[shasta]

Look, I value my privacy too and I don't want to live in a police state, either. I don't think giving additional power over to our government at its current levels of incompetence and corruption is a good idea. But I think you (and I recognize that many/most of the people around here think the way you do) aren't being realistic about the threat of terrorism. Even if rates of terrorism are declining, I suspect they aren't going to be declining as quickly as the potential damage of terrorist attacks increases.

Regarding your question of the causes of terrorism, do you really believe that all terrorism is caused by government oppression or injustice? I doubt it. Even if it's the majority, there's always going to be plenty of unhappy people among the 7 billion on the planet. So I don't see you as having answered my challenge of imagining a stable secure society in a world where small groups can cause enormous damage. And I doubt that prevailing opinion will survive the first major terrorist attack that occurs. Note for your statistics: I'd count the number of major terrorist attacks to date as zero.

Fortunately, I also disagree with your assumption that a system of mass surveillance will necessarily result in a "police state" or at least the dystopian society that the term is intended to conjure.

[ZoeZoeBee]

po·lice state

(noun)

a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.

I'm sorry, how does the elimination of encryption so the government is able to increase its mass surveillance and aggregate all communication not fit the definition of a Police State?

You admit that most acts of terrorism are in response to oppresive governments and you admit that as technology has increased acts of terrorism in the country have fallen dramatically, and yet you posit that there will be more because you feel that way.

I get it that you're willing to exchange yours and every other persons privacy in the name of the Bogey man that is terrorism, but it won't make you safer

[shasta]

I anticipated the word games, which is why I wrote "or at least the dystopian society that the term is intended to conjure."

I did not admit that most terrorism is in response to oppressive governments nor did I posit that there will be an increased number of attacks. Re-read what I wrote.

Hopefully you're right that terrorism will forever remain a "boogey man." I doubt it will. Unfortunately, if and when there is a major terrorist attack, all of the people saying what you're saying will have lost credibility and the chances of us ending up in a police state, at least for a period of time, will be quite high.

[ZoeZoeBee]

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?

[shasta]

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.