DHS Ponders "Improving" Terrorism Alert System 320
An anonymous reader writes "The DHS's color-coded terrorism risk warning system has often been criticized on a number of grounds. However, it seems that at last DHS has taken note of these criticisms and is finally planning to fix one of its problems. Which one? Well, since the two lowest levels have never been used in the history of the program, the solution is obvious: just get rid of them! In the new system, the lowest level would be yellow, 'guarded,' representing 'A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack.' While it's nice that they're at least no longer maintaining a pretense of it being for anything other than fear-mongering, I don't think this was the kind of change most people were hoping for."
OMG The Price Of Freedom! (Score:1, Insightful)
'A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack.'
But this should make all the Young Libertarians on Slashdot delirious with delight. Isn't the price of freedom supposed to be eternal vigilance?
*sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's just declare martial law and get it over with.
This System is mostly worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
This system provides no real benefit to the American populace other than to instill fear.
I don't stop what I'm doing because for some reason or another, the day has been ranked a "red" terrorist day.
Really, all it does (besides instilling fear) is give news sources something to talk about briefly.
Ancient Roman equivalent (Score:5, Insightful)
In this respect, not much seems to have changed.
No Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring the fear that it was probably _designed_ to instill in the population and potentially the global population... It's just a pointless system.
If this system is at all meant for the general population, it's failed. When I go out on vacation, or planning on visiting a major city and/or landmark, I never even think of the Alert colors.
I understand that it may potentially only be for government agencies, especially law enforcement, but even then does saying we're at yellow, or orange, or even red _really_ give them direction? I'm assuming even if there are general rules in place to "do x and y when at color z" they only get rudimentary things done. Say, bringing in more personnel or putting more people on standby status. Even the agencies need to know _what_ to look for and in what fashion the event is predicted to take place.
Really, beyond fear, I can't see the point in the system at all. If there is something to report to the public, report it. If there is something to report to government agencies, I bet there are a bunch of better ways, already in use, to alert the proper acronyms of the who, what, when, where, and why.
Re:New Alert System (Score:2, Insightful)
Red - Socialist President. Abandon the country.
No: Red Socialist President. Go to a town hall, scream a lot, wave your automatic weapons in the air, and scream, YOU LIE!!!!!!!!
Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! (Score:5, Insightful)
But this should make all the Young Libertarians on Slashdot delirious with delight. Isn't the price of freedom supposed to be eternal vigilance?
Yes. Vigilance against the Government. I'm far more worried about Washington and Albany than I am about a handful of naked savages residing in caves who managed to pull off a single mass casualty attack only through luck and our own incompetence.
Stuck on Orange (Score:1, Insightful)
By keeping the threat level at Orange (High) for as long as they have DHS has done two things:
1) Desensitized the rating system to the point that it's meaningless.
2) Left a lot of people thinking, "You mean after all these years and billions of $s we haven't been able to reduce the threat?"
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's just declare martial law and get it over with.
Why do you assume they are acting with nefarious intent when a much simpler explanation is good old fashioned Governmental incompetence?
Re:it kinda works though, just not how they intend (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep yep. I interpret the terror alert color to only indicate one thing: how long the line will be at the security checkpoint. And it's for purely psychological reasons: higher danger levels make us desire a greater inconvenience in order to feel safe.
To wit: if the color was green, nobody would care if they just whisked everybody through without searching purses, confiscating water bottles, and making us take off our shoes.
Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:1, Insightful)
Because incompetence would strike randomly, while governments mistakes always hit the common citizen rather than the ruling elite.
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
es, I know the frog boiling thing is a myth
Professors are a funny lot. In all of those debunking claims, nobody actually... you know... tried to boil a frog. Instead, they theorize about it and proclaim their stances quite loudly...
Re:Orange Alert! (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL.
And the continuous state of alert just causes degradation and ignorance.
People would just ignore it like they do with some warning lights in the car. "You don't have the seat belt on" is just ignored since they already know it, and know it's illegal in most states to not have the seat belt on but they don't give a crap.
So an "Elevated" state of alert is in reality "Normal" to "Ignorable". A "Critical" state of alert will be considered "Elevated" and when it's critical all traffic will have a standstill anyway.
Re:Fear-mongering? (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed -- mostly. You're right in that just because something is possible doesn't mean it's likely.
OTOH, there are a number of likely scenarios and we are certainly no better off security-wise than we were before 9/11. Sticking a bunch of rent-a-cops in front of possible terrorist targets and airport terminals and giving them metal detectors and bomb sniffers will stop only the casual terrorist who hasn't thought things through.
From what we know now, the 9/11 terrorist attacks took years of planning. Do you really think that terrorists who are willing to wait in the wings for years, plotting and scheming the whole time aren't already systematically testing this 'new' security for weaknesses?
Don't be stupid and above all, do not trust the DHS when they tell you that we are more secure. Because we are certainly not.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the parties responsible benefit from the behaviour, which suggests intent. The USA's military budget is a wonder of the Modern World. Politicians get away with deleting public records in the name of security, those that want to go on military adventures for the benefit of private companies they are associated with get to do so. Laws that make it harder to protest against unpopular actions get passed ("Free Speech Zones" - wtf?) resulting in greater freedom for those in power to act without visible criticism. Surveillance, warranted and unwarranted (literally) is passed with little criticism. And all on the ticket of fear.
So you tell me, if factions of people have the smarts to gain control of one of the biggest nations on Earth, institute policies that benefit them in myriad ways to your own detriment, why on Earth would you call them incompetent? Cost overruns on various government projects? Ask yourself where the overspend is going. It doesn't just vanish - it goes into someone's pocket.
Re:This System is mostly worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't drop the terrorism alert level, because IF they dropped it to its lowest, THEN an attack happened, they would be dragged in front of congress, and be forced to testify about why they are so stupid, then be fired..
Re:New Alert System (Score:2, Insightful)
A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry.
A holstered/slung firearm that represents no threat to anyone is a piece of jewelry.
The only way a weapon (of any kind) represents no threat is if there is a certainty that it will never be used. There's no reason to carry a weapon that won't be used, but if it might be used, then its very purpose is to be a threat that others take seriously. Possibly a legitimate threat (a deterrent against attacks to your person, perhaps), but a threat nonetheless.
(Even if you guarantee you will never use your weapon, it represents a threat to yourself, because it encourages everyone around you to treat you as more dangerous than you are and respond to you more aggressively than otherwise).
Re:*sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you need to read a bit more closely. A quote from the Article:
"He described how the critical thermal maximum for many frog species has been determined by contemporary research experiments: as the water is heated by about 2F per minute, the frog becomes increasingly active as it tries to escape, and eventually jumps out if the container allows it."
Seems to indicate that they tried it.
Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm far more worried about Washington and Albany than I am about a handful of naked savages residing in caves who managed to pull off a single mass casualty attack only through luck and our own incompetence.
How about your own arrogance?
Re:Fear mongering? Please. (Score:3, Insightful)
No the DHS can act as if it's always yellow or orange or whatever color they keep it locked to. The rating system is supposed to be FOR THE PUBLIC. I don't think since oh what was it Sept 11, 2001 that we should collectively be on a state of constant panic and alert looking for terrorists. Now if they get some credible threats and/or chatter that something is imminent then yes it would make sense to raise it from Blue or Green or whatever to yellow or orange to get the public involved in helping them. However, the presumed constant state of alert as others have said will only lead to people just flat out ignoring the system unless it comes out to 'WE ARE UNDER ATTACK!' and some jackass flies a few more planes into some buildings.
Re:New Alert System (Score:5, Insightful)
Carrying a gun != threatening someone else. A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry.
I'm a gun owner. I don't have phobias. And yet if I were taking a walk around my state's capital square [cityofmadison.com] and witnessed an apparent civilian with a rifle "safely slung" over their shoulder, you'd better fucking believe I'd wonder about intent. And then I'd quickly guide my family away in the opposite direction (.
In certain contexts, the only purpose to openly carry in this manner would be to make some kind of political statement.
Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarians didn't lead this nation into war, that was the doing of NEOCONSERVATIVES. Neocons are seperate and distinct from the more common conservatives, many of whom have been duped into following the neocons.
Both of these statements are true. It is also true that a great many libertarians and old-school conservatives continue to support the Republican party despite the fact that its agenda has been neocon-dominated for at least fifteen years. If you vote Republican, neocon policies are what you're voting for. So it's kind of hard for us lefties to believe people who say, "Well, here's what real [libertarians|conservatives] believe ..." when they're the exact same people who gave us Gingrich and Bush.
Actually, I do have some sympathy -- I'm a pro-gun liberal, so when I vote Democratic, I'm aware that I'm voting against a portion of my interests. But I don't try to hide it, or pretend otherwise. I can't say "real liberals support gun rights" when I can look around and see that the vast majority of people who call themselves liberals are, in fact, anti-gun. I just have to deal with it, and hopefully be honest about what I'm doing. It would be refreshing to see some of the same honesty from the other side of the aisle.
Re:Fear mongering? Please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, it's a department whose sole purpose is defending the homeland. How is it fear mongering to stay on "a constant state of vigilance". And when would they ever go less than that, realistically? Do we want a Department of Homeland Defense whose alertness to terrorism status is "Not paying attention.", which is what is less than "vigilant".
What we want is a population with sufficient intelligence and maturity to be able to recognise the War on Terror for exactly what it is; a sham, and Orwell's "war without end," which exists for the express purpose of enabling the gradual, overt introduction of total fascism.
The GWOT has no legitimacy, and the DHS doesn't either. They are both instruments of fascism, and absolutely nothing more.
If you're having trouble believing that every single terrorist incident which has occurred in the last ten years, has been orchestrated by governments, it's very simple to figure out the underlying logic.
Simply ask yourself who the overwhelming beneficiary of the attacks has been.
Re:New Alert System (Score:3, Insightful)
What's wrong with a political statement?
Personally I wouldn't openly carry under any circumstance other than hunting or competition (mainly because I don't want to give away the fact that I'm armed and become a target) but I'm not afraid of those that do.
Pointless (Score:2, Insightful)
The DHS was/is not even necessary, and is just another bureaucracy clogging up things even more.
Those who trade freedom for security get neither. The more you allow government to protect you the more power you allow them to throw you in a dungeon and throw away the key. No Trial, No Rights, No more Liberty.
You either put the handcuffs on the government or they put them on you.
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Fox is only "hate on demand" if you think opposition to leftist ideas qualifies as "hate". I haven't seen much "hate" on Fox. They certainly don't like Obama very much and aren't inclined to give him a fair shake but then MSNBC treated GWB in exactly the same manner, didn't they?
Personally I regard Fox more as a tabloid network than a politically biased one. I spent a few hours in the ER earlier this month where the only channel worth watching was Fox News. I wasn't paying that much attention but about 80% of the coverage consisted of stories and discussion about the Dugard kidnapping. Apparently they had found a bone in the neighbors yard. Nobody knew at that time if it was human or not but apparently this fact was worth three hours of prime time coverage and a few discussion panels.
Fox is a tabloid network first, an echo chamber second.
Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, Mr. Dvorkin, it appears that you and I could sit and discuss politics, and we could agree and disagree all day long. But, take note of the post following yours. We aren't capable of critical thinking!! That is the province of people who post anonymously!!
BTW - I don't really fit into any party, but the Libertarians come closest to a fit for me. God, I hate that we are only ever given two choices. Can't we ever get anyone to run for office besides Dumb and Dumber?
Oh Noes! I was unpatriotic!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what? Among conservatives, "Patriotic" has lost its original meaning of loving one's country. It has become the codeword for their own type of "Politically Correct."
Re:Orange Alert! (Score:4, Insightful)
It is already orange and has been orange forever as far as air travel goes.
I chuckle at that every time I fly, because leaving it at one step below the actual attack state means if it ever went to red for good reason, no one will care.
Boiling frogs works both ways. if you constantly caution people when there is no real danger, they lose the ability to see genuine threats.
Re:This System is mostly worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorists have chatter... we have people investigating and listening in. There's also OpSec. When a cell changes behavior it can be an indicator that they're up to something. Militaries and gov'ts do the same. When the Pentagon starts ordering more pizza all the sudden... something's up. Kidnappers generally don't give such signals. Nor do we have the CIA/FBI tailing them or the NSA listening to them.
If there was a string of robberies in your neighborhood and the cops stopped by to inform you of this... would that be fear mongering?
To me fear mongering would be:
"You're going to be robbed if you don't vote for me and let me double the police force"
"Your soul will burn in hell forever if you don't send me money or if you love someone of the same sex"
Indications suggest likely attack + No warning given to public + *boom* = Why didn't you warn us?
No warning + *boom* = Why weren't you looking into this?
Warning given + no *boom* = FEAR MONGERING!1! FASCISMS! LoL!
Money spent on CIA and NSA + No terrorist attack = Why are we spending all this money?
Give warning + *boom* = You didn't do enough to prevent it.
There is no winning in security, just managing the value of the asset against the likelihood of attack to determine the level/cost of securing it. The money you spent on Schlage locks was a waste... unless someone tries to break in and FAILS. If they succeed or no one tries, the lock was a waste, right?
i suppose the CIA and NSA *could* reveal their sources and methods and give us a break down of why they think an attack is more likely today than yesterday. "Jeff, our agent in Kabul overhead a conversation between Abdul and Habeeb. Jeff will be staying at the Kuwait Marriott for the rest of the week, his family lives in Arlington. Abdul and Habeeb, please change your target or time table, enjoy the head start." Great idea.
The lack of "what we're supposed to do" is a fault in the system (which can be changed). But calling it tea-leaf weather report assumes a great deal of incompetence or malice in the gov't... or indicates a great deal of paranoia.
Having lived with and worked with the people who do this kind of work for my entire life and having been an intel analyst with a clearance i can't name here... i think you're either very uninformed (which isn't entirely your fault), or you're letting paranoia/partisanship do your thinking. Yeah, W was an evil idiot, but he wasn't an all powerful mastermind nor as bad as we wish him to be.
Defcon Levels Above 1 Determined Unneeded (Score:2, Insightful)
In a highly anticipated move, Congress today determined that all DEFCON levels above 1 are unneeded and will be scrapped.
"Well, we're at war 24/7 as it is, the system should reflect that," stated a representative.
Defence contractors were unable to comment, though one did make a side remark that he was too busy counting his money.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Eternally staying vigilant against government abuses.
I am tired of government manipulation of the public via fear. There has always been terrorism, there always will be terrorism, and from what I can tell, a very high percentage it is state sponsored, in one way or the other.
Obviously we need military and intelligence services; they shouldbe the best in the world, and we need security - but what happened on Sept 11th is ridiculous and NEVER should have happened - all of this bullshit about all of these simultaneous coincedences letting this occur, as well as there being drills occurring at the WTC and Pentagon that very morning for THAT exact scenario (that's a fact by the way, not some truther conspiracy bullshit - look into it if you doubt that)...
I have no idea what really went on - but I just don't think that our country and the security of the people have been in the best hands. There is an article by Michael LeMieux called "Loss of Freedom" which I think sums up how I feel about the how the entire anti-terror laws situation in the US has been handled since 2001 quite well, here is an excerpt:
"On the Friday prior to voting on the PATRIOT Act, the Judiciary Committee passed a bipartisan version of the bill that did not have the broad sweeping powers wanted by Attorney General Ashcroft and the White House. At 3:45 am on Sunday the bill was printed; but it had been modified to include all the items of the original bill which, according to Rep. DeFazio from Oregon, were a direct challenge to our civil liberties. These same items had been rejected by Congress even before 9/11 occurred.
According to Rep. Barr, the PATRIOT Act was a device under the guise of fighting terrorism to expand federal police power. When we look at who attacked us, we see no U.S. citizens. Yet when we look at the PATRIOT Act, time and time again it provides the federal government with mechanisms to spy on the citizens of the United States, not on foreign terrorists. If the purpose of the PATRIOT Act is to aid in fighting the enemy, it has to make any rational person think, âoewho do they think is the enemy?â Obviously the government believes it is U. S. citizens. We have met the enemy, and it is us. "
Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! (Score:1, Insightful)
I know a lot of people who voted for McCain simply because they knew Obama's policies wouldn't work, similarly, I know people who voted for Obama because they didn't want McCain's policies.
Notice that Obama's policies wouldn't work but McCain's policies were simply unwanted. Not particularly fair and balanced.
Re:New Alert System (Score:3, Insightful)
Because unlike a nutter with a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache (killing all chance of political discourse FTW), the person making a political statement with a gun can kill me.
Are you afraid your family might learn something about the 2nd Amendment?
In a sense, yes. I'm frightened they might get an intimate lesson in it.
I hate these loonies taking their guns to what used to be CIVIL discussions, sure, they have the RIGHT, but they obviously have no idea what RESPONSIBILITY is. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. These gun nuts (as opposed to normal gun owners) are just a symptom of the problem, our ability to sit down and discuss issues is completely, and totally dead. As is all of our belief in democracy, these people are generally people searching for a dictatorship, even if they won't admit it. Democracy is a right, until my fellow country men vote for someone who I don't like.
Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! (Score:3, Insightful)
Also strange is the switch that seems to have been flipped in every Democrat's mind. Now Republicans are the whiney, America hating terrorists. They have taken up the exact same rhetoric used up until the election by the Republicans, and indeed, they are continuing ALL of the major policies left in place by the Bush administration, while instituting every program they can think of because they (sincerely, I think) believe that government spending can somehow get us out of this Depression. It can't, of course. If it could, there would never be recessions. The Japanese tried it for twenty years, and only got twenty years of stagnation, and a huge debt to boot. Our debt is already unsustainable. What is going to happen when we double it?
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is different from your insurance company deciding that they don't need to pay for your cancer drugs? How?
I'd rather have an impartial panel that set standards (ie, drugs costing more $x are used where the person has more than y years of life ahead of them) than insurance companies cheating everyone.
Insurance companies lie and claim they'll help you until the critical time when they don't. The "death panels" would set standards that you'd know about beforehand. If you don't like your insurance company's decision you can try, at the last minute while sick and broke, to go to Mexico. If you don't like the panel's decision you'd know the minute they made it and you could lobby to change it, or go shopping around for overseas help/home while healthy.
There are many credible things you could dislike in Obama's proposal, and many things you could dislike about how he's proposing/pushing it. But you don't, you focus on the republitard 'death panels' nonsense. You're a fucking imbecile. Fox news, brought to Slashdot.
Re:New Alert System (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking a gun to a political rally sends the message "agree with me or I shoot you".
It only sends that message if you are paranoid enough to regard anyone carrying a gun as violent enough to want to murder you for disagreeing with them. I've gotten into my share of arguments with people with guns (usually over their selection of firearm ;) and I haven't been shot yet. Amazing, isn't it?