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.
America is at war with terrorism. America has ALWAYS been at war with terrorism.
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
Our whole lives are spent dealing with people and their reactions to what is 'acceptable' and taking the risk that what you try and accomplish is 'unexpected'. Wear long hair in the executive world? Get fired. Dye your hair green in high school? Get teased. Run down a street naked? Get arrested.
Humans are exceptional at detecting differences, its part of our nature, intellectually - we integrate similar concepts and differentiate between different ones. Our brains pick out differences. Thats why profiling at airports actually works.
Its nice to see someone publish something about this, but its hardly insightful.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
CYA : Cover Your Ass!! Know you now.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What does that stand for?
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
you agree with me about the stupid and incoherent "war on the unexpected" concept ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...if their goal was to create fear in the U. S. population.
The fear is real. I hate to admit it, but it affect me.
Everyone knows that there will be further terrorist attacks on the U. S. On the one hand, we're not serious about beefing up homeland security, which is a disappointment to me--I was expecting at least a competent, good-faith effort. But we're doing all the "security theatre" stuff and none of the expensive, difficult, serious stuff. On the other hand, the Iraq war has inflamed passions in the Muslim world and created enemies where we didn't have them before. So the threat is getting worse and our defenses are not getting much better and all the "security theatre" just keeps reminding us of the issue.
On my last plane trip, the gate was near security, and my wife and I were watching as some woman got some kind of very, very extended attention from the TSA people. She was dressed in some kind of dark robe that covered her body, her head, and most of her face; it looked to me like a burkha, but I don't really know anything about such things. She also had a somewhat disfigured face, with a golf-ball-sized lump of some kind on one side of her forehead.
From our vantage point it was all pantomime. I don't know why they were searching her. But they would ask her questions, then wave those handheld metal-detector frisking things, have her sit down for a while, go away and come back with other officials who would ask her more questions and so forth. After about a half an hour she was still sitting there in the security area waiting. They announced that our flight was boarding and we got on and don't know anything more.
What I hated myself for was that I personally was creeped out by this person and her appearance. And what I particularly hated myself for was that the things creeped me out were a) her style of dress, and b) her disfigured face.
Part of me was indignant at what looked from a distance to be discriminatory treatment. And part of it was great relief that she was not on my flight.
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.
people are spoiled and every time something bad unexpected happens they can't accept it. result of living in one of the safest and affluent societies on earth.
so if something does happen the media jumps on it with all kinds of "investigative" reporting about how some insignificant clue had been dismissed or how some proposed law wasn't passed that could have prevented this. and they attack government agencies in the process along with congress getting involved with subpeonas and investigations. so the police to CYA just start to investigate idiotic things and bugging people
For those interested in hearing Bruce Schneier dispassionately and quite reasonably shred a lot of the "security" measures implemented since 9/11, I suggest reading his book Beyond Fear. The subtitle says it all: thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world. The book was reviewed on Slashdot not long ago.
The book takes a very general approach to security, analyzing it with the most basic categorizations, while using very clear real-life examples to illustrate. The final chapters deal specifically with security against terrorism, particularly since 9/11. His conclusion is that, from a security standpoint, most of the measures put in place - additional airport scrutiny, massive centralized databases looking for suspicious patterns, the move towards national ID cards, etc. - are largely ineffective as security measures. The massive trade-off of decreased privacy and liberty coupled with enormous cost for these measures make them especially unreasonable. In short, the widespread perceived risk and culture of fear it has fostered has made our response to the new terroristic threat wildly out-of-proportion with the actual risk.
It's mostly preaching to the choir here at Slashdot, but I think this book should be as widely read as possible.
More likely the kind of reactions he's talking about has to deal with thrill killers. The 9/11 guys didn't do so much that was out of the norm to ring any real bells (yeah, yeah, I know, if you were there it would have set off the alarms in your head. yeah, I know that.) but the actions of thrill killers is often noticeable by those around them because of long time association and a change in behavior.
But my real wondering is: Since when has Slashdot become the outpost for the war on terror articles? Everything posted here anymore seems to be political. What was that Taco was saying the other day about loosing control of his website? Dude, it's already happened.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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?
All security analysis, whether physical or electronic, starts with looking at patterns. An IDS is a perfect example, it looks for patterns and reports on them. Guess what, Bruce? IDS have false positives, a lot of them. It takes a trained security professional to analyze what the IDS thinks is an alert and determine whether it's a real threat.
Eventually someone came up with IDS systems that analyze your normal IDS traffic, and start to alert on things that aren't normal. For example, if you have a link you only see SSH connections on, and all of a sudden there are FTPs, it will alert. Again, a trained security professional looks at the alert and decides if it's a real threat.
The IDS system is analogous to the people on the street reporting strange events, except the people on the street have more intelligence than a typical IDS system (for example, I've never seen this guy (FTP) in my neighborhood, but someone just moved in across the street, ah yes he just unlocked the door there, must be the new owner). People know what is unusual, what doesn't fit into their neighborhood, more so than IDS systems.
And the police officer is analogous to the security professional. A person (IDS) reports an event to me. I take in as much information as I can, and determine whether it's a real threat. If I don't have enough information, I get it. If I can't, I continue to monitor the activity. If it looks threatening, I escalate it.
However, Bruce, when you say that police shouldn't rely on the individuals on the street to help with security, you're like saying I should take down my IDS systems. It's a ridiculous statement. You say it's amateurish? Well, without individuals on the street calling in things they think is unusual, then police don't know someone is unusual. Just like an IDS system, if it doesn't tell me something is anomalous, I don't know whether to go in and check it.
The simple fact is that because people didn't report the unusual behavior of many of the 9/11 attackers, e.g. taking flight lessons that only focused on flying, getting pulled over without licenses, getting pulled over with illegal immigration statuses.... BECAUSE no one reported that activity, they went and hijacked 4 aircraft and killed 3000 people.
Specifically, Bruce... when you say we've opened up the war on the unusual, this is EXACTLY what more modern IDS/IPS systems do, they don't look at signatures, they look at UNUSUAL TRAFFIC. When it finds UNUSUAL TRAFFIC it REPORTS IT to you, then you INVESTIGATE IT, you QUESTION THE PEOPLE INVOLVED, and if they did something against policy you REMOVE THEM FROM THEIR JOBS. YES BRUCE, THIS IS WHAT YOU DO.
Also, on another rant. What's YOUR solution, Bruce? You tell us how NOT to do it, but you have no solutions yourself. Oh wait, you do... you tell us we should do EXACTLY what you rant against:
Yes, I can agree that some people blow shit out of proportion, this happens everyday and is part of the human nature (especially for those that love drama). But that doesn't mean we should stop this activity, law enforcement just needs to become better at detecting the actual threats and escalating incidents at the same time fine-tuning their "IDS" systems to what is real threats. This isn't something that will happen overnight, but doesn't mean we should stop it completely!
You're fooling yourself if you think things will change in 2009, no matter who gets elected.
you end up beautiful things like the inquisition, fascism or the soviet russia
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
full of win
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
Mod parent as realist. We get punished for not being paranoid, and then labeled fascist for doing what the public demands, because the media tells them to demand it.
Would slashdot post a counter-terror expert talking about computer security if he had no experience whatsoever in that field?
Then why would slashdot post a computer security expert talking about counter-terrorism or law enforcement when he has no experience whatsoever in that field?
"It Just Don't Look Right" is a time-tested law enforcement mantra. It isn't something George W. Bush cooked up after 9/11 -- it's around because so many crimes, and so many terrorist plots have been busted up by investigating the unusual and unexpected.
Oh things will change....you know that ficus plant that W. keeps round....the liberals are toally getting rid of it when they move into the White House
as humans we fear that witch is different or what we don't understand that's a fear born of ignorance but a stronger fear is that of understanding because when you understand a object/person/weapon then you know what its capable of and what it can do to you insted of relying on hair say and the shit your government feeds you on a regular ba
of all the things ive lost i miss my mind the most -hackers
You expect people without a fundimental understanding of chemistry of basic physics to give you a realisitic threat assesment? These are the same folks who have conflated an urban legend about mixing two chemicals, and managed to make it so I can't take a bottle of gatoraid on a flight. And you remember right after 9/11, all of the guardsmen with guns at the airport? Well they all had empty clips.
The real problem is these idiots are in charge. When we start to respect knowledge and wisdom, and elevate those posessing both in abundance, only then will this crap end.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
"Unique...unorthodox...unexpected...different"?
How about just acting normally?
Stopping and searching of commuters in Scotland:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7072882.stm
This administration? Do you really think that this is where all of this started? Man, you're fairly naive.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City.
And even that's not the beginning.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
You have more chance of being killed next time you get in a car or try to cross the road. Or being murdered by your neighbour. Or having a heart attack from to omuch fast food.
The terorist threat is TINY and shouldn't have been allowed to affect life at all.
Whether that woman was wearing a burkha or not is immaterial. Your disproportionate levels of fear are the problem here.
People, en masse, are indeed stupid. (Should I reference Nietzsche?) How ironic that this should come up today; I came into work this morning, and took the back stairway as I usually do, but I passed some wierd looking device that was sitting in the corner of the hallway. The device had been there the evening before, when I left, and it had been "running" throughout the night. It had several hoses coming off of it and I had no idea what it was used for - and I know about ALL KINDS of strange devices in my business (biomedical/biochemical research). So the question arose in my mind: "Should I ask someone who works nearby if they know what this is? ...It could be a ...bomb... and I know some groups that would seriously consider our area for a bomb..." But here's where I drew the line: I examined it for a moment, and decided, "This device is way too complex for a terrorist bomb or a prank." So I just went on my way. Here's why: If a terrorist is going to plant a bomb somewhere, isn't it obvious wisdom to NOT draw attention to it? What kind of dumb-ass does it take to have the knowledge to build a significant bomb, place it without getting caught in the process, but make it horrifyingly obvious that it is a bomb?
eerily on topic. Like Scott Adams always seems to be.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/071020/cx_dilbert_umedia/20072010;_ylt=AsHWX_8k1pgqX8DTJODSMEkA_b4F
(I'd post the "dilbert.com" link if my at-work web proxy weren't so restrictive.)
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
You didn't call anyones attention to it, did you? You just confirmed to me that a way to plant a bomb where you work is to just make it look compex enough.
from tfa The problem is that ordinary citizens don't know what a real terrorist threat looks like. They can't tell the difference between a bomb and a tape dispenser, electronic name badge, CD player, bat detector, or a trash sculpture;
or Meatwad Shake and Frylock
--- http://davidnehme.blogspot.com
But you're also protecting yourself against ninjas and the Spanish Inquisition.
God spoke to me.
Don't broach the concept of mccarthyism as something new.
In the 50's anyone who was different or did something frowned upon by conservative interests was black balled as a communist.
welcome to the extreme end of the conservative vs liberal pendulum. The cycle seems to be 50-60 years.
mid 1800's saw the radically liberal concept of emancipation.
after that the condition of the lower class worker deteriorated until the establishment of organized labor in the early 1900's
conservatism crept in again as the second world war and cold war crept in, peaking in mccarthyism
the following decade we saw hippies and the women's lib movement.
in the late 20'th century we saw reagan,the war on drugs, the dmca, and now gw.
in the next decade or so I see the building momentum creating backlash against the current war on technology and individualism (we have already seen 'rebellion' by the states against a gamut of arch-conservative policies).
Now I'm still very jaded, as any extreme point along this pendulum can snap it off and cause things spinning out of control, but our constitution may just be flexible yet robust enough to contain that.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The world of art is about the unexpected and abstract. The state of the arts gets pushed when something new and different happens.
The war on terror fights the hardest against artists.
It's no suprise that artists are the ones most likely to be harrassed because of terror concerns, for example, the lite-bright signs.
http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=CYA
:x
I think that Obama would be different. Just look at the things he was saying in the last debate. The most telling moment was when he basically tried to bring the threat of terrorism into perspective by saying that America, the most powerful country in the world, need not give up civil liberties in order to fight a few guys living in caves. If I didn't know any better, I'd think he was posting on Slashdot.
A fallacy the "war on terror" (and the war on drugs for that matter) is a way for a set of people to describe complex social problems in a way that they can easily manipulate people. It is much easier to convince people to give up there freedom, etc in the name of helping to win a war. Stop using these terms.
it's always this case. Look at McCarthyism, Hitler, Bush, or anyone trying to mold influence for power. The different get it first. It's an easy target because the more different you are from the 'norm' the less people elate to you. So the different are always 'them'. I politician of you party who respects all people, even ones you are they don't agree with, is always a good indicator of someone who is more likely to stand against people trying to control your inalienable rights, then someone who creates enemies for influence.
To quote Martin Niemoeller:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"It Just Don't Look Right" is a time-tested law enforcement mantra.
And Schneier repeatedly has commented in favor of this technique. He just calls it "noticing something hinky" instead. It's blind following of rules and procedures that provide little or no benefit that he complains about.
Everyone knows that there will be further terrorist attacks on the U. S.
And why does that scare you? The worst terrorist attack, 9/11 killed 3000 people. That was a tragedy to be sure, but it's a small fraction of the number of easily preventable deaths each and every year in the US. If a terrorist attack like that happened every year, it still wouldn't make the list of top 10 things to worry about.
The response to 9/11 should have been to beef up airport and in-flight security somewhat, to grieve, and then to go on with our lives. There was no need for spending hundreds of billions of dollars, military action, expanded police or spy powers, secret tribunals, Guantanamo, or secret diplomatic deals.
The real post-9/11 damage wasn't done by terrorists, it was done by people who couldn't conquer their fear. The real enemies of democracy post 9/11 have been people willing to vote away everybody's rights and dismantle our democracy in exchange for a perceived but non-existent increase in safety.
That's what I mean by paying attention. What these people say and what they do are completely unrelated.
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?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
That's an odd thing to post. What, you do not like our glorious worker's paradise? I know a Party psychologist who can help you get over these fears. The future does not reward those who oppose the Party, however decentralized it may be in the liberal democratic West.
technical writing / development
The "War On the Unexpected" is a natural consequence of a society that's differentiating in all directions. It's an economic consequence. It's not just national security, the job market has the same effect. We're well into a period of risk adversity.
http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme/?entry=the_cultural_diffusion_resurrected
Ok, I grant you that often what politicians say and do is unrelated. But Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists. He was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, so he knows and respects the principles of the document. His voting record turns up no instances wherein he voted against civil liberties. He sponsored the bipartisan Coburn-Obama Transparency Bill, which requires that the federal government put all of its earmarks and pork into a searchable website. He recognized what was happening in Iraq from the beginning, and is ensuring that we don't escalate things with Iran. Specifically, what actions has he taken to make you believe that he is one of "those people?"
No. They haven't won.
:-/
Meanwhile we've lost; or are, at least, in the process of losing.
Whilst we haven't had our Western society(/societies) converted into an islamic fascist fundemetalist nation, we have, or are in the process of having our nations converted into non-islamic fascist societies (please forgive my use of shorthand terminology).
The 'Jihadists' want Islamic authoritarianism. The Neocons (et al,) want secular (or 'Christian') authoritarianism. In the US and the UK at least, this secular/'christian' authoritarianism is winning - surveillance states filled with suspects rather than citizens, watched over like livestock by governments who pay lip service to liberty and use democracy as a fig leaf for their dark and controlling desires.
Whether it's the Islamic or the secular/'Christian' flavour of authoritarianism that holds sway, we, the vast majority of the people, lose.
Of course, that's to be expected, sice we're not really fighting!
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
I regularly send abusive letters to my Senator, Saxby Chambliss. I've yet to be sent to a re-education camp. Actually, I've yet to receive a reply that wasn't a lot more courteous than my original message.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
"It's an attack on the unique, the unorthodox, the unexpected"
... are we really heading for the 1984 Big Brother world, where technology is used against anyone who may even have any view, which could oppose the current people in power?
Its not so much the Monty Python form of the Spanish Inquisition and much more like the book 1984. An attack on the unique, the unorthodox, the unexpected is in the 1984 book a "Thought Crime". Regardless of if that thought is turned into action or not, its stepping outside of the orthodox. The 1984 book "Thought Police" do not accept any eccentric behavior. Any thought or action which is seen as unorthodox.
So everyone has to step in line with the party orthodox view for fear of being singled out as a traitor to the party view. Democracy cannot truly exist in such a system of managing people.
Its often the case time and time again throughout history where we see this same kind of spiral into a terrible world, where the people in power seek such power over their people, resulting in an ever more extremist behavior of the leaders and therefore mentally corrupted thinking. At its less extreme end, we get people having to accept the party line, in return for being helped to progress (and anyone speaking out against the party line is held back). That's the lower end. As the system of government becomes more extreme, then more and more people get singled out and silenced from speaking out against the party line. (Regardless of whatever the stated and as advertised political system is said to be for that country, the underlying political behavior results in a different political system than the people think they are living in).
Ironically the people who loose out the most, are the other people who seek to get into power at the next election. Which is ultimately the point of the controls. It prevents anyone else getting into power. So the people in power always seek to create this kind of system, as they wish to hold off anyone else from getting a chance to get into power. That's why the ones in power seek to create such a system. Its independent of any party politics. Its basic human nature of the ones who seek to gain power from each other. Most of us who never wish to gain power and simply want a quite life, just get caught up in their power struggles).
But have we really sunk this low?
My hope is no, as the people who seek to gain power, will not stand for the ones in power implementing systems, which make it unfair for them to compete for power in the future. But I'm not so sure, as the majority of the population don't know a fraction of what most programmers know about what is becoming possible with modern data mining etc... Their lack of technical knowledge prevents them from see the dangers which are so obvious too so many of us.
This power seeking human nature is like a self corrupting mechanism, where the current country leaders loose feedback on their own actions (they will not really listen to be told they are wrong) and so like a machine loosing feedback, go ever further from the central normal state, into an ever more biased state. So like a machine loosing feedback, eventually their systems of control break down, as the ever increasing extremes become untenable for most people to suffer.
The Taliban and the Nazis have demonstrated this. We don't need more of this extreme behavior, we need less of it, to rid the world of extremist views.
We need more truly democratic countries, not the west falling into this trap of loosing such a core aspect of democracy, out of fear of the extremists. Otherwise every country become as bad as what they most fear, but yet fail to see it, as they close off any attempt to give feedback to their system of control.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
- 40,000 deaths on the American highways each year
- half a million Americans die from cancer every year
- Another half million from heart disease
- Fewer than 3,000 this century from terrorism in America
Clearly we muct give up all our rights since the threat of terrorism is so huge?I live in Springfield. Osama couldn't do that kind of damage in his wildest dreams. And what about this or this, both dwarfing the Springfield tornados.
Someone has their priorities really screwed up. Heckuva job, Georgie.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You keep believing he is different and supporting him. That's good. Me - I've done that in the past and learned what a disappointment it is. I consider him to be 'one of those people' based on his position in the party. You can consider me cynical but I've been watching politics for too long to imagine that anyone who has risen that high in either party is good for much of anything.
As for his voting record - just for future reference - I wouldn't go around telling people there are no instances where he has voted against civil liberties when he is against the second amendment. (I'm not going to debate the gun issue - I'm just pointing out that for many Americans, this is a civil liberty issue whether you like it or not.) And showing the voting record backs up my position that he is just another career politician doing what is expedient for his career - hence all those NVs that I see on things that should have been a no brainer.
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?
"Specifically, what actions has he taken to make you believe that he is one of "those people?"
1) He ran for Senate.
2) He's running for President.
It is far more likely he is a lying, corrupt scumbag than a paragon of virtue. Statistically speaking, that is.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Here we are, six years in, and dickheads are still playing anti-semantic games.
A thing is what it is, no matter what it is called.
This thing is called "The War on Terror." The name means the thing, it does not define the thing. Not even a dictionary can define the referent.
It's just plain dishonest to complain about the name. If it had been called "The War on Terrorism" the same dickheads would be bitching that it should be called "The War on Terror."
Look at the nature of the enemy. Singletons, NGOs, and governments are all in the mix. This is no accident. By spreading responsibility among loosely-definable actors, they can get our dickhead fifth columnists to fight for them.
Make no mistake - those who complain about terminology at this late date are working for the enemy. They are too stupid to realize it since they are the issue (physically and intellectually) of several generations of useful idiots, so they can't be shot for treason. Besides, treason is cool.
The armed forces of the United States of America can defeat any (and probably all) other organized military on the planet. By the simple expedient of eschewing official organization, the enemy can throw our fifth columnists and their elected representatives into an infinite regress of dickhead definitions.
"The War on Terror" is a perfectly good name. "Terror" is an appropriately broad concept which includes singletons, NGOs, and governments. It includes non-Islamic terrorists such as LTTE. "Terror" in this sense includes "terrorism" and "terrorists."
"Terror" is the root class for the targeting of civilians and the forces tasked with their protection, and any actor who does so is engaging in terrorism and is a terrorist.
Of course, some anti-semantic asshole will point out that "interface" is a more specific term for this kind of "class" since "interface" can describe a structure which might not include any instance variables....
And by so missing my point, such dickheads will prove my point.
I wish I had a stack of mod points for this.
As someone else said, rewarded behavior gets repeated. And you're entirely correct in what behavior gets punished, and what behavior gets rewarded: anything short of "we shot everyone in sight just in case they were the killer" gets people out of trouble, but a response of "we didn't know this was a killer on a suicide mission, and treated this like a regular murder case" requires lawsuits.
In a democracy, we get the government response we deserve. And unfortunately, over 50% of Americans deserve an autocratic government that locks people up "just in case". Splendid.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Wrong! Not too far from a defendable position, but clearly wrong. Terrorism isn't an emotion. Terror is. Terrorism is a set of techniques to cause terror in a group of people, sometimes as large as a nation.
You could argue that "the war on terror" is a war on a technique. This would be much like saying "war against guerrilla warfare". I would be less literal about it and say it is a war against certain groups who want to kill otherwise innocent people (most publicized form of terrorism).
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Instead, they were blown off, and now you can't buy a decent chemistry set
Maybe if a moron who gets burnt on a cup of hot coffee from McDonalds wasn't awarded big cash for her own stupidity we could buy a decent chemistry set. I'm sure that one case had a lot more to do with the outlook on potentially hazardous materials being sold to the public more than anything else.
I just love how everyone gets in line and screams "war on terror" when this has been a trend that has been a long time in coming.
I guess the people who are screaming that people who believe the war on terror is useful and valid aren't looking in the mirror too much. They're serving the needs of another group that are just as anti-freedom but no one seems to talk about it much.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Your joke needs a better delivery. I don't agree, but I'll set that aside for the moment. It is almost painful to read because you have the wrong number of syllables in your phrasing. It would have been better if you had more closely imitated the original. Observe:
This is the war that never ends,
Yes, it goes on and on my friends.
Some people started fighting it, not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue fighting it forever just because--
See, much better. Further embellishments could be made, but only if they do not break the phrasing that goes with the tune.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I was a Canadian tourist in Boston in April. I walked through Boston Commons Park at 10am on a beautiful Sunday morning, seven steps from my hotel. I said good morning to a few people in the park. Ten minutes later, two police approached and interrogated me. Apparently, some crazy women to whom I said "good morning" promptly left the park and reported me as a sex offender / pedaphile.
The police were firm but polite in their in-park ten-minute interrogation. They said things like "maybe you shouldn't walk around in public parks." and "don't you think it's a bad idea to say 'good morning' to a complete stranger?". They believed me when I said I was Canadian -- after seeing my passport and driver's licence. (yeah, passport wasn't enough for them. I have no clue how they were able to authenticate an Ontario driver's licence, Massacheusets has something that looks like it's off a 1985 inkjet.)
It was really just one crazy woman -- I greeted many people during the week, and others, notably injured Kelly, and also fishing Steve, were exceptionally nice.
All the same, I was glad when they let me leave the country five days later.
So you don't tune your IDS to AVOID false positives? That's what Schneier wants us to do here.
Because right now, we're tuning the country to generate a whole lot of them by rewarding irresponsible behavior. Yes, you do look for patterns and unusual things, but you'd better also filter out false positives or you'll never see the malicious attacks. Thus, his entire point is to focus on things that are actually malicious instead of these stupid false positives.
We're acting out of emotion instead of logic, and we're making ourselves less safe as a result. Does anyone truly want to be less safe? Then we must defeat our true enemy: terror. Not terrorists, but the actual fear they create. If we do not master our fear, it will consume us, and the terrorists will win.
Once upon a time, brave leaders told us that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself.
"I think it's a great idea."
I just don't know where to start.
There is a huge number of clever ways to attack America and kill people. You've just found 1 and really it's not that brilliant. 9/11 was ingenius in that it attacked our military, our citizens, our airline industry, landmark structures, first responders, our economy and our naive sense of security.
I can think of lots of ways to attack America, and while some may be ingenius, none of them are great ideas.
That is a fine temporary solution, but the proper long term solution is to stop certifying any large commercial aircraft for flight that has internal access between the cockpit and the passenger section. If there is no door, there is no way for a hijacker to get control of the plane, even if they wanted to.
You're not giving up freedoms since you didn't have it in the first place. Just like smoking isn't a right either (hence the bans on it).
Well, if you bother to read the Constitution, you will find that we do, in fact, have those Rights, emphasis mine:
Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Basically, anything the government is not explicitly empowered to enforce is retained by the people. The government has no rights, merely granted powers designed to preserve our rights.
And how do you EVER justify a search in your mind? I mean if we never look for weapons or dangerous goods, how are we supposed to find them? Be psychic?
Tom
I think the following is applicable, emphasis mine:
Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It is not that difficult to understand, and we have drifted a long way from it. There is a certain leeway for emergency measures and situations, but you must also remember that the Founders lived in a time of terrorism and insurrection, so the current situation would not be wholly unfamiliar to them or outside of their intent. There is a constant push toward a continual spiral of more invasive searches and measures. A strong countering push is entirely appropriate and patriotic. That is why checks and balances were built into the system. Searches and seizures should be limited, appropriate, based on effective techniques and probable cause. They should always be balanced by the need to preserve the dignity and privacy of the individual.
I would rather the small chance of getting blown up than live in constant fear. That is not living, and it was the clear intent of the Founders to preserve this attitude in the law. They themselves risked everything for freedom as have many people since then. Did they die for nothing?
See what happens if you got too many LEDs on your shirt.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3635225&page=1
In 1999, the toll from car accidents was estimated to be $137 billion.
We've got to kick up the number of calls to the hotline, the number of alerts, and number of actual deployments of personnel, or we can't argue for more staff, and no one gets promoted.
You think you know something of security? What about J O B security, mister?
Government is big business, and this is how we grow the market share, along with retirement and health care.
The fact that the economy gets a little trashed along the way will no doubt bother our great-grandchildren, or so.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
The alternative is to pretend that today is 10 Sep 01. That's not right either. We have some knee jerk over the top responses to terrorism. That's obvious, but that doesn't mean that shouldn't respond at all. If someone robs the house across the street from yours, double check the locks before you go to bed. When some jerk rapes a girl on campus, the girls should travel in groups for a while. If you have a grease fire in your kitchen, you would be wise to invest in a fire extinguisher.
There must be balance in one's response to new information. If your neighbor is robbed, building a moat might be unwarranted, but pretending crime can't happen to YOU is idiocy.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Perhaps you should research this one a bit before you trot it out, again. McDonald's was not sued for "hot" coffee. Hot coffee will not cause the kinds of burns this woman suffered - eg. melt your skin. It's easy to say this woman was just a whiner and McDonald's - and, by extension, the rest of us - got robbed, but that's the path of ignorance.
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
Why is what he says gospel, and what the government says [or common sense indicates] a filthy lie?
All I'm saying is it's possible that he's lying to make his case look better. That the more likely scenario is that he was using a non-canadian passport.
Because last I checked, Americans don't deport Canadians to Syria.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.