June 07, 2005
Knowledge Protects, Ignorance Betrays
Looked on the CNN site to find this today:
Feds: Science paper a terrorist’s road map
This attempt to pull the publication, I feel, is a mistake. We cannot go on assuming that the terrorists are too stupid to think creatively. We should use the advantages of an open society, and use papers like this to organize our efforts to defend the homeland.
If we have nodes of vulnerability, then we should exploit the knowledge in the paper describing them to protect ourselves, rather than hope and pray that the terrorists have't thought of it yet.
al-Qaeda is a sophisticated enemy, with people who know how to exploit our vulnerabilities already. This notion that if we just don't let any open discussion of the issues here take place, the terrorists will never think of ways to make scenarios like this work is ludicrous. They already figured out how to put explosives inside the hull of a boat, so they could attack the Cole. They already figured out how to make liquid explosives for the Bojinka plot, and a solid truck bomb for the first World Trade Center attack.
They figured out how to defeat our security apparatus on 9/11, and thereby use three of the four planes they hijacked as ad hoc cruise missiles. They planned for the large size of the airplane, it's fuel, the vulnerabilties of the security on the ground and in the air. The truth is, though some of the foot soldiers might not be geniuses, their style of planning is damn sophisticated.
We have no guarantees that knowledge of the weakness in here will remain secret even if they do not publish this paper. We have no guarantee that we can keep the terrorists from getting these ideas, as many of them are well-educated men, often with train in these fields. Osama Bin Laden, if we remember his days in the Sudan, has already tried to attain chemical weapons, and terrorists in Jordan have already tried themselves. They've plotted to use radiological weapons (dirty bombs), and have successfully carried out plots that feature a high degree of sophistication.
We have got to stop thinking of these men as yokels in turbans with AK-47s, as medieval religious rejects. We have got to stop thinking we can fight a war of attrition with these people, because they can kill thousands of us a lot cheaper than we can kill them with our armies. 9/11 cost them a few hundred thousand dollars, for 14.6 billion in damage.
What if somebody in our government, before 9/11, had gamed out how to to use planes as missiles, and had recommended beefing up the cockpit doors at the very least, and improvements in the watchlists. If we had gotten such changes in place, the terrorists would have lost men and opportunities to make their plot work. They would go right back to plotting, but we would have gotten in their way and saved lives.
Now we can suppose that al-Qaeda is so stupid as to put ever soldier it can muster into attacking our soldiers in Iraq and getting themselves killed, or we can suppose that they know what they're doing, and Iraq is only one part of making us bleed. In which case our "good offense" in Iraq is no defense, only the security measures we have on the ground.
We need to use what knowledge and theory we have about how they attack to harden the most vulnerable points and deny the terrorists access to the means by which they can execute their plan. We need coordination, not confusion in our Department of Homeland Security. We need a government that doesn't wait in fear for the terrorists to figure out our weaknesses, but rather does something about it.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2005 09:18 AMGood article, Stephen. That’s also the main line of thought in cryptology: You should publish your algorithms so other experts can point out weaknesses you might have missed. If you keep it secret, you don’t know how secure (or insecure) you are until the bad guys crack your code and do some damage.
Posted by: American Pundit at June 7, 2005 10:17 AMThe idea for using airplanes as missles, etc. actually came from the Japaneese in WW11. They were called Kamikaze missions.
You have to wonder if terrorists are paying more attention to the basics of weapons delivery to target than we are.
A good article. My only question would be this — at what point does information become so private (and important to security) that publishing it is no longer a good idea? To take an extreme example, I’m sure that none of us would want the access codes for nuclear weapons published in the New York Times. So it seems to me that at some point we shouldn’t put information into the public domain. On the other hand, I would entirely agree with your point about the usefulness of making information public in critiquing our security measures, finding the “holes” before terrorists do, etc. So where do we draw the line? Is it roughly analagous to publishing, say, the computer code behind a password protection program — but not giving out the password itself?
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 7, 2005 11:02 AMStephen -
What’s the link to the article? The link in your post isn’t working for me (it goes to the Watchblog archives…?)
Posted by: Chops at June 7, 2005 11:20 AMNever mind, I found the story here.
What with the protest in New York, this is probably the biggest news day for milk in a long time!
Posted by: Chops at June 7, 2005 11:23 AMThanks for the link, Chops.
So where do we draw the line?
Steve raises a good question. Based on the CNN story, it appears that the level of detail in the paper is the source of the problem. I think it’d be one thing for a newscast to publicize some of the vulnerabilities to our chemical plants (as 60 Minutes did) but another to provide a detailed analysis and blueprint of how to attack such a plant. The former alerts the public and, theoretically, pressures companies and politicians to address the problem. The latter becomes a detailed plan of attack that terrorists can then just run with.
Shouldn’t we at least make the terrorists do their own homework? We could try to reserve the most detailed stuff for the industries themselves and for politicians with security clearance.
Of course, there is a slippery slope argument to be made. If you can “censor” these kinds of papers, then where does censorship stop? How soon before an administration censors all significant criticism in the name of national security? And I concede I don’t have the answer to that question.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 7, 2005 12:13 PMOK, I have to apologize upfront for posting something that is somewhat off-topic. But since we’re talking about how “knowledge protects” and “ignorance betrays”…did anyone else catch the story (AID’s Containment in China)
regarding China and their new policy on AIDS containment (i.e., promoting the distribution of condoms)? Does it strike anyone else as ironic that the US’s AIDS policy is now less progressive than China’s?!
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 7, 2005 01:14 PMSorry about the attempted link. The address as listed is right, but I’m having some trouble figuring out the HTML formatting (so it ends up sending you to some “domain” website if you click on it). If anyone has a site I can go to for education on this HTML stuff, I’d be much obliged.
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 7, 2005 03:08 PMw3schools is a good source for HTML. Here is there html tutorial.
Posted by: SirisC at June 7, 2005 03:24 PMSubstitute the necessary characters for the brackets I place here, and you’ll get a working link.
[a href=”http://www.watchblog.com/”]Click here to enter Watchblog[/a]
The three parts are the opening tag, with the address for the link:
[a href=”http://www.watchblog.com/”]
The link text:
Click here to enter Watchblog.
and the closing tag, which keeps the subsequent parts of the posting from becoming part of the link text:
[/a]
Taken together (in working form):
Click here to enter Watchblog.
Now, I’m off to fix your link. In the future, if you’re not sure, hit the preview button. That will give you the chance to repair the code before outside intervention becomes necessary.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2005 03:37 PMStephen,
If there a point where freedom of speech becomes trumped by common sence?
Everone knows that shouting FIRE! in a theater isn’t covered.
How about someone starting an article in the media with the disclaimer; Shouting FIRE! is illegal, BUT, If someone were to do that, the biggest kill factor/bang for your buck, will come if you do that in theater xyz ?.
Would that be ok?
Its Freedom of speech, just pointing out flaws in the system, and proving why its all Bush’s fault.
Beagle-
I think this is what one could call the Doc Brown principle: If you recieve a letter warning you that you’re going to get shot by a terrorist, show up with a bulletproof vest on the day it’s supposed to occur.
This is a letter warning us that this is what terrorists could do. If we heed its warnings, and harden the nodes of vulnerability, eliminating certain security risks along the way, we can make the article harmless. If we prevent the information from getting out, then we gamble that the terrorists are less creative thinkers than we are.
And that, Beagle, is a gamble we already went bust on several times.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2005 04:01 PMStephen,
If the goal is to protect the nation, what would be lost by sending the info to the fbi/cia?
If done through an e-mail, anyone could have a record that the info was presented, if never acted on, and the worst happens, THEN you have a story and proof.
If the goal is protecting the Nation and its citizens, it seems like that would be the best plan.
Posted by: Beagle at June 7, 2005 04:33 PMBeagle-
First of all, having a clear line of accountability is useless if nobody’s motivated to take necessary actions. Second, we need the information out there in industry so they can consider their security situation. It’s like if the government knew about the 9/11 threat, yet made no effort to inform the pilots or the airlines. You have to inform the people in harm’s way.
Homeland security cannot merely be about after the fact investigations or military campaigns. It has to be about taking another look at the way we run our society and deciding how to both defend it and preserve its freedoms.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2005 05:47 PMAll the worry about security and dangers to the nation are rather pointless anyway if we don’t do anything to secure the borders. Government is too cowardly to address illegal trespass of our borders, because they would have to do something they’re not used to doing: work.
Otherwise, I agree with Stephen Daugherty (wrote):
If we have nodes of vulnerability, then we should exploit the knowledge in the paper describing them to protect ourselves, rather than hope and pray that the terrorists have’t thought of it yet.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 7, 2005 07:06 PM
You know, we could solve this problem with finding willing workers for crappy jobs if we were willing to pay more. If people actually read Adam Smith, they would know he says that the free market raises wages for dirty, dangerous and disreputable work.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2005 10:54 PM…and Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) too. So much common-sense from people that lived hundreds of years ago.
I think both sides are agreeing here. Our new Homeland Security cheif…I can’t remember his name, has a great plan underway. It’s simply based on probablistic risk analysis. He plans to determine which targets would cause the most damage or casualties and then put safeguards in place for those. It’s a great approach but there’s one flaw; our lawmakers will be the folks that are responsible for funding it. We could end up with a great study and detailed plans with no cash to implement them.
I also agree with the boarder issue. That’s a major problem.
Posted by: Tom L at June 7, 2005 11:35 PMDoes anyone notice how the catastrophes of the modern world always happen during times of economic hardship? My suggestion would be to not screw up the economy. Don’t know how it works, don’t know why it works, but it works! :)
Posted by: Zeek at June 8, 2005 12:02 PMZeek-
I think downturns in the economy often represent inefficiencies in the practical operations of business and also the party of ways of conventional wisdom with actual wisdom.
Zeek,
I think we’re doing just about all we can do to screw up the economy. A fiscal/financial meltdown is looming, and the s#!t will hit the fan in about 20 years (or less), when all of these serious problems have been ignored too long.
That’s about the time “The Perfect Storm” (as David Remer called it) will occur due to problems in:
Social Security, Medicare,$8*10^12 National Debt, $32*10^12 personal debt, no health care, pensions all bankrupt, taxes get higher, 50% interest on each tax dollar, war costs & debt, Government Pension Benefit Guaranty Group goes bankrupt, falling incomes, falling dollar, corporate fraud & welfare, overpaid & crooked CEOs running $multi-billion corporations & defrauding investors, huge loses by investors in the markets, energy shortages, and politicians voting themselves raises the whole while.
Did you know Congress just voted themselves some more raises last week? But, the interesting part is the sneaky way it occurs.
——————————————
Sorry, that wasn’t last week.
——————————————-
But, the point is, they now don’t have to vote for a raise. They only have to NOT vote against it. Nice deal, eh ?
Let’s not crowd out other comments with ad infinitum postscripts. Try to get your thoughts out more economically next time. - Editor
Posted by: d.a.n at June 8, 2005 12:51 PMBack to the topic though. I’m surprised there have been no major incidents since 9/11/2001.
We have all sorts of vulnerabilities, but I won’t list them all here.
One glaring problem is our unsecured borders being trespassed every day by the thousands.
1.5 million just since 1-Jan-2005.
A total of about 25 million.
Sounds more like an invasion.
