GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: FEATURES Security Theater

• 34323
  

  "Um, terrorists are killing 1000's of people worldwide, every month. Is there a huge, perpetual meteor shower that no one is reporting on? Not to mention, we have no Dan Bevedere"

  Um, they're talking about the united states. Duh.

  Chris mankey Posted October 3, 2007 10:43 AM
• 31268
  

  Quote: "We are more afraid of terrorism than car accidents or street crime, even though the latter are far more common."

  I am personally not afraid of [international] terrorism more than the domestic variety, a.k.a. [street] crime. But, then again, I do not live in a gated suburban community. In addition, I fly only once a year or even less frequently.

  Crime is not a common threat for all Americans to the same degree. The average frequent-flyer government executive might very well be afraid of [international, politically motivated] terrorism more than the [domestic, personal-gain-oriented] crime. Yet, he might not be exposed to a great risk of becoming a victim of international terrorism. By the same token, his chances of becoming a victim of street crime are much less than mine.

  Regardless of the reality of which risk is higher, who decides our policies? Most likely they are people who live in gated, economically segregated, mostly suburban communities; certainly not where the Americans bearing the brunt of illegal immigration, street crime, and globalization live.

  Zenny Sadlon Posted August 20, 2007 11:44 AM
• 31187
  

  Um, terrorists are killing 1000's of people worldwide, every month. Is there a huge, perpetual meteor shower that no one is reporting on?

  Not to mention, we have no control over meteors, terrorists are different.

  Dan Bevedere Posted August 18, 2007 2:23 AM
• 31079
  

  I completely agree that fear has been killing common sense security measures and causing an over reaction among Americans. The insane amounts being spent by the US Government on so called security is just another boondoggle being bled for all it's worth by terrorist boogyman hyping politicians eager to bring home the pork and distract fearful voters in the process. Isn't this country supposed to be the home of the free and the brave? We are acting like a bunch of frightened rabbits - just what bin Laden wanted!

  Boo Radley Posted August 16, 2007 3:18 PM
• 31065
  

  Bruce tends to like to hear himself talk. His last good book was "Applied Cryptography," which I believe was also his first. Maybe he should stick to what he knows.

  Also, I don't believe that the stock market fluctuates or is impacted by someone drowning in their bathtub or getting hit by a drunk driver (though both are very unfortunate). One has to look at the outside effects that these attacks have. You're not comparing apples to apples when you start talking about terrorist attacks and car accidents or even terrorist attacks and plane safety. Granted as a single person, I might be more likely to be hit by a meteor; however, as a nation, we are obviously being targeted for attacks. ...And an attack on the nation will undoubtedly be felt by me in other ways (monetary, mental strain, anguish, etc.).

  It would be nice, for once, if someone could write one of these articles without an agenda.

  M. Rapp Posted August 16, 2007 12:41 PM
• 31060
  

  This is the most clear and insightful analysis I've seen in the media to date. Bruce Schenier cuts through the hype to the real meat of the matter. Insurance and investment companies know all about risk analysis, it's high time someone in DHS implemented the same techniques.

  Xenon Posted August 16, 2007 12:06 PM
• 31051
  

  This is common sense. You are far more likely to be killed or injured tripping and falling than being killed by a terrorist in this country, (you don't even have to bring vehicle safety into this discussion).

  The past three administrations have effectively postponed the "human security" v. "national security" discussion that this country desparately needs. The main question is whether anyone in the current set of presidential candidates has the stomach to open this discussion on a national level.

  CaptBob Posted August 16, 2007 11:19 AM
• 30975
  

  When we are considering doing something (presumably to make a change in some result), rather than go with the knee-jerk reaction (in this discussion, security theater) wouldn't it be amazing if we could consider two simple questions? The first should be, "What is the objective of our action?" Here it would be a specific statement of risk reduction. The second question would be, "How will we measure or assess the success of our action?" Without relatively clear answers to those two questions, I suspect we would be better off not taking a random action.

  As has been said in many places by many people, the terrorists have done much greater damage to us and to our economy because they are leveraging our overreactions.

  Durwin Posted August 15, 2007 11:57 AM
• 30736
  

  If they truly want to start with risk analysis, how about re-examining the criteria for the rainbow colored National Threat Advisory. When you remain at "Elevated" and "High" for 6 years, it becomes meaningless.

  Allen Posted August 13, 2007 6:07 PM
• 30694
  

  I agree that money is being wasted. DHS is unfortunately lacking at the top for people with experience in areas that are close enough to homeland security that they would be making good, or at least better, choices. Critical infrastructure protection should start with implementing a risk management program that evaluates each part of the infrastructure using a risk assessment, then developing and documenting an incident response plan, contingency plan and continuity of operations plan that will state just how each area is to be maintained in case of emergency, what to do if there is an emergency and how to recover from one. The risk assessment should be reviewed every year and if changes need to be made, update it annually. DHS should then maintain the federal level plans and work with each state to train their officials on doing the same at the state level and each state Governor should then go to the local level and train the local officials and help them develop and document the same risk assessment and other plans. I travel 1 hour to get to work and the traffic is slow. If my area had to be evacuated, there would be a large number of deaths because the roads can't handle the traffic for just regular rush hour traffic, let alone if everyone in the town is trying to get out. I understand everything can't and shouldn't be given the same level of risk, but there needs to be a better program and metrics that continually measure risk levels and staff to maintain and practice using the emergency plans, otherwise DHS is just a money pit that has not and will never provide the level of protection needed.

  AJ Posted August 13, 2007 12:05 PM
• 30529
  

  I couldn't agree more, and I am a survivor of both attacks on the World Trade Center (1993 and 2001). All it takes is a rumor of some imminent terrorist act, and panic ensues, costing government, business and the public untold millions of dollars, as well as wasting huge amounts of time, and unnecessarily frightening people. In the meantime, by focusing scarce law enforcement resources on terrorism, we are not giving enough attention to the numerous other crimes and criminals out there. For instance, the FBI has transferred over a thousand agents to handle terrorism investigations. Who is handling the work they formerly did on other federal crimes such as fraud, public corruption, interstate theft, bank robberies, etc.? Likewise, CBP and ICE are focusing on "terrorism" at the expense of traditional Customs responsibilities, so statistics are down for drug seizures, money laundering investigations, illegal exports, counterfeit goods, etc.

  Does anyone really think we are safer when we search infants and old ladies who are about to board a plane? Or by confiscating liquids from passengers before they fly? I know a federal agent who, though authorized to fly armed, was told by TSA that he couldn't carry a small knife aboard a plane, but carrying his firearm was okay!

  I'm not trying to minimize the threat of terrorism, because I have lived through it. However, we shouldn't be paralyzed by fear over terrorism, and shouldn't overreact to it either.

  ICEd Posted August 10, 2007 2:29 PM