
Olympics 2012: A Bruce Schneier Moment - pavel_lishin
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/04/olympics-2012-a-bruce-schneier.html
======
nkoren
I'm as big a critic of the "Security Theatre" as the next guy, but trying to
fight bollocks with even higher-grade bollocks isn't really very helpful. And
Charlie's "white-hot supersonic shrapnel" is bollocks of the purest sort. A
surface-to-air missile -- after its fuel is burnt out and its payload is
detonated -- is basically nothing more than a thin tube. The "shrapnel" would
consist of lightweight scraps of carbon fibre and sheet metal, fluttering
downward like ordinary carbon fibre and sheet metal. Definitely annoying to
have it land on your roof -- but fairly inconsequential.

Disappointed in Mr. Stross for this one.

~~~
mortenjorck
What's most unfortunate is that he's drawing attention away from the real
issue by whipping up this largely unfounded public safety concern.

There aren't a lot of places on earth that put SAMs in residential areas apart
from North Korea.

~~~
femto
The Olympics is all about sponsorship. One could see this as a sponsorship
deal: British designed technology (Starstreak) built by a British company
(British Aerospace) being promoted to the world via the Olympics. They've
already got their money's worth in publicity. (Were you aware of Starstreak
before reading it here?) If the Olympics can be used to sell a soft drink, why
not a missile system?

~~~
FrankBooth
Where can I place my order? I can't wait to have a Starstreak in my home for
three easy payments of $49.99 (plus shipping and handling).

------
Angostura
I live in Leytonstone, a little under 2 miles from the stadium. My thoughts on
this when I heard it where (i) The communication with the block residents
might have been better (ii) That seems like reasonable thing to, given the
balance between shrapnel potentially hitting my house and an aircraft hitting
the stadium.

Moreover, if I were the authorities I would make sure that there was a big
public kerfuffle about anti-aircraft missiles being stationed in London -
whether they were actually going to be stationed or not. It may be security
theatre, but not in the way that the blog author thinks.

And it may be deeply unfashionable, but the family and I are pretty excited by
the prospect of the Olympics.

~~~
rhizome
Do you think it's a reasonable thing to do, in that it's a case of good risk
analysis?

------
dageshi
I've sadly decided to unsubscribe from Charlies rss feed today, I used to
quite look forward to his posts but it seems like his blog has descended into
an echo chamber filled full of dull and pretty predictable diatribes. If
that's what he wants to do with his blog then that's his business, but I'm not
interested any more.

------
iamichi
> "the best solution would be to designate a permanent Olympic venue somewhere
> isolated — Diego Garcia would be a prime candidate"

A better idea would be letting the Chagossians return to their homeland
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians>).

------
Deestan
Flagged for linkbait title. Bruce Schneier isn't even involved.

~~~
4ad
But it's about what Bruce Schneier talks all the time.

~~~
prawn
Then use "Olympics 2012 Security Theatre" and leave the connection to those
reading?

------
LoonyPandora
I live in the complex where these missiles are supposed to be deployed.

The part of this situation that upsets me the most is not the missiles, but
what comes along with them - the heavily armed soldiers billeted for up to 2
months.

We have no choice in this, and were informed by a leaflet through the door.

This isn't war time and the Olympics only last for a few weeks. We shouldn't
have to have soldiers and weapons in a residential complex!

~~~
ElliotH
Unarmed according to The Guardian, may be supported by armed police.

~~~
nicholassmith
Hang on, so the people guarding the incredibly dangerous surface to air
missile aren't going to be armed?

Wonder how long it'll be before you see a SAM in the local Cash Converters.

------
hej
Oh, look, it's a tabloid article. Not packaged that way and with more words,
also more eloquent, but still a tabloid article.

Why can't this sort of advocacy (which is important) not take the high ground
for once? Fighting FUD with FUD is disgusting.

~~~
phillmv
This text field is your soapbox. Where is the FUD?

He points out the ridiculousness of anti air missiles being installed in
random flats: it is far more cost effective to be a shit head by triggering
those missiles than it is to actually hijack a plane. To my mind, that is
therefore a uselessly expensive security countermeasure that puts more lives
in danger.

To paraphrase Schneier, security is a trade off, and complete security is
impossible at best and mandatory identification and cavity searches at every
bus stop at worst. Given the casualties at previous terrorism incidents
(Munich, Atlanta are the only ones that come to mind) we're lavishly wasting
money. Where do you want it to stop?

~~~
smacktoward
_> anti air missiles being installed in random flats_

The reference to a "High Velocity Missile system" implies that the weapon in
question is the Starstreak HVM system
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_%28missile%29>). Starstreak is a
man-portable weapon, so nothing would need to be "installed" anywhere; it'd be
a couple of guys standing on the roof with a Starstreak tube.

 _> triggering those missiles_

As far as I can tell, the only way to "trigger" a Starstreak launch is by
physically pressing a button on the launcher, so the risk of remotely
triggered launch is pretty low. And even if a terrorist or group of terrorists
managed to somehow neutralize the Starstreak operators, seize control of the
weapon and launch it, the missile itself is so small it wouldn't really
matter; the backblast from the launch is negligible (it has to be, for the
missile to be safe to launch from the operator's shoulder), and the warhead is
just three darts with around 16 ounces of explosive in each. The terrorists
would do more damage if they stole bowling balls and dropped them on people
from the roof.

 _> uselessly expensive_

Presumably the Starstreak missiles in question have already been bought by the
British army, so the only expense would be the cost of having the guys stand
around on the roof all day. And since those guys are soldiers the British
government is going to be paying them that day regardless of where they happen
to be standing.

~~~
yread
I am not a terrorist, but if I was and I would get hold of an _anti-air_
missile I probably wouldn't use to shoot people on the _ground_. There's
plenty of airliners over London at any time. The missile seems to have a
service ceiling only 5km but it's still fairly big risk. Couple of guys with
guns can't shoot down an airliner unless you give them a Starstreak

~~~
smacktoward
Yeah, but

(1) presumably the airspace over London is going to be pretty thoroughly
controlled during the Olympics, reducing the risk; and

(2) if terrorists want to shoot down an airliner with a man-portable air
defense system (MANPADS) like Starstreak, there's easier ways for them to get
their hands on one than by infiltrating one of the most heavily secured areas
in the world and wresting one out of the hands of professional soldiers --
MANPADS have proliferated widely, and can be acquired on the black arms market
for a few thousand bucks (see
<http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/MANPADS.html>).

------
Daniel_Newby
This is not security theatre. Think of a few helicopters trucked in and loaded
with ANFO and white phosphorus. Novelists just have to be plausible, but
security analysts have to cover the whole threat surface.

And anyway the British military does not want to be caught with its trousers
around its ankles like the USAF on 9-11.

------
gouranga
The problem is that a lot of people think it's a good idea because they are
ignorant fucktards and believe any spiel that comes out of the media terror
promoters.

this may sound horrible, but I genuinely hope someone innocent gets injured or
killed by the security forces and everyone jumps on it. it's about time it all
came to a head.

~~~
AlexMuir
Firstly, that's a ridiculous thing to say.

But when it happens (and it does - see Jean Charles de Menezes) it will be put
down to insufficient budgets, manpower, equipment and training. So far from
coming to a head, it is perpetuated - bigger budgets, more people and more
kit.

