News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. surveillance laws have proven ineffective at counter... by npo9 on Wednesday January 22, 2020 @03:17PM (#22121554)
> Without some form of surveillance, you're never going to catch terrorists or other bad actors.

The article: Surveillance fails to catch terrorist.

Your argument: Without surveillance we cannot catch terrorist.

My question: How are we catching them now? How did we catch bad actors and saboteurs before surveillance?

Re:U.S. surveillance laws have proven ineffective at counter... by nostrademons on Wednesday January 22, 2020 @04:15PM (#22122122)
There's a base rate fallacy here: take a look at total deaths from terrorism in the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States...

After September 11, the typical number of deaths from terrorism in a given year was...0, give or take a few, with a disconcerting uptick since 2013. Great, our efforts to curb terrorism are working!

From 1975-2001, the typical number of deaths from terrorism in a given year was...2. Wait, the massive surveillance state has saved 2 lives a year? What? We saved more lives by posting a guard at the Caltrain tracks in Palo Alto to keep people from killing themselves.

By the numbers, terrorism just wasn't a problem, because rational people don't blow themselves up to make a point. Mentally ill people do, and a significant number of mass shootings are not counted in the terrorism statistics but actually kill far more people. But by making terrorism into a big bogeyman that's going to kill you, it feeds into the interests of the media, of the state, and of the military-industrial complex, and so there are a lot of powerful forces shaping the discourse around terrorism that aren't necessarily reflective of reality.

Re:U.S. surveillance laws have proven ineffective at counter... by npo9 on Wednesday January 22, 2020 @05:30PM (#22122770)
“We’re not catching them because they aren’t there” seems like a valid hypothesis, but I’m not sure I fully buy into it.