Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zikes | Hacker News Reader

At this point I honestly would not be surprised if playing Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes[1] would land a person on a watch list of some sort.

[1] http://www.keeptalkinggame.com/

View on HN

But there's no real value in adding someone who plays this game to a watchlist.

If analysts are discounting the value of membership to a watchlist because of the amount of noise such as what you're suggesting, then the watchlist isn't going to help the organization that's keeping it.

From a strictly practical standpoint, there is an incentive to keep watchlists small, focused, and accurate, otherwise they lose meaning.

But there's already overwhelming evidence that those watchlists are not small, focused, or accurate.

I think they serve a different purpose: to be able to manufacture an excuse when it is convenient. We're far enough past "innocent until proven guilty" that we've manufactured a plethora of new tools and processes to support nearly any unconstitutional actions against citizens.

And I think your comments are the defensive result of an emotional reaction to your helplessness in the face of an overpowering perceived adversary.

When you create an us/them narrative, you might not be the only one who plays into it, just remember that.

I admit to a fair amount of emotionality in the face of a persistent and overwhelming attack on my privacy by my own government, and I have zero shame in that admission.

Perhaps if more people played into that, we would not be in this situation.

Experiencing emotions is a completely unavoidable part of existing, but reacting to your emotions is the behavior of a child.

I may be childish, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be lectured by a Vulcan LARPer.

None of what you said makes his/her comments wrong. You're just accusing him/her of being emotional, without addressing the substance.

I'm actually asserting there is no substance, just emotional rhetoric. I was further implying the conclusions weren't drawn with sound logic, so their validity is under question.

I think our watchlists are already past "small, focused, and accurate".

edit: Zikes beat me to it, and said it better.

there is an incentive to keep watchlists small, focused, and accurate

I think there is no incentive to keep watch lists small or focused or accurate. In fact, there's a huge disincentive for that. If some name (or other identifying info) gets on a watch list, and then someone makes a judgement call to take that name/info off the list, and then the person identified by that name or info does something violent and/or stupid, whichever agency the judgement caller works for, and the call him/herself would come under enormous, very unpleasant scrutiny. The 9/11 thing about "failing to connect the dots" almost certainly weighs heavily on every one connected with watch lists.

There's zero incentive for any outsider to call for a name or other info removal for exactly the same reason. What if...? becomes the single overriding concern.

There's no value in a tag if it doesn't mean anything, and if membership on a watchlist is merely another way of saying "this person played a video game once", then analysts are going to discount membership to the watchlist.

The lists probably have no value to the analysts anyway. As you note, names/ID info are put on the list by numbskulls, not for any good reason.

The reason the lists exist is to cover FBI and DHS bureaucratic ass if some long shot "terrorism" event happens - "Hey, they were on the watchlist - we connected those dots!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com