Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"No, it could mean better technology, maybe better security, maybe MORE security."

Is it cold to point out that we are already living in an age of more security? There were paramilitary police teams at the marathon, ready to take on a small army -- but the attackers found a way to plant their bombs anyway.

When the TSA was established and billions of dollars were spent on securing our airlines, a tiny minority of people were saying that if another attack occurred it would not be on an airplane. Now we have seen another attack, it was not on an airplane nor anywhere near an airport. We do no need another massive security bureaucracy designed to prevent marathons or city streets from being attacked, because that will just push terrorists to attack something else. There are far too many ways to attack a country as large and developed as the United States to have a sprawling bureaucracy for all of them.

"I hope no new laws come of something like this, but if it means reducing the chance that this happens again, I am all for it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_by_whiskey

"We can't let ourselves become 1984, but we can become safer, smarter, more efficient with regards to security."

Every time we become "more efficient" about domestic security, we sacrifice our rights. What makes you think this time will be different?



Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: