> You fight for your right to have more security holes in our system.
You aren't looking to plug any holes, just place a big flag in front of them and declare them handled. You want security theater the way you want a kiss from mom, to make you feel safe because the monsters under the bed are beyond your comprehension.
> I feel like you are on the side of the terrorists. If not, they love people like you.
I know you won't hear this, but hopefully someone like you and not emotionally invested in this will.
Things I do may actually decrease the number of threats in the world, or their severity. Thing you advocate for will only make things worse by ignoring real holes pointed out by real experts.
Not only is your knee-jerk security-over-freedom response and increase military spending exactly what the terrorists want (they broke the USSR doing this, they're well on their way to taking out the USA with the same system.) but by focusing on band-aids for the current manifestation of terrorism instead of real fixes you're the one creating not only the biggest public-works boondoggle ever, but one totally incapable of stopping attacks.
> If the error means any deaths, I don't want to take that chance to show you I'm right.
Of course not. You've misidentified and overblown a risk and you wouldn't want to stop harping on it, even if it's far less likely than things you could do something about.
> I would imagine you would then still blame the US government instead for their foreign policy.
Well, duh. Canada and Sweden aren't as hated.
But you throw this out there only to straw-man it, when it's the truth that you're allergic to. Other people are as smart as we are and if we humiliate and kill them they're going to do the same to us.
If you could clean up the crack problem in your town you'd cut down on theft far more than by buying everyone better locks. Because then the thieves would just break windows, mug people, do knock-invasions, etc.
You're pissing off (killing family and friends of) people with just as much drive and intellect as us here on HN and some of them are putting every minute of free time into literally devising way to kill smug first-world twits like yourself who sit around and act all paranoid about a 1/1M chance of dying in terrorism while your armed forces kill 1/150 Iraqis. Until you wake up you are going to be creating smart and dedicated enemies who will stop at nothing to ruin you - if only because it's the only way to get you to stop.
But I'm sure you'll just write this off as "Blaming the USA".
> How do you know? It's not like you can go back in time and change security to see if we have less attacks.
Because any decent geek can invent three ways to slip a weapon (a sharp edge, a thin poker, a tazer, incapacitating spray, etc) onto a plane. I've seen security confiscate collectible plates from someone, provide them with a stern lecture of the risks (which apparently include unarmed terrorist who fly speculatively, hoping to acquire a knitting needle, or plate shard from a fellow passenger), and send the hapless tourist on their way. Then, in the secure area of the terminal just 20m away, are stores selling virtually identical plates.
Obviously taking that plate did nothing except perhaps create a disgruntled person potentially willing to cause problems.
> Okay, so if we do take all the security precautions away and there are attacks, can we hold you (and everyone that wants this) personally responsible?
Sure. If we can hold you responsible for all the deaths that happened because we spent money on the DHS and the TSA instead of more ambulances and doctors. And the deaths caused by your armed forces (well over a million in the last ten years) in retribution for the attacks of an unrelated group on you.
> I let them see the error of their ways (usually with bad consequences).
Are you always this right about it?
> It's not useless security and it's very selfish of you to demand less security simply because you are inconvenienced. yes it means a little less freedom, but it's for your own good.
No, it is worthless security because it doesn't make us more secure. Because of that it's not for my good. So all the inconvenience is not only wasted, it's spent on a pointless and thuggish bureaucracy which breeds complacent followers so accustomed to being ordered around by armed officers they don't realize this isn't the USA once was.
> As a developer, it would be like saying that I want to fight for no firewall and updates because it slows down the process of development and makes things to complicated.
No, as a developer it would be like saying, "I don't care how many layers of ROTn you use, it doesn't provide any security."
I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to say that as a developer, and that it's especially reasonable to present my opinions on physical security too because I'm not only a consumer of society, but I pay for my piece of it and want to get something worthwhile.
You aren't looking to plug any holes, just place a big flag in front of them and declare them handled. You want security theater the way you want a kiss from mom, to make you feel safe because the monsters under the bed are beyond your comprehension.
> I feel like you are on the side of the terrorists. If not, they love people like you.
I know you won't hear this, but hopefully someone like you and not emotionally invested in this will.
Things I do may actually decrease the number of threats in the world, or their severity. Thing you advocate for will only make things worse by ignoring real holes pointed out by real experts.
Not only is your knee-jerk security-over-freedom response and increase military spending exactly what the terrorists want (they broke the USSR doing this, they're well on their way to taking out the USA with the same system.) but by focusing on band-aids for the current manifestation of terrorism instead of real fixes you're the one creating not only the biggest public-works boondoggle ever, but one totally incapable of stopping attacks.
> If the error means any deaths, I don't want to take that chance to show you I'm right.
Of course not. You've misidentified and overblown a risk and you wouldn't want to stop harping on it, even if it's far less likely than things you could do something about.
> I would imagine you would then still blame the US government instead for their foreign policy.
Well, duh. Canada and Sweden aren't as hated.
But you throw this out there only to straw-man it, when it's the truth that you're allergic to. Other people are as smart as we are and if we humiliate and kill them they're going to do the same to us.
If you could clean up the crack problem in your town you'd cut down on theft far more than by buying everyone better locks. Because then the thieves would just break windows, mug people, do knock-invasions, etc.
You're pissing off (killing family and friends of) people with just as much drive and intellect as us here on HN and some of them are putting every minute of free time into literally devising way to kill smug first-world twits like yourself who sit around and act all paranoid about a 1/1M chance of dying in terrorism while your armed forces kill 1/150 Iraqis. Until you wake up you are going to be creating smart and dedicated enemies who will stop at nothing to ruin you - if only because it's the only way to get you to stop.
But I'm sure you'll just write this off as "Blaming the USA".
> How do you know? It's not like you can go back in time and change security to see if we have less attacks.
Because any decent geek can invent three ways to slip a weapon (a sharp edge, a thin poker, a tazer, incapacitating spray, etc) onto a plane. I've seen security confiscate collectible plates from someone, provide them with a stern lecture of the risks (which apparently include unarmed terrorist who fly speculatively, hoping to acquire a knitting needle, or plate shard from a fellow passenger), and send the hapless tourist on their way. Then, in the secure area of the terminal just 20m away, are stores selling virtually identical plates.
Obviously taking that plate did nothing except perhaps create a disgruntled person potentially willing to cause problems.
> Okay, so if we do take all the security precautions away and there are attacks, can we hold you (and everyone that wants this) personally responsible?
Sure. If we can hold you responsible for all the deaths that happened because we spent money on the DHS and the TSA instead of more ambulances and doctors. And the deaths caused by your armed forces (well over a million in the last ten years) in retribution for the attacks of an unrelated group on you.
> I let them see the error of their ways (usually with bad consequences).
Are you always this right about it?
> It's not useless security and it's very selfish of you to demand less security simply because you are inconvenienced. yes it means a little less freedom, but it's for your own good.
No, it is worthless security because it doesn't make us more secure. Because of that it's not for my good. So all the inconvenience is not only wasted, it's spent on a pointless and thuggish bureaucracy which breeds complacent followers so accustomed to being ordered around by armed officers they don't realize this isn't the USA once was.
> As a developer, it would be like saying that I want to fight for no firewall and updates because it slows down the process of development and makes things to complicated.
No, as a developer it would be like saying, "I don't care how many layers of ROTn you use, it doesn't provide any security."
I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to say that as a developer, and that it's especially reasonable to present my opinions on physical security too because I'm not only a consumer of society, but I pay for my piece of it and want to get something worthwhile.