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."
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.
But this should make all the Young Libertarians on Slashdot delirious with delight. Isn't the price of freedom supposed to be eternal vigilance?
Yes. Vigilance against the Government. I'm far more worried about Washington and Albany than I am about a handful of naked savages residing in caves who managed to pull off a single mass casualty attack only through luck and our own incompetence.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How is that racist? As far as I know, people of all races have joined the lunatics who launched the attacks. There's even a "white" american or two who have joined, are gained some prominence for doing so. I think everyone is getting a little tired of the old racist claim.
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
Because the parties responsible benefit from the behaviour, which suggests intent. The USA's military budget is a wonder of the Modern World. Politicians get away with deleting public records in the name of security, those that want to go on military adventures for the benefit of private companies they are associated with get to do so. Laws that make it harder to protest against unpopular actions get passed ("Free Speech Zones" - wtf?) resulting in greater freedom for those in power to act without visible criticism. Surveillance, warranted and unwarranted (literally) is passed with little criticism. And all on the ticket of fear.
So you tell me, if factions of people have the smarts to gain control of one of the biggest nations on Earth, institute policies that benefit them in myriad ways to your own detriment, why on Earth would you call them incompetent? Cost overruns on various government projects? Ask yourself where the overspend is going. It doesn't just vanish - it goes into someone's pocket.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Isn't it funny how an entire office goes crazy with word about *possible* layoffs coming, but somehow "Someone" (which always seems to be the other major political party than the person telling you) has this hugely elaborate plan, involving ridiculous amounts of logistics and pre-planning, involving thousands of people.. And nothing is leaked? I mean really, Not a single whistleblower in the government? I mean hell, an executive can't even buy a Corporate Jet, or $30,000 wastebasket and keep it from the media.. but "they" are building mass concentration camps, and planning an elaborate means at turning this country into a puppet controlled by the Illuminatti. Or that they reaaaalllly want to force everyone to depend on the government for health care so that .... Yeah. that makes much more sense then just stupid committee decisions by government employees, who are constantly having to cover their ass..
They don't drop the terrorism alert level, because IF they dropped it to its lowest, THEN an attack happened, they would be dragged in front of congress, and be forced to testify about why they are so stupid, then be fired..
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
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.
Libertarians didn't lead this nation into war, that was the doing of NEOCONSERVATIVES. Neocons are seperate and distinct from the more common conservatives, many of whom have been duped into following the neocons.
Both of these statements are true. It is also true that a great many libertarians and old-school conservatives continue to support the Republican party despite the fact that its agenda has been neocon-dominated for at least fifteen years. If you vote Republican, neocon policies are what you're voting for. So it's kind of hard for us lefties to believe people who say, "Well, here's what real [libertarians|conservatives] believe ..." when they're the exact same people who gave us Gingrich and Bush.
Actually, I do have some sympathy -- I'm a pro-gun liberal, so when I vote Democratic, I'm aware that I'm voting against a portion of my interests. But I don't try to hide it, or pretend otherwise. I can't say "real liberals support gun rights" when I can look around and see that the vast majority of people who call themselves liberals are, in fact, anti-gun. I just have to deal with it, and hopefully be honest about what I'm doing. It would be refreshing to see some of the same honesty from the other side of the aisle.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Fox is only "hate on demand" if you think opposition to leftist ideas qualifies as "hate". I haven't seen much "hate" on Fox. They certainly don't like Obama very much and aren't inclined to give him a fair shake but then MSNBC treated GWB in exactly the same manner, didn't they?
Personally I regard Fox more as a tabloid network than a politically biased one. I spent a few hours in the ER earlier this month where the only channel worth watching was Fox News. I wasn't paying that much attention but about 80% of the coverage consisted of stories and discussion about the Dugard kidnapping. Apparently they had found a bone in the neighbors yard. Nobody knew at that time if it was human or not but apparently this fact was worth three hours of prime time coverage and a few discussion panels.
Fox is a tabloid network first, an echo chamber second.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Partial suspension of habeas corpus, increased surveillance, paramilitary "police", restrictive border controls, property seizure, etc. mean we almost have de facto martial law. An oppressive government would never declare martial law anyway, but would disguise its actions under a layer of propaganda.