[mgo]

Yet this whole event is being used as a catalyst for further degradation of freedom and encryption.

How can we take the powers above seriously when they can't even catch a fairly large network of terrorists scheming over the clearnet?

This is a lesson in the ineffectiveness and incompetence of the spying apparatus of the free world.

We've given up so much already for no benefit, and whenever they fail it's never because they were bad at their job, they just didn't have enough power or money to do their job.

[aresant]

You make a good top level point that I think most would agree with - successful terror plots degrade our freedom because we fearfululy grant our government more power.

But to broadly call spying apparatus ineffective and incompetent weakens your argument.

There have been dozens of publicly disclosed terror plots interrupted against the USA alone, surely many more we will never know about.(1)

There is a clear underlying reason for survellience - it works.

The complexity in the discussion is that it clearly doesn't work 100% of the time and comes at a significant cost

But this isn't a black and white issue, we are in the grey.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrori...

[sjm-lbm]

The real complexity of the discussion comes from the unknown number of attacks that would be prevented with very mild pre-9/11 security measures.

Earlier this year, I read The Looming Towers, an overview of various historical factors that led to the 9/11 attacks. Its focus is really more on the origins on Islamic extremism, not logistical planning of the 9/11 attacks, but it did cover several aspects of 9/11 specifically that were very interesting. Importantly, the FBI and CIA - between them - had enough information to stop the attacks but did not collaborate well enough, mostly due to the differing goals between the CIA and the FBI. To the CIA, a potential terrorist is an asset - they hope that person, if left on the street, will attempt to contact someone higher up in (say) al Qaeda and therefore generate more data for the agency. To the FBI, such a person is a suspect, and really needs to be taken off the street as soon as enough evidence has been gathered to build a criminal case against him. During the summer of 2001, the FBI was blocked form getting the full CIA info on several important 9/11 figures because the CIA knew they'd be immediately arrested with that information.

(that is, of course, a broad overview, but the main point is more or less correct)

It's frustrating to see so many people embracing their lack of freedom as a security blanket. We don't need to use terror to grant our governments more control over our lives, we need just need to hold those who claim to be keeping us safe accountable.

[gotchange]

The pre-9/11 CIA/FBI power play detailed in your comment was portrayed to some degree in the 1998 movie "The Siege" by Denzel Washington. Any chance you've seen it before?

[sjm-lbm]

I haven't, but I might give it a watch.

[fukusa]

>There have been dozens of publicly disclosed terror plots interrupted against the USA alone

Many of these terror plots are orchestrated by the FBI. Source: https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrori...

[kefs]

The Talk section of the Wiki article lists the many problems with that list.. You really should stop citing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unsuccessful_terr...

[moistgorilla]

Ah yes, the Brooklyn Bridge terrorist that was trying to use a jackhammer to bring it down. Thank you NSA for preventing this tragedy that could only prevented with pervasive surveillance.

[apologistimic]

If every single one of the plots you noted (including the ones that were actually reverse stings organized by the FBI) was wildly successful, terrorism would kill about as many Americans as accidental gun discharges do. And that's not realistic.

Terrorism is bullshit. Sadly, we can't do the right thing because the country is full of cowardly morons who think that the solution is toppling more governments, killing more people, and hoping that somehow this time will be different.

[jessaustin]

...actually reverse stings organized by the FBI

The transparency report I'd love to see, which I doubt will ever be released, is the number of stings which end up being LEOs on both sides, in which e.g. one handler is hoping to sting a weapons dealer and the other is hoping to sting a weapons buyer.

[gotchange]

> The transparency report I'd love to see, which I doubt will ever be released, is the number of stings which end up being LEOs on both sides, in which e.g. one handler is hoping to sting a weapons dealer and the other is hoping to sting a weapons buyer.

That would be a great Pink Panther sketch/scene :)

[scrollaway]

> There is a clear underlying reason for survellience - it works.

It works, but not (just) for terrorism prevention. It also works great for other things, such as preventing political ideologies you don't like from spreading. Or just in general as a power play over citizens.

[alecksandros]

We don't exactly have data on foiled terrorism attempts and so it is difficult to say "no benefit". That being said we need a way to gauge risk/reward as citizens regarding terrorism/privacy. There should be openness regarding the actual terrorism risks and what giving up certain freedoms/privacy actually gains us in protection from said risks. A system where terrorism scorecard is openly available so we can weigh pros/cons is probably never going to happen though.

[hokkos]

No there won't be degradation of encryption, the politicians no longer have any weight against megacorp like Apple and Google, and open source isn't bound by the wants of the USA.

The failing of the french spying agencies is one of scale, they didn't scale to the exponential progression of jihadist x100 in few years.

[aking2]

Did you thought about the fact that other acts of terrorism where prevented and most of them keep secret because of the nature of investigations?

[Retra]

"Because of the nature" is not a reason for keeping victories secret. A democratic government is responsible to its people.

Moreover, you do not do a very good job of preventing terrorism by keeping secret all the times terrorism fails and publicly over-reacting every time it does.

[DamnYuppie]

Yes, I think about it all the time but when pressed for numbers the CIA/NSA/FBI never reveal any.

What isn't discussed here is the numerous times that these institutions have actually created terrorists. Or lead people to a course of action of their choosing.

[dirktheman]

Genuinly curious: why would they hide their successes? It would change public perception about the surveillance, and it would also act as a deterrent to potential terrorists. I get that they don't want to reveal their methods, but I can't see any issues with sharing their successes.

[krapp]

Revealing their successes would probably just lead skeptics to believe they were engaging in propaganda, and it probably wouldn't act as a deterrent to terrorists at all.

[dirktheman]

Maybe... On the other hand, keeping silent doesn't seem to convert a whole lot of skeptics either. And revealing a couple of successes would probably result in a lot more votes for your administration the next elections, right?

[krapp]

It certainly could bring in political capital, but aren't politicians who do that already accused of manufacturing terrorist plots and ratcheting up fear for points during election season? How valuable is public relations for the US intelligence community versus keeping their methods secret (within a culture of secrecy?) It's not as though the CIA or NSA are likely to be defunded soon, regardless of who gets elected.

[aianus]

Revealing how the plots were foiled might teach future would-be terrorists how to better avoid detection. Just to play devil's advocate.