Truck Runs into Crowd in Nice

[TonyM]

If we could search every house in the UK, it wouldn't help. There's not enough manpower.
As difficult as it is, the only real solution is better / more accurate targeting of specific individuals.
It makes much more sense to relinquish freedoms for those under specific investigation - phone taps, internet monitoring, surveillance etc than for a carte blanche approach that we all have to give up privacy so random checks can be made. If random checks are the answer, we're asking the wrong questions to start with.

When I said house to house I meant localized. For example a section of Paris. But I don't know what the security forces require other than I presume they want more people, more technology, more freedom from some laws that restrict them and more freedom from protests because they are infringing on our current rights.

As I said way back it's a danger to give them too much trust but I wonder if we have to.

 

[FanchesterCity]

When I said house to house I meant localized. For example a section of Paris. But I don't know what the security forces require other than I presume they want more people, more technology, more freedom from some laws that restrict them and more freedom from protests because they are infringing on our current rights.

As I said way back it's a danger to give them too much trust but I wonder if we have to.

I understand that, but I'm saying a carte blanche 'monitor anyone you like' doesn't seem like much of a strategy. It's a scattergun (pardon the terminology) approach. That's why I'm not in favour of sweeping relaxations of privacy laws.
I AM in favour of making it easier and more timely to monitor targeted individuals - so that it's easier to get approval and have a real depth to what they can gain access to whilst investigating them.

However, here's the rub - let's say the security services want to discover who you've phoned / emailed etc then the government has to put in place the technology / legislation to make sure that is recorded by your ISP / Network operator / bank etc, and that's where it affects us all. We all have to be monitored and logged in order for them to retrospectively investigate us on the off chance we MIGHT become bad guys in the future.
Alternatively, you put in place the 'capability' to monitor you, but it can only be activated with the relevant warrants and justifications.

I'm in favour of the latter option. We aren't monitored all the time, and the authorities need justification to do it. The cost (downside) is that the monitoring only starts when activated and there's no historical data.

 

[TonyM]

I understand that, but I'm saying a carte blanche 'monitor anyone you like' doesn't seem like much of a strategy. It's a scattergun (pardon the terminology) approach. That's why I'm not in favour of sweeping relaxations of privacy laws.
I AM in favour of making it easier and more timely to monitor targeted individuals - so that it's easier to get approval and have a real depth to what they can gain access to whilst investigating them.

However, here's the rub - let's say the security services want to discover who you've phoned / emailed etc then the government has to put in place the technology / legislation to make sure that is recorded by your ISP / Network operator / bank etc, and that's where it affects us all. We all have to be monitored and logged in order for them to retrospectively investigate us on the off chance we MIGHT become bad guys in the future.
Alternatively, you put in place the 'capability' to monitor you, but it can only be activated with the relevant warrants and justifications.

I'm in favour of the latter option. We aren't monitored all the time, and the authorities need justification to do it. The cost (downside) is that the monitoring only starts when activated and there's no historical data.

That downside of not having the historical data might be the difference between people dying or not. I don't know the solution but I wonder if we need to accept that loss of privacy (e.g. my content here being loaded into a huge data lake to be analysed for key words etc) to give the security forces extra information that may make the difference.

Essentially they are trying to find a needle in a haystack and patterns matter therefore data matters. And beyond that when the patterns leads to suspicion they need to act to prevent. Maybe it's searching or intensive surveillance or locking someone up to keep them out of circulation for a period of time.

Obviously I'm no security expert. I am just concerned about the future for my kids and I see escalations in Europe that if not seemed may spread further. I also feel sorry for these new victims. Whatever it is that we need to do more of I'm for.

I fear though that apathy will reign and nothing extra will be done.

 

[adrianr]

Essentially they are trying to find a needle in a haystack and patterns matter therefore data matters. And beyond that when the patterns leads to suspicion they need to act to prevent. Maybe it's searching or intensive surveillance or locking someone up to keep them out of circulation for a period of time.

I fear though that apathy will reign and nothing extra will be done.

I'm not sure you fully appreciate the ramifications of what you've written there. You're straying into the realms of thought crime and secret police. And don't mistake nothing extra being done for apathy. Maybe the authorities feel we already have a good balance of liberty and safety, without the need to dragnet every minutae of our lives in the hope of stopping someone commiting a crime before they have even done it.

Some of the things people have suggested in this thread are downright scary. We're supposed to be living in a free progressive society, not willingly submitting to an authoritarian Stasi state. If East Germany is what you're after please go find it somewhere else; I'd hope the majority of people on the UK aren't willing to give up our liberty quite so easily.

 

[stony]

I'm not sure you fully appreciate the ramifications of what you've written there. You're straying into the realms of thought crime and secret police. And don't mistake nothing extra being done for apathy. Maybe the authorities feel we already have a good balance of liberty and safety, without the need to dragnet every minutae of our lives in the hope of stopping someone commiting a crime before they have even done it.

Some of the things people have suggested in this thread are downright scary. We're supposed to be living in a free progressive society, not willingly submitting to an authoritarian Stasi state. If East Germany is what you're after please go find it somewhere else; I'd hope the majority of people on the UK aren't willing to give up our liberty quite so easily.

Well said mate. Some of the ideas being proposed on here make Sharia law a more moderate alternative.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

the sad thing is that attacks like this will only continue. how do you stop it?

The media should stop reporting it on mass 24 hours. These twats want publicity and notoriety
Don't give it them, don't name them just a quick "this happened today in Nice" No pictures and no reports. Just the facts and move on to the next story. Starve them of what they crave

 

[Blue Haze]

This is going to keep happening until... when? When do the weekly massacres stop? We can't ban trucks. Shit, basically anyone who can drive can do this.

Honest question. What are we going to do?

 

[stony]

The latest is 80 dead and 18 critical. What a fucking horrible and tragic waste of life.

 

[stony]

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Can't even believe people are saying "yeah take away our freedoms to save us from the scary terrorists". That's exactly what they fucking want. They want to scare you, they want to change our way of life. If you seriously think giving corrupt governments total power over you is going to stop them then I have some magic beans to sell you.

This.