Our thoughts are with the victims of the terror attacks in Paris.
But we should not allow ourselves to react in a thoughtless way. Terrorists want to impose fear –leading us away from a free, open and democratic society.
France already has one of the most intrusive regimes of mass surveillance in the western world. Apparently, this did not stop the terrorists.
Actually, it might very well be that mass surveillance makes us all less safe. The number of “false positives” makes serious police work more difficult. Dependence on electronic surveillance systems also directs resources away from old fashion police activites, intelligence operations, informed analysis and “HUMINT” (Human Intelligence).
Naturally, there is a place for advanced forms of electronic surveillance. But it should be focused on individuals and groups who are suspected to prepare for criminal activities. And to identify such targets, HUMINT is essential.
Time and time again it has been revealed that terrorists have been on the security services radar before striking. But the what, where and when is normally never communicated in ways that can be intercepted by mass surveillance. Here you need targeted surveillance, old-fashioned spies and qualified intelligence analysis. This is hard work, it takes time, it is costly and it can be dangerous. But it is what is effective to keep us reasonably safe from terrorism. (If at all possible.)
And given that the whole point of fighting terrorism is to defend our free, open and democratic society — it would be counter-productive to treat all citizens as potential terrorists and criminals. The people is not the problem.
/ HAX
Att Frankrike redan är bland de länder med högst grad av övervakning av sin befolkning men att terroristdåd ändå händer är inget bevis för att Frankrike hade haft en bättre chans att stoppa dådet om de inte hade haft det.
Din argumentation att denna typ av elektronisk massövervakning inte bara kan vara menlös i kampen mot terrorismen utan till och med skadlig förstår jag inte. Att övervakningen är ineffektiv och därför kräver resurser som skulle kunnat utnyttjas till annan typ av underättelse-/polisarbete innebär ju att om vi bara skulle få en tillräckligt effektiv dator så vore det okej. Finns det någon forskning som stödjer det du skriver eller går du på känsla?