Slashdot Mirror
DHS Ponders "Improving" Terrorism Alert System
An anonymous reader writes "The DHS's color-coded terrorism risk warning system has often been criticized on a number of grounds. However, it seems that at last DHS has taken note of these criticisms and is finally planning to fix one of its problems. Which one? Well, since the two lowest levels have never been used in the history of the program, the solution is obvious: just get rid of them! In the new system, the lowest level would be yellow, 'guarded,' representing 'A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack.' While it's nice that they're at least no longer maintaining a pretense of it being for anything other than fear-mongering, I don't think this was the kind of change most people were hoping for."
'A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack.'
But this should make all the Young Libertarians on Slashdot delirious with delight. Isn't the price of freedom supposed to be eternal vigilance?
Let's just declare martial law and get it over with.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
This system provides no real benefit to the American populace other than to instill fear.
I don't stop what I'm doing because for some reason or another, the day has been ranked a "red" terrorist day.
Really, all it does (besides instilling fear) is give news sources something to talk about briefly.
In this respect, not much seems to have changed.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Ignoring the fear that it was probably _designed_ to instill in the population and potentially the global population... It's just a pointless system.
If this system is at all meant for the general population, it's failed. When I go out on vacation, or planning on visiting a major city and/or landmark, I never even think of the Alert colors.
I understand that it may potentially only be for government agencies, especially law enforcement, but even then does saying we're at yellow, or orange, or even red _really_ give them direction? I'm assuming even if there are general rules in place to "do x and y when at color z" they only get rudimentary things done. Say, bringing in more personnel or putting more people on standby status. Even the agencies need to know _what_ to look for and in what fashion the event is predicted to take place.
Really, beyond fear, I can't see the point in the system at all. If there is something to report to the public, report it. If there is something to report to government agencies, I bet there are a bunch of better ways, already in use, to alert the proper acronyms of the who, what, when, where, and why.
Red - Socialist President. Abandon the country.
No: Red Socialist President. Go to a town hall, scream a lot, wave your automatic weapons in the air, and scream, YOU LIE!!!!!!!!
By keeping the threat level at Orange (High) for as long as they have DHS has done two things:
1) Desensitized the rating system to the point that it's meaningless.
2) Left a lot of people thinking, "You mean after all these years and billions of $s we haven't been able to reduce the threat?"
Yep yep. I interpret the terror alert color to only indicate one thing: how long the line will be at the security checkpoint. And it's for purely psychological reasons: higher danger levels make us desire a greater inconvenience in order to feel safe.
To wit: if the color was green, nobody would care if they just whisked everybody through without searching purses, confiscating water bottles, and making us take off our shoes.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
LOL.
And the continuous state of alert just causes degradation and ignorance.
People would just ignore it like they do with some warning lights in the car. "You don't have the seat belt on" is just ignored since they already know it, and know it's illegal in most states to not have the seat belt on but they don't give a crap.
So an "Elevated" state of alert is in reality "Normal" to "Ignorable". A "Critical" state of alert will be considered "Elevated" and when it's critical all traffic will have a standstill anyway.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Agreed -- mostly. You're right in that just because something is possible doesn't mean it's likely.
OTOH, there are a number of likely scenarios and we are certainly no better off security-wise than we were before 9/11. Sticking a bunch of rent-a-cops in front of possible terrorist targets and airport terminals and giving them metal detectors and bomb sniffers will stop only the casual terrorist who hasn't thought things through.
From what we know now, the 9/11 terrorist attacks took years of planning. Do you really think that terrorists who are willing to wait in the wings for years, plotting and scheming the whole time aren't already systematically testing this 'new' security for weaknesses?
Don't be stupid and above all, do not trust the DHS when they tell you that we are more secure. Because we are certainly not.
My blog
A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry.
A holstered/slung firearm that represents no threat to anyone is a piece of jewelry.
The only way a weapon (of any kind) represents no threat is if there is a certainty that it will never be used. There's no reason to carry a weapon that won't be used, but if it might be used, then its very purpose is to be a threat that others take seriously. Possibly a legitimate threat (a deterrent against attacks to your person, perhaps), but a threat nonetheless.
(Even if you guarantee you will never use your weapon, it represents a threat to yourself, because it encourages everyone around you to treat you as more dangerous than you are and respond to you more aggressively than otherwise).
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
No the DHS can act as if it's always yellow or orange or whatever color they keep it locked to. The rating system is supposed to be FOR THE PUBLIC. I don't think since oh what was it Sept 11, 2001 that we should collectively be on a state of constant panic and alert looking for terrorists. Now if they get some credible threats and/or chatter that something is imminent then yes it would make sense to raise it from Blue or Green or whatever to yellow or orange to get the public involved in helping them. However, the presumed constant state of alert as others have said will only lead to people just flat out ignoring the system unless it comes out to 'WE ARE UNDER ATTACK!' and some jackass flies a few more planes into some buildings.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Carrying a gun != threatening someone else. A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry.
I'm a gun owner. I don't have phobias. And yet if I were taking a walk around my state's capital square and witnessed an apparent civilian with a rifle "safely slung" over their shoulder, you'd better fucking believe I'd wonder about intent. And then I'd quickly guide my family away in the opposite direction (.
In certain contexts, the only purpose to openly carry in this manner would be to make some kind of political statement.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Look, it's a department whose sole purpose is defending the homeland. How is it fear mongering to stay on "a constant state of vigilance". And when would they ever go less than that, realistically? Do we want a Department of Homeland Defense whose alertness to terrorism status is "Not paying attention.", which is what is less than "vigilant".
What we want is a population with sufficient intelligence and maturity to be able to recognise the War on Terror for exactly what it is; a sham, and Orwell's "war without end," which exists for the express purpose of enabling the gradual, overt introduction of total fascism.
The GWOT has no legitimacy, and the DHS doesn't either. They are both instruments of fascism, and absolutely nothing more.
If you're having trouble believing that every single terrorist incident which has occurred in the last ten years, has been orchestrated by governments, it's very simple to figure out the underlying logic.
Simply ask yourself who the overwhelming beneficiary of the attacks has been.
What's wrong with a political statement?
Personally I wouldn't openly carry under any circumstance other than hunting or competition (mainly because I don't want to give away the fact that I'm armed and become a target) but I'm not afraid of those that do.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The DHS was/is not even necessary, and is just another bureaucracy clogging up things even more.
Those who trade freedom for security get neither. The more you allow government to protect you the more power you allow them to throw you in a dungeon and throw away the key. No Trial, No Rights, No more Liberty.
You either put the handcuffs on the government or they put them on you.
You know what? Among conservatives, "Patriotic" has lost its original meaning of loving one's country. It has become the codeword for their own type of "Politically Correct."
It is already orange and has been orange forever as far as air travel goes.
I chuckle at that every time I fly, because leaving it at one step below the actual attack state means if it ever went to red for good reason, no one will care.
Boiling frogs works both ways. if you constantly caution people when there is no real danger, they lose the ability to see genuine threats.
In a highly anticipated move, Congress today determined that all DEFCON levels above 1 are unneeded and will be scrapped.
"Well, we're at war 24/7 as it is, the system should reflect that," stated a representative.
Defence contractors were unable to comment, though one did make a side remark that he was too busy counting his money.
Because unlike a nutter with a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache (killing all chance of political discourse FTW), the person making a political statement with a gun can kill me.
Are you afraid your family might learn something about the 2nd Amendment?
In a sense, yes. I'm frightened they might get an intimate lesson in it.
I hate these loonies taking their guns to what used to be CIVIL discussions, sure, they have the RIGHT, but they obviously have no idea what RESPONSIBILITY is. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. These gun nuts (as opposed to normal gun owners) are just a symptom of the problem, our ability to sit down and discuss issues is completely, and totally dead. As is all of our belief in democracy, these people are generally people searching for a dictatorship, even if they won't admit it. Democracy is a right, until my fellow country men vote for someone who I don't like.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Taking a gun to a political rally sends the message "agree with me or I shoot you".
It only sends that message if you are paranoid enough to regard anyone carrying a gun as violent enough to want to murder you for disagreeing with them. I've gotten into my share of arguments with people with guns (usually over their selection of firearm ;) and I haven't been shot yet. Amazing, isn't it?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.