Recently it seems the Department of Homeland Security puts out an alert of "a suspected terrorist attack" regularly. These alerts come with little to no information about the time, place, or mode of attack and instead seem to be focused on simply causing a fear reaction in the public.

There is no good, sane, rational reason that I can think of to be releasing these alerts. There's no codified procedure on what to do and all that it seems to do is scare people and annoy police officers. It also has to put the false positive rate on terrorism reports through the roof.

When various departments around the country were queried, it looks like the Department of Homeland Security doesn't seem to disseminate, in the aftermath of these warnings, any specific information to law enforcement agencies around the country. It is simply a press release that is worse than useless.

As to the reasons, Bruce Schneier puts it best (http://schneier.com/crypto-gram-0401.html#1):


I think the threat levels are largely motivated by politics. There are two possble reasons for the alert.

Reason 1: CYA. Governments are naturally risk averse, and issuing vague threat warnings makes sense from that perspective. Imagine if a terrorist attack actually did occur. If they didn't raise the threat level, they would be criticized for not anticipating the attack. As long as they raised the threat level they could always say "We told you it was Orange," even though the warning didn't come with any practical advice for people.

Reason 2: To gain Republican votes. The Republicans spent decades running on the "Democrats are soft on Communism" platform. They've just discovered the "Democrats are soft on terrorism" platform. Voters who are constantly reminded to be fearful are more likely to vote Republican, or so the theory goes, because the Republicans are viewed as the party that is more likely to protect us.

(These reasons may sound cynical, but I believe that the Administration has not been acting in good faith regarding the terrorist threat, and their pronouncements in the press have to be viewed under that light.)

I can't think of any real security reasons for alerting the entire nation, and any putative terrorist plotters, that the Administration believes there is a credible threat.


I also hate to be suspicious, but these alerts also seem to coincide with when Bush's ratings drop in the polls.

My own political beliefs aside, what good do these alerts serve? Do we get any kind of benefit at all from having them released (and, if so, how isn't it far outweighed by the negatives), or are they simply "security theater"?

All those dang alerts do is make it virtually impossible for me to get to my job on time. It makes my days SUCK. :D
I just do not understand them at all. It does make sense though with what Bruce Schneier said. Maybe it is politics. Maybe they can say 'Hey we told you so.' Just a way for them to cover their ass. I try to think, how would of 9/11 played out of those "alerts" would have been at that time. Do I think that the Twin Towers would have been evacuated? NO. (other reasons for that) What about the pentagon? Could they have gotten out in time before the plane? NO.
What happened when the terror alert went to orange? At first people started to worry a little. Going out preparing for an attack. But it stayed sooooooooo long at orange, IMO, that I got used to it. And everyother time it rose. I do not believe it is effective. If the terror alert would raise back to orange, would you honestly think anything of it. When I see orange I do not think 'oh god terriosts.' I think more along the lines 'it's going to be hell at work.' If by chance it does raise to red... We are all nuked anyway. so whats the difference? :D

There is no good, sane, rational reason that I can think of to be releasing these alerts. There's no codified procedure on what to do and all that it seems to do is scare people and annoy police officers. It also has to put the false positive rate on terrorism reports through the roof.
Agreed. Also, the DHS has to be costing the US government billions of dollars a year, for no visible benefit. I have the bad luck to live in a town that has a border crossing to Canada. I went over there with my friends one day, and coming back to America, we were stopped by the INS at the border crossing and our vehicle was searched by three (yes, three) customs agents, while we were forced to fill out paperwork proving our citizenship for a half hour. But the vast majority of the time, the Border Patrol and the INS people are just sitting around having coffee. At the time we were stopped, there was 18 INS agents around, while only five of them were really doing anything. It all seems like a waste to promote an "illusion of safety".

It is simply a press release that is worse than useless.
The government wants people to feel safe. It doesn't matter to them whether or not the average man really is.
Reason 1: CYA. Governments are naturally risk averse, and issuing vague threat warnings makes sense from that perspective. Imagine if a terrorist attack actually did occur. If they didn't raise the threat level, they would be criticized for not anticipating the attack. As long as they raised the threat level they could always say "We told you it was Orange," even though the warning didn't come with any practical advice for people.
I've been telling my dad this for some time. He enjoys the DHS, and thinks that all the regulation after 9/11 is a good idea. One thing I do have to say contrary to this is that while they would be criticized for not anticipating the attack, they are being criticized for trying to anticipate them. They just need to revise the system of warnings to make them actually useful.
Reason 2: To gain Republican votes. The Republicans spent decades running on the "Democrats are soft on Communism" platform. They've just discovered the "Democrats are soft on terrorism" platform. Voters who are constantly reminded to be fearful are more likely to vote Republican, or so the theory goes, because the Republicans are viewed as the party that is more likely to protect us.
Like a "big brother"?
I also hate to be suspicious, but these alerts also seem to coincide with when Bush's ratings drop in the polls.
I haven't noticed, but I need to look into that. It's a very interesting theory.
Do we get any kind of benefit at all from having them released (and, if so, how isn't it far outweighed by the negatives), or are they simply "security theater"?
At the moment, no, we don't get a benefit because the warnings don't seem to give any practical advice on how to deal with the elevated terrorist situation, and they announce the blown mission to any terrorist cells that were planning an attack. The system could be revised to be much more useful, such as devising a system of actions to be taken when the level is at orange, for example, and by distributing the warnings selectively to police stations and places similar to that, rather than just putting it on the news for anyone to hear.

If the Bush administration let you know every little detail that they know about an upcoming attack, or about general terrorist chatter, then they would be defeating the purpose of trying to catch the terrorists in the act. It's the same old Catch 22 that we see with the intelligence community wanting to keep us alerted to what's going on, but at the same time they are unable to give specific information for fear of exposing their sources.

The alert system is meant to serve as a warning for us to be more vigilant and watchful as we go through our daily lives. It's meant to alert law enforcement to possible increased terrorist operations in the US, and is most certainly in place for your best interests. Whatever you think of the system, you have to admit that since its conception, there has been no overt terrorist attacks against the US.

I don't suppose anyone fancies letting the rest of the world in on what you mean by Alerts, do you? Just a brief description to help me get it in context...

I mean, I'm not aware of anything like Air Raid Sirens going off in New York - we'd have heard about something like that on our side of the pond. ;)

I don't suppose anyone fancies letting the rest of the world in on what you mean by Alerts, do you? Just a brief description to help me get it in context...

I mean, I'm not aware of anything like Air Raid Sirens going off in New York - we'd have heard about something like that on our side of the pond. ;)

This should explain it in excruciating detail:

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=29

Right now, the threat level is Yellow (elevated)...Here's what that website says about the current threat level:


3. Elevated Condition (Yellow). An Elevated Condition is declared when there is a significant risk of terrorist attacks. In addition to the Protective Measures taken in the previous Threat Conditions, Federal departments and agencies should consider the following general measures in addition to the Protective Measures that they will develop and implement:


Increasing surveillance of critical locations;
Coordinating emergency plans as appropriate with nearby jurisdictions;
Assessing whether the precise characteristics of the threat require the further refinement of preplanned Protective Measures; and
Implementing, as appropriate, contingency and emergency response plans.


Here (http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/CitizenGuidanceHSAS2.pdf) is a link to the Citizen Guide to the HSAS...For those who say that the government offers no direction as to what citizens should do at certain threat levels.

Whatever you think of the system, you have to admit that since its conception, there has been no overt terrorist attacks against the US. Did John Mohammed have al-qaeda connections? if so then i would call that an overt 'terror' attack.

Edit: even if he didn't have al-qaeda connections, it seemed a lot like terrorist tactics that he was using.

Did John Mohammed have al-qaeda connections? if so then i would call that an overt 'terror' attack.

Edit: even if he didn't have al-qaeda connections, it seemed a lot like terrorist tactics that he was using.

I don't know if he had al-qaida connections. You're the one that brought him up, so don't you have any facts to back up your statements? :D

By all accounts that I'm aware of, he was acting alone, so that wouldn't alert the DHS to his plans; thereby not allowing them to raise a terror alert preemptively.

Thanks for posting that, ToB... It's a lot clearer what you guys are on about now.

I would have a couple of concerns, if I was American.

Firstly, I'd worry about the public becoming Jaded... If there are increased security awwareness levels implemented regularly with no visible results, surely there will come a time when people will just think the Government is simply Crying Wolf? (refer - Kaydee's post above. They are nothing more than an annoyance to her. Fair enough... Let's hope that's all they ever have to be).

Secondly, I can't help but think that these sort of steps will eventually erode your civil liberties. If they become an accepted part of your way of life, what's next? "When the threat level reaches Orange, only those with the correct level of security clearance may move freely around the streets" - I don't think that's paranoid - we're seeing the beginning of such monitoring in the UK with our Home Secretary's plans to introduce a Citizen's Identity Card.

Finally, I'd be concerned about these exercises being used for party political advantage. I'm not saying it happens nor agreeing with Bruce Schneier, but you have to think it's a possibility.

However, the plans laid out for action at each step seem clear enough to me... whether you choose to follow them or not is up to you.

There is no good, sane, rational reason that I can think of to be releasing these alerts.but maybe you're not privy to all of the facts at each alert? There's no codified procedure on what to doWell, that's not strictly true, is it? The Code of Practise ToB linked was drawn up in association with the US Red Cross... all that it seems to do is scare people and annoy police officers.As Kaydee's post seems to back up. Like I said earlier, it would be a good idea for a Government to actually show some results which justified the alert status from time to time. Trouble is that tactically, that might not be the best thing to do. It also has to put the false positive rate on terrorism reports through the roof.Absolutely. But nobody said it was going to be easy, did they? ;)

All this on the day when Bill Clinton said on BBC Radio that he believed it was possible - if unlikely - that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if the FBI and the CIA had had more open and trusting communications between each other...

Go figure.

As Kaydee's post seems to back up. Like I said earlier, it would be a good idea for a Government to actually show some results which justified the alert status from time to time. Trouble is that tactically, that might not be the best thing to do. Absolutely. But nobody said it was going to be easy, did they? ;)

This is where I put in my statement about wishing Bush would communicate more effectively what exactly they are doing to protect us. I think that he could win a LOT of support if he'd simply come out and state what kinds of threats they've succeeded in quelming, but at the same time, I understand that it is difficult to release details on intelligence operations.

Like some famous person said...In the intelligence world, the only thing the public sees are your failures

As I said before. Various departments that should probably have been contacted, when queried, have said that the Department of Homeland Security does not release to them any additional information about potential terrorist attacks.

It would make more sense to quietly alert those organizations that are in a position to do something about it (the police departments in the area in question, the FBI, etc), than to tell the whole nation that an attack is planned. If you don't have a location than these alerts are worse than useless.

Further, there is no reason announcing to the world (and the terrorists) that we are anticipating a terrorist attack "somewhere inside of the United States" could be considered a good thing. The US is too large with too much land to cover, and, as to their policies:


Living under Orange reinforces this. It didn't mean anything. Tom Ridge's admonition that Americans "be alert, but go about their business" reinforces this; it's nonsensical advice. I saw little that could be considered a good security trade-off, and a lot of draconian security measures and security theater.

I'm not that big of an expert but I think there is a point in thoes elerts. you are right about the fact that it causes people to be afraid and that it doesn't give them a lot of information either.
maybe most of the people would really prefer not knowing of thees alerts cause they really don't help them much.on the other hand, maybe I'm wrong but couldn't it be possible that the alerts open people's eyes diffrently?

I'm not that big of an expert but I think there is a point in thoes elerts. you are right about the fact that it causes people to be afraid and that it doesn't give them a lot of information either.
maybe most of the people would really prefer not knowing of thees alerts cause they really don't help them much.on the other hand, maybe I'm wrong but couldn't it be possible that the alerts open people's eyes diffrently?
Incidentally, the metric of "we haven't had another serious terrorist attack" is a horrible measure to use to see if your security devices are working because the probability of a terrorist attack is already low to begin with.

Let's say that we have a 1% chance of a terrorist attack large enough to make the national news in any given month (this is probably a high estimate given the history of terrorism in this country, even assuming that the probability has gone up since our war with Iraq).

There is only an 11.3% chance of a terrorist attack happening with those numbers in any given year. Over the course of ten years the odds of an attack become 70.1%. This means, however, that even if you did nothing further to improve your security there is an 88.6% chance in any given year that nothing will happen. If we apply these numbers to the last three years since 9/11, we find that the odds are only 30.4% of something happening and a 69.6% chance that we would see no significant terrorist events.

Now, my number of 1% may be high or it may be low--I personally believe that it is too high--but you can see that even if the percent was much higher in the absence of security measures it is likely that we would still not have seen a terrorist attack.

In evaluating strategies you have to ask "by how much does this help and what am I giving up for it?" For instance, let's say that all of the measures the department of homeland security implement give us a 20% improvement in our security (grossly high, I suspect and Schneier has said that he suspects that it actually goes the other direction and makes our security worse). That gives us a 0.08% chance of a terrorist attack in a given month.

Over the course of a year: 9.2% (meaning an average of .92 attacks every 10 years as opposed to 1.1 attacks every 10 years).

These numbers are not meant to do more than make math easy, but you can clearly see how--when working with small percentages--the measure of "another attack hasn't happened" is not a good one to be using.


I'm not that big of an expert but I think there is a point in thoes elerts. you are right about the fact that it causes people to be afraid and that it doesn't give them a lot of information either.
maybe most of the people would really prefer not knowing of thees alerts cause they really don't help them much.on the other hand, maybe I'm wrong but couldn't it be possible that the alerts open people's eyes diffrently?


How?

Incidentally, the metric of "we haven't had another serious terrorist attack" is a horrible measure to use to see if your security devices are working because the probability of a terrorist attack is already low to begin with.

Let's say that we have a 1% chance of a terrorist attack large enough to make the national news in any given month (this is probably a high estimate given the history of terrorism in this country, even assuming that the probability has gone up since our war with Iraq).

There is only an 11.3% chance of a terrorist attack happening with those numbers in any given year. Over the course of ten years the odds of an attack become 70.1%. This means, however, that even if you did nothing further to improve your security there is an 88.6% chance in any given year that nothing will happen. If we apply these numbers to the last three years since 9/11, we find that the odds are only 30.4% of something happening and a 69.6% chance that we would see no significant terrorist events.

Now, my number of 1% may be high or it may be low--I personally believe that it is too high--but you can see that even if the percent was much higher in the absence of security measures it is likely that we would still not have seen a terrorist attack.

In evaluating strategies you have to ask "by how much does this help and what am I giving up for it?" For instance, let's say that all of the measures the department of homeland security implement give us a 20% improvement in our security (grossly high, I suspect and Schneier has said that he suspects that it actually goes the other direction and makes our security worse). That gives us a 0.08% chance of a terrorist attack in a given month.

Over the course of a year: 9.2% (meaning an average of .92 attacks every 10 years as opposed to 1.1 attacks every 10 years).

These numbers are not meant to do more than make math easy, but you can clearly see how--when working with small percentages--the measure of "another attack hasn't happened" is not a good one to be using.



How?

How is it that you could possibly think that 1% is even a relevant number at all? There are hundreds of thousands of people who would love to get into our country and commit heinous acts of terrorism against the citizens of this great nation.

Our immigration department is severely lacking, and will allow almost anybody in if they sneak by...Which is quite easy to do since we have open borders. This means that any Joe Schmoe terrorist could easily get into our country and start plotting to destroy our country from within. Imagine if our counterterrorism task forces and homeland security departments weren't doing their job? It'd be utter chaos. You'd have buildings blowing up, dirty bombs exploding, and people being killed left and right with nobody to stop it.

Think about how easy it was for the September 11 attacks to be perpetrated. Nobody even thought twice when those assholes took box cutters on the plane. But now, you can't even take a sewing kit on a plane without getting it confiscated. The same is true in many other facets of our nation now due to the fact that there are more people being more vigilant, more often.

The alert system only helps to alert the citizens to the possibility of an attack; where that information comes from doesn't matter...All that matters is that there has been information gathered that would lead the professional counterterrorists to believe that there is an increased chance of attack. The more eyes you have watching, the less chance of a successful attack.

Also, you know that 70% of all statistics are made up on the spot...Obviously, since you just did it.

Here are some REAL statistics about counterterrorism in the United States. These are only the reported statistics from September 11, 2001 to January 2003:


In the United States, nearly 200 suspected terrorist associates have been charged with crimes as the result of FBI investigations.
Through criminal, intelligence, and terrorism prevention efforts, FBI investigations have disrupted alleged terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, and Portland and led to the arrest of 18 suspected terrorists.
Working closely with the Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services, the FBI has identified and deported nearly 500 individuals in violation of U.S. law.
The war on terror has led to the capture of more than 3,000 Al-Qa'ida leaders and foot soldiers around the world.
The FBI has worked closely with the Treasury Department and other partners to target 62 organizations and freeze $125 million in assets worldwide used to fund terrorist activities.

Through criminal, intelligence, and terrorism prevention efforts, FBI investigations have disrupted alleged terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, and Portland and led to the arrest of 18 suspected terrorists.
Now imagine how pissed all of you would be with our government if just two or three of those 18 had slipped under the radar and committed a 9-11 like attack? You can't have it both ways.

**Going a little Off Topic**
INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) they obviously were not doing their jobs. John Lee Malvo (the younger sniper shooter) was NOT a us citizen and had been detained by Border Patrol. They handed them over to INS and with a "IMMEDIATE DEPORTATION" recommendation. Instead of deporting them they let him and his mother go. So why should I feel safe knowing that immigration is just letting people walk. If I am not mistaken in 2003, the INS admitted that they could not account for 8 MILLION illegal aliens. 8 million out their somewhere, lord knows doing what...

How is it that you could possibly think that 1% is even a relevant number at all? There are hundreds of thousands of people who would love to get into our country and commit heinous acts of terrorism against the citizens of this great nation.


That isn't the question. The question is how many of them succeed.

I don't care if there are millions of people out there who would give their lives to destroy even the smallest part of the US. The question is "what is the percent chance of a significant terrorist incident happening in a given month/year/decade."

Then we need to ask "how much and in what direction do our current policies affect that chance, and at what cost."


Think about how easy it was for the September 11 attacks to be perpetrated. Nobody even thought twice when those assholes took box cutters on the plane. But now, you can't even take a sewing kit on a plane without getting it confiscated. The same is true in many other facets of our nation now due to the fact that there are more people being more vigilant, more often.


Doing so does not make us safer.

The weapon that the terrorists had was surprise in what they would use the planes for. With surprise, they could have taken over with their bare hands. (http://schneier.com/crypto-gram-0311.html#2) Without surprise, they couldn't have done what they did with guns.


The alert system only helps to alert the citizens to the possibility of an attack; where that information comes from doesn't matter...All that matters is that there has been information gathered that would lead the professional counterterrorists to believe that there is an increased chance of attack. The more eyes you have watching, the less chance of a successful attack.


Security experts don't seem to agree with you. Instead they seem to think that people become desensitized and the number of false positives masks real threats that might be occurring.



Also, you know that 70% of all statistics are made up on the spot...Obviously, since you just did it.


Are you familiar with Fermi's Piano Tuner problem?

I made up two statistics. Everything else was derived.

For the statistics that I did make up: sure, the probability of a successful terrorist incident isn't 1% in a given month, but it is very low. Sure, the procedures implemented by the department of homeland security don't improve things 20%, and with security experts naming their policies as "security theater" it seems that it actually is not even an improvement.


Here are some REAL statistics about counterterrorism in the United States. These are only the reported statistics from September 11, 2001 to January 2003:

None of which affect anything that I've said.

Now imagine how pissed all of you would be with our government if just two or three of those 18 had slipped under the radar and committed a 9-11 like attack? You can't have it both ways.Both ways?
Nobody said that we didn't want security forces. The point here is to have an effective means of stopping potential terrorist attacks.

Just a sidenote:
60 Minutes ran a story where a journalist and a private investigator tried to probe the ease with which they could potentially commit a terrorist act. It involved the two men walking with a camera crew up to a tank full of concentrated Chlorine in a chemical plant. They walked right in, waved at the workers, walked right up to the tank and walked away again. If they had been terrorists, they could have killed upwards of 11 million people(I believe that the plant was outside Chicago, if anyone else saw this story please correct me). When they left, a security office called the police. They were fined $25 for tresspassing:eek: .

Point here being that 1. Private security forces for potential terrorist targets needs to be upped significantly. 2. We need a better means of keeping the US public informed about the risks of terror attacks without providing tons of false warnings such that people eventually ignore them.

Both ways?
Nobody said that we didn't want security forces. The point here is to have an effective means of stopping potential terrorist attacks.
No, no - my point was that no matter the system, some people would complain how obtrusive it was until it didn't work. Then they'd complain it wasn't obstrusive enough. I wasn't speaking of our present system per se - I meant any system.

That isn't the question. The question is how many of them succeed. That's what I'm trying to get at. They don't succeed because of increased vigilance on the part of police departments, fire departments, intelligence agencies, and the general populace.

I don't care if there are millions of people out there who would give their lives to destroy even the smallest part of the US. The question is "what is the percent chance of a significant terrorist incident happening in a given month/year/decade."
It doesn't matter what the initial chance is of a significant terrorist incident happening. If this alert system is doing its job (which it is), then you will see that small initial chance drop radically regardless of the starting position.

Then we need to ask "how much and in what direction do our current policies affect that chance, and at what cost."
If the current policies cost $1,000 per US citizen (which is a very very high estimate), wouldn't you consider it worth it to save JUST ONE American life? Furthermore, it is the job of the National government to protect the states at all costs from Invasion and/or domestic attacks.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Doing so does not make us safer.
How does being more vigilant and more aware of our surroundings not make us safer?

The weapon that the terrorists had was surprise in what they would use the planes for. With surprise, they could have taken over with their bare hands. (http://schneier.com/crypto-gram-0311.html#2) Without surprise, they couldn't have done what they did with guns.
Lly, you are arguing my point for me here, and I appreciate it; but aren't we supposed to be on opposite sides here? The alert system takes away that weapon from would-be attackers, by using the intelligence we glean from global chatter and domestic information against them!



Security experts don't seem to agree with you. Instead they seem to think that people become desensitized and the number of false positives masks real threats that might be occurring.
Better to be informed and alert than dead and buried.




Are you familiar with Fermi's Piano Tuner problem?

I made up two statistics. Everything else was derived.

For the statistics that I did make up: sure, the probability of a successful terrorist incident isn't 1% in a given month, but it is very low. Sure, the procedures implemented by the department of homeland security don't improve things 20%, and with security experts naming their policies as "security theater" it seems that it actually is not even an improvement.

This method does not guarantee correct results; but it does establish a first estimate which might be off by no more than a factor of 2 or 3--certainly well within a factor of, say, 10. We know, for example, that we should not expect 15 piano tuners, or 1,500 piano tuners. (A factor of 10 error, by the way, is referred to as being 'to within cosmological accuracy.' Cosmologists are a somewhat different breed from physicists, evidently!!!)

Factor of 10?! You've got to be joking. Also, as the old addage says, "Garbage in, garbage out."



None of which affect anything that I've said.

No, all it affects is the notion that the vigilance of the American counterterrorism groups and its very citizens is helping to put away more terrorists, and foil more terroristic attacks on the USA. That's the bottom line, and that's the only thing that matters.

This whole debate is over whether or not the current alert system is valid, or even relevant. Everything you've said here so far indicates that it is, and with each post you are justifying the need for such a system.

No, no - my point was that no matter the system, some people would complain how obtrusive it was until it didn't work. Then they'd complain it wasn't obstrusive enough. I wasn't speaking of our present system per se - I meant any system.Oh.....ok.......
This is just my personal opinion, but frankly i don't give a crap if the government monitors every phone call that i make and logs every website that I visit. I don't have anything to hide. The people who complain about the intrusiveness of the government makes me wonder what they're so worried about. In principal, I suppose its an issue of freedom. In a way it reminds me of the British parliament wanting to impose taxes on American settlers(ie, congress allowing greater freedom to intrude on people's private lives), but thats COMPLETELY off-topic:p .

lol I was posting the the 'Shaun Morgan vs. 50 Cent' thread and needed pictures of weapons so my last four google searches were for:AK-47(rifle), katana(sword), bazooka, flamethrower.... no need to arouse suspicion with anyone monitoring my searches, of course:D .

Edit: Specific guidelines on what to do with each terror-level warning would make this system a little more citizen-friendly.

go kerry!

Oh.....ok.......
This is just my personal opinion, but frankly i don't give a crap if the government monitors every phone call that i make and logs every website that I visit.
I'm right there with you. The ACLU, however, hates us for taking away their jobs.

Edit: Specific guidelines on what to do with each terror-level warning would make this system a little more citizen-friendly.

go kerry!

Look farther up at one of my other posts; I listed a link that gives very specific guidelines as to what citizens should do at each alert level.

That's what I'm trying to get at. They don't succeed because of increased vigilance on the part of police departments, fire departments, intelligence agencies, and the general populace.


Doesn't seemed to have mattered pre-9/11. It seems to be the consensus that such "increased vigilance" doesn't exist and/or is counterproductive.

They don't succeed for any one of a number of reasons that have nothing to do with the Department of Homeland Security.


It doesn't matter what the initial chance is of a significant terrorist incident happening. If this alert system is doing its job (which it is), then you will see that small initial chance drop radically regardless of the starting position.


You believe it is in the absence of any evidence to that effect. In the security community it is thought that the opposite effect is true.


If the current policies cost $1,000 per US citizen (which is a very very high estimate), wouldn't you consider it worth it to save JUST ONE American life? Furthermore, it is the job of the National government to protect the states at all costs from Invasion and/or domestic attacks.


Here's a better question: Could more lives be saved by investing that same amount of money into something else. Say, into more arab translators for the CIA or FBI? $1k/person amounts to 300 billion. Is one american life worth 300 billion dollars? I can think of a lot of areas we could put 300 billion into that would save more than one american life.

We are security consumers, we need to be discussing cost per benefit (http://schneier.com/crypto-gram-0405.html#9). Not simply cost for some nebulous benefit.


How does being more vigilant and more aware of our surroundings not make us safer?

Can you prove that such is actually what happens? As I said, the consensus runs against you here.


Lly, you are arguing my point for me here, and I appreciate it; but aren't we supposed to be on opposite sides here? The alert system takes away that weapon from would-be attackers, by using the intelligence we glean from global chatter and domestic information against them!


You seem to misunderstand what they had surprise about.

Their surprise wasn't in that they were hijacking the plane. Surprise came from what they were going to do with it once they had hijacked it (as the article I linked to discusses). Up until that point the procedure was to cooperate and get the plane on the ground.

Now we have reinforced cockpit doors and the flight staff and the passengers won't cooperate. They could be threatening to blow up the plane with syntax and today all they would get is a few more destroyed wheat fields.

That is true regardless of whether the Department of Homeland Security has the threat level at Green or Red.


Better to be informed and alert than dead and buried.


False Dilemma.


Factor of 10?! You've got to be joking. Also, as the old addage says, "Garbage in, garbage out."

I've already covered this. Even if the estimate is incorrect, it is completely irrelevant.

Besides, being within an order of magnitude (and I would guess that I am within a half-order of magnitude, depending on how we count terrorist incidents) on this kind of thing is a acceptable--especially to illustrate a point.



No, all it affects is the notion that the vigilance of the American counterterrorism groups and its very citizens is helping to put away more terrorists, and foil more terroristic attacks on the USA. That's the bottom line, and that's the only thing that matters.


As near as I can tell, results and the cost of those results are the only things that matter.

Doesn't seemed to have mattered pre-9/11. It seems to be the consensus that such "increased vigilance" doesn't exist and/or is counterproductive.

Before 9/11, this kind of terrorist attack on our own soil was not a reality. 9/11 made it one. If the DHS was never formed, and this system was in place, we'd be arguing the opposite direction: you'd be saying that the administration didn't do anything, and they need to inform the citizens of what is going on somehow.

They don't succeed for any one of a number of reasons that have nothing to do with the Department of Homeland Security.
Care to cite any examples, or are you just taking words and forming them into sentences?



You believe it is in the absence of any evidence to that effect. In the security community it is thought that the opposite effect is true.
Once again, care to cite specific examples of this? You keep referencing the "security community", but have yet to reference any specific facts that state that the DHS is not a worthwhile institution.


Here's a better question: Could more lives be saved by investing that same amount of money into something else. Say, into more arab translators for the CIA or FBI? $1k/person amounts to 300 billion. Is one american life worth 300 billion dollars? I can think of a lot of areas we could put 300 billion into that would save more than one american life.
Like I said, $1k/person was a "very very high estimate"; and the question is not whether or not I believe if one human life is worth 300 billion dollars. Instead, the question is do YOU believe that a human life is NOT worth 300 billion? If your dad had $300 billion and you were taken hostage, you'd hope to hell that he'd take that $300 billion and pay the ransom, would you not? And if you say no, you are lying.

We are security consumers, we need to be discussing cost per benefit (http://schneier.com/crypto-gram-0405.html#9). Not simply cost for some nebulous benefit.
You are trying to reference economic principles to a non-economic commodity. Security is not something you buy, but is rather something that is felt. Counterterrorism forces must act secretly without you ever knowing most of their successes. The only time you should ever hear about the counterterrorist/intelligence community is when they fail. Take for instance this whole CIA fiasco that is going on. Have you heard any of the stories about the successes they've had recently (within the past 3 years)? No.


Can you prove that such is actually what happens? As I said, the consensus runs against you here.
How can you prove that it's not true? Like I said above. You only hear about failure, not success.



You seem to misunderstand what they had surprise about.

Their surprise wasn't in that they were hijacking the plane. Surprise came from what they were going to do with it once they had hijacked it (as the article I linked to discusses). Up until that point the procedure was to cooperate and get the plane on the ground.

Now we have reinforced cockpit doors and the flight staff and the passengers won't cooperate. They could be threatening to blow up the plane with syntax and today all they would get is a few more destroyed wheat fields.

That is true regardless of whether the Department of Homeland Security has the threat level at Green or Red.
You are actually incorrect on that issue. If the threat level were higher, these would-be terrorists would never even get on that plane. That's what the DHS is there for.



False Dilemma.
To prove that something is a false dilemma one MUST identify other options (with an example) other than the two listed in order to prove that a statement is a false dilemma.



I've already covered this. Even if the estimate is incorrect, it is completely irrelevant.

Besides, being within an order of magnitude (and I would guess that I am within a half-order of magnitude, depending on how we count terrorist incidents) on this kind of thing is a acceptable--especially to illustrate a point.

Ok, let's assume that your numbers are correct. Even if they are, there are outside stimuli to the equation that can skew your results by several orders of magnitude. Let's think about some of these:


How prepared are the would-be victims? The preparedness of the would-be victims is paramount to your scenario. If potential victims are prepared, then an attack is much less likely to happen; or the victim will be much more capable of handling the adverse situation. Think of this: if you are walking down a dark alley, and a mugger approaches you and you have no self-defense skills and/or weapons you have no chance. However, if you were trained to defend yourself against such an attacker, you would be far more successful in walking away with your life and wallet.
Where are terrorists going to perpetrate their act(s) of terrorism? In a big city? Small town? Big cities are more prepared to deal with the possibility of an attack, whereas small towns are not as prepared. However, the primary targets of terrorists are generally places that hold specific significance to the would-be victims, and where they can kill the most amount of people with the least amount of effort.
What means of weaponry/terroristic tactics are terrorists going to use in a potential attack? Some weaponry is harder to come by/transport than others. Most of the means of terrorism have come under extreme scrutiny since the DHS was created, and alert levels thereby raise and/or lower the scrutiny placed on facilities and/or materials.


As near as I can tell, results and the cost of those results are the only things that matter.
Like I said, results are rarely ever seen unless the protection barrier is breached. And you keep mentioning costs. Costs don't matter when the Constitution clearly states that it's the federal government's sole responsibility to protect member states. This means by whatever 'cost' necessary.

Before 9/11, this kind of terrorist attack on our own soil was not a reality. 9/11 made it one. If the DHS was never formed, and this system was in place, we'd be arguing the opposite direction: you'd be saying that the administration didn't do anything, and they need to inform the citizens of what is going on somehow.


You mean like the Oklahoma City Bombing?

The Anthrax Scare was a domestic, home-grown terrorist and would have happened regardless of 9/11 as well.


Care to cite any examples, or are you just taking words and forming them into sentences?


FBI, CIA/OGD, DIA.


Once again, care to cite specific examples of this? You keep referencing the "security community", but have yet to reference any specific facts that state that the DHS is not a worthwhile institution.


Partially because I've never said it isn't worthwhile.

Though, if you are looking for comments from an expert in the community:
http://schneier.com/crypto-gram-0212.html#3


The promise of the newly formed Department of Homeland Security is to improve our nation's security from terrorism. Unfortunately, the results are far more likely to be the opposite. Centralizing security responsibilities has the downside of making our security more brittle, by instituting a commonality of approach and a uniformity of thinking. Unless the new department distributes security responsibility even as it centralizes coordination, it won't improve our nation's security.


Try the book Beyond Fear.



Like I said, $1k/person was a "very very high estimate"; and the question is not whether or not I believe if one human life is worth 300 billion dollars. Instead, the question is do YOU believe that a human life is NOT worth 300 billion? If your dad had $300 billion and you were taken hostage, you'd hope to hell that he'd take that $300 billion and pay the ransom, would you not? And if you say no, you are lying.


This is called a Red Herring.

The question isn't whether you can save one life for $300 billion, the question is if you could save more lives or improve the quality of life for more people by investing that money elsewhere.

But no, I do not believe a single life is worth $300 billion. Maybe because I have a concept of how much money that is.


You are trying to reference economic principles to a non-economic commodity. Security is not something you buy, but is rather something that is felt.


Security is very much something you buy--the cost is not always monetary, but it is certainly something you trade for.

You can feel secure and not be secure at all. By the same token, you can live in a state of perpetual fear and be perfectly secure.

The question is "how much security do you get for what you give up."

For instance, do you believe we should do everything to stop a september-11th style attack?

How about giving up air travel? Ground every commercial or private plane in the US, shoot down anything which fails to comply.

Ludicrous. You would prevent an attack that used jets to fly into a building, sure, but you wouldn't stop the terrorists from attacking and you would be trading far too much.


Counterterrorism forces must act secretly without you ever knowing most of their successes. The only time you should ever hear about the counterterrorist/intelligence community is when they fail. Take for instance this whole CIA fiasco that is going on. Have you heard any of the stories about the successes they've had recently (within the past 3 years)? No.


You would think they would have alerted the FBI and local police forces if they had specific information. They haven't.



You are actually incorrect on that issue. If the threat level were higher, these would-be terrorists would never even get on that plane. That's what the DHS is there for.


What would keep them off the plane? State-ID cards certainly don't, as has been repeatedly discussed.




To prove that something is a false dilemma one MUST identify other options (with an example) other than the two listed in order to prove that a statement is a false dilemma.


Sure.

Better to be informed and alert than dead and buried.

It should be obvious that there is "ignorant and alive" as well as "ill-informed and dead/alive."

People are not "more vigilant," they are becoming desensitized.


Ok, let's assume that your numbers are correct. Even if they are, there are outside stimuli to the equation that can skew your results by several orders of magnitude.

They don't. Else we would have had an attack by now.

How prepared are the would-be victims? The preparedness of the would-be victims is paramount to your scenario. If potential victims are prepared, then an attack is much less likely to happen; or the victim will be much more capable of handling the adverse situation. Think of this: if you are walking down a dark alley, and a mugger approaches you and you have no self-defense skills and/or weapons you have no chance. However, if you were trained to defend yourself against such an attacker, you would be far more successful in walking away with your life and wallet.


How does what the Department of Homeland Security do make us more prepared on an individual basis?


Where are terrorists going to perpetrate their act(s) of terrorism? In a big city? Small town? Big cities are more prepared to deal with the possibility of an attack, whereas small towns are not as prepared. However, the primary targets of terrorists are generally places that hold specific significance to the would-be victims, and where they can kill the most amount of people with the least amount of effort.


Not relevant to my estimate. Which, as I said, I am going to guess is not off by more than a half order of magnitude.


What means of weaponry/terroristic tactics are terrorists going to use in a potential attack? Some weaponry is harder to come by/transport than others. Most of the means of terrorism have come under extreme scrutiny since the DHS was created, and alert levels thereby raise and/or lower the scrutiny placed on facilities and/or materials.


Not particularly relevant to the frequency of attacks, and certainly not "several orders of magnitude" worth.


Like I said, results are rarely ever seen unless the protection barrier is breached. And you keep mentioning costs. Costs don't matter when the Constitution clearly states that it's the federal government's sole responsibility to protect member states. This means by whatever 'cost' necessary.

That we have these measures in place, however, and that we haven't had an attack does not say that we would have had an attack if those measures were not in place.

http://www.schneier.com/news-interview-newsweek.html


NEWSWEEK: How much better prepared is the United States today in preventing a large-scale terror attack than it was before September 11?

Bruce Schneier: Psychologically, we expect it, so we are more psychologically prepared. But securitywise, we are probably much less secure than we were.

Why do you say that?

We have built a geopolitical situation where more people dislike America, more people hate us, and in that respect we have made the world a more dangerous place. Though we have also done a lot of good things to increase our security. We have arrested and neutralized terrorist cells. We have disrupted terrorist funding. Our investigations -- both internal in the U.S. and abroad -- are much better. We are better able at preventing plots and uncovering them. Nine-11 was a very unfortunate intelligence accident. A lot of those sorts of things tend not to work because they get foiled. We were very unlucky. We are probably better prepared in that we kind of expect these things -- local governments, when something like this happens, are going to be more ready because they have thought about it. In terms of the aftermath, we are more prepared. [But] in terms of whether we've made the world safer in the past two years, most of the things we've done have been irrelevant and some have been harmful.

Like some famous person said...In the intelligence world, the only thing the public sees are your failures that is so true sad but true

Another op-ed by the same security expert I keep quoting on this.

http://schneier.com/essay-059.html


How would we know? An essay by one of the world's busiest security experts.

By Bruce Schneier
The Rake
October 2004

As I read the litany of terror threat warnings that the government has issued in the past three years, the thing that jumps out at me is how vague they are. The careful wording implies everything without actually saying anything. We hear "terrorists might try to bomb buses and rail lines in major U.S. cities this summer," and there's "increasing concern about the possibility of a major terrorist attack." "At least one of these attacks could be executed by the end of the summer 2003." Warnings are based on "uncorroborated intelligence," and issued even though "there is no credible, specific information about targets or method of attack." And, of course, "weapons of mass destruction, including those containing chemical, biological, or radiological agents or materials, cannot be discounted."

Terrorists might carry out their attacks using cropdusters, helicopters, scuba divers, even prescription drugs from Canada. They might be carrying almanacs. They might strike during the Christmas season, disrupt the "democratic process," or target financial buildings in New York and Washington.

It's been more than two years since the government instituted a color-coded terror alert system, and the Department of Homeland Security has issued about a dozen terror alerts in that time. How effective have they been in preventing terrorism? Have they made us any safer, or are they causing harm? Are they, as critics claim, just a political ploy?

When Attorney General John Ashcroft came to Minnesota recently, he said the fact that there had been no terrorist attacks in America in the three years since September 11th was proof that the Bush administration's anti-terrorist policies were working. I thought: There were no terrorist attacks in America in the three years before September 11th, and we didn't have any terror alerts. What does that prove?

In theory, the warnings are supposed to cultivate an atmosphere of preparedness. If Americans are vigilant against the terrorist threat, then maybe the terrorists will be caught and their plots foiled. And repeated warnings brace Americans for the aftermath of another attack.

The problem is that the warnings don't do any of this. Because they are so vague and so frequent, and because they don't recommend any useful actions that people can take, terror threat warnings don't prevent terrorist attacks. They might force a terrorist to delay his plan temporarily, or change his target. But in general, professional security experts like me are not particularly impressed by systems that merely force the bad guys to make minor modifications in their tactics.

And the alerts don't result in a more vigilant America. It's one thing to issue a hurricane warning, and advise people to board up their windows and remain in the basement. Hurricanes are short-term events, and it's obvious when the danger is imminent and when it's over. People can do useful things in response to a hurricane warning; then there is a discrete period when their lives are markedly different, and they feel there was utility in the higher alert mode, even if nothing came of it.

It's quite another thing to tell people to be on alert, but not to alter their plans—as Americans were instructed last Christmas. A terrorist alert that instills a vague feeling of dread or panic, without giving people anything to do in response, is ineffective. Indeed, it inspires terror itself. Compare people's reactions to hurricane threats with their reactions to earthquake threats. According to scientists, California is expecting a huge earthquake sometime in the next two hundred years. Even though the magnitude of the disaster will be enormous, people just can't stay alert for two centuries. The news seems to have generated the same levels of short-term fear and long-term apathy in Californians that the terrorist warnings do. It's human nature; people simply can't be vigilant indefinitely.

It's true too that people want to make their own decisions. Regardless of what the government suggests, people are going to independently assess the situation. They're going to decide for themselves whether or not changing their behavior seems like a good idea. If there's no rational information to base their independent assessment on, they're going to come to conclusions based on fear, prejudice, or ignorance.

We're already seeing this in the U.S. We see it when Muslim men are assaulted on the street. We see it when a woman on an airplane panics because a Syrian pop group is flying with her. We see it again and again, as people react to rumors about terrorist threats from Al Qaeda and its allies endlessly repeated by the news media.

This all implies that if the government is going to issue a threat warning at all, it should provide as many details as possible. But this is a catch-22: Unfortunately, there's an absolute limit to how much information the government can reveal. The classified nature of the intelligence that goes into these threat alerts precludes the government from giving the public all the information it would need to be meaningfully prepared. And maddeningly, the current administration occasionally compromises the intelligence assets it does have, in the interest of politics. It recently released the name of a Pakistani agent working undercover in Al Qaeda, blowing ongoing counterterrorist operations both in Pakistan and the U.K.

Still, ironically, most of the time the administration projects a "just trust me" attitude. And there are those in the U.S. who trust it, and there are those who do not. Unfortunately, there are good reasons not to trust it. There are two reasons government likes terror alerts. Both are self-serving, and neither has anything to do with security.

The first is such a common impulse of bureaucratic self-protection that it has achieved a popular acronym in government circles: CYA. If the worst happens and another attack occurs, the American public isn't going to be as sympathetic to the current administration as it was last time. After the September 11th attacks, the public reaction was primarily shock and disbelief. In response, the government vowed to fight the terrorists. They passed the draconian USA PATRIOT Act, invaded two countries, and spent hundreds of billions of dollars. Next time, the public reaction will quickly turn into anger, and those in charge will need to explain why they failed. The public is going to demand to know what the government knew and why it didn't warn people, and they're not going to look kindly on someone who says: "We didn't think the threat was serious enough to warn people." Issuing threat warnings is a way to cover themselves. "What did you expect?" they'll say. "We told you it was Code Orange."

The second purpose is even more self-serving: Terror threat warnings are a publicity tool. They're a method of keeping terrorism in people's minds. Terrorist attacks on American soil are rare, and unless the topic stays in the news, people will move on to other concerns. There is, of course, a hierarchy to these things. Threats against U.S. soil are most important, threats against Americans abroad are next, and terrorist threats—even actual terrorist attacks—against foreigners in foreign countries are largely ignored.

Since the September 11th attacks, Republicans have made "tough on terror" the centerpiece of their reelection strategies. Study after study has shown that Americans who are worried about terrorism are more likely to vote Republican. In 2002, Karl Rove specifically told Republican legislators to run on that platform, and strength in the face of the terrorist threat is the basis of Bush's reelection campaign. For that strategy to work, people need to be reminded constantly about the terrorist threat and how the current government is keeping them safe.

It has to be the right terrorist threat, though. Last month someone exploded a pipe bomb in a stem-cell research center near Boston, but the administration didn't denounce this as a terrorist attack. In April 2003, the FBI disrupted a major terrorist plot in the U.S., arresting William Krar and seizing automatic weapons, pipe bombs, bombs disguised as briefcases, and at least one cyanide bomb—an actual chemical weapon. But because Krar was a member of a white supremacist group and not Muslim, Ashcroft didn't hold a press conference, Tom Ridge didn't announce how secure the homeland was, and Bush never mentioned it.

Threat warnings can be a potent tool in the fight against terrorism—when there is a specific threat at a specific moment. There are times when people need to act, and act quickly, in order to increase security. But this is a tool that can easily be abused, and when it's abused it loses its effectiveness.

It's instructive to look at the European countries that have been dealing with terrorism for decades, like the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Italy, and Spain. None of these has a color-coded terror-alert system. None calls a press conference on the strength of "chatter." Even Israel, which has seen more terrorism than any other nation in the world, issues terror alerts only when there is a specific imminent attack and they need people to be vigilant. And these alerts include specific times and places, with details people can use immediately. They're not dissimilar from hurricane warnings.

A terror alert that instills a vague feeling of dread or panic echoes the very tactics of the terrorists. There are essentially two ways to terrorize people. The first is to do something spectacularly horrible, like flying airplanes into skyscrapers and killing thousands of people. The second is to keep people living in fear with the threat of doing something horrible. Decades ago, that was one of the IRA's major aims. Inadvertently, the DHS is achieving the same thing.

There's another downside to incessant threat warnings, one that happens when everyone realizes that they have been abused for political purposes. Call it the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" problem. After too many false alarms, the public will become inured to them. Already this has happened. Many Americans ignore terrorist threat warnings; many even ridicule them. The Bush administration lost considerable respect when it was revealed that August's New York/Washington warning was based on three-year-old information. And the more recent warning that terrorists might target cheap prescription drugs from Canada was assumed universally to be politics-as-usual.

Repeated warnings do more harm than good, by needlessly creating fear and confusion among those who still trust the government, and anesthetizing everyone else to any future alerts that might be important. And every false alarm makes the next terror alert less effective.

Fighting global terrorism is difficult, and it's not something that should be played for political gain. Countries that have been dealing with terrorism for decades have realized that much of the real work happens outside of public view, and that often the most important victories are the most secret. The elected officials of these countries take the time to explain this to their citizens, who in return have a realistic view of what the government can and can't do to keep them safe.

By making terrorism the centerpiece of his reelection campaign, President Bush and the Republicans play a very dangerous game. They're making many people needlessly fearful. They're attracting the ridicule of others, both domestically and abroad. And they're distracting themselves from the serious business of actually keeping Americans safe.