Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Security Theater"

[gvidas]

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive..._security.html


A nicely to-the-point essay about real vs. theatrical responses to security risks. He takes on, in a way, whether living in a "post 9-11 world" should mean what it does.

Security is both a feeling and a reality. The propensity for security theater comes from the interplay between the public and its leaders. When people are scared, they need something done that will make them feel safe, even if it doesn't truly make them safer. Politicians naturally want to do something in response to crisis, even if that something doesn't make any sense.

...

Despite fearful rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is not a transcendent threat. A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy a country's way of life; it's only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage. The more we undermine our own laws, the more we convert our buildings into fortresses, the more we reduce the freedoms and liberties at the foundation of our societies, the more we're doing the terrorists' job for them.

We saw some of this in the Londoners' reaction to the 2005 transport bombings. Among the political and media hype and fearmongering, there was a thread of firm resolve. People didn't fall victim to fear. They rode the trains and buses the next day and continued their lives. Terrorism's goal isn't murder; terrorism attacks the mind, using victims as a prop. By refusing to be terrorized, we deny the terrorists their primary weapon: our own fear.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Security is only an illusion anyway. Anything to bolster that illusion, will make people feel better.

[TheMercenary]

I say we go shopping.

[skysidhe]

I'm with merc. Let's go shopping.

[skysidhe]

On a more serious note. I read your post. I didn't read the link but I will.

This is one area that really gets my blood boiling and I refuse to watch hours and hours of a news broadcast. I get what you are saying and I have thought as much many a time.

So what I think is this. I know no one wants a terrorist attack but I can't stand the media,in the event of one, taking the stance of 'poor poor us look at what they have done' almost as if it ours alone to suffer. As if this thing isn't going on 1000x worse elsewhere.

It is shameful or shame is what I feel and not so much fear because although as horrible as it is I think about what the other people are going through, have been going through as I snuggle down in my nice comfy bed, pretty secure in the fact my building will be here in the morning.
I wish the news media would have a little humility instead of the childlike glee and tamp down the adrenaline rush glow because maybe it was so exciting getting those donuts and coffee in route or whatever. The media gets their great talking point and they just never shut up.

To take a moment of silence and be thankful without telling people how, why,what and where before people can even take in a terrible event would do a lot to bring peace and courage to a populaces mind.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, "take a moment of silence and be thankful", after you tell me what the fuck is going on. That's what reporters are supposed to do, report, not theorize, eulogize, or speculate on the possible whys and wherefores. Leave that to the news analysts, editorialists and pundits, I can shut those fuckers off.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by gvidas

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive..._security.html


A nicely to-the-point essay about real vs. theatrical responses to security risks. He takes on, in a way, whether living in a "post 9-11 world" should mean what it does.

I can definitely agree with the points made here. In fact, it looks like something the ACLU was saying after it happened. I really am not a fan of anyone that pushes a dramatic point to satisfy an unrelated hidden agenda. It's the old bait and switch routine.

[xoxoxoBruce]

How else do you help people ditch their paranoia, when in reality complete safety is impossible?

[spudcon]

Yeah, I'm glad the media is splitting their scary stories between terrorism and stuff that has no hidden agenda, like global warming.

[regular.joe]

You know, if the American people didn't watch the "media", they would not exist. It's purely a consumer driven market.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The media serve a valid, and valued, service to the public. Newspapers have constantly been digging out political corruption.
That said, I think the biggest problem is the constant news channels have so much time to kill, the have to be creative and blurred the line between news and entertainment. Then the other news media have to be more entertaining to compete. Oh, then comedians, bloggers & pundits have used the news as source material, further blurring the line.
But yes, Joe, there's definitely a problem with the public not being more discerning in what they accept. Some asshole on the tube, reaffirming your prejudices, isn't news.

[TheMercenary]

The lines between new reporting and news analysis have become blurred. Most people can't tell the difference between the two, or are able to read between the lines when they are being fed a line of bs in what appears to be a news report. Things as simple as what portions of a story are being reported as well as those portions being omitted lend bias to a report whether by the reporter or by an editor. Until people wake up and read between the lines the general public will continue to be manipulated by the news they hear and read.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Things as simple as what portions of a story are being reported as well as those portions being omitted lend bias to a report whether by the reporter or by an editor.

Worst yet, things that are fabricated.

[TheMercenary]

Yes they are fabricated by eveyone. The government, the opposition, the enemy, everyone does it and puts it out as news. And then the masses swallow.

[Shawnee123]

Speaking of swallow...