Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Schneier On the Marathon Bomber Manhunt
Should Boston have been put in a state of lockdown on Friday as police chased down Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? Pragmatic Bruce Schneier writes on his blog: "I generally give the police a lot of tactical leeway in times like this. The very armed and very dangerous suspects warranted extraordinary treatment. They were perfectly capable of killing again, taking hostages, planting more bombs -- and we didn't know the extent of the plot or the group. That's why I didn't object to the massive police dragnet, the city-wide lock down, and so on." Schneier links to some passionate counterarguments, though. It doesn't escape the originator of a recurring movie plot terrorism contest that the Boston events of yesterday were just "the sort of thing that pretty much only happens in the movies."
All this showed to me sadly was how quickly people are willing to give up their own freedoms because of fear. This is a sad slippery slope we are on. While this was a horrible event, only three people died, and the whole city got shut down. Three. How long till they lockdown the city because two people die. How long untill they lockdown the city because a gunshot was heard. Untill they come into our homes to look for suspects. And the worst part is, no one will even say "No". We will welcome them with open arms, and claim that we dont mind being being forced to stay indoors, to let police into our houses whenever they want, to be under constant surveillance, because there are "madmen" on the loose and we have to catch them. Its like a mass case of stockholm syndrome.
The authorities said "please stay inside, don't go to work or anything". Most people did, either because of the perceived danger (desperate fugitive with explosives and guns and a willingness, even perhaps a desire, to use them against random citizens) or because they wanted to do what little they could to help authorities catch the perpetrators of the marathon bombings.
Nobody got arrested for not staying inside. It was a temporary measure, and a ruinously expensive one in economic terms -- so they're not likely to do this again except in equally extreme situations.
If two people with makeshift bombs can cause a major city to go on lockdown, isn't the message to terrorists that a multi-city disruption -- say, shutting down from Boston to Philly -- wouldn't take very many people or that much coordination?
The guy was found when they let people out of their houses and one of them stumbled across the guy. If they had let people out earlier would he have been found earlier? Funny thing is if they had waited until night to lift the ban he might have slipped away.
What's more consider what happened. The people hid from one militant guy. Compare this to 1776 when British militants walked on a town. Citizens decided to gather together to oppose them despite the risk to their lives (, and many did die ). Boy how this country has changed.
This entire thing was ridiculous and made so by the police. 2 men shut down one of the largest cities on earth. These sorts of attacks happen all the time most other parts of the world. Imagine living in Israel or Syria. If they ever get 20 guys again like 9/11 and they all just get rifles and randomly start shooting people all over the country like the Washington sniper did this countries going to become a police state if the police react like this. More people were killed in Massachusetts in the past week in car accidents then by these bombers. Where was the police presence to prevent those fatalities? Oh, that's right, they were busy firing thousands of rounds at a 2 guys in a residential neighborhood.
Two devices went off, police were looking for two suspects... there was no particularly strong evidence that there would be dozens of people out there or something. I suspect it comes down to just the word "terrorism" causing people to refuse to apply the kind of logic they normally apply.
I've lived in neighborhoods where people were shot, and the gunman was an fugitive. It was more likely in those cases that there could be wider involvement of a larger group, because often people who perpetrate shootings are gang members. While it's rare, occasionally these fugitive scenarios actually do end up in a shootout that involves a dozen people. Yet, the police don't lock down all of Atlanta every other week just in case.
I think the key here is predictability. Neighbourhood criminals have known haunts. We were dealing with people who were extremely mobile and armed with explosives. We didn't know who their partners in crime (if any) were, we didn't know where they were likely to go. They had been located in downtown Boston, Cambridge, and Watertown. Their last known location was Watertown, and that's where the actual door-to-door searching was going on, but the danger was that they'd break free and head in a random direction. By clearing the streets, the citizens of Boston ensured that they'd stick out like a sore thumb. Terrorists hate standing out except while they are actively creating terror. They'd much rather fade into the crowd, unless they're making a suicide stand.
This was as much a statement by the populace as it was an exercise in police powers. The police routinely do stuff more intrusive than that in the event of natural disaster, but there are invariably holdouts. Wait until hurricane season, and see. Any holdouts in Boston didn't make it to the news.
Some may claim this is a slippery slope, but I'd say it's closer to "You can run, but you cannot hide". It was actually a turn up from the recent trends that the populace are helpless sheep and the wise people in the government will handle it all. Sometimes the best action you can take is to stay out of the way.
Human nature being what it is, however, I doubt that any future voluntary lockdowns will be as successful. People will only put up with so much of it. Especially if there's no compelling demonstration that such extremes are necessary.
I can't believe people are saying to the effect of "only three people died, less than the deaths caused by normal crime." Surely there is a difference between those looking to maim hundreds of innocent people and the sum of everyday crime?
How can people be so wishy-washy about this? A couple of complete assholes have just ruined hundreds of peoples' lives, and people feel conflicted about the manhunt that ended in their death and arrest?
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Yes. But luckily, you've got plenty of guns, which once again proved their usefulness on this occasion, by... Oh, never mind.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Correct, though the people may deserve some sympathy what is needed from our politicians is an investigation as to why this plant was allowed to flaunt safety regulations. The greatest respect we can show the victims of the West Texas accident is to hold those responsible accountable, from the owners of the plant to the regulators who failed to perform the required inspections.
West Texas was completely preventable, and a failure of regulatory oversight.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
There is a continuum on a scale that goes from "I have my own rights and I don't care about anyone else" to "What the individual wants isn't important, it's only the common good that matters." Most of us dislike both extremes and find our beliefs somewhere between the two. In this case, most residents thought the emergency and very temporary needs of their community were significantly more important than their own personal convenience and voluntarily complied with a request to stay in for part of a day. Seems eminently reasonable to me, and so I find it curious to be critical of that.
> but because there are so many medical people and other security forces around
Not to mention the marathon finish line was only 1.4 miles away from what is arguably the best hospital in the world.
Option 1: Police/govt over-react, nothing bad happens: Grumbling about over reaction
Option 2: Police/govt over-react, something bad still happens: Grumbling that still not enough was done
Option 3: Police/govt under-react, nothing bad happens: No problem
Option 4: Police/govt under-react, another attack happens: Everyone "responsible" as good as burnt alive at stake
In light of the potential outcome of option 4 (which based on what these psychopaths did before and during capture was altogether probable) risk-averse structures, like governments, will choose to over-react every time.