Barely Legal Substance

« Code Fu Jams, or, What Gets Me Through These Days & Nights, in Gerund Form... | Main | Monday Meditation: Trundelin' »

July 28, 2005

What I Won't Pay for Security

What a becoming change to read the new Department of Homeland Security Secretary state his goal as "maximize our security, but not security at any price."

The fuller quote confirms my take: “DHS must base its work on priorities driven by risk,” said the new Secretary, Mr. Chertoff. “Our goal is to maximize our security, but not security at any price. Our security regime must promote Americans’ freedom, prosperity, mobility, and individual privacy.”

It seems the DHS is finally realizing that fingernail clippers aren't the problem; plastic explosives that are not screened on those little trolleys that cause us so much travel-pain are. Perhaps they will stop confiscating pen knives and making up laws that cannot be revealed to the public, presumably fearing that if the public knew the law, the public would then break the law, but as long as the law remains a secret, only law-breaking terrorists will, er, break it.

Hey, how about taking that evident skill in paper-pushing bureaucracy and setting up a division to track down those baker's dozen missing Russian nukes that seem to have magically been sent to Africa and then vanished?

Security at any price is not acceptable. Security that puts more translators to work, that trains more cops to recognize suspicious behavior, and that educates the public on what to do if someone tries to bum-rush the cockpit door is smart security that we should gladly pay for.

My man Bruce Schneier has much to say on the topic of security, risk management, and these modern times. I've collected the best in my bookmark tag 'security'.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/23240

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What I Won't Pay for Security:

Comments

Noel, I'm disapointed. When was DHS' policy ever to achieve security at any price? What are these laws which are not revealed to the public? The only one I am aware of is the Intelligence Authorization Act, the text of which has been kept secret (even from most Members of Congress)for decades. We could change that is you really want everyone to know everything about the United State's intelligence. I personally think that would be incredibly irresponsible. Besides that legislation has nothing to do with the DHS. I'm interested to learn how Congress is "making up laws that cannot be revealed to the public."

Also, do you really think the U.S. is not seeking to track down the "baker's dozen missing Russian nukes." I imagine there is more than one division at work on this.

You will be happy to know that every year Congress appropriates more and more funds to hire and train translators. I'm glad you are ready to pay for it. No more complaining about high taxes for you. Of course cops are funded by states and local governments so that is not really a DHS or federal thing.

Posted by: Ellis at July 29, 2005 10:08 AM

Zing from Ellis! I'll respond further on his post on subcurrents...

Posted by: justin at July 29, 2005 10:40 AM

Ellis, you're reading too much into my words.

We have given up freedom by passing (and probably renewing) the Homeland Security Act. I haven't heard anyone make a case that the removal of those freedoms has made a difference in our security.

The DHS does have secret laws. The IAA I'm only passingly familiar with (which I'm sure is all I'm supposed to be), and that's not where my beef is. Note I was referring to them, not to Congress. For example, why do you have to remove your shoes when you go through the security line at an airport? Don't know, but it's the law. What law? One they can't tell you about. Just ask this guy.

Throwing "divisions" at the problem of suitcase nukes fails to reassure me, sorry. Semantically, how 'bout a whatever-they're-calling-the-intelligence-people-now Stop Nuclear Terror Task Force full of eastern Europeans, scientists, signal intelligence people, and spooks? I won't stick to this point because I don't really know the workings of the intelligence organizations, but I would be a heck of a lot more reassured to hear Bush/Chertoff announce something like than another CIA reorganization.

As for training cops and government employees, I'm talking about stuff like this: http://nytimes.com/2005/07/29/nyregion/29lives.html?ex=1280289600&en=72121cec54144721&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss. If the DHS gave local police money for this kind of training, that's money far better spent than on designing graphics for whatever the hell an "Alert Level" is.

I'm glad to find out that Congress is spending more money for translators. That's great. If it turns out that doing that outputs more money than the government takes in, and there are no more good cuts in the budget to be made (Let's keep those ethanol subsidies flowing, baby, it's the fuel of the future!), then by all means raise taxes.

If I have some time later, I'll bring the pain to your blog.

Posted by: Noel at July 29, 2005 11:34 AM

Oops, forgot to throw in linkys in for secret laws/DHS/TSA inanity.

TSA vs. Fish: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/12/airline_securit.html

Gilmore vs. Ashcroft:
http://freetotravel.org/cid.html

No law against pen knives: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/tsa_abuse_of_po.html

Secret laws:
http://proliberty.com/observer/20041214.htm

TSA lies to Congress, breaks personal privacy laws, and will not stop:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/secure_flight.html

Posted by: Noel at July 29, 2005 11:44 AM

Noel, I apologize if I have misunderstood you.

After reading/skimming the articles you posted I saw no proof of "secret laws." Now, certain uneducated employees claimed such laws existed but (as was pointed out) the TSA employees were overreaching their authority and clearly uneducated. They were making claims which were simply untrue.
The Gilmore vs. Ashcroft filling really doesn't tell us anything. First of all because it is just a filling (as far as I can tell). Anyone can file something in court. I could file that an alien ate my lunch but it doesn't make it true. Besides I only saw the following statement: "The unconstitutionality is compounded because the law is secret." I couldn't find the law it was referring to (though it might somewhere in the document.

I still must disagree with you: The DHS does not have secret laws. Ignorance of the law/regulations and misunderstanding them or even abuse of them does not mean that secret laws exist.

Also, let us not confuse freedoms and rights. We used to be free to ride horses anywhere. Now the law says we can't. We lost a freedom but I don't believe Americans ever considered it a RIGHT to ride horses anywhere. In the same way, we use to be free to travel on airplanes without showing ID. Now you need to show ID (for the most part). I don't think it was ever a right to travel on a plane without showing an ID. I would be surprised if the Supreme Court ruled it was a Constitutional right. I just don't see the justification for that (I realize your blogs disagree).

Also, you will again be happy with Congress: Last year they passed the "National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004." Signed into law by Pres. Bush, this law calls for a reorganization of the intelligence community under a new Director of National Intelligence. The new DNI has just begun but reform is on the way. Unfortunately, good reform takes time and careful consideration and shouldn't be rushed.

Posted by: Ellis at July 29, 2005 02:47 PM

Ellis,

Well, if you admit that you didn't really look at the documents that I presented as proof that the TSA/DHS has drawn up laws that it refuses to reveal to the public, then I guess I can't really fault you for disagreeing with me. Much like I can't fault an ostrich for not knowing the weather because its head is stuck in the sand. If you really don't believe me, walk into Ronald Regan and ask to see the laws that state you must supply an ID to purchase a ticket and board an aircraft. I would definitely be interested to find out if such laws are now acknowledged.

I would agree that TSA employees were over-reaching their authority, uneducated, and rude. However, acknowledging that does not imply that they were not upholding laws that, per DHS policy, they could not reveal to the public.

Furthermore and beyond the existence of such a class of laws, if a government employee abuses their power over ordinary citizens and that abuse is widespread over the nation, and there is no redress for the citizen's complaints, is there any need for laws? Power, in this case, makes law, de facto if not explicit.

Additionally, I do not believe that most of the new travel/security regulations (secret and not) actually make us safer, which is what they are supposed to do.

As for Gilmore vs. Ashcroft, I confess that I didn't realize it was filed almost two years ago. In 2004 the 9th Circuit Court rejected a government motion to dismiss the case, which at least gives the complaint an acknowledged status.

The DNI was what I so colloquially referred to as "whatever-they're-calling-the-intelligence-people-now” organization.

We're somewhat agreeing here. I just don't subscribe whole-heartedly to everything the DHS is doing. I'd like to see less of some stuff and more of other stuff. You seem pretty satisfied with the status quo. Fine, but I think you should think about whether certain policies are both good as well as effective.

I know I'm channeling some sort of weird neo-libertarian spirit here. Forgive me, I'm just ornery today.

Posted by: Noel at July 29, 2005 05:25 PM

Noel,

I did read the articles. I skimmed part of Gilmore vs. Ashcroft because it was not all relevant. Also, let's sharpen the debate by clarifying our terminology. A law is passed by Congress and is by very nature public (sections of a law might be kept private for intelligence reasons). Regulations are put in place by agencies such as DHS. Administrative law demands that any regulation be made public. I can assure you: there are no secret laws/regulations. To say so is pure conspiracy theory. I'm sorry but it is true.

As to the ID law, there might not be one. I will work on tracking it down next Monday. Of course, one purchases a tickets through private businesses so they have the ability to ask for anything. If you don't want to deal, don't buy the ticket. As to boarding an airplane, I remember one of the blogs stating that the citizen was finally allowed to board without an ID. TSA made a mistake and admitted it. It is probably not something they are used to dealing with because quite frankly most people don't care if they have to show an ID.

Do you honestly believe we would be just as safe if anyone could enter a plane without these security measures? I bet people in London don't think that. I believe there are terrorists who would be eager to have lessened security. Do you really disagree with that?

I hope I am not coming off as endorsing the status quo. I believe there has been lots of change and reform in a very short period. It is easy to get lost in all of that. I am simply trying to show that life in America is not quite as tyranical as some would like to believe.

I think I'm feeling a little feisty today also, so no hard feelings. I also ask forgiveness if I've been too harsh.

Posted by: Ellis at July 29, 2005 05:52 PM

Post a comment