
Close the Washington Monument - psadauskas
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/close_the_washi.html
======
jameskilton
Don't forget the most recent success of our information agencies, the printer
bomb that was intercepted and defused. That was a big success to our current
security systems.

What does the TSA do though? Ban printer cartridges on planes. WTF?! I thought
this was a success? Now it's being treated like a failure?

I'm waiting for the first congressman to openly call out the TSA as a
terrorist organization. He or she will get my vote for the rest of my life.

Great article Mr Schneier, couldn't have said it any better.

~~~
SpikeGronim
"That was a big success to our current security systems."

No, it wasn't. Saudi intelligence provided the tracking numbers for the parcel
bombs[1]. All the billions of dollars that we've spent on airport security did
absolutely nothing. As Schneier as argued before, if you secure the one route
the attack just comes from another route.

1\.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/world/middleeast/06terror....](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/world/middleeast/06terror.html)

~~~
jameskilton
Sorry, I said that wrong. I didn't mean a success for airport security but for
the intelligence agencies who aren't infringing on basic freedoms and privacy
of the general public (who in this case has good enough diplomatic ties with
other intel agencies around the world to have this information passed to us).

------
jdp23
beautifully written ... brings tears to my eyes.

"We can reopen the Washington Monument when we've defeated our fears, when
we've come to accept that placing safety above all other virtues cedes too
much power to government and that liberty is worth the risks, and that the
price of freedom is accepting the possibility of crime."

~~~
CodeMage
_They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety._

\--Benjamin Franklin

~~~
ebtalley
That was a well written op-ed

------
cschmidt
Wouldn't it be great if Bruce Schneier was in charge of the TSA? (not that
he'd probably want/enjoy the job). Then, I'd feel a lot better about things.

~~~
kmort
"I don't want it because it's too narrow. I think the right thing for the
government to do is to give the TSA a lot less money. I'd rather they defend
against the broad threat of terrorism than focus on the narrow threat of
airplane terrorism, and I'd rather they defend against the myriad of threats
that face our society than focus on the singular threat of terrorism. But the
head of the TSA can't have those opinions; he has to take the money he's given
and perform the specific function he's assigned to perform. Not very much fun,
really."

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/11/schneier_for_t...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/11/schneier_for_ts.html)

------
stretchwithme
Someone might do something bad so no one should be allowed to do anything.

If the people that founded this country lived by this, they never would have
left Europe.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
The people who founded the USA were regarded as terrorists by the British
Empire from which they were fighting to secede. How times have changed.

~~~
sogrady
This is not correct. The fundamental - only, in many cases - goal of a
terrorist is to inspire terror. The founders of the United States did not
leverage terror in any capacity, rather they waged a conventional war to
achieve their aims.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Terrorism is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The fundamental goal of
a terrorist is not to inspire terror in itself; it is to inspire terror for
the purpose of weakening public support for a policy the terrorists consider
abhorrent. The IRA wanted Britain out of Northern Ireland; the ANC wanted the
Apartheid government out of South Africa; Hamas wants Israel out of Palestine;
and so on.

We can agree or disagree over whether to support the goals of a given
terrorist group, just as we can agree or disagree over whether their methods
are legitimate (for the record I do not condone violence, even in pursuit of a
legitimate end). However, it's hypocritical to decide whether someone is a
terrorist based on the goal of their terrorism.

Like all terrorists, the founders of the USA used both violent and nonviolent
means, including property destruction, sabotage, assaults, propaganda and so
on, for the purpose of overthrowing the government and establishing their own
rule in is place. Again, we can agree or disagree over the legitimacy of both
their motives and their means, but the facts of their actions are not in
dispute.

~~~
sogrady
"Terrorism is a means to an end, not an end in itself."

Precisely, hence my objection. My objection to the original statement is not
based on the goals, as the statement below implies:

"However, it's hypocritical to decide whether someone is a terrorist based on
the goal of their terrorism."

When we discuss terrorism, we're talking about a tactic. You've described that
tactic well above. My objection is based on the fact that I am not aware of
any specific activities on the part of the founders of the United States whose
goal was to inspire terror in the populace at large. The primary tactics
employed ranged from civil disobedience and sabotage (e.g. the original Tea
Party) to conventional warfare (e.g. Bunker Hill).

If you are aware of specific actions conducted by the founding fathers prior
to or during the Revolutionary War whose only purpose was to inspire fear
amongst the general population, please do cite them.

Otherwise, I don't believe the categorization of the founders as terrorists is
supportable.

------
zacharycohn
"The day after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed to blow up a Northwest jet
with a bomb hidden in his underwear, Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano said "The system worked." I agreed. Plane lands safely, terrorist
in custody, nobody injured except the terrorist. Seems like a working system
to me."

If he got on the plane with the bomb in the first place, doesn't that imply
the system doesn't work?

~~~
Shamiq
>>If he got on the plane with the bomb in the first place, doesn't that imply
the system doesn't work?

I think that means part of the system had a failure, but that failure did not
propogate catastrophically. If anything, this is reminiscent of a working AND
resilient system.

~~~
anamax
Which system are we talking about?

The "keep bombs off of planes" system failed.

The "keep folks from blowing up bombs on planes" system succeeded.

Note that the former is what the US govt is claiming to do while the latter
was entirely the doing of random folks on the plane.

Do we have any instances of air marshals stopping anyone? I ask because both
the shoe and underwear bomber were handled by ordinary people.

~~~
nostrademons
The ultimate goal is to keep folks from blowing up bombs on planes, correct?

~~~
bobbyi
The ultimate goal would be to live in a world where nobody wants to blow up
planes.

~~~
zealog
That's not a goal. That's a fantasy world.

There will always be a tiny fraction of people that want to harm others.
Whether it is because they have an agenda or are simply crazy (or likely
both), they will always exist.

We have the choice of whether we want to sell our liberties and freedom for
the illusion of safety from insignificant, yet inevitable, risks.

------
jodrellblank
I want him to write more about interesting security and less about America's
reaction to 9/11. We non-politicians and non-Americans get it already; the
response is disproportionate, knee-jerk and terrified (terror-ified?). But
that's been the case for a long time now.

------
BenoitEssiambre
Someone should really start an "Americans Are not Chickens, Wimps and Wusses"
campaign. Proclaiming loudly that Americans are not going to be manipulated
into losing their freedom by politicians and fear of terror.

------
NoSalt
<http://i.imgur.com/UBA0F.png>

------
davidst
Sometimes our fears can get the best of us. This is one of those times.

------
TheSOB88
Totally in agreement in theory. But sadly, people in general are knee-jerk
reactors who aren't really interested in abstract thought of this level. Or am
I being too cynical?

------
chrischen
Could it be that sone people sacrifice a little of their liberty for the
safety of... _others_?

------
TomOfTTB
I don’t find this kind of thing helpful.

The question on things like the TSA policies is one of degree and not
absolutes. So his claim that we should “conquer our fears because they are the
real problem” doesn’t hold a lot of weight with me. Fearing a terrorist attack
is perfectly rational the question is how much liberty we’re willing to give
up to prevent such attacks.

So painting this as a “living in fear” vs “not living in fear” question
doesn’t really address the problem.

Beyond that there’s the issue of disagreeing respectfully. Though he couches
his point in flowery language the purpose of this type of article is to
demonize the people who disagree with him. “They are the fear mongers and I am
the rational one” is the point he’s making. He’s just making it in a way that
sounds nice. That type of statement doesn’t lead to productive discussion and
it certainly doesn't do anything to convince people who disagree with him
(people who I assume are the intended audience here)

~~~
arohner
> Fearing a terrorist attack is perfectly rational the question is how much
> liberty we’re willing to give up to prevent such attacks.

How much liberty are you willing to give up to prevent automobile accidents?
children drowning in swimming pools?

Both of these kill far more people every year than terrorist attacks against
americans. Why is it ok for thousands of people to die every year from drunk
drivers, yet I have to take off my shoes at the airport?

Schneier's point has consistently been to fight terrorism _effectively_. Spend
our money and resources in areas that _actually_ reduce terrorism and deaths,
rather than areas that _appear_ effective, yet are ultimately worthless
(taking off shoes, 3oz liquid restriction, TSA circling things on your
boarding pass)

~~~
TomOfTTB
> How much liberty are you willing to give up to prevent automobile accidents?
> children drowning in swimming pools?

I'm willing to give up the liberty to not wear a seat belt and to not go as
fast as I want to prevent the majority of accidents. I'm willing to give up
the liberty to not put a fence around my pool to prevent most children from
drowning. But I'm not willing to let the Government take my car entirely or
say I just can't own a pool. So again, as I said in my original point, it's a
question of degree not of absolutes.

As far as your last paragraph that's you projecting. No where in his piece
does he talk about methods that are and are not effective. The word effective
isn't in the piece one single time.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Perhaps it is clear that current TSA measures are silly, ineffective and an
eggregious infringement of liberty?

~~~
chrischen
Have they been proven to be ineffective?

