Yes I know you decided to define the word and its intent as you saw fit, which is why I posted the definition...
I'm aware you do not want to accept that most acts of terror have been in retaliation to government oppression, I can list of dozens of organizations throughout modern history who's reason for terrorism was/is oppression. I'd be interested in knowing which groups and events have led you to believe other wise.
Logically if you state
> Note for your statistics: I'd count the number of major terrorist attacks to date as zero.
And you state
>Eventually, though, as technology advances allow smaller groups of people to inflict larger amounts of damage with fewer specialized resources, how do you imagine that society could be kept secure without surveillance.
One would conclude you believe there will be an increased number of attacks if any occur...
Why would a terrorist attack cause anyone for encryption to lose their credibility? Would a terrorist event prevent the need for encrypted financial transactions, encrypted messages containing proprietary information, encrypted emails in regards to internal corporate directives? I assume you understand the importance of encryption in transactions?
There are Unintended Consequences to implementing a Police State which aggregates all communication and outlaws encryption as you are advocating.
Living in a free society incurs a small percentage of risk. "I don't think giving additional power over to our government at its current levels of incompetence and corruption is a good idea." --> How do you think the government will ever change if there is no check to their power. A corrupt institution can freely monitor the communication of their opposition, if that is the case how can they ever be removed from power?
Your last question is a good one. How can we set up checks and balances so that the surveillance apparatus cannot be misused? This is particularly important in our democracy, where the whims of the people might favor misusing it from time to time. I have ideas. Not that anyone's asking me.
I'm aware you do not want to accept that most acts of terror have been in retaliation to government oppression, I can list of dozens of organizations throughout modern history who's reason for terrorism was/is oppression. I'd be interested in knowing which groups and events have led you to believe other wise.
Logically if you state > Note for your statistics: I'd count the number of major terrorist attacks to date as zero.
And you state
>Eventually, though, as technology advances allow smaller groups of people to inflict larger amounts of damage with fewer specialized resources, how do you imagine that society could be kept secure without surveillance.
One would conclude you believe there will be an increased number of attacks if any occur...
Why would a terrorist attack cause anyone for encryption to lose their credibility? Would a terrorist event prevent the need for encrypted financial transactions, encrypted messages containing proprietary information, encrypted emails in regards to internal corporate directives? I assume you understand the importance of encryption in transactions?
There are Unintended Consequences to implementing a Police State which aggregates all communication and outlaws encryption as you are advocating.
Living in a free society incurs a small percentage of risk. "I don't think giving additional power over to our government at its current levels of incompetence and corruption is a good idea." --> How do you think the government will ever change if there is no check to their power. A corrupt institution can freely monitor the communication of their opposition, if that is the case how can they ever be removed from power?