Re:UK spies using social media data for mass surveillance
by KGIII on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @08:26PM
(#15496070)
I think it is a silly argument in the first place. See, they are additional preventable deaths, and not accidental. Comparing them is pretty silly.
That said, I still don't like reductions in liberties due to fear of terrorism. Freedom is inherently risky. I am not a coward. Giving up liberties out of fear is not necessarily a good idea.
Re:UK spies using social media data for mass surveillance
by anigbrowl on Wednesday October 18, 2017 @12:13AM
(#15496845)
I heartily agree but have yet to see a country where the response to foreign-originated terrorism isn't to either lash out or get paranoid.
Re:UK spies using social media data for mass surveillance
by KGIII on Wednesday October 18, 2017 @01:36AM
(#15497090)
We aren't rational beings, we are rationalizing beings.
Re:UK spies using social media data for mass surveillance
by anigbrowl on Wednesday October 18, 2017 @02:38AM
(#15497334)
Agreed. I just wish I knew a viable alternative strategy.
Re:UK spies using social media data for mass surveillance
by KGIII on Wednesday October 18, 2017 @02:50AM
(#15497387)
I'm not sure there is one, unless one wants something that resembles authoritarianism in the name of preserving liberties. That there creates a mental knot I've not yet unraveled.
It's hardly democratic to prevent people from responding like people and fear is a powerful motivator. So, buggered if I have the answers...
Re:UK spies using social media data for mass surveillance
by anigbrowl on Wednesday October 18, 2017 @01:46PM
(#15501230)
What if the answer is something other than a Republican system of government? That was great for the days when news traveled more slowly and human lives changed relatively little from one generation to the next. But the accelerating aspects of technology in general and communications in particular - both physical and informational - have revealed its limitations. Nowadays the population of Facebook is nominally larger than that of any individual country. We could, if we were so minded, build systems of governance that were completely participatory and leveraged the near-instantaneous communication we have come to think of as normal. Do we really benefit any more from delegating our most important tasks to small, opaque, and corruptible groups of politicians who are forced to spend ever more absurd sums on election campaigns in order to be taken seriously?
Look, what are the odds of being killed by a spider? tiny. And most spiders aren't even poisonous. But lots of people have an irrational phobia of creepy crawly animals, perhaps due to some unpleasant childhood experience. If someone is afflicted with such a phobia, maybe therapy can help them, maybe they'll grow out of it, whatever, but standing around saying 'it's very irrational of you to be scared of this probably harmless spider' is no help whatsoever. Either get rid of the spider for them or leave them alone, because when someone is freaking out they're not able to process information rationally.
We know that people don't react rationally to real risk probabilities, some are irrationally risk averse and others are irrationally risk tolerant. We know that such irrational cognitive behaviors are often exploited by unscrupulous actors to manipulate people for financial, political, or strategic gain. We know that the externalities of such exploitation impinge upon our economy, liberty and so so on.
Endlessly repeating an argument that people are already demonstrably indifferent to isn't getting us anywhere. Education is one long-term approach to alleviating that problem but it's very slow and expensive and outcomes are hard to predict and to measure. It has consistently proven easier for politicians to spend money on security services (both pragmatic and theatrical) than it has to raise the intelligence/wisdom of the public at large.