[skookumchuck]

The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack in Europe or the US are essentially zero. But the odds of being killed in a car crash, by a hospital mistake, falling in the shower, are very real.

This is a classic, and irrational, disproportionate response.

Besides, is there any evidence that monitoring 100% of message traffic will reduce terrorist attacks? Are terrorists really so dumb they're going to plan their attacks via a monitored channel? Do governments really have any problem catching and convicting criminals?

[CaptSpify]

> Are terrorists really so dumb they're going to plan their attacks via a monitored channel?

Actually yes! The Paris attack was coordinated via sms. I know other attacks have been coordinated via monitored channels.

The real problem is that even with all this monitoring, nothing is being done to stop terrorist attacks. Turns out, stopping terrorist attacks was never the point in the first place, who woulda though!?!

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/signs-point-to-unencrypt...

*edit: It's probably not fair to say "nothing" is being done. But we're definitely putting our efforts into the wrong direction, and I stand by the statement that the point is not to stop the attacks.

[skookumchuck]

> The Paris attack was coordinated via sms.

Coordinated, yes, but I seriously doubt they texted their intentions and purpose.

[artursapek]

You can't really treat terrorist attacks (intentional) the same way you treat car crashes, hospital mistakes, and falling in the shower (accidental). It's not a pure numbers game.

[skookumchuck]

Why can't we? Doesn't this extreme overreaction simply encourage the terrorists?

[ooyy]

Risk of terrorism is fat tailed, there is a chance albeit extremely low that an attack causes the whole world go unhinged causing extreme destruction. Meanwhile falling on shower the risks are local and predictable, devastating for the individual but not impactful in the grand scheme of things.