[vivzkestrel]

- does anyone have actual proof that surveillance does not effectively curb terrorism or something along those lines?

- i keep seeing the same arguments everywhere "ThEy WaNt To CoNtRoL Us" etc

- how do you propose catching terrorists then?

[t-3]

What's so wrong about expecting police to get warrants and do police work legally and aboveboard? If Law Enforcement doesn't follow the law, how can we trust them to impartially investigate and enforce it? Giving more power to unaccountable groups with a well-documented and lengthy history of malfeasance is just a bad idea, we should be reforming and abolishing these institutions to create a transparent and just legal system in line with the liberal democratic principles that underly our whole civilization rather than the type of surveillance state most associated with totalitarian regimes that terrorize their own people.

[DrScientist]

The funny thing is that quite often people who actually perform attacks are well known to the security services ( because they have been frequently referred to them - rather than some online trawl ).

cf UK manchester bombers.

In the end the only effective way to stop terrorism ( since it's so easy to just drive a car into a crowd of people ), is to create a society where people don't want to do it - which is what we mostly have - as terrorism, while terrible, is fortunately still quite rare.

[illithid0]

This is a classic logical error.

It is not the job of the citizenry to prove that surveillance doesn't curb terrorism in order to preserve privacy. It is the job of the government to prove that surveillance DOES curb terrorism to such a degree that privacy MUST be degraded.

Only then we can have a conversation.

[vivzkestrel]

but has there ever been a study conducted like say on arxiv or something that tells you what or what is not achieved by surveillance?

[Cider9986]

There's not even that much terrorism and there wasn't much even before these authoritarian measures.

More people die in the US from cars every month than died from 9/11.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Yes, who cares what it originally meant:

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

[beej71]

Of course it curbs terrorism. But it's not worth it. Think of everything that improved when the Taliban came into power. Crime went down. Public services improved. It wasn't worth it.

The cure you propose is worse than the disease. I don't want you to prevent me from stubbing my toe by cutting my foot off. You're just going to have to find another way and do the best you can under those constraints.

[duesabati]

I really can't believe there are people that still think this is about terrorism in 2026, at least not on HN

[mdp2021]

In front of the loss of Anonimity (the prospected loss of Dignity), "safety" has utterly no importance. You do not trade Dignity for "safety".

[sevenzero]

How much of this is actually to "catch" terrorists? Its mostly for surveillance, intimidation, suppression. Usually it's the state that defines who a terrorist is, and usually terrorists are ALL people opposing the current regime.

[DrScientist]

Case in point - in the UK you can currently be put into prison for a long stretch under terrorism charges for holding up a sign with just 4 words.

[deaux]

Last I checked River->Sea is 6 words. Unless it's a phrase about a different subject, but I can't imagine since the UK only tends to arrest sign holders as part of protecting Bibi's interests.

[amiga386]

The four words you're referring to are "I support Palestine Action", and there's nobody in prison "for a long stretch" just for saying that.

There have been over 3000 people arrested for showing support for this proscribed organisation, and over 700 charged, but none actually prosecuted yet. It was only just decided two weeks ago that the government's act of proscribing Palestine Action was lawful.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/15/arrested-pro...

Obviously, I think the Terrorism Act shouldn't silence speech like it does. Palestine Action are a pack of bumbling thugs, and the government's real reason for proscription is that those idiots successfully broke into an RAF base. Egg on face for military so government strikes back with proscription.

The law does allow for these sorts of penalties you describe. But I think you will find that if the CPS does prosecute these cases, especially against people who literally stood in front of police stations and displayed those four words and no more, i.e. they dared the government to prosecute them for speech, I don't think they will be "put in prison for a long stretch". They may not even be prosecuted at all. They would have to do more, i.e. actually break into places and physically damage them, like Palestine Action have repeatedly done, to get a long prison sentence. But the threat of prison for speech is there in the law, that's why I don't like that law.

[Cider9986]

You shouldn't be judged based on your speech, only your actions. That's the problem with the Terrorism Act.

[john_strinlai]

>how do you propose catching terrorists then

how did police ever do anything over the past hundreds of years?

[vivzkestrel]

the terrorists are using signal messenger, in game chat messages and all sorts of sophisticated tooling, they are literally getting trained by it. how do you propose beating someone tech savy without using tech?

[john_strinlai]

>how do you propose beating someone tech savy without using tech?

no one said "without using tech".

[esseph]

"Terrorists" are by far the least likely to cause me a problem directly in the US. I'm more likely to die by police or be imprisoned by the State than I am to die in a terrorist attack.

[buckle8017]

Says a coward posting anonymously online.

[vivzkestrel]

you are gonna start attacking a person for asking a reasonable question? i have been very active on HN for a long time now

[N_Lens]

Don’t bother, probably a paid actor or bot.