If memory serves, the threat _was_ detected, however it was not acted on. There was lots of finger pointing about lack of coordination, but (as I recall) the core problem was that it was one threat amount many (100s? 1000s?), so the threat detection was generating too much noise.
Ubiquitous surveillance could (does) easily end up creating the same situation: not enough signal among the noise.
The article in question at the top of this thread is discussing the Patriot Act expansion; the family of laws passed in direct response to the attacks of 2001.
The Patriot Act is the problem. We knew it at the time. Sounds like we all agree on that point.
I don't think this necessarily follows. I don't think most Americans support the Patriot Act but its basically known at this point that Public Opinion has no effect on Policy here. Also how much the public understanding of what the Patriot Act actually does is probably pretty low.
I agree on the education question, but that's going to be a regular pattern in public polls. General public savvy on privacy issues and the power of technology to consolidate information has not kept up with technology. And, TBH, if the situation at hand is actually "Most Americans don't understand the problem well enough to articulate their wants in the context of the issue," that's a scenario where public opinion shouldn't drive policy. A democracy of the uneducated doesn't work.
TLDR: Citizen opinions don't have an effect on policy.
I agree about education though. It's a tricky problem. Clearly people aren't informed enough to make coherent decisions on many policy issues but they have to trust that the slick looking lawyer they are voting for actually does understand and has their best interests at heart?
American tolerance of that, from terrorism to gun ownership, is changing.
Not really, Authoritarian governments through out history have still killed more people than all of terrorism put together.
The Threat Model is still Authoritarian government...
>I'm not so convinced it's acceptable to tell people "We will change nothing because you probably won't die"
What is not acceptable is telling people "just give up your liberty and you will be safe" history proved that is never the case, government will (not if, or can but WILL) abuse that power, and the end result will be mass death
All governments are some form of sacrificing liberty for safety. The strongest interpretation of the argument that you're putting forward is that the only just government is anarchy, and I don't think we can find many supporters of that hypothesis.
As with all government measures throughout history, the question is not "should any liberty be traded," it's "is this trade a good deal?"
Incorrect. Governments are instituted by groups of people to organize and support their natural right to defend their life, property, and liberty.
This principle of a "collective right", its lawfulness, is based on individual rights therefore the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute (i.e the individual right of self defense)
Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
In the absence of a government and legal framework, the concept of "lawfully" does not exist. The freedom to engage in unlawful violence is one of the freedoms that people under a government sacrifice and exchange for aggregate safety.
If I have a dispute with my neighbor over who owns the cherry tree, I could solve the problem my negotiating with them and coming to reasonable terms on sharing the tree, or I can slaughter them where they stand, and I'm under the risk they will try to solve the problem by slaughtering me where I stand, regardless of what I choose. If the two of us are living under a government, the law and the threat of government violence curtails one of those options for us both. It is a choice we willingly give up for the benefit of giving up the risk that the other will choose the same.
Again incorrect. The concept of law predates and really exists outside of government institutions. This concept is best exemplified in Frédéric Bastiat book / pamphlet "The Law"
>>If I have a dispute with my neighbor over who owns the cherry tree, I could solve the problem my negotiating with them and coming to reasonable terms on sharing the tree, or I can slaughter them where they stand
No, even in the absence of government it would still be unlawful / unethical for you to "slaughter them where they stand", Government is simply the body for which we have ordained the authority to punish you for unlawful actions, it is not the body for which we have ordained to create the idea of what is and is not unlawful. At least not under a libertarian model of governance.
What you are describing in a Authoritarian or Totalitarian model of governance, and then proclaim that only Authoritarian / Totalitarian models of government exist, that proclamation is false
I see the source of our disagreement; I was trained in Locke social contract theory and am talking about the US government (given the context of the topic), which is not crafted on a Libertarian framework (the legislature and the executive arms of the government instantiate the idea of what is and is not lawful; whether they "create" the idea or merely implement some zeitgeist understanding from the public is irrelevant to me).
Your viewpoint functions in a more abstract, universal framework. Carry on.
Actually it was in many ways, and Locke's was a supporter of Natural rights and is the basis for most libertarian philosophy
Locke did not believe it was illegal to murder another man simply because the government decreed such an act to be illegal, Locke believed it was illegal because the man had the natural right to life and no other man has the ethical authority to take that life
Everything I have stated fits nicely in Lockean Philosophy
Can you give an example of US government enforcing law not instantiated by the government? I'm having a hard time comprehending what you meant by "Government is simply the body for which we have ordained the authority to punish you for unlawful actions, it is not the body for which we have ordained to create the idea of what is and is not unlawful." Government processes create the laws under which a person may be found in need of punishment.
We no longer see death as a normal and natural part of life like previous generations did because it's not as prevalent as it once was.
The threat model you just described in another era would have more likely been met with acceptance if the alternative was to give up our hard fought for freedoms.
Seeing death as normal and natural carries its own antisocial pathologies. War is more justifiable if "Everyone has to die some time."
I'm saying that the response to that event such as the Patriot Act and other safety-above-liberty-at-all-costs measures would have received a lot more scrutiny and been seen as disproportional. Just like your strawman is not a healthy response, neither was the response we had to 9-11. The goal of the terrorists was to fundamentally change life for Americans and get them to abandon their principles. Well they succeeded beyond their wildest imagination because we responded by dumping many of our freedoms in response.
The Twin Towers were destroyed, the Pentagon was damaged, and an additional plane was crashed, via a successful conspiracy that could have been detected by blanket, passive surveillance. That's what changed.
The threat model the US defense department is concerned about has changed significantly since WWII. The threat to Pax Americana is not direct military intervention, since the possession of atomic weapons ensures that's a short trip to annihilation for any nation-state that tries it. It's small-cell actors using sabotage tactics and technology as huge force-multipliers.
As for individual citizens, it appears most still see the threat of asymmetric warfare as a more profound threat to their life and livelihood than passive, blanket government surveillance.