> is to monitor all Muslims living in Europe
And Christians, of course (Brevik). Probably atheists and Jews as well, just in case.
And Christians, of course (Brevik). Probably atheists and Jews as well, just in case.
> is to monitor all Muslims living in Europe who have the potential to be radicalised
The last part of that is important. I'm talked about targeted surveillance.
The way I see it, targeted surveillance of these at-risk groups should be possible, and specifically in relation to terrorism or extremism in general it might even be effective. There are volumes of studies on how radicalization occurs, or how cults work, and what problems are caused by jobless young men disconnected from society around them (both by upbringing and through various forms of racism/classism, hidden or otherwise). The process is not exactly mysterious.
That said, I get the impression that there's a huge gap between what researchers know about these processes, and how this is used by police, 'neighborhood watchers', and schools, and possibly even intelligence agencies.
I'll also add that regardless of how effective targeted surveillance might be, on a 'gut' level I feel uncomfortable with this scenario and would not be in favor of it. I can't quite articulate why at this point, but personally I'd still prefer not significantly changing our way of life over the, so far, infrequent terrorist attacks. Perhaps the best answer is to simply not let it phase us and continue with life. Most other solutions feel like (partly) playing into the hands of terrorists. But I don't think that's a realistic option, sadly, and perhaps it's easy for me to say these things without having felt the effects of such terrorist attacks personally.
It's not the targeted survielence as such, but the consequences of institutionalize the process by which you select who should be monitored.
It's one thing to monitor an individual you have good reasons to suspect are involved with a serious crime. Another to start monitoring people based on some vague selection criteria based on probability.
I see two scary implementations of such a process
1. Machine Learning. Some algorithm monitoring as much data as possible ("it's not survielence no human is watching...") will select people to suspect. Lots of hard to diagnose false positives will get their life's destroyed.
2. Some arbitration process where people decide who to suspect. Even more false positives, and frankly miss use of power for political reasons.
In both scenarios people will also start to become very anxious about having dissenting opinions, or non standard interests in fear of getting "flagged" by one of the above mechanisms.
In the end the system won't be used to create a free world but as another weapon to wield by those happen to have the most influence at any given moment.
"all muslims living in Europe who have the potential to be radicalised" is the subset of muslims who have the potential to be radicalised.
Your comment would have been valid if he/she had written "all muslims living in Europe, who have the potential to be radicalised."
Yes, syntax matters. The HN crowd ought to know. ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_No...
Comité régional d'action viticole (CRAV, Regional Committee for Viticultural Action), or sometimes Comité d'action viticole (CAV, Committee for Viticultural Action) is a French group of radical wine producers. It has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks including dynamiting grocery stores, a winery, the agriculture ministry offices in two cities, burning a car at another, hijacking a tanker, and destroying large quantities of non-French wine.
Also see: Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Ted Kaczynski. (American examples because that's what I'm most familiar with)
It makes no sense whatsoever to concentrate on Muslims over every other group on the planet. And no, it isn't more likely for radicalization to occur among Muslims.