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."

66 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. sounds about right by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:sounds about right by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Funny

      BURNS: Why is that man in pink?!

      SMITHERS: Oh, that's Homer Simpson, sir. He's one of your boobs from Sector 7-G.

      BURNS: Simpson, eh? Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort of free-thinking anarchist!

      SMITHERS: I'll call security, sir.

      BURNS: Excellent. Yes, these color monitors have already paid for themselves...

  2. Dejavu by WPIDalamar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    America is at war with terrorism. America has ALWAYS been at war with terrorism.

    1. Re:Dejavu by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      America is the terrorist. The freedom quashing, illiberal authority, veiled by the notion that "it's for your own good". It's the quintessential machine. We're now being encouraged to fear ourselves, our neighbours of any colour or creed, our own children; all without bringing any form of logical judgement to the decision.

      God help us.

    2. Re:Dejavu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    3. Re:Dejavu by RobBebop · · Score: 3, Funny

      DHS to change agency name to Ministry of Love. That would make DoD the Ministry of Peace. The media would be the Ministry of Truth. And the Ministry of Plenty would be... what? the oil companies?
      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    4. Re:Dejavu by parcel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure there are outliers, people put on watch lists they shouldn't. It'll get smoothed out eventually... As long as these watch lists may lead to things like mistaken extraordinary rendition, I would consider that a huge problem.
    5. Re:Dejavu by ShiningSomething · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know where this is coming from.
      Well, there's the "If you see something, say something" campaign in New York City. There is the rhetoric of posting the "alert level" daily in Washington, DC. There is the fact that if you're a foreign student you should inform Homeland Security of your whereabouts once you've been admitted into the country, and that if you happen to be studying something like Physics you may be delayed every time you come into the country. No-one's against checking the bags at the airport. There is a day-to-day feeling of mistrust that is obviously not Nazi Germany, but is palpably higher than before 9-11.
    6. Re:Dejavu by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
      Tell it to Carol Gotbaum. The message being "complain too loud and you'll be 'accidentally' killed".

      I say having my laundry looked over is a small price to pay to fly 3000 miles in 6 hours to visit some friends.
      This attitude can pretty much justify anything the government wants to do. I believe Thomas Hobbes used it to do just that.
    7. Re:Dejavu by parcel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And this is happening to people you know? You're getting both sides of the story? They're being killed or kept indefinitely? No, nobody I know. But the instances that we do know about have been fairly thoroughly documented. I would disagree that death or permanent imprisonment are the only situations in which things have gone too far. I would certainly include torture.

      Here's a tip, if you're Muslim, don't hang out with people who are shady. As an exercise in how impossible this is, please prove to me that you are not shady so I can continue to converse with you.

      Yet, you pull one aside for questioning and all of a sudden it's the inquisition... This still makes me think you do not understand extraordinary rendition.
    8. Re:Dejavu by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2

      Yet, you pull one aside for questioning and all of a sudden it's the inquisition...

      No, you pull one aside for questioning, and then send him to Syria for torture. Then it's an inquisition.

    9. Re:Dejavu by dctoastman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1984 is nice, but I prefer "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street"

      "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record: prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own, for the children and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that such things cannot be confined... to The Twilight Zone."

    10. Re:Dejavu by moranar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's weird to me that no-one seems to have realised yet that you could mass-murder much more people, and in a much easier fashion, just coordinating directly in an airport, in the checkin queues. No one has checked your bag at all yet, and you can blow yourself to smithereens just for the price of not looking too suspicious. At least in cheap European flights like Easyjet or Ryanair, the queues sometimes amount to two or three planes full of passengers. Do it simultaneously, in a few airports, and we wouldn't be able to fly anymore due to fear.

      Basically, the problem of getting the bomb to the useful place has just changed the place: it used to be the plane. Now it can be the airport check in queues. Next would be the airport entrances. There will always be a mass of people checking in somewhere, at least until the damn flying cars are finally here.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    11. Re:Dejavu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Except that only a very small minority of passengers are actually "kidnapped," and in fact they are being released."

      Some are released, some aren't. Some are tortured, some are just imprisoned and cut off from their families and friends as they grow old in confinement. Quite a few have been jailed for 6 years, since the start of the "War on Terror," without being charged with any crime.

      To say "they are being released" is not meaningful. Are you saying that there is a decreasing trend of imprisoning people without trials and deporting people to be tortured? I certainly hope that's the case.

      "It's not perfect, and frankly, probably not right (I don't know both sides of the story, who says they're unjustified? The media?)."

      Actually, the popular media have generally been in support of these measures, and in support of the War on Terror. That's probably why popular support (for "enhanced interrogation" and suspension of habeas corpus) was maintained for so long. Only recently have some among their ranks become willing to question what's been happening.

      "It's important to keep tabs and an eye on the situation. It is however, not important to listen to Bruce Schneier as he's just another idiot soap box screamer trying to push book sales. You can be pro-freedom and not listen to Bruce at the same time :-)"

      Fair enough, but don't let your dislike of one man blind your vision to serious matters (on the side of which that man may well be right this time).

    12. Re:Dejavu by parcel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that only a very small minority of passengers are actually "kidnapped," I truly, truly hope that you are trolling. You're okay with torturing innocent people, as long as it's a "very small minority"? Please, tell me, at what point do you think this practice becomes wrong? When they start doing it to Caucasians? Christians? Or only when the majority of innocent airline travelers are being tortured?
    13. Re:Dejavu by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Civilians died as a result of the allies aggressions in WWII. Are you saying we should have let Germany annex any nation they wanted?

      In this case, real criminals are really coming to and through the states (and other countries) to really do harm.

      In the way it's not "right" to kill civilians in the course of a war, it's not "right" to detain people as suspected criminals. However, it's certainly a lot better than open war don't you think?

      The goal shouldn't be to stop all security measures because mishaps happen. It should be to lower the number of mishaps as to preserve the quality of life of as many innocent civilians as possible. No security is just as bad as absolute security.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    14. Re:Dejavu by Spazntwich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not yet, no, but the groundwork is being laid.

      Are you having trouble differentiating between future tense and present? The guy you invoked Godwin against (Yes, you were the first one with the SS reference, not him) is saying that we are actively being indoctrinated to mistrust everyone because they could be a terrorist, pedophile, or, worst of all, a homosexual with designs of marriage in his traitorous noggin. He didn't say we were all a bunch of indoctrinated chicken littles yet, and to accuse him of being overconcerned, well, that's something only a foreigner as ignorant as he is arrogant could do.

    15. Re:Dejavu by mazarin5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well just to be safe, we should have a twice as thorough checkpoint at the airport entrance!

      --
      Fnord.
    16. Re:Dejavu by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2, Informative

      deported to Syria for failing to produce a Canadian passport

      First Google result for "Maher Arar canadian passport".

      2nd paragraph:
      "even though he was carrying a Canadian passport."

      It's hardly the US's or Canada's fault that the Syrian government tortured him
      Except that it was known at the time he was being deported that he would be tortured.

      But I guess I agree with you. If you're a dual citizen - even in a country where that's legal - you should be deported and tortured. You obviously have it coming.

    17. Re:Dejavu by LionKimbro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Asking people to look out for suspicious behaviour sounds omnimous but you should anyways. Like if you saw someone drop a suitcase by a bridge or bus depot and walk away, wouldn't you think to at least get the persons attention to get the bag they forgot, and if they didn't respond, maybe there was a reason?

      No. Frankly, you should not. Not unless, you're calling out to the person who left the bag by accident, out of genuine concern that they get their bag back.

      Here's the thing: Let me make some new common sense: Attitude and mindset matter. Attitude and mindset determine how people think, how they relate with others, and so on.

      If everybody is looking out for suspicious behavior, thinking to call the cops, and making the kinds of arguments you are, then we're headed in totally the wrong direction. We need a world of care, goodwill, freedom, and love, not one of fear, paranoia, reporting, and the panopticon. You're right, it does sound ominous, and we don't need that kind of thing here.

      We need clarity of intent: Community, care, heart, cooperation, generosity.

      We can't hold that, while thinking, "I've got to be on the lookout for anything that might be suspicious."

      So I say: "No." Even looking out for suspicious behavior, it's not going to work. The person who wants to kill you or destroy the bridge will find a way. They will just not walk away, before using the bomb. They'll have someone else deliver the bomb.

      There is no security, save security in the social fabric itself.

    18. Re:Dejavu by tomstdenis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No you're making my point!!!

      If I saw someone leave a bag, I'd be concerned that they get it back, and if they weren't interested in returning to get it, I'd be asking why. And not being stupid the first thought would be because there is something in it he doesn't want to be associated with.

      You don't have to be "on the look for terrorists," you just have to not have blinders on to the world.

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    19. Re:Dejavu by parcel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The goal shouldn't be to stop all security measures because mishaps happen. It should be to lower the number of mishaps as to preserve the quality of life of as many innocent civilians as possible. No security is just as bad as absolute security. I'm certainly not suggesting that all security measures be stopped. But how about stopping extraordinary rendition, reinstating habeas corpus, and disallowing the state secrets privelege?

      Until that happens, I believe we're much closer to "absolute security" than reasonable security.
    20. Re:Dejavu by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    21. Re:Dejavu by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's weird to me that no-one seems to have realised yet that you could mass-murder much more people, and in a much easier fashion, just coordinating directly in an airport, in the checkin queues. It's not weird at all. The reason no has "realised" it yet is because the number of people who actually want to kill hundreds in an airplane, or an airport or anywhere else, is diminishingly small.

      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.
    22. Re:Dejavu by jddj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

    23. Re:Dejavu by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm sorry, you've got it backwards. I've got every right to fly, and the government doesn't have the right to stop me from doing whatever I want, unless there are strong (not theatrical) reason, backed by law, to stop me. The rights I have are not listed, the government's rights are.

      In your point of view, there apparently exists a small booklet that enlists everything you have a right to, the rest of your movements and possibilities are luxury items given to you by big government, which can be taken away at a whim. You might want to re-examine that position.

      And yes, I think the government has good reasons to scan and search. It should however be re-examined often and thoroughly, and the procedures should be changed quickly when they are not productive, and are needlessly interfering with my freedom of movement.

      Things that should go are: shoe search (whoever came up with that idea? One miserable failed attempt to light one's shoe means millions of hours, thousands of manyears, wasted on removing shoes?); no-fly list (700K people on the list, no procedure to get off; shady means to get on; wtf?); taking the laptop out (why? can't they see through the bag?). And these are just the innocent things.

    24. Re:Dejavu by node+3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what do you propose? We just let people on planes as if they were buses? When was this brought up? It started out as *YOU* defending *KIDNAPPING AND TORTURING INNOCENT PEOPLE*. That's very different from not letting them on planes, which in and of itself is an entirely different argument.

      You're one seriously sick, sick fuck if you think it's OK to send Americans to jail for years without trial and that it's OK to send foreigners passing through the US to the most shady governments on Earth to be tortured.

      I'd rather die a free man in a free nation in a terrorist attack than live as a fucking coward, fearing those who are guilty of nothing more than sharing a religion, appearance, or name with the boogeyman.

      The boogeyman committed *ONE* successful attack against us, but *OUR* own reaction to that attack has caused us much, much more damage. It's time for Americans to stop being such bunch of shadow-fearing pansies, and to live free, proud, and fearless, like the people of any great nation should.

      Fucking coward.
  3. The War on Terror by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  4. High School Politics by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Narrow minded. by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After someone reports a 'terrorist threat,' the whole system is biased towards escalation and CYA instead of a more realistic threat assessment... You know why they do this? Because several times already, government agencies have learned about possible terrorist acts being planned and didn't act because they didn't consider the source 'credible'. This has nothing to do with your BS tangents about targeting the unexpected, the different, etc. This has to do with agencies trying to save peoples lives.
  7. McCarthy-ism by xgr3gx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:McCarthy-ism by tgatliff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what McCarthy-ism do you see in the statement of "You are either with us or you are with the Terrorists"?? :-)

    2. Re:McCarthy-ism by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. GWB's classic "you're either with us or against us" pitch was just an act of terrorism itself: it was telling the rest of the world that they must support the US policy even if they didn't like it, on pain of feeling the repercussions of the US acting against them next.

      The trouble with taking this binary stance is that it doesn't allow anyone who wants to remain neutral to do so. On balance, you'll find most of them turning against you if you force them to take sides, and that's what we're seeing now with the US reputation being pretty terrible in most of the rest of the world. Before very long, the US economy is probably going to be in big trouble, and with the rapid growth of some other major economies, it may never return to being the dominant force it has been for the past few years. Payback will come when everyone else looks out for themselves and leaves the US out to dry.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  8. The terrorists have won... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

    1. Re:The terrorists have won... by Stiletto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:The terrorists have won... by apparently · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ??? Won what? Just who the heck declared fear as the determining factor of if we're whipped? what lily livered book worm pacifist came up with that grand scheme? Look kids, life is a lot different from what you think it's like from your ivory towers, so get with the freaking program already.

      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.

  9. Re:i was going to call this stupid by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  10. Fun to be a public servant. by cthulu_mt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  11. blame the media for CYA by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:blame the media for CYA by east+coast · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know there is a stinging truth to this:

      Not too long after the London bus bombings a local TV crew took it on themselves to see if they could infiltrate a local bus depot. So they get in and film themselves walking around buses and sitting in a couple of them. The go and disclose this on TV but never get brought up on charges themselves since it's such an embarrassment to the local transit authority.

      So what's it going to be, folks? Police, guards and cameras on every corner to satisfy the media? How much longer can the media get away with watching everyone but having no recourse to actually being honest and fair in their offerings?

      The media is, for the most part, a bunch of shitballs. It's unbelievable how much they're able to get away with and how little they're accountable for.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  12. Beyond Fear by necro81 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. What does this have to do with terrorism? by east+coast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:Only one more year left... by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  15. Sorry, Bruce, you're just wrong.... by isa-kuruption · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm not normally one to disagree with Bruce, but...

    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:

    We don't want people to never report anything. A store clerk's tip led to the unraveling of a plot to attack Fort Dix last May, and in March an alert Southern California woman foiled a kidnapping by calling the police about a suspicious man carting around a person-sized crate. But these incidents only reinforce the need to realistically asses, not automatically escalate, citizen tips. In criminal matters, law enforcement is experienced in separating legitimate tips from unsubstantiated fears, and allocating resources accordingly; we should expect no less from them when it comes to terrorism.


    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!
    1. Re:Sorry, Bruce, you're just wrong.... by Alzheimers · · Score: 2, Informative

      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:

      Actually, he wrote a whole book on the subject. What have you done?

  16. +1.5 Brilliant Use Of Zeitgeist In Rating System by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Funny

    full of win

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  17. Terror vs Terrorism vs Terrorists by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:Terror vs Terrorism vs Terrorists by halber_mensch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A war against an generic term, a tactic or unspecified groups of people cannot be won.
      (It cannot be lost either).

      As long as your "enemy" is unquantifiable, ever shifting, and not discretely identifiable, you're just using a military pretense to dump mass amounts of public funds into private industry. Most likely because you and your cabinet buddies have huge stock options in the corporations that get the government checks.


      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
  18. Mu by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Mu by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look at Virginia Tech. That was a reasonable response, imho, because there was zero evidence that there was an impending rampage, rather than an isolated incident.

      But when the rampage materialized, they were viciously criticized for not having massively overreacted, on the off chance that there could be a rampage.

      Basically, the problem is people. No one in this country is willing to say, "They tried, it wasn't enough, it happens." Instead someone has to be blamed, and they have to take all the blame, even that that ought to just go to the damn perpetrator, because they should have been superhuman and seen it coming.

      So is it any wonder that the people in charge constantly overreact? Schneier hit the nail on the head this time. If you're going to be crucified for taking a commonsense, measured response that happens to be wrong, and lionized for an off-the-charts overreaction, whether its right or wrong, which one will you do? Rewarded behaviour is repeated, and punished behaviour is not.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  19. I'm sorry, but Shneier fails it by stupidpuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I'm sorry, but Shneier fails it by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would slashdot post a counter-terror expert talking about computer security if he had no experience whatsoever in that field?

      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.

      "It Just Don't Look Right" is a time-tested law enforcement mantra.

      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.

    2. Re:I'm sorry, but Shneier fails it by jvkjvk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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? You seem to have missed the major point of what Bruce is on about. He's talking about counter-terrorism and law enforcement from a systems level. And on that level, what they are trying to do just won't work. It really has little to do with the underlying application, or with the specific details. And I don't believe that he is laking the experience to make the critique at the level he is going for, his argument seems to stem from the application os systems thinking to a real world situation, that's all.

      Basically, you have an undamped feedback loop. That is, nothing is damping out the noise except those counter-terrorism or law enforcement individuals who decide that "X" is not a threat and drop it. Yet the system is set up such that the risk involved damping is magnitudes more than the risk or escalation. At least for the individual LEO.

      What's cool (from a certain perspective) is that we have already had this experiment play out, and the results are very much like Bruce's assessment of what would happen from a systems standpoint. Boston ring a bell?

      As another poster pointed out, the campaigns to get people to report anything suspicious only serve to heighten suspicion, thus while more unusual stuff gets pointed out a larger percentage is chaff. It's not like people don't report suspicious activity already, but encouragement lowers the bar on what gets considered reportable.

      So, the combination of increasing reports, ease of escalation and false positives mean many more non-terrorists are going to be, uh, "inconvenienced".

      It Just Don't Look Right" is a time-tested law enforcement mantra. True. However, how it is currently being applied will not make us safer because this mantra is being utilized in a different system than what it was designed for. When most everything "just don't look right" to someone and there is little filter to prevent escalation (and in fact a large incentive to do so) it breaks down.
  20. Re:Only one more year left... by genner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  21. Realistic Threat Assessment? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  22. Re:Only one more year left... by east+coast · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  23. You're pathetic by Nursie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  24. I tip my hat to your sarcasm... by Veetox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:I tip my hat to your sarcasm... by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a link at the bottom of TFA talking about how someone couldn't get through security with a Improvised Electronics Device.

      This tells me that the TSA agents are incredibly poorly trained. (No I'm not just now coming to this conclusion.) Whenever a TSA agent sees something suspicious, they absolutely have to investigate, but they need to know how to investigate. The first thing is they should have a list of things that could possibly damage an airplane. Bomb, wepon (gun, taser, etc.), maybe a transmitter aimed at disrupting cockpit communications or instruments. Then they should look at the suspicious device and determine if it has any of the critical parts for actually causing harm. Is there an explosive? No? Then it's not a bomb. Is there a large power supply? No? Then it isn't a transmitter capable of disrupting communications, or an electronic wepon.

      Our first responders absolutely need the ability to tell the difference between a bomb and a moonite on a lightbrite. (Possibly by looking for an actual explosive.) That they can't speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the war on terror. Exposed wires should be a giant tip off that anything dangerous should also be in plain sight. No one is going to build a rats nest of wires and then carefully conceal the actual explosive behind a clever trap door. If "they" are going to disguise it, they are going to disguise all of it.

    2. Re:I tip my hat to your sarcasm... by Torvaun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anti-abortion groups don't design bombs by committee. Only the government does that. Anti-abortion groups (or whatever other kind of group you want to substitute) have a guy who knows about making bombs, and he makes them with no input other than size and yield. There may be a second guy who knows about hiding bombs. The point is, these two people are smart. Individually, everyone else in the group is likely reasonably intelligent. It's only as a group that they become dumb enough to place bombs at clinics frequented by pregnant women in an attempt to keep fetuses alive.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    3. Re:I tip my hat to your sarcasm... by PitaBred · · Score: 2

      I think you forgot something... fortunately, I've got an extra tag you can borrow. Can't be too careful nowdays, what with the darkie terrorists trying to blow us up and all

  25. Hiding in plain sight by FozE_Bear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  26. Re:CYA : Cover Your Ass!! by Ophion · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thanks, Yoda.

  27. There is no war on terror by Dan667 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  28. Boston Police Stopped Me by holophrastic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.