Hacker News Reader

Comment by at-fates-hands | Hacker News Reader

At times I feel sorry for some of these agencies because they are in a constant state of catch-22.

If we had rampant mass shootings and bombings like they do in Europe and some of the Middle Eastern countries, people would be rioting in the streets to stop it.But since it only happens once so often, people are up in arms because of the methods used to prevent said acts from happening in the first place.

You then have ask yourself. Do you prefer terrorism to happen and then be reactive, or do you want the government to be proactive and work to flush these people out from the shadows before they commit a terrible act and murder innocent citizens?

In my mind, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

View on HN

"Do you prefer terrorism to happen and then be reactive, or do you want the government to be proactive and work to flush these people out from the shadows before they commit a terrible act and murder innocent citizens?"

This question has been the foundation of modern justice systems for over a hundred years. We've built systems that let the guilty go free occasionally to avoid the far more greater injustice that someone innocent be persecuted by the government.

This arrangement has worked out very well, but now that we are so much safer there's no tolerance for the small price that needs to be paid. We're now tearing down this system to setup the foundation for eventual tyranny.

> rampant mass shootings and bombings like they do in Europe

Europe has "rampant" mass shootings and bombings? They are very rare, despite the media coverage. The U.S. has many more mass shootings, AFAIK.

> do you want the government to be proactive and work to flush these people out from the shadows before they commit a terrible act and murder innocent citizens?

The question is whether many of these people would commit crimes if not for the instigation of law enforcement.

Yeah, the US has far, far more mass shootings. They're usually white supremacist or enraged-lone-male (practically a political faction of themselves) rather than carried out by an "organisation" of some sort.

Here's a handy website that tracks mass shootings in the US: http://www.massshootingtracker.org/

> Do you prefer terrorism to happen and then be reactive, or do you want the government to be proactive and work to flush these people out from the shadows before they commit a terrible act and murder innocent citizens?

It's not an either-or choice.

What I want is a government that does policework and investigation, not a government that sets people up to commit crimes.

No, they're damned if they do because they do it almost suicidally wrongheadedly. All our security theatre does is catch the visible idiots.

No matter how many crazy people you convince to push the button on a fake surface-to-air missile, you'll never catch the potential McVeighs, and who are capable of working and planning alone, and have a "real" (ie, nuanced and long-lasting) goal that allows for many possible actions.

In fact, by swinging the discourse to "Terrorists are crazy people with scraggly beards" (Unix programmers?!) they've nerfed our actual defensive strategies. Every time someone calls in a non-existent threat because of wires and LEDs, we lose a little.

It's not a conspiracy to weaken us as that would require them to be looking beyond their next paycheck/bonus, but it functions as one.

How many innocent people must be wrongly convicted to give society a sense of security?

You look shifty to me... :)

All of us is my guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com