Imagine a future where it becomes easier to commit terrorism because of some technological advancements—like smaller, less traceable bombs, or chemical weapons that are easily accessible and lead to higher casualties—like in the 1,000s or more. Imagine in that scenario, that the likelihood of you or someone you know becoming the victim of a terrorist attack is now non-trivial in your society. In a future where this becomes the norm, it would be interesting to see if individuals are more willing to adopt a level of increased surveillance as it seems like the only reasonable protection against terror.
Right now this debate is oriented mostly around the fact that surveillance today is not a good deal—consumers give up their privacy and get nothing in return. But is there a tipping point? Technology draws us closer, day by day, and the threat matrix will become more sophisticated as time moves forward.
Most individuals on HN are privacy absolutists but one should recognize that tradeoffs exist. That tradeoff is just not compelling today, but that doesn't mean that will always be the case. If you go to China, where everything and everyone is surveilled, I think you'd be surprised to find that many Chinese don't mind. They feel incredibly safe and don't have to worry about being victims of crimes, having their packages stolen, walking around late at night alone, etc. Walking around in China with absolute peace of mind around my own personal safety is a very eye-opening experience as someone coming from the US. I've always advocated for stringent privacy protections; but when giving that up buys you absolute safety in your immediate environment, that's not an experience you forget.
I'm certainly not saying I'm a proponent of living in a surveillance state—I'm simply noting that tradeoffs exist and a sort of re-balancing is constantly occurring, which is just interesting to be aware of.
>Imagine a future where it becomes easier to commit terrorism because of some technological advancements
Imagine a future where aliens invade, and all of our civil rights have to be suspended in order for society to be re-focused on fighting an existential war against the invaders. I suppose this sci-fi hypothetical could happen and if it did happen then the sacrifice might even be necessary. But it's not happening now, and it's entirely reasonable to classify it as both (1) unlikely, and (2) an incredibly bad outcome we should hope that we never have to face.
I don’t know if it’s complete fearmongering to imagine a scenario in the future where chemical or biological weapons are easier to manufacture and therefore execute attacks. Hundreds of people died in Europe last year due to terrorist attacks, and compared to where our species will eventually be, many of the technologies used in these attacks are still in their infancy. The world may evolve, but the scriptures that evangelize future jihadists won’t, so the incentive to be a martyr will always exist. I just looked it up and Europe has a very bad track record at stopping attacks—of 54 planned terrorist attacks in 2024 only 19 were averted by intelligence. 35 were carried out successfully. The threat may come from factions other than just jihadists in the future, too. I agree that this is not something we have to worry about now, which is why I stated that I’m hypothesizing in the original comment. But I think it’s a bit less far fetched than a near term alien invasion :-)
The ultimate surveillance state cannot keep you ultimately safe.
When any of that happens I'm happy to have this debate. I will be very sad that we have to live in that world, but I'll take it if the alternative is "we all die." But building a surveillance state today in an environment where violent crime seems to be at historic lows across the first world, that just seems incredibly dumb. Let's not.
This concept already exists. It has for centuries. It's called war.
> They feel incredibly safe and don't have to worry about being victims of crimes, having their packages stolen, walking around late at night alone, etc.
Em. I think feeling incredibly safe has more to do with the media telling people that no crime exists and all criminals are caught, rather than a reality of zero crime.
There is evidence that crime started being systematically under-recorded in China since they started assessing police on proportion of recorded crimes they solve.
https://archive.is/20250624235740/https://www.economist.com/...
Sorta yes and sorta no? You're factually correct; but practically missing the point a little bit. At my relative's place, which has many tall buildings around a hub, package delivery people leave all of the resident's packages on a very exposed and busy sidewalk. People walk by these packages all day and none of them are ever stolen. Could you imagine an Amazon delivery driver just leaving all of the packages for the Flatiron building on the sidewalk in NYC? It'd be a perverse Monty Python skit because the packages would all disappear before the delivery driver even left the area.
This sort of shared expectation of courtesy and safety is more common there; and it exists because of the surveillance state. I'm not advocating to live in a surveillance state; they're oppressive—the cons certainly outweigh the pros. There's no debating that. But the silver lining in that is borne of that cost is one that I think people there enjoy.
> it would be interesting to see if individuals are more willing to adopt a level of increased surveillance as it seems as the only reasonable protection against terror.
One presumes it would make terrorism easier if you could hack in and find out where your target is at any given time. What they're doing. What their plans are for this evening.
Also I think one could probably point to the current US president as proof for why this is an insane idea. Imagine if he really did have access to everything we say.
Yeah, totally. Again not saying I'm advocating for it in that form or manner. I'm just saying, tradeoffs could occur, that reasonable people may start to weigh differently based on the level of threat they feel to their lives personally.
It's not about the usefulness... it's that omnipotent surveillance creates a jarring imbalance of power between the surveillance state and the people.
If the employees of the state were subject to the same exact surveillance, then maybe it might be palatable.
Curiously, the Star Trek Universe exists in such a scenario. A common trope is asking the computer for evidence of a crime, where someone is at any time, etc. I've never heard complaints about this supposed contradiction between the utopia vision of Star Trek and the omnipotent, all-seeing computer.
But we all know the reality... a tale as old as time. The state will exclude themselves from the surveillance, and it will eventually be used as a tool for authoritarianism. It's only a matter of time with something as powerful as this.
this also assumes that criminals or terrorists will just follow the law.
you can always establish encrypted channel via DH over stenography in plaintext messaging, and just use any encrypted protocol.
if hardware is compromised a black market for such devices will surface.
Worst case scenario you create gigantic one time pads and just use them.
the whole idea is flawed as you get neither security nor privacy. in fact - it actually opens you to abuse if encryption is backdoored. Not to mention it being a gigantic slippery slope argument.
and most importantly - how to you ensure that you can ALWAYS trust your government with such powers?
> a black market for such devices will surface
Probably, but I think you are giving most bad actors too much credence. Tyler Robinson took several precautions to cover his trail in his assassination of Charlie Kirk—but he also told many individuals about his plan on discord, as well as other non-encrypted channels, etc. Not all bad actors are sophisticated in the same way.
I wouldn't trust the government with the power. If the scenario I'm posing were to actually occur, it's only a matter of time until the gestapo starts showing up at the houses of innocent individuals. This sort of thing happens in China.
Still, again, if the threat is big enough, I am curious to ponder what role individuals would want government to take in using surveillance to reduce actual human deaths in terror attacks (or any type of attack, for that matter).
>Probably, but I think you are giving most bad actors too much credence. Tyler Robinson took several precautions to cover his trail in his assassination of Charlie Kirk—but he also told many individuals about his plan on discord, as well as other non-encrypted channels, etc. Not all bad actors are sophisticated in the same way.
you're comparing organized crime, which this is supposed to combat - with a lone gunman. Stupid criminals will always exist.
>Still, again, if the threat is big enough, I am curious to ponder what role individuals would want government to take in using surveillance to reduce actual human deaths in terror attacks (or any type of attack, for that matter).
the purpose of this isn't to stop deaths. It is to entrench state power, increase agencies budget... and as they have to demonstrate that they are useful it will turn either into totalitarian hellhole with plenty 'making example of' public cases... or some attacks will go through on purpose to justify their budget after cuts...
did you write this message with ChatGPT?
> .. like smaller, less traceable bombs, or chemical weapons that are easily accessible and lead to higher casualties ..
it's very easy to build a bomb, you just need to "google" and make your shopping... Killing random people in the street is easy too, you have, among others, knifes - very easy to buy and commit a crime in side streets, etc.
No I did not use chatgpt. I've always written with a lot of em dashes, Chatgpt probably got it from me :-)
> it's very easy to build a bomb [...]
Yeah, what I'm saying though is that these attacks are not happening at a scale though that is large enough for people to need to worry about their own safety personally. Your personal chance of dying in a terrorist attack is so low that it's not worth thinking about (unless maybe you live in the middle east). I'm simply noting that this might not always be the case. It's easy to imagine, with better weapons, that terrorists become much more prolific in their ability to kill; under which scenario people could be willing to give up more to have more peace of mind.
Actually you can kill people just fine with only your hands. You just need to open a medicine book, there are a few spots, where a light hit achieves the intended effect.
If murder is common in the populace, then that means the social norms of that society have already drifted to the point where murder is acceptable. In that society, the murderers are probably running the government.
On your tangent about China, the people there are feeling so absolutely safe that they have the urge to install metal bars on every window of almost every home.
But China wasn't a honeypot for crime and fraud before they had the firewall, facial rec, and so on.
It is true that many Chinese citizens don't give it a thought.
But there's no demonstrable cause and effect going on there.
I think the reality is that as technology advanced for weapons, so too does it for information.
What I mean is, if we have super bombs or whatever, we would also certainly have unbreakable encryption. I mean, we have unbreakable encryption now basically.
So we're back to square one - terrorists terror, civilians are oppressed.
Also, if such weapons DO exist, the first people to use them would be government. Of which you cannot organize against, because you let them break your communications.
Better imagine a future where this old manufactured problem / manufactured solution brainwashing trick no longer works and devil's advocates get what they deserve
I get your point, but this is baked into the social contract in China. You obey the party, give up some personal freedoms, and in exchange the party will make sure you live a prosperous safe life.
The current EU political class has completely lost their Mandate of Heaven, they command 0 respect because they’re spineless empty bureaucrats looking for a cushy consulting job after they’re done being lobbied by their future employers.
Even if your utopian idea makes sense, I don’t trust the EU politicians to bring it to life, just virtue signal
Imagine a future where the government is the terrorist.