Security guru Bruce Schneier on the way we respond to terrorism, and what actually makes us safe versus what makes us feel safe versus what makes politicians look like they’re making us safe.
Spoiler alert: The first is almost never the second or third.
By not overreacting, by not responding to movie-plot threats, and by not becoming defensive, we demonstrate the resilience of our society, in our laws, our culture, our freedoms. There is a difference between indomitability and arrogant “bring ’em on” rhetoric. There’s a difference between accepting the inherent risk that comes with a free and open society, and hyping the threats.
We should treat terrorists like common criminals and give them all the benefits of true and open justice — not merely because it demonstrates our indomitability, but because it makes us all safer.
Once a society starts circumventing its own laws, the risks to its future stability are much greater than terrorism.
Despite fearful rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is not a transcendent threat. A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy a country’s way of life; it’s only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage. The more we undermine our own laws, the more we convert our buildings into fortresses, the more we reduce the freedoms and liberties at the foundation of our societies, the more we’re doing the terrorists’ job for them.
The whole thing is worth a read.
The Conservative troll thinks Schneier is mostly correct about not over reacting and creating an ‘under siege-fortress’ mentality being a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
However, international non-US citizen “terrorists” should not be treated like US citizen common criminals once they are apprehended. A separate system closer to the way we would treat enemy combatants taken on the field of battle is a more appropriate treatment.
Living in Fear is un-American.
I would agree with the overall premise that you don’t let terrorists or the government tell us how we will live our lives. If we want to live in a constant state of fear, that is our choice. Most people are going to still get on planes. I think far more people won’t because of the time-consuming safety procedures rather than an actual terrorist threat. (I saw on tv yesterday extremely long lines for check-in and it would make me think twice.)
But I do think that he’s wrong about being vigilant and taking the time to look around. We all have eyes and brains, use your gut. If something looks off, it probably is.
I do think it funny that now the last hour of flight is the “golden hour” and so they enact these dopey rules. The last guy may have not had any good reason to wait until then except he was running scared. We don’t know. But saying, no bathroom in the last hour or no books in your lap is just hilarious. Also, no tv screen with a map on it. Seriously? That’s not going to help.
We can get the full body scanners but again, they have problems (and not just privacy ones). They can’t see anything in body orifices (a problem right there) but it seems like women who use sanitary pads might get yanked out everytime. That could be a huge number of women/girls and naturally, some degree of embarrassment all around.
Will, you are right, but using fear to further your political agenda is why the Republican Party/conservatives are ultimately un-American.
Dick Cheney fucked everything up and now he won’t shut the fuck up. He really is the quintessential asshole.
@6 – why won’t Satan call him home already?
and this is news? this has been true since Sep 11, 2001 and before… terror = fear, so hmmm…. the goal of terrorism is what… to instill fear? mission accomplished for the terrorists.
To quote JFK “the price of freedom is high, but Americans have always paid it, and one course we shall never choose is surrender or submission” that price includes accepting losses due to “terror” attacks.
You work to decrease the likelihood but you don’t alter your society in fundamental ways out of fear of them… you go on. This is civics 101 and America is getting around to giving it a thought a DECADE after 9/11? And some people think this is “naive”?! No wonder despotism and its analogs have done so well throughout history, people are so risk averse they’ll allow themselves to be subjected to anything even if the sought for ‘victory’ cannot be had or is pyrrhic.
Natural Security (A Darwinian Approach to a Dangerous World)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=job2avPAb…
Here is a good video I watched about a year ago. I hope I linked the right one but I don’t have time to watch it again. It basically describes how nature never tries to completely 100% eliminate a threat because attempting to do so costs you too much. You have to accept some risk and not destroy yourself by avoiding risks.
I think this absolutely applies to our society. We need to accept that terrorism WILL happen and it WILL kill people. This will go on forever. You have to accept this in the same way you accept having cars in society will kill people every day. That is a risk we deem to be acceptable because the other option (banning cars and roads) would ruin our way of life.
nope wrong fail jeez. the price of focusing our resources on known terrorist linked people isn’t that we lose our freedoms it’s that govt. actually goes after the bad guys instead of wasting all time and resources in massive monitoring of everyone or invading nations that did not attack us or that like all nations “might one day be used to paln an attack on us!!!!!”
your position is the traditional liberal one which concedes that our ideals come at the cost of security. They DON”T. Our ideals give us maximum liberty and this is consistent with getting the govt. to focus tightly on OBL Al Q. and those who are known risks like some freaking dude who paid cash had no luggage was on the UK no fly list and whose dad denounced him to the USA security forces and as to whom our own CIA had a meeting in Lagos!
Your thesis that our liberty is risky is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. “Probable cause” makes cops focus on the likely criminals, this enhances our security and does not create a risk or a price. What creates a risk or a price is the massive overkill untargeted things that are not focused tightly on the bad guys or suspected bad guys.
GW in 1776 didn’t go kill all suspected British Loyalists in NJ. Who were one third the population btw.
He didn’t go kill anyone whose farm “might be a base for a person who might plan to attack” the colonial army. He limited his attacks to freakin’ redcoats.
guy paid cash…
I guess you didn’t understand me the way I intended as I agree with just about completely with what you responded with when you called “fail” You read into my statement views I do not hold.
I didn’t mean to say liberty was risky per se, but that liberty was worth risks if that happened to be the case. I think OBL et al should be sought via a law enforcement approach and that society, in general, is best served by a response of “that’s too bad, let’s try to catch the people who did it and otherwise get on with our lives” I didn’t mean to imply we shouldn’t avail ourselves of a “probable cause” approach to investigation and enforcement and I believe we should vigorously pursue those who have committed criminal acts… and don’t know which of my statements might have led you to think that. What I don’t believe is that we should preemptively act, either in aggression or in ways that fundamentally affect our liberty or an open society.
I am also somewhat familiar with Washington’s conduct during the revolutionary war and would agree it was wise both as a practical matter during the conflict as well as with a very careful eye to it’s implications after the war, and this applied to the treatment of civilians, mercenaries, even the redcoats. That man kept his eye on principle (and the future) at every step (treatment of noncombatants being just one small example) and we are all the better for it.
It’s far better that thousands of American citizens lose their lives and our liberties be preserved, than that we have total security against terrorist attacks but live in a police state. Nothing naive about that.
@4 Please point out how a security expert is naive but a random one line post is a good counter to his arguments? If he is wrong I want to know because so far I agree with almost everything he says.
@ 13, that’s raindrop you’re dealing with. On this topic, he will fail to do what you request.
@4 – dude, seriously, even to this day I could fashion many weapons and explosives from the contents of the airplane bathroom and the airplane seat.
Living in Fear never works. It’s a waste of time – and resources.
Speaking of resources, the sooner we build high speed passenger rail and cut the knees out from under the Saudis who provide virtually all of the volunteers, money, and Wahhabi extremist religious teachings, the better.
Do we have an enemy? Sure.
Is the enemy is Afghanistan or Iraq? No.
Ha, Schneier naive! Way back when Richard Reid caused everyone to have to take their shoes off before getting on a plane, he predicted that this would just encourage someone to become the Underwear Bomber.
As he’s pointed out, two things have made us safer since 9/11: reinforced cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to intervene in possible terrorist attacks. Limiting the amount of shampoo we can bring aboard and making sure that our shoes aren’t explosive hasn’t done anything.
I think everyone is fine with making sacrifices for the sake of actual safety. But Scheier’s (very consistent) point has been that we are asked to make sacrifices for the completely superficial appearance of safety. Not worth it.