I would apply the same to any "anti-terror" legislation.

The "effective cost" of any given threat is the potential cost when the threat becomes reality multiplied by the chance of it happening.

The potential cost of being a terror victim is high. You could be killed or seriously injured. We can give it a score of 1 (on the scale from 0 to 1). But the chance of that happening is quite low, in parts per million. Let's be generous and give it 1 in 100,000, i.e. 0.00001. Multiply the two and you get 0.00001.

The potential cost of the impact of any "anti-terror" legislation (say, the "Patriot Act") is hard to quantify as it depends greatly on everyone's personal circumstances. If you run Wikileaks or are a member of Greenpeace then presumably the cost is higher than if you work as a lollipop lady. But everyone is impacted to some extent and we can assume an average score. Let's say one ten-thousandth of the cost of being killed, i.e. 0.0001. But the chance of that happening is a certainty, i.e. 1. Multiply the two and you get 0.0001, which is ten times higher than the "effective cost" of being a terror victim.

These figures are of course hugely inaccurate and, in any case, assume only averages. The chance of being caught up in a terror attack is much greater to for example airport security staff or even frequent travellers. But I hope you get the idea.

So what can the government do to push through any personal freedom restricting legislation? Quite a lot, it turns out. They can hugely exaggerate the danger of being a terror victim. Easy to do, just make sure any incident is reported extensively. Media are willing, albeit usually unwitting collaborators in that effort ("bad news sell"). What else? They can play down both the potential cost of surveillance ("if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear") and the chance of it happening ("it is targeting the bad guys, not you"). It is up to us to see through that BS.

Pichlo, what the funk are you talking about?

He is making sense, unlike you usually do.
No wonder you don't understand him...

What the puck. Never said he didn’t. I didn’t even read that wall of text. A summary would be great! But I still wonder why he qoute his own post. That is fishy.

Yeah, a date with the 3D printer

What the duck.

What do you say when there is a word you are not allowed to say?

He is right you know....
the future is here...
and it is ruled by bureaucrats ....
terry gilliam was right.
"Brazil" was the future..
(rather our present now...)
highly suggested watching it.

Right is good, the future is good, bureaucrats are good.

Remove rights, future and bureaucrats and we are in a dangerous place.

Brazil?

Dave999, the model citizen. Who would have thunk?

What the thunk?

Never ever encountered the word thunk.

think thunk thonk

@pichlo, was that question direct to me. Raise your hand, if not. Carry on.