@masek@infosec.exchange @Leszek_Karlik@circumstances.run The difference between a tyranny and trying to find terrorists is that the tyranny has many, many more true positives. Example: Mao started his land reform with 杀一儆百, kill one, warn 100, and in effect, about 10% of the landlords were killed. Roughly 5-10% of the rural population were landlords, so not just a few. Finding the landlords was easy, the other villagers knew them, and they were tasked with punishing them. In effect, this act of violence didn't backfire. Most villagers had an axe to grind with their landlords, and benefited from redistributed land. Especially, since many landlords gave away their land only on paper, and demanded the same lease afterwards, using their old network of thugs, so they had to be killed (including the thugs). Similar acts of redistributions happened when Jews were ousted by the Nazis. Not to everyone, but it created an incentive to find Jews, Communists, and whatnot. All of those weren't so rare that false positives were rare enough. How many innocent did Freisler kill? From a Nazi point of view, despite the fact that his court didn't meet any standards, not many.