Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the have-we-come-to-this? dept.

Are you, your family, or your community at risk of turning to violent extremism? Now you can find out as The Intercept reports that a rating system devised by the National Counterterrorism Center titled "Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts,” lets police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as: “Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility,” “Talk of Harming Self or Others,” and “Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity).” The ranking system is supposed to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies. Families are judged on factors such as “Aware[ness] of Each Other’s Activities,” as well as levels of “Parent-Child Bonding,” (PDF) and communities are rated by access to health care and social services, in addition to “presence of ideologues or recruiters” as potential risk factors. A low score in any of these categories would indicate a high risk of “susceptibility to engage in violent extremism,” according to the document. Users of the guide are encouraged to plot the scores on a graph to determine what “interventions” could halt the process of radicalization before it happens.

Experts have suggested that intervention by law enforcement or other branches of the government in individuals’ lives, particularly young people, based solely based on the views they express, can potentially criminalize constitutionally protected behavior. “The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical and social service employees to rate the communities, individuals and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face,” says former FBI agent Mike German calling the criteria used for the ratings “subjective and specious.” Arun Kundnani questions the science behind the rating system. “There’s no evidence to support the idea that terrorism can be substantively correlated with such factors to do with family, identity, and emotional well-being," says Kundnani. "“It is obvious that, in practice, [this] would mostly only be applied to Muslim communities."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:27PM

    by physicsmajor (1471) on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:27PM (#145031)

    "A low score in any of these categories would would indicate a high risk of “susceptibility to engage in violent extremism."

    What the actual fuck. Would it? Would it really?

    Let's get this straight. The complete and utter lack of the slightest shred of evidence makes this a joke. They literally made this up; it's not tested. There is no positive or negative predictive value. No studies done.

    It's also five separate scales, because score low in ANY and your a terrorist. Bonus points for including hopelessness and futility, since our society is so broken practically everyone with a clue feels that way.

    Bit the joke's on us. Just imagine this in use. Does being detained and interrogated against your will make you feel... hopeless? Like your actions don't matter? To Gitmo with you, dirty terrorist!

    Fuck every last thing about this. Every person involved in its publication should be fired, immediately, with the document as the only necessary evidence. No pension. Barred from govt work permanently.

    Post it far and wide. If you want to reuse my thoughts, consider the above released CC0.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Flamebait=1, Interesting=3, Informative=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:01PM

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:01PM (#145042) Journal

    Terrorist creation questionnaire. Certain method to generate threats.

    Was Guy Montag a terrorist? Clarisse McClellan?

    Burn, baby, burn.

    --
    You're betting on the pantomime horse...
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:00PM

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:00PM (#145289) Homepage
      > Was Guy Montag a terrorist? Clarisse McClellan?

      If you were the government, would you want those two removed from where they could be of harm to your agenda? Clearly yes.

      So to that state, they are terrorists. They are therefore absolutely legitimate targets, as everything is relative to a context. In a dystopian context you should expect many things to be reversed. Profiling to find radicals like Guy Montag is a perfectly understandable way a state might try to find radicals like Guy Montag. If the latter's your end, why shouldn't the former be your means?
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:37PM

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:37PM (#145294) Journal

        "Terrorist" is therefore an intrinsically meaningless term. It is used only to assign a label that justifies all measures against those declared by the state to be its enemy.

        I believe that the concept of a "State" can now be safely described as a failed construct. Terrible experiment, really. 300 years of appalling misery.

        --
        You're betting on the pantomime horse...
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:16PM

          by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:16PM (#145326) Homepage
          > "Terrorist" is therefore an intrinsically meaningless term.

          If you believe that, then "foreigner" is also an intrinsically meaningless term. As is "friend". And "music". And ...
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:25PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:25PM (#145045) Journal

    Bonus points for including hopelessness and futility, since our society is so broken practically everyone with a clue feels that way.

    Hmmm … if everyone who has a clue feels that way, and everyone who feels that way is dangerous …

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by pnkwarhall on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:47PM

      by pnkwarhall (4558) on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:47PM (#145083)

      if everyone who has a clue feels that way, and everyone who feels that way is dangerous... [popsugar-assets.com]

      Violence is not the only way to be "dangerous". Commenter Bot's comment (which I modded insightful FYI) provides great context for understanding the danger inherent in individuals. Value systems cannot co-exist in the individual -- "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. (Matthew 6.24)" -- and I'd argue that they tend to clash in group- and nation-contexts as well.

      We live in a period of mature Capitalism. Its systemic faults are alienating larger and larger minority groups because the value-clashes are becoming more and more apparent. The defenders of a capital-based value system are coming under quiet attack, and the attacks are getting louder... I **DO NOT** advocate violence, but the multiplying instances and general worldwide progression of anti-Western and anti-Capitalist sentiment seem like a clear sign that the status quo (read 'Capitalistic cultural and economic values') is no longer acceptable, and individuals and groups are acting.

      A change is coming. The powers-that-be are afraid, and it's not the "terrorists" that they're afraid of.

      --
      Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by VortexCortex on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:49AM

        by VortexCortex (4067) on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:49AM (#145224)

        A change is coming. The powers-that-be are afraid, and it's not the "terrorists" that they're afraid of.

        Ah, I see you took the blue pill. I took the red pill instead, so what I see is a change coming that's been architected by the powers-that-be; They're not afraid of the change, they're prepared for dissent, and TFA is yet more proof of this.

        Take a gander at this article. [theguardian.com] Now realize that New York has "anti-government extremists squads" who patrol for protesters or terrorists (as if the distinction matters anymore), and the "climate crisis" was an excuse to militarise police, just like terrorism is the excuse for the DHS to exist. If you don't think that the change already happened, then you might want to check your water, frog, it's boiling. Fast cars and cheeseburgers kill 400 times more people every year than 9/11. It's been over a decade, so that means our love for Freedom Fries and Fords has been over 4,000 times more deadly than any terrorist. Bathtubs kill more people every year than any terrorist group ever. Where are our free bath mats?

        Life is dangerous: We should LAUGH when the threat of terrorism is trotted out in front of us, because we're brave enough to laugh in the face of far greater danger as we drive to get our kids Happy Meals. The fact that such questionnaires exist at all should inform you the times are long past changing into that which you think the powers-that-be are afraid of. Rethink your stance, and get yourself prepared -- or you can just continue believing whatever the fuck you want, as usual.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:31PM

          by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:31PM (#145264) Journal

          After observing the massive [huffingtonpost.com] yet inefficient [princelaw.com] response [canadafreepress.com] to three individuals or teams of murderers, it seems obvious to me that given sufficient motivation and planning, US governments all the way up and down the heirarchy of authority are in no way able to deal with even small numbers of individuals. (Linked stories are just basic references; a little digging in obvious places such as wikipedia will reveal the absolutely massive amount of government resources expended to little effect in each case.)

          There are many more examples to choose from, scattered across recent history, from the Battle of Athens [jpfo.org] to the Colorado Killdozer [marvin-heemeyer.com]. There are also some more insidious examples [ieee.org] involving infrastructure. The take-away message seems to be that, in spite of France calling the USA the "world's lone hyperpower", its governments are very vulnerable to even tiny numbers of dedicated individuals of even moderate abilities. US governments want to project the facade that they are competent and in complete control of the populace... but after close examination, that's all it appears to be: a facade.

          As a side note, given how peaceful things are in the USA relative to the population numbers, infrastructure vulnerabilities, and actual ineffectiveness of government control, I like to think that my neighbors and I really aren't as bad as the mainstream media makes us all out to be. Things could be even more peaceful if governments would stop denying access to courts for drug dealers and users via its second (and unconstitutional without an authorizing amendment like its predecessor required) Prohibition - as it is, if there's a dispute in that business sector, about the only way to resolve it involves trying to kill the other party.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:59PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:59PM (#145063) Journal

    Let's get this straight. The complete and utter lack of the slightest shred of evidence makes this a joke. They literally made this up; it's not tested. There is no positive or negative predictive value. No studies done.

    Who needs studies nowadays? It's clear [soylentnews.org] those damn'd scientists [soylentnews.org] cannot be trusted [soylentnews.org].
    On the other side, if you believe in it [wikipedia.org] strong enough, it will become reality [soylentnews.org].

    (TLDR version: this is one result of FUD against science and "teach the controversy", others will follow).

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:50PM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:50PM (#145288) Homepage
    You seem to be interpreting:
        indicate a high risk of “susceptibility to engage in violent extremism
    as:
        and your a terrorist

    So you don't understand the non-certainty implied the use of the word "indicate", are unable to realise that "risk" refers to things only being measured by probability rather than certainty, and do not recognise that "susceptibility" does not mean there's a guarantee that the things under discussion are certain to happen.

    And to cap it off, you can't even spell "you're".

    The authorities, like the ones who think facial recognition scanners at airports will help find terrorists, may be painfully naive in their understanding of probability and statistics, but that doesn't mean that an even more naive interpretation of their diktats is a good way of correcting them. You can't fight dumb with dumb.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves