So I just heard on the TV about the trial on technology on the Boston subway that tested passenger fingers for explosive residue when they purchased their tickets. Thankfully the test failed (hospital workers triggered false positives) but Homeland Security Department and local transit officials haven’t given up on the idea of fancy security precautions for subways. Indeed it appears DHS is spending a sizable amount of money on technical solutions (and cute dogs) to secure the nations rail system.

At least for airplane travel the particular vulnerability of airplanes to even small bombs justifies some security screening. True, as far as security goes, after 9/11 we should have reduced spending on preflight screening as the terrorists are aware that the passengers would never allow a plane to be seized again¹. Still one could make the implausible argument that TSA spending is still justified as security theater to reassure the public about airplane safety. However, the security measures for the subway don’t even have this justification as (except for a brief time after Madrid) people seem perfectly comfortable taking the subway without them and they are even less effective in preventing terrorist violence.

The train system is just one place where many people gather. If we implement effective security measures in the subway terrorists will just explode their next bomb at a march or political rally². As silly as it is to try and implement fancy security in out subways at least they are a small enclosed space that might net the terrorists a few more bodies but spending spending 13.6 million on Amtrak, which isn’t usually a tight squeeze, is even dumber. Worse the security measures the DHS wants for the subway wouldn’t be effective even if they worked. If we scan fingers for explosive residue when tickets are purchased terrorists just wouldn’t buy a ticket. Either they would get a monthly ticket, have a clean associate purchase their ticket for them or simply jump the gate. It wouldn’t be too hard to get some associates to start a fight or jump the turnstyle themselves to distract the cop or just look at the train schedule and outrun the cop to the subway³.

Now some simple measures (confiscating abandoned bags) might be cost effective and if it turns out that subways are particularly vulnerable to simple poison gas attacks maybe some very accurate detector could be helpful though usually the simple fixes that generate other benefits (like better in car ventilation) are the best. Hell, I can even see the argument for some sort of technological surveillance technology, e.g., some system that quietly gathers data on who has certain chemical traces, but the transportation security measures that the DSA is pursuing are just dumb.

This isn’t just a simple matter of government waste. There are real risks we face from industrial accidents, terrorism and natural disasters that effective government spending could minimize. The reason 9/11 worked is that the terrorists struck us in a way we weren’t expecting⁴ and there is no reason to think they have some sort of transit fetish that will prevent them from trying to poison the water supply, attack a chemical plant, or instill panic with a dirty bomb. Unfortunately the democratic process rewards congressmen who play to the human tendency to overestimate the risk of past disasters and the nature of bureaucracy rewards better ways to do more of the same more than suggestions that it isn’t worth doing. But until we can fix the system so the funding goes where the security experts recommend instead of where people’s gut tells them it should I don’t have much hope of things getting better.

I’m listening to this special on flight attendants on the history channel or something. Hearing some of the old commercials from the 70’s really blows my mind. They had the flight attendants doing the ‘air strip’ and they actually had to strip off their outer garments while walking slowly up and down the aisles during the flight. Even worse was the ‘fly me’ commercial that had flight attendants in bikinis saying ‘fly me to Orlando’ and then the flight attendants on that airline would have to greet them with ‘fly me’ when the passengers got on the plane. Two things about this blow my mind. First how can people get upset about things like Janet Jackson’s nipple when they tolerate comments that obviously instigate just as many sexual thoughts in the viewers. Secondly it amazes me how much the cultural attitude toward women has changed. Yes we still have hooters girls on some specialized flights but even girls being explicitly sold for sexuality aren’t expected to put up with the same grabbing and sexual harassment.

However, on to the point of this post. One of the stewardesses was talking about how people didn’t take them seriously and how they really should listen when the pilot says they need to fasten their seatbelts for turbulence. This is just stupid. People ignore the seatbelt warning because they are repeatedly given totally needlessly. After the plane touches down they tell you safety require you keep your seatbelt on. This is absurd and everyone knows it. They also know the pilot will keep the seatbelt sign on just because it’s the first 20 minutes of flight or their is very minor turbulence.

Grr, we really need to change the law so that over-warning makes one as likely to lose the lawsuit as under-warning. We also need to change the way our society conceives of risk generally. Thinking of things as safe or unsafe worked fine when we didn’t know much but now it is really important to think of them as a continuum. Doctor’s shouldn’t recommend what would be most healthy for their patients who then go and ignore the advice because it requires giving up too much, they should non-judgmentally compare the risks and rewards even if this involves recommending that someone keep their occasional cigarette habit. Safety tips by the university and government should also tell you what is just a waste of time. Telling someone they should never walk along at night is dumb, telling them where they should walk along at night is helpful.

I think a good way to start on this might be encouraging all providers of advice to give risks and benefits in terms of easy comparisons, e.g., each cigarette is like eating n big macs, walking alone home at night is like driving for m miles on the highway.

So there is a lot of discussion about the dangers of nanotechnology. Mostly Luddite fears of new technology but some reasonable concerns about the health effects of these really small particles. Of course these issues are reasonable concerns but one shouldn’t leap to regulate before one has documented any harms. Until we start having evidence of harm we should concentrate on research to to evaluate harm not uninformed regulation.

However, these are the standard worries with any new technology and they only look at the short term harms of nanotech. What worries me is the great power of nanotech to manipulate materials atom by atom. In particular I am worried that advances in nanotechnology will make it easy to sort uranium 238 out of uranium 235. Essentially I am worried that it is all too possible, though likely more than a decade away, to make some kind of nanotech device that can separate atoms based on atomic weight.

If I’m right it seems entirely possible that within my lifetime we might have tabletop sized machines fully capable of enriching uranium sufficiently to produce a nuclear weapon. At which time anyone who can find a deposit of uranium in the ground and mine it would be able to produce a nuke very easily. In short bringing real nuclear weapons within the capability of terrorist groups and even everyday citizens who can get their hands on unenriched uranium.

Scary. Though it is only one example of a much larger trend. As technology progresses it gets easier to destroy things (bombs, biological weapons, radiation etc..) faster than it gets easier to protect them. Unfortunately if this trend continues it may be impossible to have both reasonable privacy/freedom (including that to modify/experiment with technology without approval) and safety. Quite simply the better we get at manipulating the physical world the more power it puts in the hands of the individual to create dangerous items all on their own.

So if you haven’t been living under a rock for the past couple days you have heard about the controversy over Dubai Ports World’s bid to take over the British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. The effect of such a deal would be to put Dubai Ports World in charge of cargo terminals at six major US ports, though the ports themselves and general port security would still be the responsibility of the US coast guard. The deal has provoked a great deal of concern among congressmen, major newspapers and a collection of hysterical bloggers. I even heard a congressmen on the radio this morning claim that the protests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) over the cartoon controversy illustrated that the UAE was not a reliable ally, which makes about as much sense as France refusing to allow google to offer search services because Christian protests over pornography in the US show we are not a reliable proponent of free speech. Luckily there are a few news organizations running editorials and blog posts cutting through the xenophobic demagoguery and explaining why blocking the port deal is a stupid idea.

Unfortunately while tons of liberals and many conservatives were willing to jump on the censorship bandwagon when the islamic religion was minorly slighted in the cartoon controversy there seems to be a bipartisan xenophobic consensus (with some fair minded idiots) about the port situation, despite expert opinion to the contrary. Though many ignorant muslims saw the Danish failure to censure as anti-muslim both the common people and educated professionals rightly view this as discrimination. The ports in question have been managed by a British company for some time so there is not even a question that people are objecting because it is an arab company and that makes it discrimination plane and simple. Even if there was good reason to believe that arab ownership substantially increased security risk it this would no more make our denial of the deal because they are arab any less discriminatory than the fact that suicide bombers really are more likely to be Semitic makes racial profiling less discriminatory. Still, though we should have a strong presumption against engaging in discriminatory practices, sometimes a threat might be so great the harm from discrimination is worth our gain in security.

So what is it that has the critics so worried that it is worth engaging in discrimination, offending an ally in the war on terror which has granted us use of their ports and generally further alienating the muslim public? Well it’s hard to say, mostly the criticism is a chorus of “it’s insane”, “how could you give port security to arabs who have connections to Osama,” and “9/11 terrorists came from the UAE and funnelled money through the UAE” (though senators like to dress up these arguments using phrases like ‘nexus of terrorism’ and ‘islamic fascist movement’). Couldn’t we at least try not to be hypocritical here? It isn’t like the US is the only country whose foreign policy sometimes requires dealing with less than upstanding characters (Saddam Hussein anyone). Nor is it the case that many western countries didn’t similarly function as nexuses of terrorism and terrorist money (Germany anyone?). In fact the reason terrorists tend to send money through the UAE is because the UAE is modernizing and becoming the financial capitol of the middle east, i.e., doing what we wish the other arab countries would do.

The best the critics could probably argue is something like this: The UAE has a much higher percentage of Al Qaeda sympathizers than England hence a UAE managed port company is going to be more likely to help terrorists/terrorist’s bombs evade US run port security. Since Dubai Ports would be hiring the same unionized US workers and sub-contracting out to the same US companies this argument is exceptionally weak at best. Likely the increased scrutiny would more than make up for the risk of some complex manipulation of US ports and subcontractors to sneak through dangerous items. At worst we could just increase the funding for US government port security and count the cost a small price to pay for better PR (and hence fewer terrorists) in the arab world. Also far from being a concernthe government ownership of Dubai Ports World (though the company is run by an American) is an added measure of safety as it guarantees we know where to find the companies owners and can easily hold them accountable.

Exactly what sort of risk we are supposed to be worried about isn’t even clear. The terrorists themselves could just use unknown young volunteers and have them take a commercial airline into the country or fly into mexico and have a coyote take them across the border. Sneaking people into the US is already pretty easy to do and cargo ports aren’t the easiest way to do it. Other concerns raised have been dirty bombs or other weapons. However, once in a cargo port a dirty bomb is already a serious threat and as Oklahoma city showed more conventional bomb making materials are easily acquired domestically. This is why the port security initiative involves checking cargo at foreign ports and the importance of this aspect of our security just emphasizes the importance of rewarding countries that cooperate with us.

However all these arguments pale into insignificance once you realize that you can take a non-stop flight on Emirates Airlines from Dubai to New York. I mean Jesus Christ what possible reason could you have to worry about cargo ports when the UAE is running planes into major cities? Seems to me that a dirty bomb would be way more dangerous flying on an airplane that could be flown into a US city than on a cargo ship. Like most of our security worries this is utterly irrational and diverts resources from other more serious concerns but, unlike the irrational paranoia that makes us arrest people for joking about bombs this reaction is racist, xenophobix and risks alienating the arab world and creating even more terrorists.

There is an interesting new post over on Balkinazation describing how the Bush administration cut anyone who had qualms over the treatment of Guantanamo inmates out of the loop. In fact they apparently even issued reports in these individuals names while leading these people to believe that the reports had been canceled.

It is this sort of behavior which makes the Bush administration truly dangerous. Sure I’m not a fan of Bush’s conservative policies or his tax cuts for the rich but these issues are to a great extent a distraction. Any administration makes a huge number of decisions that never attract public attention but the consequences of these decisions can be significant, both to the people involved and the country as a whole. The health of our government and way of life depends on these decisions being made well and this can not happen when dissident views are simply shut out or ignored. Sure sometimes one needs to go forward with a decision despite the fervent objections of a few people but it is important that the decision makers hear those objections and consider them. Clinton, for instance, had a policy of listening to dissenting views and hearing them argued out in front of him and I doubt (though I could be wrong) that previous republican administrations had this sort of lock-step attitude but whether or not it has past precedent it is very dangerous.

Also a few final words on the cartoon business. My last post should not be taken as any kind of softening of my attitude on the protesters or those demanding restrictions on free speech. Nor should it be taken as any kind of endorsement of a social standard which takes it as inappropriate to criticize someone’s religion, even if that religion is singled out for criticism on its own. While I tend to think that the difference between Muslims and Christians mostly stems from the fact that many Muslims still lie in old-fashioned patriarchal and tribal cultures it is perfectly appropriate to ask whether Islam plays any particular role in encouraging terrorism. (I’m sure both Christianity and Islam both do so to some degree but I’m unsure if Christianity would be any less bad in the same circumstance).

I most certainly do not support any type of social rule of conduct which demands any criticism of Islam be balanced by a criticism of Christianity or Judaism nor do I think that the cartoons in question went to far in any sense. I still believe that some Muslims’ overreaction to the cartoons should not be rewarded. All I am saying is that (assuming Jyllands-Posten didn’t have inappropriate motivations) the choice to publish the cartoons in this fashion may not have been particularly good strategy and ultimately may cause some harm without aiding the cause of free speech substantially.

In other words my attitude toward Jyllands-Posten is the same as my attitude towards google would be if they had chosen to stand on principle and not censor search results for the Chinese (assuming valid motivations in both cases). Just as it would inappropriate to hypothetically scold google because they didn’t realize their principled stand might actually harm free expression in China it would be inappropriate to scold Jyllands-Posten because their principled stand to publish completely reasonable cartoons might cause similarly negative consequences.