> Fearing a terrorist attack is perfectly rational the question is how much liberty we’re willing to give up to prevent such attacks.
How much liberty are you willing to give up to prevent automobile accidents? children drowning in swimming pools?
Both of these kill far more people every year than terrorist attacks against americans. Why is it ok for thousands of people to die every year from drunk drivers, yet I have to take off my shoes at the airport?
Schneier's point has consistently been to fight terrorism effectively. Spend our money and resources in areas that actually reduce terrorism and deaths, rather than areas that appear effective, yet are ultimately worthless (taking off shoes, 3oz liquid restriction, TSA circling things on your boarding pass)
> How much liberty are you willing to give up to prevent automobile accidents? children drowning in swimming pools?
I'm willing to give up the liberty to not wear a seat belt and to not go as fast as I want to prevent the majority of accidents. I'm willing to give up the liberty to not put a fence around my pool to prevent most children from drowning. But I'm not willing to let the Government take my car entirely or say I just can't own a pool. So again, as I said in my original point, it's a question of degree not of absolutes.
As far as your last paragraph that's you projecting. No where in his piece does he talk about methods that are and are not effective. The word effective isn't in the piece one single time.
Well again I go back to the point I raised in my first post on this thread which is you have to consider intent.
The whole point of a post like this is to try to re-frame the topic in the minds of people who don't yet agree with you. So while it might be clear to you and it might be clear to the author it's obviously not clear to everyone or there would be no reason for this piece to be written.
So if the author's intent was to alter the perspective of people who don't agree with him he shouldn't write under the assumption that it's a clear cut issue (if that's in fact what he was doing)
How much liberty are you willing to give up to prevent automobile accidents? children drowning in swimming pools?
Both of these kill far more people every year than terrorist attacks against americans. Why is it ok for thousands of people to die every year from drunk drivers, yet I have to take off my shoes at the airport?
Schneier's point has consistently been to fight terrorism effectively. Spend our money and resources in areas that actually reduce terrorism and deaths, rather than areas that appear effective, yet are ultimately worthless (taking off shoes, 3oz liquid restriction, TSA circling things on your boarding pass)