Mr Hannigan is an extremist (Score: 4, Insightful) by tanuki64@pipedot.org 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 peopledie in car accidents every year? According to Wikipedia: 32,999 in 2010 in the USA alone. Howmany terroristic acts? How many died in terroristic acts in 2010 in the USA? 15 people.According to:http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-shouldit 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 populationhas 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 billshooterofbul@pipedot.org 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 tanuki64@pipedot.org 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 areunorganized 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 providerwhen 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 makessense? Where it could work? Who is willing to invest millions of $ to lobby lawmakers? Who is willing to stifle upcoming newbusiness models, which could create a new boom, e.g. like the vcr did when it become popular? Who does not care aboutpublic appearance?
Re: Mr Hannigan is an extremist (Score: 3, Informative) by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org 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 tanuki64@pipedot.org 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 areunorganized 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 providerwhen 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 makessense? Where it could work? Who is willing to invest millions of $ to lobby lawmakers? Who is willing to stifle upcoming newbusiness models, which could create a new boom, e.g. like the vcr did when it become popular? Who does not care aboutpublic appearance?
Re: Mr Hannigan is an extremist (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org 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 areunorganized 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 providerwhen 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 makessense? Where it could work? Who is willing to invest millions of $ to lobby lawmakers? Who is willing to stifle upcoming newbusiness models, which could create a new boom, e.g. like the vcr did when it become popular? Who does not care aboutpublic appearance?