November 21, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Silence is Golden. . . Maybe
Steven Den Beste says we should keep our mouth shut about potential security holes. Aziz Poonwalla says au contraire, we should talk about them to pressure the government or businesses involved can fix the problem, or that we would want them to. I think there's a balance between the two.
Consider the topic that started this off: agricultural security. This chap has been loudly declaring the many ways our food supply could be breached by bioterrorism.
Now, it's not like the government has been ignoring the matter. But of course it's possible the government has been paying insufficient attention, and it's necessary to call the public's notice to the matter in order to put the heat on.
However.
It's also possible the government is adequately weighing risk v. reward, and what he's done is to call the terrorists attention to previously un-thought of ways to attack us.
For example, foot and mouth disease. It's a horrible illness, spreads like wildfire. Probably the terrorists had considered it, but what if they hadn't? Did you see what happened in England? Even an extraordinarily robust government response -- immediate slaughter of any animal within striking distance of an infected one -- left the disease spreading hither and thither. We have early detection and slaughter programs in place just like England -- any vet that sees it notifies the government, which sends in the troops.
What else can we do? Nothing, really.
Oh, I suppose we could strip search and swab every person who comes into the country, empty all their luggage and test it for biopathegens -- if we wanted to essentially halt international travel, and/or divert 10% of GDP to airport security and customs.
Or we could put into place programs which would lockdown any place where something like foot-and-mouth was discovered, placing it under martial law and ordering anyone who tries to travel out of quarantine to be shot on sight, that being how the disease seems to have spread so far in the recent English outbreak.
Or I suppose we could institute security screening for all agricultural workers, people who drive near farms, people who work at feed suppliers and stores, and associated possible industries where foot and mouth might be introduced.
We could put police patrols on high alert near the billions of acres of farmland in this country.
We could do those things. But it would be cheaper and easier to convince the whole nation to go vegetarian.
Given that we are not going to step up our security appreciably, or convert the nation to the extraordinarily sensible (and economical!) vegetarian diet, announcing that foot and mouth would be devastating is not improving matters. It's probably not disimproving them, but some of his other suggestions were less obvious, and offered no easier solutions.
If there is a feasible security response which might be made to plug the risk factor you've identified, then opening your mouth probably helps. But in many cases, it doesn't. The parallel to Microsoft is apt in this sense: there is a tradeoff between having features we like at a low cost, and having a higher security risk. If it isn't feasible to pay the cost or forego the feature, than a citizen's duty is to advise the government of any new information, and otherwise keep their mouth shut.
This isn't really a new idea; there had been speculation a few months back in papers about the ELF or some other radical environmentalist group doing exactly this. Actually, given the degree of lunacy displayed by the ELF, the fact that they haven't done it makes me think that actually starting the epidemic isn't as easy as it sounds.
Posted by: mike earl on November 21, 2002 11:19 AMThe horrific slaughter of English livestock was completely avoidable had the authorities decided to go the vaccination route rather than the abbatoir to fight the infection.
Their reasoning? Vaccinated animals can't be freely exported because they show positive to the same tests used to detect the disease.
Animal husbandry, indeed.
Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 21, 2002 11:21 AMDefinitely we should talk about everything if talking will change things to make them better.
Ah, Society! You have more rules than anarchists! And anarchists have many rules.
Posted by: d fresh on November 21, 2002 11:38 AMI'm not following much of these arguments, but I recall the same issues being raised right after 9/11. Am I being too naive in believing that should someone find a loophole for a terrorist attack they aught to keep quiet and just report it to the FBI/CIA(aka authorities)? That's the snag I keep on hitting, these guys tend to be rather inept at handling infromation or people.
Still, is there any reason at all to write publically about anything? Nothing's going to be done about it.
Posted by: podzdorf on November 21, 2002 1:48 PMI had a situation like this myself.
Back a few months ago, when all the forest fires were burning, a thought crossed my mind --
"Imagine one car of terrorists with molotov cocktails, or even a case of cigarettes, taking a driving tour of all the dry forests out West. It would inflict millions or billions of dollars in damage, kill some people, and tie up huge numbers of firefighters. And the firefighters represent a huge proportion of out first responders to terrorist attacks."
Then Rich Lowry (National Review Online) posted an email from a reader on The Corner that mentioned the possibility two weeks later.
I came to the conclusion that any possibility is going to be mentioned by some fool sooner or later, and at least by discussing it sooner ordinary citizens (who are the real first line of defense, because they will often see unusual activity first) will have somewhat of a better heads-up in case the terrorists have thought of it on their own.
Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic on November 21, 2002 4:43 PMI think it is a matter of discretion, preferably informed discretion. Granting the fact that our government seems to want to play Keystone Kops in the field of Homeland Defense, and that they seem to VASTLY prefer abrogating the Constitution for law abiding citizens while putting on blinders to avoid "offending" politically correct groups in the process; this does not validate increasing the risk of a further attack. In my sideline as a freelance writer for various quasi-governmental entities in the defense field, I have on occasion come up with things that they have been more than willing to pay me for, but not publish. There are things out there that maybe should not be publicized. But they should be reported as best you can, if it seems to be important. Sadly, there are no hard and fast guidelines. We don't want to miss a chance to protect ourselves from a threat, yet we do not want the more Orwellian aspects of Homeland Defense to stifle what it means to be an American. The best I can say is think, twice or three times at least about the risk of exposing something dangerous, consult with someone you trust who has knowledge of the field involved [if possible], and go with your gut.
Posted by: Roland Mar on November 21, 2002 4:52 PMJane, the day I can't enjoy my Beef and/or pork and/or fowl, is the Terrorists have won. Cause I'd rather uprise against my beloved nation then be forced to eat weeds and roots I avoid most of the time.
Give my Ribs and Steak, or give me death!
Posted by: Nick M. (Arrogant Rants) on November 21, 2002 5:21 PMComments are Closed.