Rules against questioning security make us less secure
My latest Guardian column just went live: "Time to fight security superstition." It talks about the growing number of strictures on talking about, recording, and arguing with the security measures in our society, and how this makes us all less safe:
Unfortunately, today's security cheerleaders have regressed to a more superstitious era, a time from before Bletchley Park's wizards won the second world war. The public isn't supposed to take photographs of CCTV cameras in case this knowledge can be used against them (despite the fact that surely terrorists can memorise their locations).LinkWe can't mention terrorist attacks at the airport while we're being subjected to systematic anti-dignity depredations; your bank won't let you open an account with a passport – you need to supply a laser-printed utility bill as well ("to prevent money laundering" … you can just hear Osama's chief forgers gnashing their teeth for lack of a piece of A4).
The superstitions that grip airport checkpoints and banks are themselves a threat to security, because the security that does not admit of examination and discussion is no security at all.
If terrorists are a danger to London, then the only way to be safe is to talk about real threats and real countermeasures, to question the security around us and shut down the systems that don't work.
the latest
latest episodes
thght y wr n ptrnty lv? gss tht ws jst bd t rn r dmrtn fr wht mdrn, prgrssv mn y r, whl knwng fll wll y'd b pstng n fw dys bcs yr mssv g prvntd y frm styng wy.
t's shm bcs cld rd bnbng ll dy wtht hvng t lstn t yr slf-glrfyng, slf-srvng psts bt hw n f yr strs ws trnsltd nt Lthnn (ndr crtv cmmns...yh, w gt t; cpyrght s bd) r hw yr ltst rtcls jst md t t th pgs f th grdn.
Cory said, "...because the security that does not admit of examination and discussion is no security at all."
I'm not sure I follow the logic train of the above quote. Obviously, security is not a egalitarian process because it often relys on secrets. So, are for or against a more transparent society? And if you are For a more transparent society, doesn't that mean transparency for everyone? Which means no secrets for anyone at any time. Borg?
@1: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/6_ways_to_filter_your_rss_feeds.php. Hopefully this will be the last we hear from you on how much you think Cory is totally lame.
@2:
A transparent society doesn't necessarily mean no secrets for anyone. Private citizens are still able to keep secrets from each other, and from their government. What it means is that the government is open to inquiry and protest. Government ≠ God, and therefore is not all-knowing. Citizens need the ability to debate security measures, and challenge the government when they think that certain "security measures" are actually the result of ulterior motives. Liberty and security exist in balance, and that balance should serve the citizens most of all, it should be their decision how the scales tip. Without a transparent government, the citizenry is in no control of this crucial balance.
G. Park, a totally transparent governement is a fiction that's not going to happen. And, I'm talking about the philosophical issue of real and total transparency (like a hive mind). If it's not total then it's going to suffer from arbitrary boundries established by whom? Will the enlightened masses get to vote on what is truly transparent and good for them and what isn't? Would we like the NSA to make all their data available for the public to look at? Including our enemies? And we do have enemies, people that would like nothing better than to see Amercan streets flowing with Ameican blood.
@4-
Are you then in favor of a completely non-transparent government? Like a monarchy, dictatorship, or theocracy? I doubt you are, and that's the issue here.
Complete transparency is impractical, and likely counter-productive. What I'm (and likely Cory is, too) asking for is a government that is more transparent. Like I mentioned in my first post, government is about balance, and it is important for the executive & military branches of government to keep tactical and strategic secrets. But that secrecy needs to balance with the citizens' participation in their own representative government.
Clearly something is out of balance in the UK (and the US as well) when the citizenry is unhappy with the level of transparency, and the level of liberty sacrificed for security. Instead of allowing us to participate more in the security/liberty negotiations, are governments (US & UK in particular) are attempting to scare us into compliance with phrases like "people that would like nothing better than to see Amercan streets flowing with Ameican blood." The US (and the UK) system of government was built on debate and reason, not fear and authoritarianism. We need to get back to that.
Jeff, a totally closed government is resistant to all forms of feedback except direct revolution. A totally open government would be monstrous in other ways. Somewhere inbetween lies the perfect degree of transparency for these circumstances. That amount of transparency can be found by negotiation, if the government is open to it (see my first sentence above), and seeing what works.
Obviously, a government that attempts to make secret things which are public knowledge -- i.e. the locations of CCTV cameras -- is being absurd, and they should be openly mocked for it.
Paranoia does not bring security.
The govt, and the people, both need to be reminded of that once in a while.
Many security measures in place now are nonsense, even if they were well-intended in the first place. I could provide a giant list, but that would just waste everyone's time; we all know examples.
Last evening on TV they reported a short-story from Oregon? or Michigan?....about a woman who called the police about a suspicious man parked in the laudramat parking lot.
As police were respondiong their dispatcher alerted them top a man calling about a "suspicious" woman inside the laundramat seemingly making "a lot of mysterious cell-phone calls".
THEY REPORTED EACH OTHER!!
Anecdote time:
A friend of mine was flying somewhere for some music thing. She is a violinist, and was of course carrying it on. At the security line when the instrument was on its way through the machine, ONE OF THE TSA PEOPLE said, "That's not a machine gun, is it?"
So yeah, I guess they can make jokes but we can't.
new t-shirt/bumper sticker idea:
QUESTION SECURITY
The best thing would be to NOT TALK ABOUT TERRORISM AT ALL. Since then terrorism wouldn't make any sense.
The way this discussion jumped to the subject of transparency and secrecy seems a bit odd and knee-jerk. The article wasn't about the government keeping secrets. It was about the government prohibiting the photographing and discussion of things going on in plain public view. The whole point of the article was that these things are not secret in the first place and yet Britain is prohibiting the photographing and discussion of them.
@#12Stephen:
Actually, the discussion is about - "Rules against questioning security make us less secure" - aka the title of the post.
Transparency falls under this category.
Don't be confused that the examples are the subject.
@11JODDEHA
That is exactly right. Thatcher (or one of her speechwriters) coined the phrase "the oxygen of publicity".
The whole point of terrorism is that you can't fight it. But you can ignore it.
More people die on the roads of the US every year than die in decades of global terrorism. Is our entire transport infrastructure paralysed with road traffic safety checks? No. Business as usual. Society has decided that it's prepared to pay the price for doad transport convenience.
But - air travel is made into a living nightmare by pointless security checks. Has been for decades. Airport security is nothing to do with saving lives. It's to do with money, nationalism and short-term politics.
Every time I travel by commercial jet, I ask the TSA goons why I have to do these things. Challenging authority is the only way to ascertain its validity. Yet every time I do so, I get put in the "special" line where I'm held in a pen far away from my expensive electronics going through the conveyor belt, felt up by some TSA goon like some kind of cheap Stalinist lap dance, and then pushed into the the GE brand "puffer machine". So I can verify Cory's point that, "Disparaging the boot is a bootable offense."
#8 Robert Anderson, that's funny and sad.
G. Park is right, balance in all things. Of course the problem is that there are too many who are willing to trade their freedom for a little security. They won't notice until there is a boot on their throat and by then it'll be too late.
Wasn't there a post yesterday about how "transparency is not security"?
folkclarinet #9
I hate to say it but I saw on a TV show in the UK (imaginatively named AIRPORT) a US citizen arriving from Chicago with a violin case, being stopped and frisked when he said "sure I'm from the Windy city, it's a tommy gun in here."
He'd just ARRIVED! so it'd be a bit late to try and get any 911 style ideas.
God save us from the little wizards that seem to work the levers in security people's heads.
Just the coining of the phrase "security literacy" (which I don't know whether it was Cory's or if he got it from somewhere else) sounds like something that will be of tremendous help in the fight against security theater.
@#17MATTYMATT:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/10/schneier-transparenc.html
He was discussing the concept of one-way transparency: You transparent to Authority, not the other way around.
organized religion is faltering. Social energy is diverted to a new faith. Examine historical records of church and temple guard culture and compare with the TSA.
One-way transparency, I like that image. It brings to mind the mirrored glasses worn by power, especially cops. It says "I can see you but you cannot see me." We should be pulling those one way mirrors down wherever we see them. That's one answer, another is for people to start demanding government be responsive. Either through elections or other means.
"what we have here is a failure to communicate"
As several of you pointed out, finding just the right level of transparency is required. But I tend to think that the kind of transparency advocated by some people is idiotic. Granted, we need to work toward a better form of government, but secrets will always be part of it.
#18
Error404, he wasn't just stopped and frisked; he was arrested, detained, questioned and cautioned, and ended up missing his flight (he was going to Chicago, I believe).
I don't really agree that the general populace is the appropriate level for peer review of security procedures (although I agree peer review is critical). Security through obsurity is somewhat effective.
However #14 is spot on. The hysteria associated with Terrorism is unwarranted, and encourages terrorists. Most anti-terrorist actions I see seem to just be ineffective palliatives. Airport security, in particular, tends to just strike me as propaganda for the war on terror rather than effective countermeasure.
So I guess I agree that the war on terror is being waged in an incredibly silly way- but I disagree that Joe Sixpack should have the ability to peer review sensible security measures. I'd need to see some examples where lowest-common-denominator peer review provided heightened security.
Telling people not to photograph CCTV cameras under the assumption that it will prevent people with malicious intent from documenting their position is like insisting the emperor's new clothes are marvelous when he plainly isn't wearing any.
To me that fixation on the fact that surely a terrorist would use a higher technology tool belies a very dangerous mindset that forgets to think about lower technology methods and weapons. Focusing on the behavior of people with cameras could very well cause you to overlook the guy who's hiding a truncheon in his jacket.
Here's a thought: While you folks are debating the type of wall paper for your prison cells, the people who actually run things around here stole more of our humanity.
and you were out cutting fascist throat?
This kind of pamphleteering is important. We are manufacturing our own brand of consent. You don't think a crank with a mimeograph is dangerous? Ask the soviets.
One word at at time, water dripping on rock...
If I change ONE mind, I have done something.
#29 Finding an accessible card carrying fascist is almost as hard as finding an honest man.
I appreciate the comment but I guess what I meant was the debate is not about whether this security measure or that one is warranted or not but why all this security in the first place? Start debating the real questions and all these other details will fall away. I seen the enemy and it is us.
FreeYourCRT, why aren't you debating the real questions?
Not questioning it because of the hassle involved is so easy to fall into. I just did it.
I've been told several times by TSA to put my CPAP machine in my checked luggage because they don't know what it is and don't like to have to scan it - they pull me out of the regular line, take the whole thing apart and run pieces through the scanner separately, while my laptop & other carry ons run down the conveyor belt away from me and unattended, waiting for some observant person to pick them up and walk away.
So I gave in and started checking it; recently with unfortunate results. We were on the way to Austin to SXSW this year, and the second leg of our trip from Dallas to Austin (normally a short 36 hour hop) turned into 6 hours on the tarmac during a snowstorm, while they tried to figure out how to de-ice and refuel the plane. Eventually they canceled the flight we were on, and we got a rental car to Austin - but the airline wouldn't release my checked luggage, with my CPAP machine - the thing that helps me *live through the night.*
American Airlines actually then YELLED AT ME for checking the machine -- "I would NEVER do that with medical equipment" the airline rep said.
They promised to deliver our bags to us in Austin "the next day" - which stretched into 2 days. I spent 2 sleepless, unhappy nights waiting for my luggage to finally be delivered by the airport. By the time I got it, I felt so screwed up that my enjoyment of SXSW was completely gone.
I decided never to make that stupid mistake again and on the flight home, carried the CPAP machine on -- and once again got screamed at by TSA for not putting it in my checked luggage -- they pulled the machine to a separate line, tore everything apart, and challenged me about why I carried it on, while I tried frantically to gather up all my stuff and put it back together.
And of course I should have yelled right back that the airline LOST MY LUGGAGE FOR 2 DAYS just a few days before, but I sensed the futility of arguing and was so frikin' tired of being in a damned airport, so I just let it go.