# Things We've Learned Since 9/11



## AWP (Sep 16, 2013)

I'll probably hate myself for posting this, but it is actually thought provoking. From the humor website Cracked. Seriously.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-weirdest-things-weve-learned-since-911/


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 16, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I'll probably hate myself for posting this, but it is actually thought provoking. From the humor website Cracked. Seriously.
> 
> http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-weirdest-things-weve-learned-since-911/



Saw that the other day. Some of it is spot on.


----------



## comrade-z (Sep 16, 2013)

I like most of the ideas Cracked put forward, but it goes in a few too many directions, in a sense.  Main example being that it says that we should be (somewhat) up in arms about the invasions of privacy, but earlier in the article it says that going through with something like a terrorist bombing is so hard....because government officials are tracking much more information than before.  Both are completely valid points, I just wish they had been brought together in a more cohesive manner (personal preference).  

But yeah, Cracked writes some awesome articles, and I love how they cite just about everything - if only that was more common.


----------



## JHD (Sep 16, 2013)

IMOO, the US spends entirely too much attempting to stop terror attacks.  Granted, I know we can't hear about everything, but it seems like the attacks that have been stopped have been from people speaking up when necessary, and luck, rather than the extreme measures that have been put in place to stop low probability events.  I am just not sure it is worth the trade off, but admittedly, I am not in the field.  It looks a little like overkill to me.  Again, JMOO.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 16, 2013)

JHD said:


> IMOO, the US spends entirely too much attempting to stop terror attacks.  Granted, I know we can't hear about everything, but it seems like the attacks that have been stopped have been from people speaking up when necessary, and luck, rather than the extreme measures that have been put in place to stop low probability events.  I am just not sure it is worth the trade off, but admittedly, I am not in the field.  It looks a little like overkill to me.  Again, JMOO.


 
This post confuses me... you state that we spend too much in our attempt to stop terror attacks, but that most attacks are from citizens speaking up, and that there are extreme measures in place to stop low probability attacks, and then nullify everything you said by stating you are not in the field.

I agree we have a large expenditure on anti-terror, but neither you nor me knows how many attacks were stopped by the efforts of the machinery in place...  because, that information is classified as it should be, so the terrorists don't know. 

I think that there is room for some reduction in expenditures, as in any bureaucratic machine.... how much?  I have no idea.  But to state overkill with no supporting facts, even as your opinion, is abit of a stretch, IMOO.


----------



## JHD (Sep 16, 2013)

Just as an observation as a citizen, and partly my position on the periphery of implementing the USA PATRIOT Act.  And, yes, I agree that there are rightly secrets that need to be kept.  I also think some of the events that have been stopped (if some have been secretly stopped) would have been "leaked" in an effort for .gov to justify there increased expenses with the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, etc., and the increased use of SWAT teams, the requirements and restrictions put on the private sector to assist the govt. in catching the bad guy.  For the instances that have been stopped that we know about, the circumstances surrounding finding out who the perps were came from ordinary citizens, and not so much the huge surveillance machine that has been built up since 9-11.

The 100's of millions the govt has spent, in addition to  the costs forced on the private sector to implement requirements don't seem to be a very good ROI.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 16, 2013)

I'd rather not discuss the Patriot Act - as a veteran of SF, I'm now on more watch lists due to that debacle of a goat F**k, because I'm dangerous, unstable and own a rifle and a pistol or two, and present a grave threat to the government?   I believe I swore to "...protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."  and I actually meant it.  Nothing against you or the spirit of the Patriot Act, it's the implementation and usurpation of authority that galls me.

Seems dichotomous doesn't it...  allowing for the secrecy of operations but not wanting to be 'under a microscope' by DHS...  it's a balancing act, academically and emotionally and intellectually.

as to the final part of your post - the first rule of economics is that everything has a price - be it time, money or labor.  Security ahs a cost - I'd rather it be dollars alone than dollars and freedoms as it has been going.

The black helicopters will be here to pick me up soon... (kidding about the black helicopters)


----------



## JHD (Sep 16, 2013)

I had serious mixed feelings about the implementation.  I worked on this with four different banks, and we had serious long discussions on the best way to implement while complying with the letter and spirit of the law, but to protect our customers.

Am with you on rather spend money rather than lose freedoms, and I don't know the answer on how many dollars to cut, where or what to cut.  I can only say from the outside looking in, we have spent too much.  The four banks I worked on this with probably easily pent collectively more than $12 million, and that is probably on the low side. That is a drop in the bucket compared to what the gov spent, in addition to all the other businesses forced to comply.

Penalties for non-compliance could result in fines large enough to shut doors, and if egregious and willful, could result in jail time.  Needless to say, everyone wanted/needed to comply to avoid the penalties.


----------



## comrade-z (Sep 16, 2013)

JHD said:


> I also think some of the events that have been stopped (if some have been secretly stopped) would have been "leaked" in an effort for .gov to justify there increased expenses.....



Not necessarily - lets remember that one political movement or another will always find reason to think that it was just a publicity stunt, or used to draw attention away from efforts to push some legislature through.  Just as one example, when Michael Jackson died there was a brief frenzy of articles written, "calling out" Obama for using the distraction to push some law or another through.  I doubt the government would catch less flak when it is their decision to release the material, rather than the coincidence that a celebrity died.

Note - I am making no statement about my personal beliefs as to whether such events are truly suspicious or random happenstance.


----------

