Terrorism

[azekeil]

So, very generally, the situation is this:

• The media sensationalises terrorism
• Nearly all of the people I know who have expressed an opinion on the recent debacle have been stoically against the idea of making changes to our everyday lives to account for the threat of terrorism

Now, while I certainly agree that making changes to our everyday lives to account for terrorism gives them power and causes us harm, both in mindset and economically, I have to say that there are a few things I wish to highlight:

1. It is easy for people who are not directly at risk from terrorism to 'stand up' to it (personal responsibility anyone?)
2. One of the major things people have used to justify ignoring the threat of terrorism has been to look at the statistics for the number of people killed by other events such as car accidents or lightning strikes, against the losses suffered by acts of terrorism.

It is this last point I wish to address: I don't believe that numbers of fatalities from accidental or freak occurrances is in any way comparable to numbers of purposeful murders committed for ideological, political or religious reasons.

People take care to not cause accidental deaths through driving safely, wearing their seatbelt, etc. People take care not to get struck by lightning by not going to play golf on a bare hill in a storm. So why shouldn't people take care not to get blown up by terrorists?

Speaking as someone who is going to board a plane the week after the suggested date of the possible attack, I am glad they are taking extra security precautions. Clearly there will be severe disruption as a system that is already running at its limits is forced to cope with extra delays and inconvenience people somewhat, but I'd rather that than run the increased risk of losing my life meaninglessly to a terrorist attack. It's not as if the airport is being closed.

I'm all for not letting terrorists affect our way of life, but I'm also all for taking sensible precautions, and having the security forces take sensible precautions to ensure our safety given the intelligence they claim to have. In this instance I support the actions of our government and security forces.

One thing I should point out is that the only action that is being taken against this threat is to increase the security that is already present. It's unfortunate that it causes knock-on effects because of how tightly the system is already run. We already live in a world where people want to do bad things to people, and we already accept the whole industry built and maintained by our government to try and ensure they don't achieve their aims.

If however they try to use this to justify ID cards and other losses of freedom I will almost certainly stand against that.

Comments

[sepheri.livejournal.com]

How do you define someone who is not directly at risk from terrorism?
Does living with a man who flies all over the world every couple of weeks including to America count as being directly affected?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Well, I think you count as being directly at risk in that instance.

As far as the quote goes, I agree. However, I don't believe we are giving up 'essential liberty' by merely increasing the security we already have.

[sepheri.livejournal.com]

The security we already have violates certain essatial liberties in the first place. Consider that people are having bottles of water taken away from them before boarding a plane and then being forced to pay for a cup of water when on the flight. I believe water to be very much and essential.

I think the important distinction in your post however is that there is a difference between increased vigilance and over sensationalising a perceived threat. That would be a good thing is it wasn't for the news/media/entertainment's over hyping of everything.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree I don't think the finer details of the increased security are necessarily correct - a bit too reactionary.

Yes, the media are guilty of sensationalising this and other stories. It is widely recognised that the first step for a government to become a dictatorship is to control its subjects through fear. I am deeply against that and any incremental losses of freedom justified under the guise of increasing security.

There is of course a question of how did the intelligence come to light in the first place; how much should the government pry into the everyday lives of its subjects? What is 'reasonable'? This, too, is at threat of being eroded, and loss of liberty being introduced by 'stealth'.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I said much the same in reply to a post by missyasmina yesterday (only in less detail).

[gerald_duck]

Now what about lizzip, who's currently in Germany with an antique violin that can't be entrusted to hold luggage, and the return half of an EasyJet ticket?

Looks like she's going to have to cancel and take a train home instead.

My personal estimation is that these extra security measures are hugely inconvenient and next to useless. There are still lots of ways of getting explosives onto a plane and the whole thing may have been pretexted, anyway. If terrorists can cause this much damage — and indeed terror — without even mounting an attack, why go to the trouble of mounting an attack?

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Yes, that did occur to me as well. But I'm going to have to assume that the intelligence that was acted on was much more than just a single piece of information from one source, to justify all this expense and inconvenience.

Second, I suspect lizzip could call the airline in advance and explain the situation, and see if she can get special dispensation.

[gerald_duck]

Why do you "have to" assume the intelligence was good? The people involved don't have an especially compelling track record.

I'm not complaining at the arrests, by the way — unlike Forest Gate, it seems they used proportionate resources, and didn't shoot anyone. By all means let the authorities detain people for a little while, conduct some searches, etc. But then, either let them go and apologise, or charge them and let them stand trial.

But I'm convinced the extra security restrictions are utterly bogus. Maybe someone's been pointy-haired about this and lost track of expert opinion on what is and isn't an effective measure; maybe this is a misguided attempt to make passengers feel safe that they're being protected in some way; maybe this is a cynical attempt to make people feel scared. But you might like to consider this little article, and these photographs of weapons improvised in a maximum-security prison for a start.

It's not clear what devastating liquid it's rationally believed the terrorists could have got onto a plane in sufficient quantities to blow it up, and if there were such a substance, it would be just as easy to smuggle it on board rectally or in a mastectomy prosthesis, say, as in a bottle of baby milk.

Or you recruit or bribe disgruntled workers.

Or you attack somewhere utterly different in some utterly different way, having strung the authorities along for a few months with a cover story.

And those are just the ideas I've come up with while making this reply — there are people who devote their entire lives to thinking up more cunning ones.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I don't "have to" assume the intelligence was good, but simply the news reports seem to indicate that the intelligence was specific (which is usually a good sign), and that they've made a number of arrests in connection with the plot (which again is usually a good sign). This is better than the wooly attempts recently over things like "red mercury" or the apparently random shooting of members of the public, for example.

Yes there are many ways that terrorists can strike, but I would say to this that there are basically two schools of thought. In the light of specific intelligence, you either take action to protect your citizens, or you don't. Not taking action is tantamount to, well. See the example of the Government's delayed response to the hurricane in New Orleans. Or the twin towers disaster, after which it was suggested that intelligence was available.

Based on what I believe was good and specific intelligence, the security forces have acted in what I believe was a proportionate response.

I also came up with a very simple idea for a bomb that would explode when it was x-ray'd using a piece of film and an optical detector as the trigger.

[gerald_duck]

Once you're in the school of thought where you take action, the next step is to decide which action.

If the draconian airport security improves anyone's safety at all, it'll only be nibbling delicately at the edges of the total problem space. Bruce Schneier, whose opinions are generally very sound, says "these don't seem like ridiculous short-term measures", and I'll accept they make sense assuming a specific and immediate threat model. But I'm not sure we can trust thus government when they tell us there's such a threat, and in any case that's justification for a few days at most.

Now is a good time to be a crooked baggage handler.

Now is a good time to be a terrorist with some scheme that doesn't involve airports.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I agree - there is no perfect catch-all solution. But I don't think there's much other response in this situation that could have been much more appropriate than the one that has happened, which is why I'm in support of it.

I'm sure the security services are well aware that their attention is diverted.

[ev1ldonut.livejournal.com]

I actually disagree with you on the statistics usage, but I am far far to tired to actually do a discussion. Maybe another time. ;)


In fact, I'm rapidly approaching the point of physical exhaustion where I just stop giving a damn about most everything that doesn't involve me sitting down and relaxing. ;)

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Okay, well if you remember it would be interesting to hear your argument :)

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Do I count as personally at risk from terrorism? On the one hand I could easily have been on one of the trains hit by the 7/7 bombers, and I have personally heard a terrorist bomb explode (on 10 April 1992). For my part I cannot think of a reason why I would suffer far greater risk of being killed or horribly maimed in an accident in return for un-noticeably smaller risk of being killed or horribly maimed on purpose.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I forgot what to say what was on the other hand. On the other hand the risk from terrorism for most of us is so slight that you practically have to be Ehud Olmert before you can really describe yourself as at risk from terrorism...

[gerald_duck]

I'd say Olmert was actually pretty safe. He's an unexpectedly-promoted and extremely inexperienced statesman who's vacillating and failing to give any strong Israeli response to the provocations on the Gazan and Lebanese borders.

If the terrorists killed him, I doubt he'd be replaced by anyone who helped their cause more — quite apart from the inevitable backlash of public opinion around the world.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Yes, statistically we're less likely to die from terrorism. But I'd be more comfortable knowing we were even less likely still to die from terrorism, if there was a chance that we could reduce it further.

The counter argument is: Do we simply sit by idly until the risk of death from terrorism is proportionally greater than general everyday activity? I can't see how this could be advocated.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

My point is, we already take precautions to attempt to minimise accidents, so why not take precautions to minimise purposeful murder too?

[gerald_duck]

Because their benefit is outweighed by their cost (in broad rather than purely pecuniary terms)?

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

This is a very difficult argument to debate because if air travel is viewed by the general public as unsafe because millions of pounds weren't spent on security, then the general public will simply find alternatives, as in your train example with lizzip - and the cost could therefore be potentially greater still than simply implementing extra security. It's a PR exercise too. The only losers in all this are the general public, both in lost lives and in their pockets.

[gerald_duck]

Well, I'm not going to fly until they relax the restrictions. Have you any idea how unbearable a transatlantic flight would be with no book, no music, no laptop, no big bottle of water, no pen of your own to use on the visa waiver and customs forms, no way to take valuables with you other than entrusting them to the baggage handlers?

Fortunately, my own luggage has never gone missing, but it's happened to countless people I know. I wouldn't dream of touching down without my mobile phone plus spare socks, pants and t-shirt in my carry-on luggage.

Besides, as you may be aware, my diet is pretty cranky. I'm also reluctant to fly without a flapjack or three in carry-on so I don't starve.

At the moment I don't need asthma preventer, but if I did I'd be stymied: a pressurised inhaler isn't safe in the hold of a plane, but it wouldn't be needed during flight so wouldn't be permitted.


I've talked to quite a lot of fliers in the last couple of days, and the overwhelming majority are immensely annoyed at the security measures while being almost completely unconcerned by the (alleged) terrorist threat.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Yes, on long haul flights the inconvenience is more severe. I hope they find a better way of addressing it than the blanket rules they have in place at the moment. But for me, planning to take a short trip next week, this is good news.

[gerald_duck]

Have you considered driving or taking the train instead?

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

What, and let my activities be dictated by terrorists? Never!

On a more serious note, kissycat1000's never been in a plane, so there is an emotional reason to want to go by plane.

[gerald_duck]

There's a difference between letting your activities be dictated by terrorists, and letting them be dictated by the security services.

Then again, I use road or rail in preference to air when moving around Europe, anyway. Air flight looks really convenient until you consider:

• Airports are never as central as railway stations
  
• You have to add the check-in time and baggage reclaim to the flight time when comparing with other forms of transport
  
• Driving can save your having to hire a car at destination
  
• Far less stringent baggage restrictions, even before yesterday's events
  
• Better scenery
  
• Probably cheaper, and certainly better for the environment

If you're determined to fly for the sake of flying, then enjoy, I guess, though you've sure picked your moment. :-p

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Tell me about it :/

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

That seems like the opposite of what you were saying before - that the two were incomparable and it was a mistake to compare them.

I think that precautions to save life and limb are justified only by a costs/benefits analysis. I see no reason to accept a drastically different costs/benefits tradeoff for precautions against deliberate attacks than for precautions against accidental attacks. I think the case (as linked in my journal) that we are accepting drastically different costs/benefits ratios for terrorism than for other things, and that this is a terrible mistake that plays into the hands of terrorism, is overwhelmingly compelling.

I strongly recommend reading Bruce Schneier's "Beyond Fear".

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Yes I agree. But what about lost trade due to the public's perceived loss of security? There has to be a balance, and in my opinion, the actions the government took were proportionate to the perceived threat.

Of course, I'm not privvy to the intelligence they had, but it does sound a lot more specific than the previous "red mercury" or apparently random killing of members of the general public.

[gerald_duck]

The airlines' most lucrative customers are frequent business fliers, who are typically of above average intelligence and therefore less likely than average to be spooked by nebulous and trifling terrorist threats.

These are people who willingly caught planes in the weeks following 2001-09-11, but will reconsider if they can't use their laptop during the flight.

(Oh, and duty free is screwed too, of course.)

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Yes, why the plan was stated from the outset for these restrictions to be short term... it's not ideal, but I still believe on balance that placing restrictions on hand luggage was the only sensible thing to do given the apparent intelligence. Admittedly, they could have been a little less draconian about how this was actually enforced, but I guess they're just trying to keep delays to a minimum.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

the plan was stated from the outset for these restrictions to be short term - it was? Can you cite me up? Last I heard they didn't know if these measures were going to be in place indefinitely.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Hah, I found the article I was thinking of, but it states it in less definite terms right at the bottom..

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

These excessive precautions do at least as much to feed that perception as they do to adddress it. And far from combating this disproportionate fear in order to avoid that lost trade, it's clear also that the government both here and in the US actively stoke it. Look at the ridiculous and useless "threat levels" for an example:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/britain_adopts.html

I can't say yet whether these particular measures were proportionate. I can say that lots of insane and useless "precautions" are taken in the name of terror prevention that would never be accepted to prevent accidental harm, and that it would help a lot if people radically reassessed their perception of the terrorist threat downwards.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Yes, and I appreciate that one of the primary methods goverments use to control their populace is fear. But, I'm glad to say that this time they've reacted quickly and sensibly to the intelligence of a specific threat - okay, it would have been nicer if they could find it in their hearts to implement the order in a less draconian fashion, but I imagine they're trying to minimise delays too, so an outright ban of non-essential items would seem to be the way to go.

I agree that many other responses to terror have been inappropriate, or acting on dubious intelligence, but this is the closest I believe they have come to an appropriate reaction to specific intelligence. Not quite sure what that says overall.. ;)

[growf.livejournal.com]

To be honest, most of the security procedures being put in place have zero or negative benefit. They're not being put forward as a solution, they're being done as a placebo, something to make people worry less.

Look at the photo on this article:

Maya Leoni, who is held by Angela Perez, cries as her mother, A.J. Leoni, pours the last of her drink into the receptacle while in line for the security checkpoint at the Asheville Regional Airport.

They're worried about a binary liquid explosive and they're making everyone pour their liquids into a single recepticle. These measures actually heighten risk whilst trying to be seen to mitigate it.

The whole business of banning pointy things in hand luggage overlooked the fact that I always carry a flame thrower (cigarette lighter, deoderant) and I can buy a fabulous cosh in the shape of a Champagne bottle flight side. We're encouraging security staff to focus on the unimportant and giving them more and more bureaucratic distractions.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

As always, the implementation misses the point. I think the suggested security restrictions were sensible, but the way they've been implemented was rather draconian, and in some cases downright dangerous (as above).

Yes there are other aspects of security which still have gaping common sense holes in them, but that's not what I'm arguing about (this time *grin*).

[growf.livejournal.com]

I don't think the suggested restrictions are sensible. I think they're just more bureaucratic box ticking with no net benefit.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I admit I'd rather they simply tested any liquids being taken on board - I can't imagine anyone having a problem with that..?