X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.0-r372567 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k7EH3Znw005745 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:03:35 -0400 Received: from workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu (workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.143]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7EH3XrS025462; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:03:33 -0400 Received: FROM smtp.eecs.umich.edu (smtp.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.43]) BY workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 44E0ACDE.247FF.5656 ; 14 Aug 2006 13:03:26 -0400 Received: from columbus.eecs.umich.edu (columbus.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.24]) by smtp.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7EH3Oqa005260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:03:24 -0400 Received: from columbus.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by columbus.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.7/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k7EH3O9M028793 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:03:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (ntclark Æ localhost) by columbus.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) with ESMTP id k7EH3OKM028790 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:03:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20060814165517.45149.qmail Æ web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: References: <20060814165517.45149.qmail Æ web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r372567 (2006-01-26) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:03:24 -0400 (EDT) cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Nate Clark Subject: Re: stupid feel-good "no liquids" rule Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 683 On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Laurie Reeves wrote: > Well Danny, after reading all the replys to this issue so far I would > say you have not persuaded me to your argument that such security > attempts are useless. How about Bruce Schneier's argument? >From http://www.startribune.com/562/story/609687.html: Bruce Schneier: Focus on terrorists, not tactics It's easy to defend against what they planned last time, but it's shortsighted. Hours-long waits in the security line. Ridiculous prohibitions on what you can carry onboard. Last week's foiling of a major terrorist plot and the subsequent airport security graphically illustrates the difference between effective security and security theater. None of the airplane security measures implemented because of 9/11 -- no-fly lists, secondary screening, prohibitions against pocket knives and corkscrews -- had anything to do with last week's arrests. And they wouldn't have prevented the planned attacks, had the terrorists not been arrested. A national ID card wouldn't have made a difference, either. Instead, the arrests are a victory for old-fashioned intelligence and investigation. Details are still secret, but police in at least two countries were watching the terrorists for a long time. They followed leads, figured out who was talking to whom, and slowly pieced together both the network and the plot. The new airplane security measures focus on that plot, because authorities believe they have not captured everyone involved. It's reasonable to assume that a few lone plotters, knowing their compatriots are in jail and fearing their own arrest, would try to finish the job on their own. The authorities are not being public with the details -- much of the "explosive liquid" story doesn't hang together -- but the excessive security measures seem prudent. But only temporarily. Banning box cutters since 9/11, or taking off our shoes since Richard Reid, has not made us any safer. And a long-term prohibition against liquid carry-ons won't make us safer, either. It's not just that there are ways around the rules, it's that focusing on tactics is a losing proposition. It's easy to defend against what the terrorists planned last time, but it's shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we've wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people before airport security -- and too many ways to kill people. Security measures that require us to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer. Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it'll catch the sloppy and the stupid -- and that's a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely -- but it won't catch a well-planned plot. We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes. The goal of a terrorist is to cause terror. Last week's arrests demonstrate how real security doesn't focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It's a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off. And if you want to know what you can do to help? Don't be terrorized. They terrorize more of us if they kill some of us, but the dead are beside the point. If we give in to fear, the terrorists achieve their goal even if they were arrested. If we refuse to be terrorized, then they lose -- even if their attacks succeed.