9/11 Made Us Safer, Says Bruce Schneier 280
richi writes "Security guru and BT CTO Bruce Schneier discusses terrorist attacks. In fact, Bruce seems to be saying that 9/11 actually made us safer from terrorists, which seems like a curious argument. While Bruce's blog post is interesting and no doubt insightful, I'm not sure I really buy it. And what's the deal with the new rules for searching the TSA No Fly List? Why is it, in 2010, we're still mucking about with publishing database extracts and waiting hours for them to be searched? How about checking within seconds of an update? Couldn't someone volunteer to show them how to implement a reliable, scalable, NoSQL setup? Instead, the TSA plan to fix this is a classic 'big government' solution."
Hah! (Score:4, Interesting)
Something smells mildly like V for Vendetta around here...
I buy it (Score:5, Interesting)
Pre 9/11:
Plane hijacker: Open the cockpit
Pilot: Ok
*passengers cower in fear*
Post 9/11:
Plane hijacker: Open the cockpit
Pilot: I'm sorry, I can't, the door cannot be opened until we are on the ground
*passengers storm the hijackers*
It used to be you played real friendly with hijackers in a hostage situation. Now we know better. We didn't need to change a thing to keep 9/11 from happening again. As much as I'm a critic of many of the anti-terror changes, though, some just make sense (bullet-proof cockpit doors so air marhsells can shoot into them, locking the doors during flight, pilots carrying guns, etc)
On a semi-related note, a friend of mine's father is an airplane pilot. A few years ago, he was going through the security checkpoint. So he hands the TSA agent his gun and goes through the procedure. On the other side, the agent hands back his gun, and says "I'm sorry, sir, I need to confiscate your shampoo"..."you do know I'm a pilot right? And you just handed me a loaded gun?"..."I know sir, please don't make it any more ridiculous than it already is"
Not a big government solution! (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason it takes so long to check the list is that the airlines are not giving the manifest data back to the TSA. The TSA updates the lists, but it doesn't have access to the manifests, so it cannot check. Instead, the airlines check the lists whenever they chose, but no less than every two (previously eight) hours.
The big government solution would be to compel the airlines to provide the data to the TSA, which can then check the manifests against the lists as the data comes in. But privacy advocates and European governments are opposed to giving the "big government" real time access to people's travel plans. The government has been willing to accept the current system as a compromise.
Ultimately, the question is whether you want to allow the private sector to actually perform the no fly list reconciliation and keep your data relatively secret, or whether you want the government to be able to instantly identify people on the no fly list, but have access to your movements via air travel.
The choices are not great, and I won't express my preferences.
--AC
Volunteer to Help? (Score:3, Interesting)
What has he been smoking? Volunteer? As in giving away your services to an agency that has a mission to take away your rights?
Re:LOL (Score:2, Interesting)
Biggest reason for few attacks in the USA (Score:3, Interesting)
They're busy killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Queada has _exploded_ in political and "terrorist" operations there, it's become part of daily politics. It's also far more effective for their immediate goals of political control, fairly effectively counteracting the military might of the wealthiest nation on Earth.
After all, it worked against the British Empire and later the Soviet Union as invaders of Afghanistan.
Re:BRUCE NEVER SAID THAT (Score:5, Interesting)
Lewis Page, of The Register, said it better, and more eloquently:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/08/mutallab_comment/ [theregister.co.uk]
Check out the second page of the article, entitled "OMG - why aren't we all already dead?"
-dZ.
Re:Ignorance (Score:2, Interesting)
It may be more complicated than that. He used low-grade explosives probably because the higher-grade ones would attract more attention during acquisition. Thus, it appears that it's merely an attempt to get around the system by using crappy weapons. Maybe it would have worked slightly better if he didn't make other planning mistakes, but not much.
Re:Just under three thousand people would disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, people in Germany and Japan weren't all happy and friendly when they lost WWII, but they lost the war, and they had to do and listen to what we said.
And look how well it turned it has turned out for them. In some ways, messing with the USA is probably the best thing evil governments can do that turns around those countries.
Re:Just under three thousand people would disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just under three thousand people would disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just under three thousand people would disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
However terrorist attacks are almost completely irrelevant to the lives of anyone living anywhere except for Iraq.
Or Ireland.
Re:Just under three thousand people would disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just under three thousand people would disagree (Score:1, Interesting)
Doesn't that imply that, perhaps, those safety measures HAVE worked?
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Re:Just under three thousand people would disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
Yea, because it's easier to label and kill the messenger then deal with the facts of the message that don't jive with your notion of reality.
Well, I'm going to go get a beer now, I'll toast one in your honor. Hows this sound, "here to the willfully ignorant and the people who want to color their views so much they do not resemble reality any more". Or how about this, "here's to throwing intellectual honesty out the window". Oh well, some friends are meeting me, I'll ask them which would be best to toast you with.
Re:Just under three thousand people would disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
"Just under three thousand people would disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)"
To say that 9/11 hasn't made the US safer afterwards ... because of the loss during the event itself ... is confused. (You are referring to the 2,976 killed on 9/11, aren't you?) For that to be scored 5 Insightful demonstrates there is something faulty with the rating system here.
Now, what you referenced about thousands of US soldiers (about 4,400) being killed is insightful. 9/11 endangered our troops by whipping up popular need for retribution, thus enabling politically and financially motivated persons in positions of power to push through an invasion of a country unrelated to 9/11.
Those among us who supported the invasion of Iraq in the frenzy of fear that followed it should take time to think about it. Here's a good moment. What harm can be done when you're lashing out while emotionally charged? That's thousands of young US soldiers killed without cause. That's over 30,000 troops wounded. Because you backed a needless invasion. And this doesn't even begin to address the cost in innocent Iraqi lives.
Re:Just under three thousand people would disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
The difference is that neonazis are now a confined minority with several counter-minorities keeping them in check even before you consider government interference (in fact the government has to put more effort into making sure the neonazis don't get beaten to death by the rest of the population). The old nazis were more than an ideology, they were a form of organized crime (they had the SA spread terror among their opposition even before they got any official power). That structure got stomped out even if a few silly kids still think Hitler was cool.
Re:LOL - WMDs (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice response, but (IMHO) your argument on Iraq is flawed.
The problem is the term "WMDs". It is a vague, political term that was introduced on purpose. The idea was to lump together nuclear weapons, which generate lots of fear and concern, with biological and chemical, which aren't in the same class.
We KNEW Iraq had chemical weapons because they used them publicly against the Kurds and Iranians. It was common knowledge, and WE DIDN'T CARE. They were little to no threat to the U.S. with those.
We KNEW they were working on biological weapons, but again they weren't much of a threat to the U.S. Certainly not enough to justify an invasion. Both chemical and biological have short shelf-lives and are fairly difficult to use effectively except on a battlefield.
Nuclear we had NO credible intelligence that Iraq had any capability. What little we had was suspect, cherry picked, and refuted by several other, more credible sources.
BUT, the people that wanted war knew they couldn't sell it to Congress or the public based on chemical or biological weapons. The term WMD was introduced to explicitly blur the line with nuclear weapons and peoples inherent fear of them.
Change the term "WMD" in your argument to "nuclear weapons" and tell me if you still stand behind it.