed a legitimate help. And taking care of them. I cannot resurrect people, I am also not trained commando in France's gendermerie, so preventing the abuse of that tragedy and stopping the surveillance state is the best I can do as an European at the moment.

It is our duty to keep our heads cool and minds clear. When the smoke has cleared - then we will grief.

We need to ask the question what kind of life we want for those who do live.

In the coming days or weeks, sure. Now?

A mature response is to start discussion ASAP and bring in more information as it becomes known. Entering a state of faux paralysis out of some sort of sense of 'too soon' gets us nowhere. It's also not like terrorist attacks are new to Europe - this one is a bit bigger than normal, but it's not a 9/11-scale outlier.

Yes, because absolutely, without doubt, governments are also thinking how to exploit this situation.

Yes. Now.

I think it could wait for a day or two, this is happening right now and it is entirely disrespectful to those involved to derail this into some argument contra the surveillance state.

I think you're in error here. Benevol is talking about we need to talk about what kind of life we want to live, and this is a good time to talk about it. You yourself have been providing a lot of context in this thread (exhausting my upvote muscles...) talking about the same thing - why this is happening, sources of unrest, how to deal with the root problem, how technology is actually contributing to the problem... a tonne of context (thank you). But talking about surveillance laws dovetails into the gestalt of the problem, methinks.

The problem is that as soon as the surveillance issue is put on the table the rest of what is important gets snowed under with a re-hash of the same old very much worn out arguments. I'm fine with giving the surveillance issue a rest. It's patently obvious to me that it is not working at all and it is also patently obvious to me that in spite of it not working attacks like this will be used to justify whatever the 'morons in charge' can come up with next. So we can take that as read and then wonder how we - each of us personally - can do something to halt the advance of that and I'm sure that collectively we could achieve something. My way of helping out has traditionally been to employ as many people on the fringe as possible to help them where I could and to right wrongs where-ever I saw them. I draw my friends from all walks of life and try to be inclusive as much as I can. On a personal scale that's just about all I can do and even though it is nothing to be proud of I definitely think it made a measurable difference. The whole thing boils down to 'circle of concern/circle of influence' for me and a rehash of the surveillance discussion falls entirely outside of that 'circle of influence' even though it concerns me very much and I wished that politicians would wise up. It'll happen hopefully, one day.

No, it's a terrible time to talk about it. Talk about it now and you're going to get emotion-driven reactions, and they aren't going to be what you want.

There isn't any time that would be less effective for your goals than right now.

Then no-one should be talking about anything to do with causes or wider issues. This page should then be nothing other than "this is bad, I hope everyone is safe". Instead we're seeing a lot of discussion and a lot of it is good - I think jacquesm in particular is doing a great job in providing context in a level-headed manner. The thing is, just because you start talking about it now doesn't mean you can't talk about it later. Or that you can't change your mind.

Also, it's like 'teen abstinence' sex ed - you can tell people to refrain all you want, but they're still going to do it. People want to talk about this thing as it's happening; they will find a place to do it regardless.

Fair enough.

Now, because the pressure for new government powers is very urgent, and there may well be action in days, not weeks.

But we need to do so with sensitivity, too, now.

Edit: I'll go with jacquem's reply to NewNole2001: It can wait a day or two. It can't wait weeks, though. (The Patriot Act was passed less than 7 weeks after 9/11.)

Asking questions is simple. Take the responsibility and come up with a solution is hard

Calm down.

Exactly, every time the government wants to pass a law, they can arrange the killing of a few dozen/hundred/thousand people.

I assume thoughtless people will just dismiss this as conspiracy theory, somehow oblivious to how far that goal post have moved recently.

Governments kill way more people than terrorists ever will, but fear those the government tells you to fear...

It is necessary.

An attack of this size and coordination was without a doubt electronically communicated. We can't possibly infiltrate every group of radicals with informants. And they are not going to stop.