UPDATE - And another link about this. This time from someone who intimately knows about security and how it ought properly be implemented; Bruce Schneier.
As mentioned before, I take the risk of real terrorism, very seriously. But I’ve got a big bee in my bonnet about the latest fearmongering taking place. A thorough reading of the news reveals it’s all more of the same from the usual suspects; Bush, Blair and their collective sycophancy clubs.
Here in many places (1, 2, 3).
And the public who never read a newspaper or watch an independent news broadcast get sucked in deeper.
I don’t see or feel fear mongering. I see that a large-scale terrorist act was stopped before it was carried out. I feel far safer now
In other news, my toothbrush has worn out… and I am blaming the Bush Administration.
[quote comment=”8345”]I don’t see or feel fear mongering. I see that a large-scale terrorist act was stopped before it was carried out. I feel far safer now
In other news, my toothbrush has worn out… and I am blaming the Bush Administration.[/quote]
Eric, I too see this. But it’s the context in which the thwarting of that act took place. The alleged terrorists were deeply infiltrated, and had been for weeks; the risk of the potential attack which has prompted the latest series of changes to carry-on rules was small. The reaction of the security infrastructure, media and the airlines is overblown. The politicians have arguably made their announcements to leverage advantage for themselves (but there’s always two sides to that argument).
It’s that sort of thing that annoys me in this whole New World Order of the need to live in fear. It smacks too much of an approaching 1984 and V for Vendetta world for my liking.
You can call the potential risk of the attack small. Because people were doing their jobs well. Imagine if just a few people failed to communicate or do their job properly. It would have been a much different story.
Again, I see people feeling much more safe in the face of terrorism. We are stopping them all over the world, not completely, but at a far greater clip than previously. I don’t see any correlation with 1984 there at all.
Someone saying we shouldn’t forget 9-11 or what cowardly terrorists are capable is fine logic to me. We get complacent when we prevent their acts from taking place.
I guess we can simply agree to disagree.
Ooops… the batteries have run out on my FrontRow remote control, I’ll blame Blair for that one, I’ll give GWB a pass on that one, for now.
The fearmongering you perceive is the feedback from a desperate widereaching attempt to make sure that something surpassing 911 in horror was stopped.
As far as 1984 is concerned, just how much reality do you really want with that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
also look up eschelon if youre into that kind of thing.
George (why not your real email and URL?), what I see is an overreaching, oversimplified, overly intrusive attempt by many Western governments to protect “us” from a threat that isn’t nearly as prevalent as they would have us believe.
The intrusions, growing limitations and changes to our freedoms are a massive overreaction to the threat.
And yes, I’m already familiar with CALEA and Echelon. That’s why I’m a life member of Electronic Frontiers Australia and a member of the EFF.
What I want to know/hear is discussion on whether this whole “liquid explosives mixed on plane” plot would actually have been very effective. I have a bit of a science background and it seems a little far fetched to think that it would have brought the plane down.
No doubt there would have been some damage but if anyone watches Myth Busters they may have seen the episode in which the dispell the “Bullet hole in plane causes rapid decrompression and catastrophic structural failure” Those guys had to wire up with plastic explosives and rather large section of the plane’s fuselage to get any kind of catastrophic structural failure.
It anoys me that there is just no rational talk of the feasibilty of pulling off this kind of attack.
I guess that’s why its called terrorism - causing wide spread “terror” is really the ultimate goal if you get to blow up a few of your enemies in the process well…
wayne: Had a discussion about that on the train last week - I thought it may be better to just mix up something really flamable and set it off, rather than attempt to make an actual explosive which has a number of drawbacks.
And, yes, the government has and is doing a great job of doing the terrorists job for them, causing major disruption to air travel.
Well, I think it is really hard for us normal people to find out the whole truth. It may very well be that one of the greatest attacks was prevented just in time, but there has been suspiciously little evidence and a couple of things don’t make much sense.
Could be this is just because investigations are still ongoing.
One thing is certain though. I will now travel with much more discomfort than I ever did before and I am going to have an uneasy feeling about it until after landing.