
In light of recent events in Paris have your views on mass surveillance changed? - guybrushT
As we see this latest tragedy in Paris unfold, and seeing law enforcement trying to capture the mastermind - do you think differently about surveillance -- more importantly, should we think differently about mass surveillance (even if it <i>could</i> have prevented this event or helped catch the perpetrators rapidly).
======
Someone1234
Surveillance is a useful law enforcement tool.

Traditionally police would have to go to a judge and get a warrant to monitor
someone. This was often rubber stamped but it at least gave a paper trail and
the police had to have their ducks in a row (e.g. it would be easier to detect
if a cop or spook was spying on their ex-wife/ex-husband, since no warrant, no
paper trail).

What I don't understand is: Why is getting a warrant now seen as something
that is optional/avoidable? Several Western countries (UK, US, and several
other european ones) have passed laws designed so that warrants can be avoided
in certain cases (and none of those cases are "immediate threat to life").

Mass surveillance is taking that to a whole different level: Now nobody needs
a warrant for anyone. They're only limited by internal rules. And we already
know that spooks often utilise this to spy on their friends/family/love
interests.

So, no, my opinion hasn't changed. Police surveillance with a warrant from a
judge is still ok. Targeted surveillance via spooks with a warrant is also ok.
Untargeted surveillance and or no warrant remains unacceptable even after the
Paris attacks.

------
bediger4000
No. By all accounts the French government was already hip deep in intrusive
surveillance. They apparently had ramped up surveillance twice in the last 12
months. It didn't help.

So, there's some ulterior motive for wanting dragnet surveillance, and it's
common to a lot of governments, including US and UK. What is that motive?

~~~
hanniabu
Call me crazy, but I always saw it as a way not to monitor terrorism, although
that's what they use it for now, but for in the future to ensure they can
thwart revolutions within the country. Take away civilian weapons, give
yourself the ability to monitor, give yourself the ability to break the law
when the 'county'(read governed) is threatened. Check off all of these points
and in a few years when robotics capabilities start ramping up, it'll be
nearly impossible for a revolution to occur.

~~~
bediger4000
How do we keep "impossible for a revolution to occur" from turning in to
"impossible to dislodge an incumbent from a market"? Or even further devolving
into "protecting all corporate entities from market threats"? I see that
devolution as almost inevitable, given how we've seen the US DoD used to
protect corporate interests as well as societal interests.

------
dalke
The topic is very large. Why should we think differently when there's no real
evidence that mass surveillance, or lack thereof, is relevant?

Are you also going to ask if our views on car rental, access to firearms and
explosives, foreign military involvement in the Middle East, discrimination on
basis of nationality, religion, and ethnicity, etc. have also changed? Since
those seem rather more relevant to what little we know about what happened,
yes?

------
NameNickHN
No. France has very far reaching mass surveillance laws and still they weren't
capable of prevent the last two terrorist attacks. Mass surveillance does
nothing to prevent this. Only change in politics does.

------
BjoernKW
Absolutely not.

France actually is the perfect example of mass surveillance not working at
all. Since the Charlie Hebdo terror attack they've introduced particularly
intrusive Internet surveillance measures. I suppose those didn't work too
well, did they?

If all that money and energy that's wasted on pushing and implementing
surveillance agendas was actually spent on hiring more police, investment in
security forces equipment, training and just good old-fashioned police work
terrorist would have a much harder time.

Surveillance agendas only serve the politicians and suppliers of surveillance
equipment. They're not only proven to be ineffective time and time again
they're downright counterproductive because they're designed to evoke a
feeling of the safety in the population but don't actually improve safety.
Just take airport security theatre for example. It's a flamboyant show that's
supposed to give you the impression that authorities care about your safety
while in many respects it's less secure than the pre-2001 system.

European police forces have been watching those groups for quite some time now
but it's only in the light of recent events they've been cracking down on
them. That's exactly what's necessary to deal with this threat, not more
surveillance.

------
timlyo
I still don't see it being effective in any way. Reddit has the best example
of the maths that I can find.

[https://np.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3csl2y/wikileaks_rele...](https://np.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3csl2y/wikileaks_releases_over_a_million_emails_from/csyjuw6)

Surveillance of a Specific suspect after an anonymous tip off may be effective
though.

------
veddox
I've thought about them again, but no.

IMO, mass surveillance can be effective, but only when it is utterly
comprehensive. I.e., law enforcement monitors your conversations (audio and
text), your location, your activities (shopping, watching videos online, etc.)
and anything else they care to find out.

However, this basically means giving up any and all pretences to our rights of
privacy and freedom of thought, information and expression. In the end, a
government that implements that kind of surveillance would be way more
dangerous than terrorists could ever be. And all that without making us feel
safer - for who feels "safe" in a police state?

------
bediger4000
Even more emphatically no: ISIS plotters apparently did all their comms in the
clear: [https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/signs-point-to-
unencrypt...](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/signs-point-to-unencrypted-
communications-between-terror-suspects/)

Ha ha ha! I wonder what twisted definitions and logic people like Michael
Hayden on the "Today" show yesterday morning use when denouncing Snowden and
advocating for backdoors.

------
bjourne
I don't know. But I _think_ since 9/11 there has been many more deaths caused
by terrorists in the EU than in the US. Someone might prove me right or wrong
on that -- it's just my hunch.

And obviously, the US the most juicy target for islamists. I'm sure if they
could they would much rather blow stuff up in New York than Paris. Ergo,
whatever the US is doing to combat terrorism works.

------
danexxtone
The biggest flaw in mass surveillance is that it can only catch what has been
done before. Anyone that is not willing to get caught, will find a new way of
communication that bypasses current procedures. Mass surveillance is a
reaction to an action, not the proactive way to prevent an action.

------
emocin
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10577182](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10577182)

------
zimpenfish
No.

