According to Anders Thornberg SÄPO manager (Swedish Security Police) has staved off two terrorist attacks in Sweden this past year. It has been at such an early stage that no crime been time committed.

https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svt.se%2Fnyheter%2Fsverige%2Fsapo-80-svenskar-har-atervant-fran-kriget&edit-text=
And http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=75775&postid=1627084

See, here is the problem. The people telling you that those programs work are the people who have a direct interest in keeping those programs around. They know that they stand a better chance of having those programs around if they tell that it totally helps them stop terrorists. I mean, these are the same people that will tell you to your face that torture totally has resulted in unique and otherwise unobtainable intelligence when its proven beyond any doubt that torture does not work and has never worked.
Everything these people tell you about what they need to do their job is suspect because they have constantly lied about it, in order to keep highly intrusive and unethical programs around.

LOL. Perhaps some flag waving is nescessary:)
We do have transparency here. A lot.
We leave conspiration theories to other countries.

Doucumentary The Rise of the ISIS.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/rise-of-isis/
It's scary that the ISIS has mobilized so quickly.
In less then 2 years from virtually nothing to what they are now.

Ahmed Aboutaleb, Moroccan-born Mayor of Rotterdam tells fellow Muslims who do not appreciate the 'freedoms' of living in the West to 'pack your bags and f*** off' on live TV

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html

FINALLY!!!!!

Already saw that but being the Daily Mail & seeing some posters intense hatred for that paper & my views, I left it for others :-)

LOL. Perhaps some flag waving is nescessary:)
We do have transparency here. A lot.
We leave conspiration theories to other countries.

Im sure you have a lot of transparency in general. But I doubt that when it comes directly from the intelligence agencies themselves. Its in their nature to be as opaque as possible, and unless their is an actual independent inquiry that shows those few people caught through mass surveillance methods, and who could have only been caught through mass surveillance methods, I will assume that guy is lying.

I'm sorry, but whenever an intelligence agency talks about itself, I will assume that they are lying unless proven otherwise.

Ahmed Aboutaleb, Moroccan-born Mayor of Rotterdam tells fellow Muslims who do not appreciate the 'freedoms' of living in the West to 'pack your bags and f*** off' on live TV

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html

FINALLY!!!!!

Already saw that but being the Daily Mail & seeing some posters intense hatred for that paper & my views, I left it for others :-)

Yeah, trust them to make it sound harsher than it actually was. To clarify, he didn't actually say f*** off. A better translation would be 'sod off' or something similar like that. Words matter.

Also, I guess he has to prove his 'loyalty' to the Netherlands given his background by being as blunt as possible in his condemnations.

LOL. Perhaps some flag waving is nescessary:)
We do have transparency here. A lot.
We leave conspiration theories to other countries.

Im sure you have a lot of transparency in general. But I doubt that when it comes directly from the intelligence agencies themselves. Its in their nature to be as opaque as possible, and unless their is an actual independent inquiry that shows those few people caught through mass surveillance methods, and who could have only been caught through mass surveillance methods, I will assume that guy is lying.

I'm sorry, but whenever an intelligence agency talks about itself, I will assume that they are lying unless proven otherwise.

Sigh...
The Swedish Security Police doesn't have some secret agenda.
They dont fabricate events.
You make it sound that security agencies in general have a boss like J Edgar Hoover.
No. Every decision is closely monitored by the government.
Especially when it comes to terror attacks.

Sigh...
The Swedish Security Police doesn't have some secret agenda.
They dont fabricate events.
You make it sound that security agencies in general have a boss like J Edgar Hoover.
No. Every decision is closely monitored by the government.
Especially when it comes to terror attacks.

Yeah keep telling yourself that.

Take a look at Luxembourg. Not a country you would associate with a shady intelligence community right? Well, except for the fact that they set off a car bomb in the late 80's to prove their worth to the politicians and prevent being crippled by budget cuts. Also a myriad of other corruption events. It actually caused the previous Luxembourg government to fall after this came out.

If I can't trust the intelligence community of Luxembourg, of the Netherlands, the UK and of the United States, then why the hell should I trust the intelligence community of Sweden or any other country? I have yet to see any proof that they can be trusted.

Perhaps is 'Loyalty' is to FREEDOM.

Why do you believe a Muslim can't believe in Freedom?

Because he is a politician first and foremost. Politicians aren't loyal to such lofty concepts like freedom. They are loyal to their own positions of power and the people who provide them those positions of power, and only for as long as they need to be. Doubly so if he is a member of one of the big three parties (and he is).

On top of that, you have to understand Dutch culture. We have become incredibly racist towards Muslims over the past 15 years. Its not that I believe that Muslims dont believe in freedom, its that a lot of other Dutch people believe that. You can be sure that our xenophobic racist party is going to surge in the polling and quite possibly make significant gains in the upcoming elections. As a politician from the established parties, who are currently doing extremely bad in the polls, this is for the most part damage control.

As I have always said. Wait long enough, and be patient enough, and peoples true stance usually comes out.

By that statement Мишель has has more or less condemned himself to being a European nomad, wandering the Western world with no real homeland to call his own. Trust nobody, dislike everybody, must be a pretty lonely existence. Then again this is just his Internet personna. He might be the life and soul of the party somewhere laughing up his sleeve at a good giggle .....

How do I go from not trusting one very specific set of institutions (intelligence agencies) to not trusting anyone from everywhere? Especially when I have good reasons not to trust those intelligence agencies?

On top of that, you have to understand Dutch culture. We have become incredibly racist towards Muslims over the past 15 years. Its not that I believe that Muslims dont believe in freedom, its that a lot of other Dutch people believe that. You can be sure that our xenophobic racist party is going to surge in the polling and quite possibly make significant gains in the upcoming elections. As a politician from the established parties, who are currently doing extremely bad in the polls, this is for the most part damage control.

Not only the Netherlands:(
So what happens? The muslim World reacts.
Surprised?

Shall we begin a lesson on data mining? Oh, wait, people will need a prerequisite amount of math and statistics knowledge.

Fact remains that for all that data collection they have done, every independent inquiry done into the effectiveness of the program has found that it has not helped at all.

As far as I know, you're pretty much correct.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Shall we begin a lesson on data mining? Oh, wait, people will need a prerequisite amount of math and statistics knowledge.

Fact remains that for all that data collection they have done, every independent inquiry done into the effectiveness of the program has found that it has not helped at all.

As far as I know, you're pretty much correct.

May I amend, every unclassified independent inquiry ....

We don't know what the classified inquiries have found, as well we should not. Don't put methods on public display.

I only note that the Paris attack is post Snowden, and he let a lot of methods out of the bag so people can now evade them or use them for counter intelligence.

---

May I amend, every unclassified independent inquiry ....

We don't know what the classified inquiries have found, as well we should not. Don't put methods on public display.

No, this is unacceptable. Decisions of such magnitude are made for me without my knowledge or consent. We are supposed to be an open, democratic society where the power lies with the people. If the people are not informed about the exact nature of the work done by the intelligence agencies, and its effectiveness in actually stopping terrorists, they cannot make informed decision over whether they are willing to trade privacy for security.

I only note that the Paris attack is post Snowden, and he let a lot of methods out of the bag so people can now evade them or use them for counter intelligence.

And it should be noted that all perpetrators of the Paris attacks were known to the French intelligence community. Even post Snowden its entirely within the capabilities of the intelligence agencies to track potential terrorists.

Gary is right. No intelligence agency worth its salt is going to disclose all the information they have, nor how effective they have been in detection and prevention. To do that would give the game away big time. If to reassure the public, MI5 came out and said they had foiled every plot over the last year, that would warn the terrorists that they needed to change their tactics and communications. And we'd have to start over again. The public need to have confidence about their safety without giving too much away, it is necessarily a difficult balance.

The public needs to be kept informed or otherwise a democracy is not going to work. And the scale on which intelligence agencies are breaching EVERYONE'S privacy has only stressed this. If people are really so afraid that they are okay with the government listening in on everything they say and do online, then so be it, but it must people the decision of the people, not a decision made by a handful of people in some boardroom.

Had those Snowden hacks not happened, I would have trusted the government and the intelligence agencies to do their job and I wouldn't have wanted to know how they went about doing their job. I would have assumed that they would have done it still respecting the fundamental elements on which our society is build. Now it has become clear that my trust was misplaced, and because of that, I need to know what they are doing, how they are doing it, and whether it is effective or not. Because they have made it abundantly clear that they cannot be trusted to make these decisions without public oversight.

It was said at the time that Snowden was a traitor that had put peoples lives in danger, but others said no, he was a hero. After Paris some people may wish to change their minds.

People who say this make terrorists sooo happy. Its exactly what they want, make people so scared they give fundamental rights away for the illusion of safety. Which is a ridiculously bad deal, given what a tiny problem terrorism in the West really is.

Oh my word. Who the hell are you then? The most important person in the world? Somebody very special? You seem to have a very high opinon of yourself. Security Agencies are controlled for the most part by Governments. Governments are either dictatorships where you aren't SUPPOSED to know what is going on, or they are democratically elected by the people. They then operate with an electoral mandate on BEHALF of the people.

I'm not the only person in the world. With me there are 17 million other Dutch people. Non of them ever had a say in this. Those decisions of that magnitude were also made without their knowledge or consent.

We are supposed to be an open, democratic society where the power lies with the people.

Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is the principle that the authority of the government is created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives (Rule by the People), who are the source of all political power. It is closely associated with republicanism. The people have the final say in government decisions.

Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality.

Note the final sentence above.

See, that is problematic. You are right, we give our politicians a certain mandate. However, that mandate is limited. Once you are elected, it does not give you free reign to do whatever you want until the next elections come. Now, generally intelligence agencies are never part of the election debates, or even of political parties manifestos. We do not and can not elect parties or people because we like their view on what to do with the Intelligence agencies so much. Hence, they have no real mandate.

Now, unlike what you think, I'm not being unreasonable. I dont think they need the peoples express permission to set up an intelligence agency and have it assess and monitor threats and have the police intervene as soon as it becomes necessary. But where I gave them my hand, they took my entire arm. They went so far beyond what people can reasonably expect from their elected government in a free and democratic society, that yes, they should have informed us. I mean they went and set up a monitoring system of the scale and magnitude the likes Kim Jong Un have dreams off. If a government goes that far into 'surveillance system that dictators would just love to have themselves' I think its safe to claim that they went faaaaaaaaar outside of their mandate.

That is the biggest oxy-moron I have seen for a long time. You are typical of a uni student in their twenties with their head in the idealistic clouds of academia. Go away and finish your degree, then come back and join the real world.

That is the second time you called me a typical uni student. Again, clarify what a 'typical' uni student is exactly.

Also, spare me that 'real world' nonsense. Its possibly one of the dumbest, childish arguments I've ever heard. Its a last resort when you have no actual rational arguments left, so you resort to 'but you live in a fantasy world, just wait until you go into the 'real world'.'

In whose opinion, yours? I think we can all see how much weight your thoughts carry around here. And in any case you are wrong.

The UK Security Service comes under the authority of the Home Secretary within the Cabinet. The service is directed by the Joint Intelligence Committee. The service is overseen by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Members of Parliament, directly appointed by the Prime Minister. Judicial oversight of the service's conduct is exercised by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

Who do you think elects the PM and MP's? yep, the people. How much more public control do you want?

And those MP's and the PM completely forget or failed to inform the public that they just went ahead and got rid of your online privacy. Well there you have it, that only proves that indirect oversight doesn't work.

Look, just because I get to elect the person that does the oversight doesn't mean there is public control of any kind. The whole system you just described is set up as a black box. Its impossible for anyone outside of that system to know what happens inside the system. Therefor it is impossible for us to see whether the people we elected to be our representatives inside that system are doing their jobs right.

If the security services were as open as you think they should be just for your personal peace of mind, they simply couldn't do their job. You are the one out of synch with everyone else, but it is not surprising you can't see it.

First of all, thats nonsense. All I'm asking of them is that they don't just go ahead and breach everyones privacy. I don't need to know who they are monitoring as potential terrorists, I don't need to know their methods, I dont need to know about who works for them. So they can still do their job effectively. Second of all, lets be clear here, they have overstepped their bounds. They have betrayed the publics trust by setting up a surveillance system that can best be described as 'Orwellian'. So they should be the ones doing their best to convince the public that they can be trusted and that they are in fact a much bigger threat to my liberty than terrorists. Lets not forget who they work for and who pays for them.

given what a tiny problem terrorism in the West really is

After the Paris outrages a statement like that is guaranteed to have got you on the "no-fly" lists throughout Europe, and quite rightly too.

Really, pointing out one very simple fact, namely that terrorism kills as much people as bee and wasp stings, should land me on a no-fly list? Why? Explain your reasoning. Take me through the process in your head that leads to the conclusion that I'm a danger and can't be trusted to take a plane.

Also, if that were true, and the statements I made on this site result in me no longer being able to fly perfectly illustrate my point about the intelligence agencies being a much bigger threat to my liberty. Without making threats, without expressing support for terrorism or extremist and violent movements, but simply using my right of free speech to point out the ridiculous nature of our fear for terrorism, I have been branded a security threat and banned from travelling by plane.

Of course, I'm probably not on any no fly lists because unlike you, intelligence agencies aren't that threatened by people publicly disagreeing with them.

[talk to 5 year old mode on]

The people of France, and especially Paris, are quite rightly angry and upset that, terrorist activity from both Al Quaede and IS in their capital city, has killed 17 innocent people. If you were to take a flight from the Netherlands to France and walk around the streets of Paris saying

"Terrorism is a fuss about nothing, hardly anyone gets killed, as many people die from bee and wasp stings", you would most likely end up in hospital requiring urgent treatment at the cost of the French authorities. There could also be a breach of the peace requiring a police presence.

Perhaps, or perhaps now more than ever the Parisian people respect that I have a right to say these things.

And should they feel the need to hurt me because I'm stating a simple, observable fact, well thats on them, not me. Facts don't care about your feelings or opinions, they are facts.

If some Parisian believed you and thought Ok, I won't keep my eyes open for anything dodgy there is no need, it could undermine the Authorities asking people to be vigilant to prevent future attacks.

Kind of a stretch and unrelated. I never said that people shouldn't be vigilant simply because its not such a massive problem and I don't see how people take this from what Im saying. I think people should always be vigilant. Also, I'm not responsible to how people react to what I'm saying.

Therefore I strongly suggest that it is very likely that all major world security Agencies monitor public bulletin boards, and Seti would be no exception. It is therefore likely that European countries and others would see your radical views as simply not wanted, unhelpful, and counter-productive. and therefore you would be kept away.

Don't you hear yourself talking? Radical views? You think that again, noting a very simple fact, is having a radical view?

You know whats a radical view? An actually dangerous view? A downright fascist view? The bull you have been saying right here right now. The idea that someones opinion is dangerous. That facts are dangerous. That if the facts or opinion don't stroke with the governments or intelligence agencies views, those facts and opinions should be suppressed, kept away, be silenced. And that in order to do such a thing, all public message boards in the world should be closely monitored, its members screened and those with 'radical views' should be put on no fly lists and other government watch lists.

This is textbook Göring, latching on some horrible terrorist event to suppress civil liberties and personal freedoms, supposedly out of public safety, expanding government powers to an absurd degree, and everyone who calls this nonsense out is either a dangerous 'radical' or doesn't live in the 'real world' or is generally unpatriotic.

Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

In your opinion. People like you use free speech in the same way as hate preachers do, both undermine the type of society that the rest of us want to live in.

The type of society you are advocating is called Nazi Germany. I very much doubt thats what 'the rest of us wants'.

Don't you hear yourself talking? Radical views? You think that again, noting a very simple fact, is having a radical view?

You know whats a radical view? An actually dangerous view? A downright fascist view? The bull you have been saying right here right now. The idea that someones opinion is dangerous. That facts are dangerous. That if the facts or opinion don't stroke with the governments or intelligence agencies views, those facts and opinions should be suppressed, kept away, be silenced. And that in order to do such a thing, all public message boards in the world should be closely monitored, its members screened and those with 'radical views' should be put on no fly lists and other government watch lists.

This is textbook Göring, latching on some horrible terrorist event to suppress civil liberties and personal freedoms, supposedly out of public safety, expanding government powers to an absurd degree, and everyone who calls this nonsense out is either a dangerous 'radical' or doesn't live in the 'real world' or is generally unpatriotic.

+1

---

Is it not important that people here can say what they like about governments without the fear that they will be automatically seen as an undesirable or terrorist.

Terrorist, note the word terror, that is what they wish to create and what we must not let happen, this is not an excuse to clamp down on freedoms.

I was working in London in the days after the tube bombings, some said I was mad and they wouldn't go on the tube, I did.

Terrorism is evil, what happened in Paris is evil, but if we loose our freedoms because of terrorism, and fear to live our lives then they have won.

---

Don't you hear yourself talking? Radical views? You think that again, noting a very simple fact, is having a radical view?

You know whats a radical view? An actually dangerous view? A downright fascist view? The bull you have been saying right here right now. The idea that someones opinion is dangerous. That facts are dangerous. That if the facts or opinion don't stroke with the governments or intelligence agencies views, those facts and opinions should be suppressed, kept away, be silenced. And that in order to do such a thing, all public message boards in the world should be closely monitored, its members screened and those with 'radical views' should be put on no fly lists and other government watch lists.

This is textbook Göring, latching on some horrible terrorist event to suppress civil liberties and personal freedoms, supposedly out of public safety, expanding government powers to an absurd degree, and everyone who calls this nonsense out is either a dangerous 'radical' or doesn't live in the 'real world' or is generally unpatriotic.

+1

-1000

+1002