Wow. Just, wow. And I agree: even governments that "don't want to do it" will be compelled to at the first horrific incident that could have been prevented with the technology. The only way to stop that from happening is to outlaw it. I simply don't believe there are very many Edward Snowdens in the world.

Personally I prefer safety. And I avoid showing myself over online for privacy concerns. But I do not call safety measure a poly to implement totalitarian government.

If you have a systematic approach to achieve safety and counter terrorism, without monitoring citizens, then please state it briefly. I personally have no idea how to prevent without close monitoring.

China is different, it has always been totalitarian. It's natural for the government to monitor citizens without much resistance. This is a statement, without value judgement.

Why shouldn't the burden be on the other side? Can you - can anyone - demonstrate that "close monitoring" actually makes it possible to prevent terrorism? That states will actually use it that way, when the threat of terror is so politically useful?

Because without making a strong case along those lines first, you can't even take the "I'll trade privacy for safety" position in good faith at all.

The 9/11 attackers were already subjects of surveillance when they attacked. The Boston Marathon bombers were already being closely monitored but were not stopped.

Disciplinarians, cops for example, have dreamed of omniscience since the dawn of time. The panopticon dates to the 1790s! Despite the fact that we come closer to a state of all-seeing every day, I'm not aware of any compelling evidence that it's actually turning out to be very useful to prevent violent crime or acts of terror.

edit: link on Italian anti-terrorist efforts: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/23/why-has-italy-...

Further debate on the SlateStarCodex subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6j8703/cult...

Clearly, terrorism is a symptom. Its cause is not bad people are not monitored, but they have various reason to think harm innocent people is the only way to advance their objectives.

Can anyone address such issues? Unlikely. History has shown that terrorism is seldom solved, they are extinguished, through escalation to war or complete annihilation of the weaker part.

Do I support monitoring? Not always. But if I am not feeling safe, I am OK to sacrifice some privacy and take some risk of being harmed by the government.

I am not saying you should agree with this, but that's my thoughts.

> Can you - can anyone - demonstrate that "close monitoring" actually makes it possible to prevent terrorism?

This way of reasoning seems fine, but really is just a way of showing me being using unfounded argument to support my claim. In reality, as I said, solving terrorism is not monitoring's job, but it makes me feel safe, because someone is doing something that can reduce the risk (not substantially).

Police live under a fundamental illusion that people can be divided into good or bad, ignoring the role of circumstances, ease of deniability and special pleading in how it actually goes down. Most of all with their own abuse of power.

Attack the root cause of the problem, namely alienation of youths [0] (Aarhus Model). These preventative systems of surveillance only foment opportunities for abuse.

[0] - http://psy.au.dk/fileadmin/Psykologi/Forskning/Preben_Bertel...