Friday, June 25, 2004

Interesting commentary on security from one of the men who helped define it for the Digital Age. More about Bruce Schneier here.

Also of interest. Orrin Hatch once again proves he knows absolutely nothing
about technology. Rather long article, but the annotations make it palpable.
Posted by at

5 comments:

Jeffrey Hill said...

ORRIN HATCH KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING:He’s not my favorite republican by a long shot, but I’ll still beg to differ. However, I agree with you on the INDUCE Act. Surely there’s a better way to protect intellectual property without such heavy-handed measures. In the meantime, we should enjoy the wild-west days of the internet while they last. I was reminded of this story that appeared a while back. http://www.techcentralstation.com/121003A.html

SECURITY PER SCHNEIER.He made several good points & struck a valid quotient: security against terror vs. security against government tyranny. But there are a few points, when considering security from terror, that I don’t understand.

The first thing I noticed was his use of scare quotes in reference to the war on terror which says to me that he doesn’t believe we are fighting a war on terror, which is an important notion while considering his consultation on how to fight terror. Obviously, with such an attitude, he won’t provide much in the way of solutions.

When Schneier talks about the justice system (particularly a right to trial) as a security device, he views it as a practice that needs to be used regardless of its successes or failures. Yet, when talking about National IDs as a security device (in another article) he employs the notion that “security must be evaluated not based on how it works, but on how it fails.” Specifically in terms of security from terror, why aren’t the two scenarios held up to the latter criteria? The merits of civil liberties are self-evident and they are a basic human right. But trials can fail to convict guilty parties just as well as they can wrongly convict them. That gamble maybe fine for armed robbery or domestic abuse or drug trafficking that, while violent, are not aimed at killing civilians en masse. But terrorism is aimed at killing en masse. By making that distinction, when considering the rights of all individuals, should not the cost/benefit ratio towards a suspected terrorist be so skewed, especially during a war on terror and when you find domestic security as problematic as Mr. Schneier does?

Also, if you’re on the other side of the fence, what sort of fair trial could you expect during a war on terror? Better to receive judgment after the hysteria has passed, right? I’d rather be kicking it in Guantanamo Bay for, say, five years, than being tried and imprisoned for 20 years like John Walker Lindh in some cell pent up with plaster and lathe. So in a losing a situation, the sum total of putting off judgment on the 12 Kuwaitis and 2 Australians could well be a win-win. We don’t have to risk their involvement in future terrorist activity and they will have a better chance at a fair trial, plus a chance to sit out the war.

When it comes to the Madrid bombings and what al Qaeda would like from the west, I think Mr. Schneier got it wrong. While al Qaeda may have wanted to provoke the US with 9/11, I simply don’t see the same intention with the Madrid attacks. His analysis just boggles my mind. He’s a professional of security, right? He thinks they reacted in restraint. I think they reacted out of fear.

During the same Newsweek interview regarding the Madrid bombings, Schneier was asked about what changes he would like to see in our approach to security. He said: “What I push for is more balanced approaches toward security.” But what balance does he offer? Aside from criticizing what’s been done, he offers nothing at all. What help is that?

12:55 AM
Steve said...

Commentary on the commentary on Schneier not offering solutions forthcoming.

RE: Madrid - Cowardice or Herosim. I would agree (with Schneier) that Al-Qaeda is pushing for escalation. It's more logical, and the revised state department report that Powell glossed over last week provides ample evidence that this is exaclty what is occurring. We keep pouring out money/resources/soldiers in areas of the world where we're already viewed unfavorably, this will increase animosity towards us, increasing actions against us, so we respond with our Bull-in-the-china-shop style tactics and therefore create more terrorists for them. It would make sense for Al-Qaeda to go after the smaller members of the "coalition of the willing" that are involved militarily, as it reduces our backup bit by bit.

RE: Orrin Hatch. And what exactly would you say is defensible about him or his record in this arena? From the technology standpoint, that is. (Well actually, to follow up on Hatch's record in general - what is defensible about attempting to make PATRIOT permanent?) He keeps creating bills which belie a complete lack of understanding of what impact the Internet/PC revolution had on our (and the world's) economy.

5:10 PM
Jeffrey Hill said...

RE Hatch: I wasn’t really trying to argue your point. INDUCE was bad – I agree. I was only defending Hatch from the charge that he knows absolutely nothing about technology. It seems that our common ground is so tiny that it’s hardly enough to shake hands over. Why make it smaller?

RE Schneier: I don’t get it. You seem to defeat your own argument (or Schneier’s). First, you say that al Qaeda wants to escalate the war, but then you say: “It would make sense for Al-Qaeda to go after the smaller members of the "coalition of the willing" that are involved militarily, as it reduces our backup bit by bit.” So which is it? Were the Madrid bombings meant to isolate the U.S.? Wouldn’t that mean that al Qaeda wanted Spanish support in Iraq withdrawn? That’s what I think. And al Qaeda scored a significant victory.

You can’t rightly blame Bush of being a bull in a china shop. Think of the places where we’ve exercised the stealthy behind-the-scenes approach like Georgia, the Philippines, and Afghanistan. I’d even say he’s been pretty careful on how to handle Pakistan. And isn’t Bush criticized for using too few troops in Iraq? Most of the 9,000 Iraqi towns haven’t even seen an American unless he was in the sky. Isn’t Libya, on course to disclose WMDs and disarm? Say what you want, but Bush is on the right track. He said this war would be fought on many levels & that’s just what he’s doing.

Terrorism is a long-term problem. I think that you’ll agree that we’ve swept it under the rug for over a quarter of a century. It requires a long-term solution. Implementing that solution is certain to cause increased violence initially. I know you don’t like hearing 9/11 mentioned in the same conversation with Iraq, but 9/11 was a wake up call that the Middle East, as it now stands, poses an unacceptable threat to the US, the West and the world economy. Our past policies in the Middle East don’t excuse 9/11, but we have to recognize that they helped facilitate it.

12:00 AM
Jeffrey Hill said...

RE Hatch: I wasn’t really trying to argue your point. INDUCE was bad – I agree. I was only defending Hatch from the charge that he knows absolutely nothing about technology. It seems that our common ground is so tiny that it’s hardly enough to shake hands over. Why make it smaller?

RE Schneier: I don’t get it. You seem to defeat your own argument (or Schneier’s). First, you say that al Qaeda wants to escalate the war, but then you say: “It would make sense for Al-Qaeda to go after the smaller members of the "coalition of the willing" that are involved militarily, as it reduces our backup bit by bit.” So which is it? Were the Madrid bombings meant to isolate the U.S.? Wouldn’t that mean that al Qaeda wanted Spanish support in Iraq withdrawn? That’s what I think. And al Qaeda scored a significant victory.

You can’t rightly blame Bush of being a bull in a china shop. Think of the places where we’ve exercised the stealthy behind-the-scenes approach like Georgia, the Philippines, and Afghanistan. I’d even say he’s been pretty careful on how to handle Pakistan. And isn’t Bush criticized for using too few troops in Iraq? Most of the 9,000 Iraqi towns haven’t even seen an American unless he was in the sky. Isn’t Libya, on course to disclose WMDs and disarm? Say what you want, but Bush is on the right track. He said this war would be fought on many levels & that’s just what he’s doing.

Terrorism is a long-term problem. I think that you’ll agree that we’ve swept it under the rug for over a quarter of a century. It requires a long-term solution. Implementing that solution is certain to cause increased violence initially. I know you don’t like hearing 9/11 mentioned in the same conversation with Iraq, but 9/11 was a wake up call that the Middle East, as it now stands, poses an unacceptable threat to the US, the West and the world economy. Our past policies in the Middle East don’t excuse 9/11, but we have to recognize that they helped facilitate it.

12:00 AM
Jeffrey Hill said...

Not to beat this into the ground: but I noticed this story today that seems to clarify what al Qaeda was hoping for in regards to Spain.

3:15 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)