In light of recent events in Paris have your views on mass surveillance changed?
As we see this latest tragedy in Paris unfold, and seeing law enforcement trying to capture the mastermind - do you think differently about surveillance -- more importantly, should we think differently about mass surveillance (even if it could have prevented this event or helped catch the perpetrators rapidly). Surveillance is a useful law enforcement tool. Traditionally police would have to go to a judge and get a warrant to monitor someone. This was often rubber stamped but it at least gave a paper trail and the police had to have their ducks in a row (e.g. it would be easier to detect if a cop or spook was spying on their ex-wife/ex-husband, since no warrant, no paper trail). What I don't understand is: Why is getting a warrant now seen as something that is optional/avoidable? Several Western countries (UK, US, and several other european ones) have passed laws designed so that warrants can be avoided in certain cases (and none of those cases are "immediate threat to life"). Mass surveillance is taking that to a whole different level: Now nobody needs a warrant for anyone. They're only limited by internal rules. And we already know that spooks often utilise this to spy on their friends/family/love interests. So, no, my opinion hasn't changed. Police surveillance with a warrant from a judge is still ok. Targeted surveillance via spooks with a warrant is also ok. Untargeted surveillance and or no warrant remains unacceptable even after the Paris attacks. No. By all accounts the French government was already hip deep in intrusive surveillance. They apparently had ramped up surveillance twice in the last 12 months. It didn't help. So, there's some ulterior motive for wanting dragnet surveillance, and it's common to a lot of governments, including US and UK. What is that motive? Call me crazy, but I always saw it as a way not to monitor terrorism, although that's what they use it for now, but for in the future to ensure they can thwart revolutions within the country. Take away civilian weapons, give yourself the ability to monitor, give yourself the ability to break the law when the 'county'(read governed) is threatened. Check off all of these points and in a few years when robotics capabilities start ramping up, it'll be nearly impossible for a revolution to occur. How do we keep "impossible for a revolution to occur" from turning in to "impossible to dislodge an incumbent from a market"? Or even further devolving into "protecting all corporate entities from market threats"? I see that devolution as almost inevitable, given how we've seen the US DoD used to protect corporate interests as well as societal interests. The topic is very large. Why should we think differently when there's no real evidence that mass surveillance, or lack thereof, is relevant? Are you also going to ask if our views on car rental, access to firearms and explosives, foreign military involvement in the Middle East, discrimination on basis of nationality, religion, and ethnicity, etc. have also changed? Since those seem rather more relevant to what little we know about what happened, yes? No. France has very far reaching mass surveillance laws and still they weren't capable of prevent the last two terrorist attacks. Mass surveillance does nothing to prevent this. Only change in politics does. Absolutely not. France actually is the perfect example of mass surveillance not working at all. Since the Charlie Hebdo terror attack they've introduced particularly intrusive Internet surveillance measures. I suppose those didn't work too well, did they? If all that money and energy that's wasted on pushing and implementing surveillance agendas was actually spent on hiring more police, investment in security forces equipment, training and just good old-fashioned police work terrorist would have a much harder time. Surveillance agendas only serve the politicians and suppliers of surveillance equipment. They're not only proven to be ineffective time and time again they're downright counterproductive because they're designed to evoke a feeling of the safety in the population but don't actually improve safety. Just take airport security theatre for example. It's a flamboyant show that's supposed to give you the impression that authorities care about your safety while in many respects it's less secure than the pre-2001 system. European police forces have been watching those groups for quite some time now but it's only in the light of recent events they've been cracking down on them. That's exactly what's necessary to deal with this threat, not more surveillance. I still don't see it being effective in any way. Reddit has the best example of the maths that I can find. https://np.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3csl2y/wikileaks_rele... Surveillance of a Specific suspect after an anonymous tip off may be effective though. I've thought about them again, but no. IMO, mass surveillance can be effective, but only when it is utterly comprehensive. I.e., law enforcement monitors your conversations (audio and text), your location, your activities (shopping, watching videos online, etc.) and anything else they care to find out. However, this basically means giving up any and all pretences to our rights of privacy and freedom of thought, information and expression. In the end, a government that implements that kind of surveillance would be way more dangerous than terrorists could ever be. And all that without making us feel safer - for who feels "safe" in a police state? Even more emphatically no: ISIS plotters apparently did all their comms in the clear: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/signs-point-to-unencrypt... Ha ha ha! I wonder what twisted definitions and logic people like Michael Hayden on the "Today" show yesterday morning use when denouncing Snowden and advocating for backdoors. I don't know. But I think since 9/11 there has been many more deaths caused by terrorists in the EU than in the US. Someone might prove me right or wrong on that -- it's just my hunch. And obviously, the US the most juicy target for islamists. I'm sure if they could they would much rather blow stuff up in New York than Paris. Ergo, whatever the US is doing to combat terrorism works. The biggest flaw in mass surveillance is that it can only catch what has been done before. Anyone that is not willing to get caught, will find a new way of communication that bypasses current procedures. Mass surveillance is a reaction to an action, not the proactive way to prevent an action. No.