Advertise here: Contact FM.

June 19, 2002
10:55 AM Subscribe

“I accuse the media in the United States of treason.”- A terrorism analyst chides the U.S. media for identifying possible security vulnerabilties, to the advantage of terrorists:

"No terrorist group that I am aware of has the time and manpower to conduct this type of extensive research on a multitude of potential targets. Our news media, and certain think tankers and academicians, have done and continue to do the target vulnerability research for them."

posted by rowell (35 comments total)

You'd think a so-called terrorism analyst would have some basic understanding about the weakness of security through obscurity.
posted by majick at 11:03 AM on June 19, 2002

This guy is doing a shill for his boss, John Ashcroft. Set up the argument, then defend the indefensible. Man, this "you're not a patriot" stuff keeps getting scarier! Will we get hauled off to an undisclosed location for discussing this on a weblog?
I heard Leo Kotte telling a story about a similar happening in Yugoslavia during the Tito days...how far we've descended so quickly...
posted by nofundy at 11:07 AM on June 19, 2002

There are some good responses to this on Romanesko's letters page (scroll down, they're scattered.)

Media types automatically think about this in terms of press freedom issues however, and it might be more profitable to think about it as a 'security through obscurity' kind of issue. (on preview--we already are!)

I also wonder about this assertion, and others like it:
Do you honestly believe that such stories and headlines, pointing out our vulnerabilities for Japanese and Nazi saboteurs and fifth columnists, would have been published during World War II?

These kind of blanket assertions about WWII often crop up--and they seem plausible, but do we have any historians out there who can actually tell us whether they're correct?
posted by feckless at 11:09 AM on June 19, 2002

[sarcasm]
Oh, I'd definitely be sure to subscribe to a paper that got a gold star from the Office of Homeland Security for its willingness to be censored.
[/sarcasm]
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:09 AM on June 19, 2002

From the article:

They now know not to pay for things with large amounts of cash. They now know to buy some furniture for their apartments or rooms. They now know that they have to act friendly and not surly or antagonistic in their dealings with neighbors and other locals. They know now that they should have a phone installed in their apartments or rooms.

This guy's complaining about the media giving tips to terrorists, so what does he do? He lists all these tips for terrorists. What a hypocrite.
posted by bobo123 at 11:14 AM on June 19, 2002

Accusing the media of treason in applying its "manpower" to come up with a list of public utilities and gathering places only makes sense if you 1) believe that a list of public utilities and gathering places really requires more than trivial effort to compile, and 2) believe that the American news media, the very same cabal that wanted us to get all scared about shark attacks last summer, is smarter than every terrorist organization that wishes us harm.
posted by Vetinari at 11:21 AM on June 19, 2002

feckless:

Here is an excerpt from Secrets of Victory: The Office of Censorship and the American Press and Radio in World War II that has some interesting passages, such as:

"American censorship rules in World War II had no built-in legal penalties for journalists who violated the censorship code. If a newspaper or magazine broke the rules, the censor could do little more than publicize the offense and subject the offender to ridicule and competitors' wrath. Fines and prison time could be assessed only if the code violation were so egregious as to cause demonstrable damage to the war effort. With one exception, involving the Chicago Tribune's reporting of the battle of Midway in 1942, the government never considered any journalist's code violation severe enough to warrant prosecution under the Espionage Act."
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:23 AM on June 19, 2002

I liked this:
"My specialty is "threat analysis." This is a rather difficult field that requires the imagination of Walt Disney, the patience of a kindergarten teacher, the mind-set of a chess player, the resolve of a Boston Red Sox fan, the mental acuity of a river boat gambler, and the forecasting ability of a successful stock market analyst."

We like ourselves, don't we Mr. Pluchinsky? That's a pretty long pick-up line, though.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:24 AM on June 19, 2002

scolds is more like it! spanked even :)

also i like how he has "the imagination of Walt Disney, the patience of a kindergarten teacher, the mind-set of a chess player, the resolve of a Boston Red Sox fan, the mental acuity of a river boat gambler, and the forecasting ability of a successful stock market analyst." :) he's like the pretender!

remember Information Security Begins With You! via gulfstream :)
posted by kliuless at 11:25 AM on June 19, 2002

Even if you agree with his general sentiment, you can still argue that the media is the most effective channel for making the public and decision-makers aware of potential security vulnerabilities rather than funneling it all through the OHS.

In any case, the Loose Lips Sink Ships campaign of WWII was specifically about inadvertently revealing information about clearly military matters such as troop movements not about closing down an open society.
posted by vacapinta at 11:27 AM on June 19, 2002

They now know not to pay for things with large amounts of cash. They now know to buy some furniture for their apartments or rooms. They now know that they have to act friendly and not surly or antagonistic in their dealings with neighbors and other locals. They know now that they should have a phone installed in their apartments or rooms.

yes, and if we can get them to like these things, they may not want to give them up so easily! they'll become the capitalist pigs they formerly scorned! sounds like a good plan to me.
posted by witchstone at 11:31 AM on June 19, 2002

I hate opinion pieces like this. They make me laugh aloud as I read them but in the end I am left seathing. Words escape me. What an ass.

One thing I don't understand: J'accuse. Why is the author borrowing from Zola's comments on the Dreyfus affair? My history is weak on the subject but was not Zola purposefully using the phrase because of the double entendre (I accuse and I show) to comment on all the absurd scapegoating and fingerpointing of the affair?
posted by Dick Paris at 11:33 AM on June 19, 2002

One of the ironies of this piece is that it seeks the reduction or elimination of the very thing that make this society unique and in my mind, one of the worthwhile reasons we vigorously defend it: free and open access(for the most part) to information to anyone by anyone.
posted by rowell at 11:41 AM on June 19, 2002

Ha-ha! If you don’t talk about it doesn’t exist! Like my grandparents refusing to say “cancer”.
posted by raaka at 11:48 AM on June 19, 2002

How dare he point out to the terrorists that they have such an abundant source of information available! Treason!
posted by fnord_prefect at 11:53 AM on June 19, 2002

Wow, it's as if he thinks the American public should not be aware of the risks that are all around us. Risks are everywhere. Vulnerabilities are everywhere. This is an important lesson: the government cannot close all the holes. It's better that the public knows and understands that and the implications of that.

Not to mention that terrorists are not stupid imbeciles who need suggestions on how to continue subverting attempts to stop them. They've probably come up with many of these ideas on their own already. Not to mention the aid that these reports give the government itself.

He claims this is a special time because we are "at war". I disagree with his assessment that this is as dire as the threats were during World War II, but even if they were, I don't think the free press should be supressed. Not to mention the fact that terrorism is not something that can ever be extinguished and given his definition, then we will always be at war for the rest of time.

Unfortunately, like many people in the government, the author thinks he knows better than the American people and that he should be making decisions for them.
posted by daveadams at 11:58 AM on June 19, 2002

Gotta love how he uses the attention-grabbing "treason" as the opening sentence -- but then in the last paragraph retracts it before anybody can call his bluff. What an ass.
posted by ook at 12:01 PM on June 19, 2002

The media are no more traitors than the government are profiteers, and that is the rub. I have seen many examples of both the executive and legislative branches engaging in behavior I considered to be at best complacency and at worst borderline profiteering since 9/11. I honestly think that only public outrage will prompt the government to fix many of our vulnerabilities, and that requires the public to be informed. It was the lack of information and outrage that allowed the government to ignore our glaring vulnerability prior to 9/11 despite the warning signs that had been trickling in for years.
posted by homunculus at 12:09 PM on June 19, 2002

On the other hand, the fact that this opinion was published in a newspaper, and that we are all free to read it, think about it and disagree with it is a dang good thing.

This guy is right to represent this concern. Not only is it his job to do that, it's a legitimate concern -- we should at least think about it. And expressing this view in public, via a newspaper, is not only preferrable to any alternative (e.g., acting on it silently, or publishing it via government-controlled media), it is a genuine public service.

(That said, I by no means think the government should censor the media.)
posted by mattpfeff at 12:28 PM on June 19, 2002

First off he has a very valid point, do you think it would be easier to gather intelligence about targets here or in Saudi Arabia ?

You also have to ask what good does it really do the public to know there are holes in container security or our water supply, their only real goal is to make the people outraged and urge the gubmint to do something about it, taking the outrage out of the loop and having Homeland Security do something first isn't such a bad idea (not like Joe Schmo reading the NYTimes is going to do anything about it himself is it).

Lastly security through obscurity is not to be underestimated, as with software when you identify a vulnerability you tell the person who can do something about it first and give them a chance to fix (all the while relying on good old obscurity to lessen the damage) and only if it's fixed (or the person you told won't fix it) do you tell the public. Think of the terrorists as script kiddies if you will, malevolent sure, but greatly aided by those that really know their stuff.
posted by zeoslap at 12:58 PM on June 19, 2002

mattpfeff: "This guy is right to represent this concern. "

Yes he is. As is the media for expressing concern about potential vulnerabilities in national infrastructure. Yet he argues against their ability to perform this function, while he himself follows no such advice. In the end, he is expressing concern about the media's expressing concern. It seems a flawed circular argument.
posted by rowell at 1:09 PM on June 19, 2002

I accuse this author of murder!

Well, OK, not murder, but he did tick me off.
posted by hackly_fracture at 1:24 PM on June 19, 2002

My history is weak on the subject but was not Zola purposefully using the phrase because of the double entendre (I accuse and I show) to comment on all the absurd scapegoating and fingerpointing of the affair?

What's more absurd about him using "j'accuse," which was used most famously by Zola but is not unique to him, is that the Dreyfus affair concerned a military coverup: Zola blew the lid off of it in the newspaper and eventually changed the history of France for the better.

I'm not sure if Zola intended the double-entendre, but Hachette's reveals how one might think so: The fourth definition is "reveal by appearances: This man showed his age; Show a reaction to (a pain, an emotion) Boxer who felt the punch.
posted by Mo Nickels at 1:31 PM on June 19, 2002

At a time when maps were scarce, civil war officers (on both sides) read the morning newspapers which usually provided a detailed account of the previous days fighting complete with a map showing where troops had been camped, etc... And the good guys still won the war. This idea and this controversy are as old as the press itself.
posted by plaino at 1:45 PM on June 19, 2002

weakness of security through obscurity

The latest and greatest meme.

Anyway....
Unknown to the people doesn't mean unknown by government. Sure, in some cases perhaps the goverment needs an external perspective, but that's not why the media presents the security holes. They are about entertainment. Bottom line is that they present these problems to the people for ratings, it has nothing to do with trying to improve our national security.
posted by tomplus2 at 1:58 PM on June 19, 2002

Bottom line is that they present these problems to the people for ratings, it has nothing to do with trying to improve our national security.

They also have a duty to inform the public. You seem to think that "national security" is something covertly taken care of by secret government agencies. I submit that there is a lot more to it than that.
posted by rushmc at 2:28 PM on June 19, 2002

"Unknown to the people doesn't mean unknown by government"

If a security hole isn't unknown to the government, and yet the government does not plug it, it's likely either (a) an acceptable risk for which publication has no effect, or (b) incompetency for which publication could prod a response.

There's a stark difference between security by obscurity, which relies on everyone ignoring the elephant in the parlor, and proper classified secret. Clucking over the foolishness of an ostrich-based security system has a long and storied history and I wouldn't agree it's "the latest and greatest meme."
posted by majick at 2:33 PM on June 19, 2002

zeoslap: Lastly security through obscurity is not to be underestimated, as with software when you identify a vulnerability you tell the person who can do something about it first and give them a chance to fix (all the while relying on good old obscurity to lessen the damage) and only if it's fixed (or the person you told won't fix it) do you tell the public.

OK, but I would argue that in most of these cases, "the person" won't fix it. Airline safety? Not "fixed," so it's publicized. By your logic, there's no reason not to write about it.

This article from the Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists is indicative of exactly what's wrong with using security through obscurity and hoping no one notices.

Among other choice revelations:

We reported in 1986—and it is still the case today—that NRC regulations require nuclear reactor operators to protect against no more than a single insider and/or three external attackers, acting as a single team, wielding no more than hand-held automatic weapons.

For 17 years, my group, the Committee to Bridge the Gap, joined by the Nuclear Control Institute, has worked quietly behind the scenes in a largely futile effort to convince the NRC to upgrade its security requirements. With one partial exception, the truck bomb rule, we have failed.

My organization passed the OSRE documents along to the Los Angeles Times, which ran a major story about the program’s termination. The agency was sufficiently embarrassed that a couple of days later Shirley Jackson, then NRC chair, reinstated the program. Since then, however, the industry and the agency have worked together to gut the tests. Earlier this year, the NRC approved the industry’s proposed self-evaluation program that would replace NRC-run force-on-force tests. Companies failing the independent tests are now able to test themselves! The problems inherent in self-regulation should be obvious.

The industry’s response is shocking. Rather than conceding the vulnerability of its facilities and the need to upgrade security, at a press conference on September 25 a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute took the extraordinary stand that greater security isn’t required because Chernobyl wasn’t that bad.

Are you saying that no terrorist would ever consider, say, flying a plane into a nuclear reactor? That they'd have to be told how by a newspaper? Me, I think they probably might think to give it a shot on their own and personally, if I lived in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor, I would want this information so I could move the fuck away. But hey, that's me.
posted by Sinner at 3:10 PM on June 19, 2002

As is the media [right] for expressing concern about potential vulnerabilities in national infrastructure.

But that's the whole question, isn't it?

Yet he argues against their ability to perform this function, while he himself follows no such advice. In the end, he is expressing concern about the media's expressing concern. It seems a flawed circular argument.

I didn't mean to debate his actual opinion, but I will say I don't think this article is itself subject to the argument it makes. I take the writer's point to be that publicizing security risks makes those risks greater. He is re-publicizing some risks, granted, but they are ones that have already been revealed. (The only (possibly) new security risk he points out is the U.S. media -- and if terrorists don't already know about that, they won't read his article in the first place.)
posted by mattpfeff at 3:26 PM on June 19, 2002

Treason?

Wake me up when we actualy declare war on someone...
posted by delmoi at 3:54 PM on June 19, 2002

And I blame the media for my wanton sexual desires!
...why if I'd never seen a Playboy then I wouldn't have ever wanted sex, right?
posted by BlueScreen at 4:31 PM on June 19, 2002

"Treason"? The guy's a blatant troll.

TROLL-O-METER rating:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 \ \ \ \ \ \ O
posted by RylandDotNet at 6:47 PM on June 19, 2002

and still no discussion of solving the root causes of terrorism..................??? why??? will it take a dirty bomb rendering a US city uninhabitable for decades ... or worse??? ....
posted by specialk420 at 11:12 PM on June 19, 2002

I have been analyzing terrorism for the U.S. government for 25 years. My specialty is "threat analysis."

i charge you with treason. albiet by incompetance.

don't go blaming the media for showing how useless you are.
posted by quarsan at 7:23 AM on June 20, 2002

« Older Envy of the Literary World, or another Trust-Fund ... | In you like f**ckedcompany...... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

June 19, 2002 10:55 AM Subscribe

June 19, 2002
10:55 AM Subscribe