Security

An article from the prolific Cory Doctorow,cited at the Boing Boing page, contains this observation:

If terrorists are a danger to London, then the only way to be safe is to talk about real threats and real countermeasures, to question the security around us and shut down the systems that don't work.

I disagree with that assessment. Not the concepts so much, but the glibness of it.

Talking about real threats and countermeasures, certainly. Rational discussion is always valuable. Be sure to include an assessment as to the probability of the threat and the likelihood of the damage that will ensue should the threat manifest itself. Include references to threats that are only theoretical at the moment. Include a dispassionate evaluation of the effectiveness of countermeasures vis a vis cost and disturbance to the public.

Questioning the security around us, certainly. We should not accept security for its own sake, but should rather offer recommendations for its improvement (or elimination, where warranted). Include a concise summary as to the strong and weak points of the security in place, offering cogent practical recommendations as to how it can be improved, or why it should be eliminated.

Shut down the systems that don't work, absolutely. Stop blowing the trumpet that allegedly keeps the elephants at bay when no elephant has been seen in decades. However, be prepared to address the question of marauding army ants, killer bees, swine flu, and mad cow disease, as well as the general question of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation. Watch out for elephant importers masquerading as piano movers.

Security is good. Understanding security, the need for it, and how to keep it effective, with a cost that is proportionate to its value, is better. Like it or not, there are real threats in our world. It's why we have people who do this sort of analysis full time.