back to article What? El Reg had a cheap dig at Putin?! SAY IT AIN'T SO

Dissing Vladimir Putin and re-publishing all those hilarious "macho" PR pics of him over the years is a public service. Unfortunately, one Register reader disagrees. Happily, you all disagree with him. DISAGREECEPTION. First, before we show you that particular snippet, here's a few other little gobbets of joy from this week's …

  1. Chronos

    Windows 8 and dog pats

    I wrote a short essay on my first experiences with Windows 8 and the wonders of shutdown. There may be a few swearies in there.

    1. Frankee Llonnygog

      Re: Windows 8 and dog pats

      Rant of the week! I love that, after so many years, Windows still offers the equivalent of, "to Stop, click Go".

    2. VinceH

      Re: Windows 8 and dog pats

      "There may be a few swearies in there."

      It wasn't sweary enough.

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: Windows 8 and dog pats

        On closing W8 sometimes it does get a bit sweary --

        "Ah, fuck it!, Alt F4 it is then"

  2. Tapeador

    77 upvotes

    I'm just not sure how lots of people being wrong, makes wrong right. It isn't illiberal to claim that to surveil for would-be terrorists, requires checking out some who aren't terrorists - and that that requires mass surveillance. It is simply a factual, empirical claim, not a political or moral one, no matter what the spook referred to in the story says about 'people preferring a bit of surveillance' or so. It doesn't matter whether you prefer safety. Safety is prior to politics, prior to government even.

    The idea that because we feel dry (i.e. safe), therefore it isn't raining (i.e. there haven't been hundreds or thousands of attempted attacks, many of which would not have been possible to thwart without massive surveillance), is a deeply fallacious piece of logic.

    I mean I love the reg and its readers but I think with the greatest of respect, and I sincerely mean respect, you've all got this one very, very wrong.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 77 upvotes

      "The idea that because we feel dry (i.e. safe), therefore it isn't raining (i.e. there haven't been hundreds or thousands of attempted attacks, many of which would not have been possible to thwart without massive surveillance), is a deeply fallacious piece of logic."

      "Hundreds of thousands"? What color is the sky in your fearful little world?

      If you actually check the record, The vast majority of plots foiled have been stings where the deluded "terrorists" were recruited and groomed by law enforcement, then arrested by same at the scene of the act of "terrorism". There's been several dozen of these "Acts of terror", hardly "Hundreds of thousands".

      As for actual terrorist attacks, there are far fewer in the Western world*, and most of those were bungled to the point that the only ones harmed were the terrorists themselves, when they weren't stopped by the police.

      As for actual, successful terrorist attacks, including 911, you can count those on the fingers of both hands, and have fingers left over, and your chances of dying by terrorist acts in the west is still on par with being killed by XKCD's "Dog swimming with a gun in his mouth".

      *Step into the Middle East, and acts of terror are a daily occurrence, and have been for centuries. Seems the only thing terrorists hate more than infidels, are Muslims that don't agree with them.

      1. Ossi

        Re: 77 upvotes

        "If you actually check the record, The vast majority of plots foiled have been stings where the deluded "terrorists" were recruited and groomed by law enforcement, then arrested by same at the scene of the act of "terrorism". "

        I'm very interested in this. Do you have any links to support this claim?

        1. Captain DaFt

          Re: 77 upvotes

          And the top 5 are:

          5. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fbi-sting-operation-nabs-another-supposed-terrorist/

          4. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/politics/30fbi.html?pagewanted=all

          3. http://www.popcenter.org/Responses/sting_operations/print/

          2. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/14/how-to-create-and-capture-terrorists-in-the-name-of-security/

          And topping the chart at #1 this week:

          https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140722/14463127971/report-all-four-high-profile-domestic-terrorism-plots-last-decade-were-crafted-ground-up-fbi.shtml

          And as a bonus:

          https://www.americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Foiled-Plots.pdf

          gives an overview of the whole 'War on Terror' post 911.

          (Hint: Dumb luck and the average Joe have a far better track record at thwarting terrorism than all the 'five eyes' spooks combined.)

    2. jake Silver badge

      Re: 77 upvotes

      "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759

      Or put another way, mass surveillance quashes freedom of speech.

    3. Cipher

      Re: 77 upvotes

      Explain how the Boston Bombers slipped right past our protectors, even with advance fucking warnings?

      100's of thousands of foiled plots? Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ man, you are one deluded person...

      1. jake Silver badge

        @Cipher (was: Re: 77 upvotes)

        "Explain how the Boston Bombers slipped right past our protectors, even with advance fucking warnings?"

        It's a freedom thing. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

        As I posted after this post over four years ago:

        http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/898978

        "What do *you* call people who destroy large buildings full of civilians, marketplaces full of civilians, public spaces full of civilians (hello, Mr. McVeigh) or try to blow up airplanes with bombs in their shoes, then? Accountants?"

        I also call them statistically meaningless events brought about by politically & religiously intolerant xenophobic nutcases. I do not view them as a sound base with which to format national security measures.

        But if you want to live in fear that Bin Laden's few educated loons who were capable of actually learning to fly big jets *AND* were willing to die for the cause not only can be, but SHOULD be lumped under the same umbrella as McVeigh, right-wing Republican Catholic, and decorated Desert Storm veteran that he was ... Well, I personally don't want to live with what I perceive as your paranoid world-view. Life's too short.

        (Before anyone says it, yes, I feel for the friends & families of the deceased. I'm not a monster. Nobody should have to go thru' what they did ... And for the record, everyone I know in the offices of Sun Microsystems got out of the WTC alive ... Would my opinion change otherwise? Quite honestly, I don't know. But I seriously doubt it. Random events have rarely riled me up emotionally.)

  3. Elmer Phud

    Phwaooor - Putin!

    I thoough those photo's of Mr Putin demonstrating that he is a man of the people and not afraid to wrestle poodles and win:

    (thanks, Viv)

    "Disfiguring and ugly, my facial hair

    I had removed electrically.

    I rejuvenated my energy cells

    And regained my virility (grunt grunt).

    (He put my hand on my heart?),

    (I am changing the part?).

    He had a machine for a mummy.

    Please be gentle with me:

    I come to pieces literally.

    Look out there's a monster coming!

    Look out there's a monster coming!

    Look out there's a monster coming!

    (...fade)

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hi!

    I just wanted to meta-comment on the comments about the comments. Cheers. :o)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon