[guard-of-terra]

I fail to understand why tiny tranquil european countries without serious dangers of terrorism or organized crime even do this. They have nothing to reveal by intrecepting communications, why spend money and public credit on this?

[yread]

Are you serious? Dutch jihadists are fighting in Syria, the Detroit underwear bomber boarded his plane at Amsterdam Schiphol and organized crime is a serious problem in the Netherlands (see http://www.nokturnis.net/nokwiki/tiki-index.php?page=Organiz... )

[johansch]

And a homegrown Islamist network assassinated a well-known dutch film director after he made a movie criticizing the treatment of women in Islam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

[lostlogin]

What? So you can have attacks on your country without requiring the world to go into lockdown, without having to invade several countries and without having to molest every traveler?

[roel_v]

"without requiring the world to go into lockdown, without having to invade several countries and without having to molest every traveler?"

Have you ever been here? There are cameras on all highways that recognize license plates and track the movement over every car on the road network (cfr: the ease with which they tracked the whereabouts of the father who killed his children a few weeks ago), it has the most phone taps per inhabitant (to the extent that if you look at the data, it seems like somebody accidentally types a few numbers too much when typing it into Excel, that's how far we are removed from the runner up), and in general the amount of information the government has on every citizen is staggering (e.g. the age at which you first grew pubes (!) ).

At Schiphol you are searched at will - a few years ago I was on a flight back from the Caribbean and everybody on the plane was searched - thoroughly, more intense than when you are searched e.g. at sports events. Every city has autonomous authority to designate certain areas as 'search at will' areas - police can (and will), without cause, search you and your belongings (including your car - US doctrine about the car being an extension of a man's house? Hahaha, yeah, in the sense that it doesn't take much to search your house, either...). Most train stations are such zones, but most of the city centers of the bigger cities are, too (let that sink in - there a whole city center where police, without any cause, can search you and your belongings!)

Oh, not carrying ID (anywhere)? €90 fine, and you can be taken into custody until you have proven your identity. No cause necessary for asking for it, either.

Invading has never been a strategy generally employed here, the Dutch are merchants, war is bad for business (I'm sure there's a fitting Ferengi quote here...) Plus a country the size of a flyspeck on a global map just doesn't generally have the muscle.

Look, I still love my country, and for all its flaws it's still the best place on earth to live for me - but let's not kid ourselves, the surveillance state is alive and kicking here, and the 'OMG the terrorists are coming' sentiment is, too.

[roel_v]

I should put a nuance on my remark that police can ask for ID without cause; after looking a bit deeper into it, this is not entirely true. There has to be cause but that is defined very broadly. Examples mentioned on the government website on when police can ask for ID, and when they can take you into custody when you can't, include 'a car driving around at night in an industrial area', 'there is a shooting in a pub and for the inquiry it is necessary to establish who are the witnesses', 'youth are being a nuisance in the neighbourhood', 'there is a fire and the arsonist might be amongst the spectators' (!).

Not quite 'papieren, bitte' yet, and not as dramatic as I made it sound, but still not what one would expect in a land claiming to value freedom. (my other points still stand though, including those about the 'no cause search' zones)

[lostlogin]

Yes I have visited - only for a week or so and I didn't travel around much. I flew in from London, and didn't notice the cameras etc which I did in the UK. I thought they were bad there. My sarcastic post has had a few very good replies. The disturbing behaviour of the state mentioned by you and others is oddly fascinating. Why do it? On a pure cost versus benefit analysis, how can it possibly be justified? Those that know The Netherlands have radically changed my views over the last week with facts and anecdotes about this. Please keep posting, I for one have been educated.

[willholloway]

Fitting Ferengi Quotes:

Rule of Acquisition 34: War is good for business. Rule of Acquisition 35: Peace is good for business.

[yread]

The dutch took part in both operation enduring freedom and iraqi freedom. So you could say they did invade several countries.

[jvdongen]

In fact the Dutch owned New York once (then called New Amsterdam ;-) until they effectively traded it with the British for Suriname and some spare change.

And that whole Dutch East Indies and Indonesia thing still has some repercussions till this day.

[X-Istence]

The Dutch still have parts of The Netherlands overseas, including people that can vote in the Dutch elections, along with territories that are overseen not by the Dutch government but by the King (used to be the Queen).

[johansch]

I agree that is irrational behavior. But saying the Netherlands is tranquil in this aspect is wrong, was my point.

[lostlogin]

My post was petty and sarcastic - however the Dutch don't seem to have the penchant for blasting the world with their dramas, but this may be a language barrier.. I did find the Netherlands to be tranquil - however I've only spent a week there, and didn't move around much. I didn't notice the things that have been discussed here over the last few day, and most are very disturbing.

[toyg]

> without having to molest every traveler

Schiphol is organised better than most comparable airports, and it has improved dramatically in the last 5 years, but the level of actual harassment can still be quite high (seems to vary by day).

[muyuu]

It's probably the most harassing airport in Europe. I haven't been to all airports but I've been to many (>50) and Shiphol was the worst. Still better than the US though, if you're an EU citizen at least.

[toyg]

Maybe my POV is skewed by having MAN as home airport - security here is horrendous, slow, invasive and obsessed with trying every new braindead security scheme under the sun, including the infamous pornscanners.

Schiphol was not that bad the few times I've used it (last three weeks ago), IIRC they do the actual scan at gates which I think is always the superior option.

Completely agree on the EU/US comparison, of course. You can actually see how European aviation has now fully caught up and often surpassed its US counterpart -- US infrastructure looks old and creaky, often not fit for purpose, and thanks to TSA it now feels more like a series of gulags than a 3rd-millennium transportation network.

[haarts]

I think it goes a bit far to call a couple of nutjobs 'jihadists'. And the fact that someone traveled through one of our airports doesn't mean we have a structural problem.

[yread]

Of course they are nutjobs and you could probably call them other names as well, but my point is that they went to Syria to do 'jihad', so they are jihadists.

[Father]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstad_Network

[lucb1e]

Not even America is so high-risk if you ask me.

[Cthulhu_]

Going off on a tangent, perhaps the Netherlands doesn't have serious terrorism or organized crime /because/ of these measures, quelling them before they even go public?

[jvdongen]

Well, that's the million dollar/euro question isn't it? It's a bit hard to verify with all the secrecy going on. And arguably without some level of secrecy you cannot have effective intelligence. It's a bit of a catch-22.

[raverbashing]

Exactly because it's tiny