otfgoon wrote:

It's common sense in the end. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a lot harder to convince a religious individual who happens to be an Oxford graduate on a six figure salary to give up his life and go on a killing spree than someone who isn't religious in the slightest but has a background of poverty and crime.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that's it's generally guys who are relatively young, being recruited by older guys who would probably never dream of doing it themselves.

I think I would make a distinction between a person who is ‘’deeply religious’’ and a person who is a ‘’religious fanatic’’.

I can’t say that I would describe the men who took their time to murder 129 people and then blow themselves up as deeply religious.
I would however think they fall into the category of fanatic.

I doubt very much that any of those men had a deep faith – they didn’t even have simple faith -  living a moral life and placing trust in whatever God they have was clearly not enough for them.
Weak, cowardly men without any moral compass.

As for poverty playing a part in creating these mass murderers – what level of poverty did they live in?
Were their circumstances so desperate that they could not feed or clothe themselves?
Did they live in decrepid, cramped, overcrowded accommodation without hot running water or heating?

I understand and agree that there is a clear link between poverty and crime -  but what type of poverty would drive any fundamentally decent man to commit mass murder?
Or to put it another way what kind of man reacts to poverty to the degree that any feelings of community or empathy with other people is obliterated to the extent that he’s willing to murder whole swathes of people for nothing?
Nothing.
Not God, not religion, nor any real cause.

If this is seen as finger pointing then it is meant to be, because the people who embark on this road deserve to be exposed and vilified, even the slightest hint that they were in some way created by society or circumstances outside of their own control to me only serves to encourage others who may harbor similar "ambitions".

IMO other ways need to be found to weed these people out than mass surveillance of everyone an agency/government sees fit. I have nothing to hide, but I'm 100 percent certain that I don't want to live in a society where it is legal that anyone on nothing more than a whim, really, could be targeted for surveillance, or worse, when there is technology like these MAVs available. That will be the end of privacy as we know it, and I'd bet good money that for every 130 or so persons killed, like the other day, there will be more innocent people killed or jailed. 

"Other ways" to weed them out - what would they be?

Don't have a scooby. Then again, that's not my job.
What we do know, however, is that Europe is heavily influenced with what the USA are up to when it comes to military. We also know that what they are doing in the USA, right now, is very ineffective. If anything, the USA is showing us that mass surveillance, at least in its current form, is NOT the answer.

I already assume that my emails are read and my phone conversations are stored btw.

While it's disturbing that governments ability to invade individual lives, that type of talk is slightly missing the point: the level in which we discuss this is not the same level in which we examine our alternatives regarding security (or protecting our lives). In a way one would be an external concern, while the other internal (but there could be several ways to look at this).

Ideally, it is us who tell the government what to do. And though only crazy people today would assume all is well with governments (and armies, etc.), at least in some respect this could fall under "up to us". If (or since) we value the individual realm above all, we need to tell our governments that this is what we want them to do as well. "sure!", we all might laugh, and then give "them" the money and legislative backing to improve their surveillance systems and weapons, and forget entirely that the very nature of these beings is in real tension with, well - respecting individuals. That's all true.

But that's also where one needs to see we're not discussing the same type of thing: our value here, in the ideal level, is still our own (say liberal values. And say we put security also as a value, though it's not strictly needed here - we can also put that under "pragmatics"). The complications, the "dirt" real life brings into our dealings - these are realistic impositions going in a big way against our values, and with which we need to cope. None of us wants the monstrous creatures spying on us, or police brutality, institutional injustice, fighting wars or even having armed forces. What are they good for, anyway?

but on another level - sure, we "want them". In the circumstances, even when it's not good, it just prevents a bigger bad - though we don't value them in the ideal sense - sure we value them in the pragmatic level. It's terminator 1 on my side when all the world seems to be terminator 2. A girl mocking the abilities of this technological application on the "big brother" level is spot on in terms of how we see it in our authentic, or deep values. It's a nightmare, no doubt (and there are a million others out there, most we'll never even know about). But she's actually hilarious in another sense, as she's talking about a technology, a machine, a thing that is not supposed to be good. It's supposed to be as creepy as can, serving, well - us, in the end.

"But it never will serve us, you're so naive!" - "you think you are doing the right thing without better alternatives, but in fact it is you bringing about the bigger bad because these creatures, and their operator, and our governments - these are the mega bads of this world (and they sure brought about the deep shit we're in now - wanna give them more support, take us deeper in it?)". These are all true and fair. But again - we need to see if it's not a bit of a cop out on our side: we need to sit on our governments. We need to do the part that is really on us. The only other alternative is, as far as I can see, surrender in battles I can't see anyone really conceding (I think Y va has a bit of that in mind, and I think she's right).

Painting stuff as a struggle between ideal and realistic-pragmatic may sound like a bit of a cop out itself. And I don't think it's a nonsense claim either: where exactly do we actually live on the ideal level? it's all pragmatic. That is not easily answered. But as the real tension and the urgent claims here do seem to be regarding values, and claims of conflicting values, it is helpful to try to put some order in there. It may not be a big comfort, but keeping in mind that our value conflict is one between different spheres - "we really want to do X; But in the circumstances I have to do Y, though it sometimes contradicts X" could help keep our moral compass in tune, and always point at X no matter what the circumstances are.

(sorry for this long and not so easy post).

It amuses me that those of you who are so wound up about protecting privacy register and post frequently on public Internet forums.

I'd rather live in a society where attacks like the one in Paris happen now and again, than in a society where everyone is monitored all the time. It IS about values. I certainly don't think giving up on important values like the right to privacy should be compromised further in order to prevent terrorist attacks. Find another way.

Rex wrote:

I already assume that my emails are read and my phone conversations are stored btw.

Yeah, I was wondering how come you feel so bad about MAVs - do you feel the same way about facebook, Google and the rest of the modern do gooders? 
(Edit: Ha - I see Yva was here already. No wonder  ;D ).

I share your worries and preference for how I want to live. However, you do rather conveniently evade coping with something that needs to be done. Sure, it's not your job, but it is somebody's job, and you put them there 

Qwiss! wrote:

You can't just remove the religious aspect from this though. These are people who believe with extreme faith that what they are doing is right and that their god will reward them for it.

I didn't remove the religious aspect though - I would describe those people as fanatics (religious) as opposed to persons of deep religious faith.
I made that distinction in my post.
What I mean is that there are people who are religious and who practice on a quiet, personal and spiritual level and there are others for whom practicing faith involves extremes of behaviour that only a fanatic would observe.

Ev, that's how it SHOULD be IMO. You SHOULD be able to register and post on Internet forums without feeling the need to unduly censor yourself. What normal, everyday people post online should not be able to be used to justify being spied on.

Rex wrote:

I'd rather live in a society where attacks like the one in Paris happen now and again, than in a society where everyone is monitored all the time. It IS about values. I certainly don't think giving up on important values like the right to privacy should be compromised further in order to prevent terrorist attacks. Find another way.

You give up your privacy freely every time you are on line.
I find it disturbing how a couple of mass murders every now and then is seen as palatable.

Rex wrote:

I'd rather live in a society where attacks like the one in Paris happen now and again, than in a society where everyone is monitored all the time. It IS about values. I certainly don't think giving up on important values like the right to privacy should be compromised further in order to prevent terrorist attacks. Find another way.

Ah - sure. I said so myself, probably share the same values. But still - isn't it a bit too easy? take it a bit further: not 129 people just murdered "now and again", but these people, who we don't do much to stop as it might infringe our deeper values, now manage to produce, and carry into our cities, gruesome stuff - like "dirty bombs", Chemical weapons and whatever. I'd keep nudging with this till you are willing to tell me, at some point when the circumstances make you say: well, there's not much value to my private realm anymore anyway, because this is not living.
I know, it's not really your job (and thank god, neither is it or ever will be mine), but it is you, and me, who have to call it. No MAVs is not enough - are you saying pacifism till death? are you saying no technology? what are you saying?

Yeah, but it stays on the Internet. To merit further intrusions in my private life, there needs to be real probable cause, and due processing via the legal system. No one person or agency should be allowed to make that decision alone.

Terrorist attacks are horrible, ok. No worse than US drone strikes, mind you, but horrible. I just don't think it is worth giving up core values of a society so easily, and especially so when we are talking about a system which has proved to be anything but effective.

I don't agree to that kind of reasoning at all, Yuv. I've also never said anything about pacifism. I said 'find another way other than mass surveillance'. There is big difference. I am not a proponent of 'don't do much to stop' terrorists. Where did you get that from? Listen, had what the US are doing been anywhere near successful, then there is a debate to have about further infringements on privacy. Note that I say 'debate' and not that it is a given! However, mass surveillance has proved to be useless! It doesn't work! At least not in its current form. So, why are we even having this debate?!

y va marquer wrote:

otfgoon wrote:

It's common sense in the end. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a lot harder to convince a religious individual who happens to be an Oxford graduate on a six figure salary to give up his life and go on a killing spree than someone who isn't religious in the slightest but has a background of poverty and crime.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that's it's generally guys who are relatively young, being recruited by older guys who would probably never dream of doing it themselves.

I think I would make a distinction between a person who is ‘’deeply religious’’ and a person who is a ‘’religious fanatic’’.

I can’t say that I would describe the men who took their time to murder 129 people and then blow themselves up as deeply religious.
I would however think they fall into the category of fanatic.

I doubt very much that any of those men had a deep faith – they didn’t even have simple faith -  living a moral life and placing trust in whatever God they have was clearly not enough for them.
Weak, cowardly men without any moral compass.

As for poverty playing a part in creating these mass murderers – what level of poverty did they live in?
Were their circumstances so desperate that they could not feed or clothe themselves?
Did they live in decrepid, cramped, overcrowded accommodation without hot running water or heating?

I understand and agree that there is a clear link between poverty and crime -  but what type of poverty would drive any fundamentally decent man to commit mass murder?
Or to put it another way what kind of man reacts to poverty to the degree that any feelings of community or empathy with other people is obliterated to the extent that he’s willing to murder whole swathes of people for nothing?
Nothing.
Not God, not religion, nor any real cause.

If this is seen as finger pointing then it is meant to be, because the people who embark on this road deserve to be exposed and vilified, even the slightest hint that they were in some way created by society or circumstances outside of their own control to me only serves to encourage others who may harbor similar "ambitions".

I'm not suggesting factors such as poverty would drive decent men into something that's capable of committing these atrocities, I'm suggesting that they create an environment where the chances of finding men, who probably never were decent to begin, far, far higher. It's no coincidence that a lot of these groups do their recruiting in prisons, among poor communities or among the young, it's because these guys have minds that are far more vulnerable to being brainwashed by a preacher or material found on the net or even just a disturbing individual who find's the idea terrorism appealing of their own accord. 

Bear in mind, some of the people going to Syria to join ISIS from the UK are young girls, teenagers, 14 to 15 years of age into a life that no girl from any background ever dreams of. I have a hard time believing they grew up wanting to be a part of a death cult and I absolutely believe they were failed, whether it be by society or simply their parents, somewhere along the line.

These mass murderers absolutely deserve to be exposed, vilified and blamed 100% for their actions, but I disagree on the second part of your last paragraph. I think it's important to study the cocktail of factors that helped create these fanatics so you can prevent it at the source. Ultimately, I'd feel a lot more comfortable in the knowledge that there are not any high risk individuals out there than knowing there are loads of them about, but they're being monitored. Whether or not that's possible is another matter. 

In saying that these murderers were not created by society or by circumstances beyond their control I am not suggesting that we ignore factors that enable men who harbour such anger towards our society to find an outlet for this rage.
ISIS grooming and recruitment affords them a platform to express their hate, without this perhaps the scale of their crimes would be limited to rape or stabbings or violence towards single individuals.

I supose my point is that that any person who chooses to join ISIS is already morally bankrupt and should be exposed as such.

Rex wrote:

I don't agree to that kind of reasoning at all, Yuv. I've also never said anything about pacifism. I said 'find another way other than mass surveillance'. There is big difference. I am not a proponent of 'don't do much to stop' terrorists. Where did you get that from? Listen, had what the US are doing been anywhere near successful, then there is a debate to have about further infringements on privacy. Note that I say 'debate' and not that it is a given! However, mass surveillance has proved to be useless! It doesn't work! At least not in its current form. So, why are we even having this debate?!

So - all this is just about mass surveillance? and you really are for doing something efficient - other than involving mass surveillance - and that too would be reconsidered if mass surveillance proved it could (say) stop a plot to put a nuclear device in London/Stockholm/god-knows-who's-next?
It's becoming a bit thin, and perhaps not even worthy of discussion. I personally know very little about what "mass surveillance" entails, how much damage - or good - it really does, but just like you I detest the idea (I don't do FB and such, BTW, and was always wary of what even more "benign" entities than governments might do to my privacy). I just can't separate it from a whole bunch of other bad things we'd have to accept in the blink of an eye when the going gets tough. 
And guess what? it has.