SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Terrorism will cast a continuing shadow over future generations and government electronic surveillance is a small price to pay to combat it, a leading historian said Wednesday, a day after the carnage in Brussels.
British author and journalist Max Hastings gave a robust defence of electronic intelligence-gathering in what he called a new world that would never know absolute security.
"Our tolerance of electronic surveillance, subject to legal and parliamentary oversight, seems a small price to pay for some measure of security against threats that nobody—today of all days—can doubt are real," Hastings told Hong Kong's Foreign Correspondents' Club.
Twin attacks by Islamic State jihadists killed around 35 people in the Belgian capital Tuesday.
Hastings, a former war correspondent and newspaper editor, is author of 26 books mostly on military history.
His latest, "The Secret War", tells the story of behind-the-scenes intelligence operations in World War II.
Future wars "will almost certainly" be fought on similar turf.
The expert named did not explain how the current total surveillance did not prevent the Brussels attacks. In other news, he taped a "Dox me and SWAT me" sign to his own back.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Friday March 25 2016, @05:56PM
Humint isn't about investigating crime.
Its about investigating Pre-Crime.
The difference is HUMINT is targeted, and allows crime preemption and prevention.
Mass surveillance is only useful in finding the culprits AFTER they've blown up an airport, or flown a plane into a building.
But when the attackers these days are blow themselves up in the process, we have very little reason or ability to find culprit after the fact, because they are pink misted all over the walls.
Trying to find bad intent in speech or written communication by FILTERING ALL such communication is a fools errand. This was recognized a year ago. [zdnet.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 25 2016, @06:05PM
Well, "human intelligence" is most useful before a crime is committed. But, the same humint can be used after the crime has occurred, to solve the crime. It's just a matter of focus and intent how humint is collected and used.
I think that the people pushing for universal surveillance HOPE that said surveillance can prevent crime. But, for the most part, I think that it will remain useful in solving crimes after the fact. As others have pointed out, the scope and scale of data collection prevents anyone from making real use of the data. It's a damned fools errand.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 25 2016, @06:32PM
the scope and scale of data collection prevents anyone from making real use of the data.
I disagree, it would be very useful for blackmail, leverage, insider-trading etc. Just not so useful for stopping terrorists. The terrorists could agree on what to do and what coded messages (e.g. "the burger is ready, are the fries ready too?") to use long before they get into your country. How are you going to figure out these bunch are going to kill lots of people and themselves just from surveillance in your own country?
Based on the deceitful stuff that's been happening e.g. trying to misrepresent what the terrorists have actually been doing just to push for mass surveillance over and over again at every opportunity I doubt terrorism is the real issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 25 2016, @08:04PM
I hadn't thought of the fact that it could be used for insider trading. Maybe mass surveillance isn't as evil as I'd assumed.