Comment 2TX7 Re: Mr Hannigan is an extremist


GCHQ head says privacy is not an absolute right


Mr Hannigan is an extremist (Score: 4, Insightful)

by on 2014-11-04 18:31 (#2TWT)

Mr Hannigan is an extremist and proof that better surveillance does not help against extremists.
Everyone who tries to erode civil rights is an extremist. But people are dumb. How many people
die in car accidents every year? According to Wikipedia: 32,999 in 2010 in the USA alone. How
many terroristic acts? How many died in terroristic acts in 2010 in the USA? 15 people.
According to:
it is four times more likely to be killed by a lightning bolt than by a terror attack.
I doubt that in other countries the ratio is much different.

Would internet surveillance help to prevent terror attacks? Hardly. And I suppose the whole population
has to be monitored to solve, who did the last/next school shooting.

Again: There is only one 'crime' for which an all-over internet surveillance is necessary: Copyright violations.
Ok, to a lesser extend libel. But certainly not terrorism, drugs, or child porn.

Re: Mr Hannigan is an extremist (Score: 3, Informative)

by on 2014-11-04 20:41 (#2TWW)

You started off so beautifully in that post before blowing your foot off with a shotgun with the last couple of sentences. Just leave well enough alone. You have 99% of your potential audience convinced,then with the last sentence or two you introduce unrelated subjects which then fracture the cohesive and diverse audience you just built.

Re: Mr Hannigan is an extremist (Score: 1)

by on 2014-11-04 21:10 (#2TWX)

I don't agree. One of the most important parts to expose extremists is to discover their motives. For a general internet surveillance there are not too many possible motives, which justify that kind of effort. Especially since it is not very popular.
As I pointed out, terrorism is not a sufficient explanation. There are far too few terror acts and most of them are
unorganized and not of the kind where internet surveillance would help. So not much of a career move here.
Child porn? More or less the same. Drugs? Sure, the small time street dealer has to coordinate with his upstream provider
when and where to get his next delivery. I am sure this is done by email. Most other types of cyber criminality leaves a money trail. Those can be followed even now. Fear of a revolution? Democracy works quite well. Most relevant countries have at least two parties. If one becomes unpopular, the opposition gets a chance. Masses are mollified. Rinse repeat. So the upper 10000 have nothing to fear. Snowden prevention? Maybe, but those attempts to control the net are much older than the Snowden even.

Now, if you factor all this in, tell me, what remains as motive? What remains where internet surveillance actually makes
sense? Where it could work? Who is willing to invest millions of $ to lobby lawmakers? Who is willing to stifle upcoming new
business models, which could create a new boom, e.g. like the vcr did when it become popular? Who does not care about
public appearance?

Re: Mr Hannigan is an extremist (Score: 1)

by on 2014-11-04 22:08 (#2TWY)

Well, of course *you* don't agree. In related news, Mohamad Ali, and your younger brother both think they are the greatest: film at 11.

Re: Mr Hannigan is an extremist (Score: 2, Insightful)

by on 2014-11-04 22:27 (#2TWZ)

True. Or course I don't agree. And yes, if this were all I said, it would be quite lame. But I think I also explained in detail, why I don't agree. Don't you have a response to that part?

Re: Mr Hannigan is an extremist (Score: 2, Insightful)

by on 2014-11-05 15:09 (#2TX7)

On second read, maybe you didn't understand what I was saying at all.

You have a goal X. Right? You want to convince people that X should be done. So you do your research and find reasons 1-5 in support of your argument to do X.

Argument 1 will be supported by 99% of people it makes sense.
#2 65% of people will agree
#3 40% of people will agree
#4 20% of people will agree
#5 5% of people will agree.

So the best way to convince people to do X is to focus on #1, without even mentioning 2,3,4 or 5.

Make sense? I thought you understood what I was getting at. But your reply continues to argue 2,3,4 & 5. So maybe you didn't.


Time Reason Points Voter
2014-11-10 06:40 Insightful +1

Junk Status

Not marked as junk