[HDThoreaun]

For what its worth the anti-encryption/anti-privacy laws have caught terrorists in the UK. My company provides data storage for their dragnet and handles various requests and Ive seen first hand 4 different instances where the UK gov watching everyones internet activity led to terrorists being caught.

[rdm_blackhole]

This number by itself means nothing as the other variables are unknown.

How many terrorists were not caught by these systems? How many would have actually done these actions instead of just talking about it? How many could have been caught with just standard police work?

Without knowing these variables then there is no way to say if these systems are particularly good at catching terrorists.

[HDThoreaun]

I wouldnt go as far as saying it means nothing, but I agree that the story certainly isnt simple. Was just pointing out that "catch terrorists" isnt a purely emotional argument. Would the terrorists be caught anyway? We'll never know, but theres no way you can say they would for certain. Personally I dont think catching a few terrorists is worth giving up privacy but other people disagree.

> Without knowing these variables then there is no way to say if these systems are particularly good at catching terrorists.

I dont think we can ever figure this out since no one is willing to run an rct when it comes to counter terrorism

[kashunstva]

> anti-encryption/anti-privacy laws have caught terrorists

This is undoubtedly so; but much turns on the trust in government. In this U.S., the president, himself a documented profligate liar, just invited an equally untrustworthy unelected person into the halls of government to vacuum up whatever data he pleased. Maybe trust in the UK government is higher.

[OhMeadhbh]

There was LITERALLY intelligence in the president's daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US."

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/index.htm

Collecting data is often not the problem. The problem is how to evaluate it and use it to direct the use of finite law enforcement or counterintelligence resources.

But to your point, let's not forget congressional republicans rushing a SKIF on capitol hill with their mobile devices out in clear violation of policy (and common sense.) I am relieved by the fact that Trump and Musk do not seem to understand what they can use sensitive information for (other than perhaps to sell or give away to foreign governments and businesses.)

I think my point is good intelligence comes from stitching together numerous data points and often traffic analysis is as good (or better) than content analysis. And maybe that the overwhelming majority of elected officials have no conception of how intelligence is collected and evaluated.

[hilbert42]

Low hanging fruit. The smart ones likely aren't being caught now.

Moreover, it's only a matter of time until the criminal fraternity all catch up and are on the same wavelength. That's when all but the dumbest know exactly what not to do or say on the net.

The Internet is still comparatively young and like everyone else those who've evil intent are still learning exactly how it works. I'd bet money that it won't be long before a 'bestseller tome' of definitive what-not-to-dos cirulates amongst this mob.

The question is at what level will law enforcement's catch have to fall before it has to turn to other methods.

[cess11]

That same government can use that same dragnet in the suppression of accountability for the war crimes and atrocities it is engaged in.