Slashdot Mirror
Schneier On the War On the Unexpected
jamie found this essay by Bruce Schneier, The War on the Unexpected. (It originally appeared in Wired but this version has all the links.) "We've opened up a new front on the war on terror. It's an attack on the unique, the unorthodox, the unexpected; it's a war on different. If you act different, you might find yourself investigated, questioned, and even arrested — even if you did nothing wrong, and had no intention of doing anything wrong. The problem is a combination of citizen informants and a CYA attitude among police that results in a knee-jerk escalation of reported threats... After someone reports a 'terrorist threat,' the whole system is biased towards escalation and CYA instead of a more realistic threat assessment... If you ask amateurs to act as front-line security personnel, you shouldn't be surprised when you get amateur security."
people using the excuse of a boogieman in the shadows to lash out against those they don't understand and/or fear?
unheard of in all of human history.
Is a war against an emotion... Anything which can cause fear is therefore subject to the war. In that way it's the perfect war for politicians.
Deleted
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This sounds like a throwback to the 50's and early 60's when "Communism" was the buzz word, and a conforming America was key to not being "outed" as a Commy.
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
I think it's time for new moderator points.
"+1 Terrorist" and "-1 Sheep".
Whether you want to swap the signs depends on your political preference.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Choice 1: Over react and be labeled a fascist.
Choice 2: Do nothing and be blamed when people die.
No wonder we only get shit bags running for public office.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
If you think that the next administration - Republican or Democrat - is going to be substantially different, you haven't been paying attention for very long.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I hear NPR mention a "war on terror", and I want to call in a correction/complaint.
A war on terror or fear is quite different than a war on terrorism.
And a war on terrorism is quite different than a war against terrorists.
And of course a war on terrorists is quite different that a war against a specific group.
A war against an generic term, a tactic or unspecified groups of people cannot be won.
(It cannot be lost either).
How about:
Choice 3: React appropriately and install security measures that work, without unduly stressing people?
The problem isn't that there are two extremes the people in power must choose from, the problem is that the two choices you gave are actually being done at the same time.
"Sure there are outliers, people put on watch lists they shouldn't. It'll get smoothed out eventually, but it's not like they're being dragged out into the street and shot "to set example for the other jews" or whatever godwinninian example you are trying to set."
You're right, they're not being dragged out into the street and shot. They're being secretly deported, flown in shackles to third-world dictatorships, and tortured by third parties with our implicit consent.
They're mostly Muslims. If it hasn't become clear to you yet: Muslims are the boogeyman whom neoconservatives hype in order to increase their own power, just as Jews were the boogeyman Nazis hyped to increase their own power. No, America is not anywhere near as bad as Nazi Germany at its height, but the direction and modus operandi are extremely similar.
Everyone knows that there will be further terrorist attacks on the U. S.
I love how this "fact" is just thrown out there and accepted as true, without giving a time frame. It's technically true, but utterly meaningless. Sure, somewhere between now and infinity years from now, there will be a "further terrorist attack". Great, I better prepare!
By casually using this talking point, you're promoting the irrational fear that you argue that you are trying to avoid.
The important questions, which get glossed over by things like the above declarative talking point, are "What is the likelihood of an attack within the next N, N+1, N+2... years?" and "What is the expected severity/method of such an attack, should it occur?" and "What is the likelihood that any given person will be affected?"
Even if terrorists pulled off a 9/11 once every year or destroyed one shopping mall a week, your chances of actually dying in a terrorist attack are utterly miniscule. A rational person, when confronted with such numbers, should not be afraid.
If everyone is scared shitless, they've won.
If we're willing to give up rights, they've won.
If our new and improved homeland security is nothing more than security theater, they've won.
If our retaliation is to wage war against a nation that wasn't affiliated with the attackers, thus causing us to waste lives, money, time, and goodwill in an effort that is only destabilizing the region, they've won.
Face it, we were attacked, and 6 years later we still don't have any meaningful protection.
"get with the freaking program", indeed.
Until that happens, I believe we're much closer to "absolute security" than reasonable security.
Here's a nifty quote I like to remember when talking to people like you. "Sure there are outliers" and "it's just a few people who got mixed up" and "they were being stupid anyway" are just variations of "It wasn't me, so I don't have to worry." Because you weren't unlucky enough that a known terrorist happened to use your name while boarding a flight, because you weren't unlucky enough that you weren't identified by some hapless guy on a street looking to make a quick buck, because you weren't unlucky enough that you didn't fit the completely arbitrary criteria for what a terrorist is, you think that it isn't a problem. Here's the problem you're overlooking: the criteria ARE arbitrary. That's what the term "security theater" means. Everyone who complains about the current state sees that and is worried that these arbitrary criteria might be applied to them one day. This is the time to fight back - not when your ass is sitting in a police van headed to god knows where. Furthermore, no one is complaining about airport security, except to point out that it is a rather silly exercise. What people are truly worried about (and that includes me) is the completely arbitrary and CYA approach that puts EVERYONE at risk of being arrested and have their lives turned upside down. If you can't see that.... gimme your name, cuz I'll just laugh if they ever come for you.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
If we were really facing the kind of dedicated, wide-spread super-terrorist organization that most politicians preach about, there would be hundreds of thousands of dead across the country.
What's weird is that so few people have yet to see through the fear-mongering. It's almost as if having the threat of a super-al-queada boogeyman that our politicians are 'protecting' us from is a sort of security blanket.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I say having my laundry looked over is a small price to pay to fly 3000 miles in 6 hours to visit some friends.
And my problem with that attitude is this: I wouldn't mind that you're so willing to give up your freedom from unjustified search, your privacy, your status as a person innocent until proven guilty, if it wasn't for the fact that you want to give up MINE at the same time!
If that counter terror expert offered cogent arguments, sure, why not? If the arguments are wrong, refute them, don't engage in the logical fallacies of ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. Security isn't some magical concern that only a few high priests can speak on. Security is a day-to-day issue that everyone needs to consider. Security is a matter of government a politics, an area that every interested citizen can debate and try to influence our government.
Indeed, it is. And Schneier agrees (although he calls it acting "hinky," a word a custom's agent used to describe someone's behavior that led to their arrest). But you're suggesting a false dichotomy between ignoring everything and calling in the most minor of suspicions. Schneier's proposal is pretty clear: you need knowledge to be able to accurately identify hinky.
Search 2010 Gen Con events