Beyond Security Theatre

Schneier on "Beyond Security Theater"

Refuse to Be Terrorized

By not overreacting, by not responding to movie-plot threats, and by not becoming defensive, we demonstrate the resilience of our society, in our laws, our culture, our freedoms. There is a difference between indomitability and arrogant "bring 'em on" rhetoric. There's a difference between accepting the inherent risk that comes with a free and open society, and hyping the threats.

We should treat terrorists like common criminals and give them all the benefits of true and open justice -- not merely because it demonstrates our indomitability, but because it makes us all safer. Once a society starts circumventing its own laws, the risks to its future stability are much greater than terrorism.

Supporting real security even though it's invisible, and demonstrating indomitability even though fear is more politically expedient, requires real courage. Demagoguery is easy. What we need is leaders willing both to do what's right and to speak the truth.
...
Today, we can project indomitability by rolling back all the fear-based post-9/11 security measures. Our leaders have lost credibility; getting it back requires a decrease in hyperbole. Ditch the invasive mass surveillance systems and new police state-like powers. Return airport security to pre-9/11 levels. Remove swagger from our foreign policies. Show the world that our legal system is up to the challenge of terrorism. Stop telling people to report all suspicious activity; it does little but make us suspicious of each other, increasing both fear and helplessness.

Afternoon roundup

• Midas Oracle hosts excellent videos explaining why you should never ever talk to the police. Never. Must watch for American readers.


• Tim Hazledine thinks ACC is just fine. I disagree. Yes, insurance schemes can run short run deficits if there's a bunch of negative shocks. But that isn't what's going on here. Rather, they're not charging anything like actuarily fair rates; heck, some classes of payouts don't even have any premia charged at all! Yes, a case can be made that ACC is preferable to transactions-costs-heavy tort litigation; that's not a case for an insurance scheme paying out for things where folks don't pay a premium. If there are classes of things for which the government wants to provide compensation but doesn't want to charge an insurance premium, or where charging a premium is too difficult, it's best not handled through the insurance system but rather through the welfare system. The more ACC is social insurance rather than risk-adjusted premium-based accident insurance, the better the case for not having ACC at all and just having generalized welfare programmes. I still prefer privatisation and actuarily-fair premia.


• Bruce Schneier applies the Lucas Critique to internet security. If you penalize companies for leaving comment spam, they'll leave comment spam for their competitors...