electricinca.com

BBC News: Could X-ray scanners work on the street?

X-ray cameras that would "undress" passers-by in a bid to thwart terrorists concealing weapons, could be coming to a street near you, according to reports. Aside from the obvious privacy issues, would such a plan work?

Leaked documents said to have been drawn up by the Home Office and seen by the Sun newspaper say cameras which can see through clothes could be built into lamp posts to "trap terror suspects".

X-ray type cameras have their place in the security framework but in the War on Terror they would be costly and ineffective if implemented widely like surveillance cameras.

They are effective in situations where specific locations need securing such as airports as they can be used to filter out individuals for additional scrutiny by security guards who are hand to do so.

Surveillance cameras are used in an entirely different manner they are predominantly used as a visible deterrent against criminal acts or as evidence gathering devices for prosecution of criminals after the fact. They are very rarely used to apprehend criminals in the act.

Security expert Bob Ayers, of Chatham House, believes putting an X-ray lens on a lamppost poses all sorts of resource questions.

"Some guy walks past and his picture is beamed back to a control room to say that something is under his jacket. What do you do? Despatch a police car to hunt him down and frisk him?

"The real question is not whether the technology can see something under the clothing. It's how you respond to it when the technology says there's something unusual.

This may well have been obtained from leak Home Office documents but I doubt even that incompetent government department would pursue this ill-thought out scheme.

Labels: Security, Surveillance

The Guardian reports: Police want power to crack down on offensive demo chants and slogans

Present curbs are too light, Met chief to tell Goldsmith

This seems like nothing more than a power grab and an appeal to the right wing members sections of Britain that are incensed by these uppity sandal-wearing Lefties and Muslim types voicing their displeasure about various things.

The country's biggest force, the Metropolitan police, is to lobby the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, because officers believe that large sections of the population have become increasingly politicised, and there is a growing sense that the current restrictions on demonstrations are too light.

It seems to me that Tony Blair's government has recently freaked out about something which has been going on for quite a few years and that is issue politics. The populace seem generally apathetic about the political parties but a number are passionate about singular political issues be it marching in opposition to the Hunting Bill or demonstrating against the Iraq war etc. Also there has been a rise in political views being expressed online as the number of fora has increased where such views can be aired.

I think that they have freaked out because virtually all these views being expressed are anti-government. You'd be hard pressed to find any Joe Public commenter expressing a pro-Iraq opinion for example.

Most worrying is the following bit of it.

The police want powers to tackle a "grey area" in the array of public order laws. At present, causing offence by itself is not a criminal offence.

Causing offence is not a criminal offence and it never fucking well should be.

He talks about respecting freedom of speech.

We also need to think more laterally around how we police public demonstrations where 'offence' could be caused, while still respecting the British position around freedom of speech.

But this sounds like just a piece of management speak that means fuck all that has been bored from Tony Blair.

But then I'm part of the problem not the solution aren't I.

Labels: politics, Security, Surveillance

The BBC reports on a new service that is designed to help users reduce their risk of identity theft through a monitoring facility. The service is kind of like the constant surveillance of the Orwellian Big Brother but where the individual is in control of the surveillance upon themselves.

The Garlik Datapatrol service has been set up by the founders of the internet bank Egg with the intention of putting users back in control of the information that is held on them in public databases that are easily accessible through the internet.

The service brings together from the internet, public databases, and Credit Reports all the personal information it can find on a user and then displays it in a simple online format. Then on a monthly basis users will receive an update summary of additions or changes to their online profile as well as highlighting any risks or suspicious activity.

By facilitating individuals access to the information that is held on them the service puts its users on an equal footing with the criminals that might seek to steal their identities and as irregularities are often the first indication of a problem the monitoring system gives users an early warning and the possibility of nipping it in the bud before any negative consequences have occurred.

My only concerns are the security of Garlik's database and the trustworthiness of the company. They seem to have a fairly robust system to establish user's identity and to then authenticate users accessing the personal information gathered in the server database. But it presupposes that an individual's identifying information hasn't already been compromised or stolen.

I can see this service being a boon for identity theft rings who have enough data to register falsely for the service in order to further the scope of their thefts by letting Garlik do the legwork as it were in accruing further information.

Garlik's secure servers would also be a prime target for criminals and so I would hope that they have taken the security of their servers as seriously as any bank would with theirs. Is the physical access to the servers as well secured as the online access is?

My second concern would be that as a new company they haven't had the time to build a reputation or a record of establishment of trust. Registered users will be empowering the company and placing a lot of trust in the security of the service and the authenticity and accuracy of the personal information data provided to users. Having said that there is nothing to suggest that Garlik is in any way a disreputable company it is merely my natural paranoia.

I would have more faith in Garlik presently than I would in the UK government in securing any personal information I would give them.

Garlik are currently offering free trials to people signing up for the Datapatrol service at their website. http://www.garlik.com.

People with concerns about identity theft and security online should also take a look at the following website Get Safe Online which has been set up by banks and prominent internet companies.

Labels: Computer security, Security, Surveillance

At some point today unbeknownst to me the UK entered into the highest level of threat that of critical.

Oh my! How in the world could I have missed such an important event as the changing of our current threat level to its highest possible state? Whatever shall I do now?

That's the pertinent question what shall we as the public do now? No one knows because there is nothing for the public to do other than get scared.

The Threat Level System has according to the Home Office website been created to keep the public informed about the level of threat to the UK from terrorism. But it's of no practical use it's like shouting DANGER in a crowded city centre street, it can do nothing but cause confusion and fear as there is no specific advice associated with each different level of threat.

So what event has caused the threat level to be raised?

It was the arrest of 24 people by police who were suspected of a plot against UK flights to the US. The police believe they have disrupted this plot to blow up these transatlantic flights and are convinced they have detained the key players, but believe the network involved is large and global.

The plot apparently was to smuggle liquid explosives onto around ten transatlantic flights in water bottles or similarly innocuous containers. Airlines have now taken the precaution of preventing people taking anything other than the most essential pieces of hand luggage onto flights leaving the UK. The police have said that the plotters could have caused "mass murder on an unimaginable scale".

Yes they could have blown up many airliners and killed hundreds of people but for the fact that the people involved had been under surveillance for some time. We shall have to wait and see when more information is released about how far along there really were with their plot whether they were a credible threat to our security. I do not want to get caught up in the politician's gambit of who can imagine the worst scenario possible.

Security chiefs said the group believed to be planning the attack had been under surveillance for some time.

US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the plot was "in some respects suggestive of al-Qaeda".

"They had accumulated and assembled the capabilities that they needed and they were in the final stages of planning for execution," he said.

It had only become apparent in the "last two weeks" that the target of the flights was the US, said Mr Chertoff.

Another problem I see with having a public Threat Level System is that surely it tips the terrorists off to the fact that they might be under surveillance. If the level increases correspondingly as the terrorist group gets closer to the commission of their act of terrorism is that not an indication that the UK Security Services are onto them.

Labels: politics, Security, Surveillance, Terrorism

Just got back from watching the movie adaptation of V for Vendetta. I have mixed feelings but it was enjoyable and a lot better than I had feared it might be especially given my feelings for the previous adaptation of a comic that was close to my heart Hellblazer which became the painful Constantine.

I thought that Hugo Weaving was very powerful as V and Stephen Rea did a great job as Inspector Finch. Natalie Portman was merely adequate as Evey and her accent was not as awful as some have written but she was a little wooden in her performance. I thought Stephen Fry was remarkably good also, other characters such as Chancellor Sutler were too poorly written to allow much from the other actors in the cast.

The movie lasted two hours and yet it felt like a lot had been edited out. There was very little characterisation outside of the central few main characters all the others seemed like stereotypes painted in broad strokes. Some events such as what happened that night at Larkhill which enabled V to escape were glossed over as was Finch's visit to the derelict Larkhill.

I think the general mood of the film was established well, it was visually stunning and there were a number of very powerful scenes especially the fingerman's shooting of the girl and the subsequent uprising of the townspeople.

In many ways the movie felt like it was set in some parallel universe version of Britain rather than a dystopic near future of our own Britain, possibly due to it being an American production. The Britain of the movie was very twee and a little off, Rupert Graves as a copper using the word "chummy" when apprehending V, eggy in a basket and the Benny Hillesque TV satirical attack on the Channcellor.

A number of things in the movie make me feel like the points of the original graphic novel were lost or misunderstood by the writers. V was too overly made to be identified with Guy Fawkes who in the introductory scene is portrayed as a freedom fighter rather than the religious nutcase that he actually was. I thought that the Guy Fawkes mask in the graphic novel was a useful disguise which was merely appropriate given the date of key events in the story and a shared interest in blowing up public buildings. But the motivations of V and Guy Fawkes are in no way the same.

In fact Guy Fawkes has more in common with the Islamic fundametalist terrorists our society is being made to fear at the moment. The character of V is different but is no hero either really he is a force for change through destruction, rebirthing society by destroying it's institutions so something better can be born out of the ashes.

The surveillance aspects were altered and there was no sight of surveillance cameras in the movie odd given their ubiquitousness in modern Britain and given the totalitarianism surely there should be even more in evidence. Plus the populace do not seem cowed by the authorities, living in constant fear of speaking out of turn. Certainly this so called dystopia is to my eyes a lot deal better than we can really hope to expect several years down the line from now once we have a National Identity Register, cameras that can scan our faces to identify us and track our movements and legislation that gives the ruling party pretty much free reign to do whatever it wishes.

Labels: Surveillance

The Guardian: Surveillance on drivers may be increased

The case for cameras to be focused on people using mobiles as they drive is made by the independent adviser to the transport select committee, Robert Gifford, of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (Pacts).

He argues that automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology should be applied in new ways to help defray costs of cameras and to catch offenders. "One of the good things about ANPR is that people are often multiple offenders so it would provide useful intelligence," he said. "Those responsible for 7/7 got to Luton station by car."

My god why is it necessary to mention terrorists or terrorism every time there is mention of new applications of surveillance technologies. Mr Gifford seems to mention it as an aside but the implication is that perhaps 7/7 could have been prevented if the system was in operation at the time. It's like he feels the need to justify the use of surveillance by using our greatest fears. But why should that surprise me it is what has become almost a standard line by government spokesmen so why not independent advisors also.

Mr Gifford said expanding the use of technology for tracking the movements of cars could lead police to people who had committed other offences in the same way that Al Capone was eventually caught through his income tax evasion. He claimed that for greater safety and "the greater good of society", most people would be prepared to accept "a slight reduction of our liberty".

Interesting that the public don't actually get to say whether they wish to give up some liberty in order for the greater good of society.

In any case as Marcel Berlins writes it's not a civil liberties issue.

Currently being floated in parliament is a proposal for more road surveillance cameras, partly to catch out motorists who use mobile phones while driving. I have seen several accidents caused by chatting drivers; someone I knew quite well was killed because she was talking and driving at the same time. I would have expected the proposal, aimed at deterring dangerous conduct and thereby reducing accidents and saving lives, to be greeted with enthusiasm. But no.

The whingers have emerged. It would cost too much; the technology isn't good enough; it won't prevent accidents; it's a cynical scheme to make money by fining the poor put-upon British motorist; Britain has become the most watched country in the world. To the last of those ill-founded objections I say, "So what?" I don't care how many cameras we have on the roads, provided they are used for the public good, which, to my mind, includes catching dangerous drivers and lowering fatalities. This is not a civil liberties issue.

If this technology leads to prosecutions of people like Donna Marie Maddock who was caught on camera driving whilst using both hands to apply makeup then it surely is a good thing.

But I think Mr. Berlins is mistaken in believing that the issue of whether the technology will work is irrelevant.

It's pointless to expand the system to catch people talking on mobile phones or applying makeup if the technology isn't good enough to distinguish between those behaviours and innocent actions such as scratching one's ear or sneezing or something equally innocuous. I don't know what the true case is but you wouldn't use speed cameras if the technology was unable to tell if a car was travelling at a legal speed of 56 MPH and an illegal 72 MPH so it clearly is an issue that needs to be at least considered before implementation.

Also it would seem to me that if every single motor vehicle is scanned by the ANPR then there may be a civil liberties issue here as well depending on what is done with the data. I wrote briefly last year in a much longer post about the use of ANPR in Bath following this article in The Bath Chronicle: Cameras scan for criminals.

It's fine if my number plate is scanned checked, against the database of offenders and then discarded but if my travel into Bath is logged then eventually the police will have built up a log of my movements into and out of the city along with every other drivers'.

Labels: Surveillance, Terrorism

Well it comes as no surprise to me the news that Lord Falconer has told the BBC that the only way to get full benefit from the Identity Card scheme was for people without a passport to carry one.

It has been the government line all along that the cards would be compulsory. I am worried though that the government is pretty much pushing through biometric identity cards in the form of passports though. Whether the Identity Card bill is passed or not the UK will end up with a massive biometric identity register of millions of UK citizens.

The UK already has the most surveillance cameras per capita of any country in the world and now we learn that the UK also has the largest DNA database of it's citizens in the world with about 5% of the poulation's DNA profile being held.

Labels: ID Cards, Surveillance

As new New Year's Resolutions keep occuring to me I have coined a new acronym to shorthand it. YARNY (Yet Another Resolution for the New Year)

So YARNY I shall learn how to fake fingerprints. Possibly a useful thing to be knowing in the Surveillance Society we now find ourselves in. My fingerprints are fairly faint in anycase due to wearing them down with typing on keyboards and the like, so perhaps I'll just create 'fakes' of my real prints as a double bluff.

Labels: Surveillance

Do enjoy that feeling of the eye of Big Brother following you everywhere you go in city centres with his CCTV cameras?

Do you feel bereft when you climb into your car and drive away from his gaze?

Well fear not.

The Independent: Britain will be first country to monitor every car journey

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.

Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.

The network will incorporate thousands of existing CCTV cameras which are being converted to read number plates automatically night and day to provide 24/7 coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-station forecourts.

By next March a central database installed alongside the Police National Computer in Hendon, north London, will store the details of 35 million number-plate "reads" per day. These will include time, date and precise location, with camera sites monitored by global positioning satellites.

Plus The Independent also examines Surveillance UK: why this revolution is only the start.

I wish I had more time to write but I have to go to work now. I'll come back to this later. But for now V for Vendetta is becoming evermore prescient.

Labels: Security, Surveillance

An amalgamation of what would have been a number of seperate posts that I then decided to unite under the banner of the Surveillance Society. Every day there seems to be further incursions into the public's privacy.

Firstly we'll llok at the recent news that media companies wish to use legislation that was proposed to combat terrorism, by allowing the police access to communications data, in order to tackle illegal file-sharing.

Fight for your right to privacy

BBC News: Media companies want to take advantage of laws designed to counter terrorism. Bill Thompson thinks they have to be stopped.

The Guardian: Music industry seeks access to private data to fight piracy

The music and film industries are demanding that the European parliament extends the scope of proposed anti-terror laws to help them prosecute illegal downloaders. In an open letter to MEPs, companies including Sony BMG, Disney and EMI have asked to be given access to communications data - records of phone calls, emails and internet surfing - in order to take legal action against pirates and filesharers. Current proposals restrict use of such information to cases of terrorism and organised crime.

"The scope of the proposal should be extended to all criminal offences," says a letter to European representatives from the Creative and Media Business Alliance, an informal lobby group representing media companies. "The possibility for law enforcement authorities to use data in other cases ... is essential." The attempt to pressure MEPs comes as they prepare to vote on an extension to the period for which data must be held by telephone networks and internet service providers. The plans, championed by the British government, would harmonise and extend the broad range of policies across the continent.

The Home Office says such moves are necessary in order to assist proper investigation of suspected terrorist activity. But if successful, it would mean communications companies would be obliged to keep information on phone calls, emails and internet use for as long as three years.

"It is not for us to get involved in the wider issue of national security," said a spokesman for international music industry association IFPI, parent body of the CBMA.

If the demands were met by European legislators, it would open use of such private information across any number of criminal cases. "Even the Bush administration is not proposing such a ludicrous policy, despite lobbying from Hollywood," said Gus Hosein, a senior fellow at Privacy International.

The music industry has already pursued a large number of cases against illegal downloaders, but the letter claims that wider access to private information would be an "effective instrument in the fight against piracy" and help secure more legal actions. Critics say it is simply a case of litigious industries attempting to gain access to protected data by the back door.

The proposals, to be put to the vote on December 13, have already faced censure. More privacy-conscious nations such as Germany have voiced concerns about long-term data retention, and telecoms companies say they cannot afford to keep more information about their customers.

"The passing of the data retention directive would be a disaster not just for civil liberties and human rights in Europe," said Suw Charman, director of digital rights campaigners, Open Rights Group.

The music industry has been waging war against illegal filesharing for some time, with film companies closely behind. An Australian court this week ordered Kazaa, one of the biggest file-swapping services, to filter out copyrighted music from its systems or face closure. Last week the British Phonographic Industry announced its latest batch of cases against illegal downloaders, taking the total number of UK actions to over 150.

Such prosecutions already rely on voluntary data supplied by internet providers, but the music industry would like it made compulsory. At the same time, the legitimate digital download industry continues to grow at a startling pace.

It seems to be that every time that there is some harmonization of EU intellectual property laws they are brought in line with the most restrictive laws that exist in a EU state. But in this case there is no harmonisation taking place as no state has such legislation currently.

Even the US isn't seeking such powers and they're the home of the most powerful music industry lobbying for more and more powers to tackle filesharing and to extend the term and scope of copyright.

I oppose the legislation in any case as I believe this wholesale retention of data is a violation of innocent citizens privacy and is unlikely to be more effective in combatting terrorism than a specific targetted wiretap of a suspect's communications.

But to extend such legislation to cover cases of copyright infringement is ludicrous, government's should wiegh the demands of industry against the rights of the people they represent. The average filesharer is indeed infringing copyright but they do not pose a major threat to the businesses of the music and movie industries. It is the criminals that are making millions by selling pirated copies of CDs and DVDs that are the real threat and it these criminals that the proposal will not catch.

Unfortunately I don't have faith in the British government to weigh the arguments and consider the rights of the people.

There was a debacle several months back concerning the proposed UK National ID card. The main stumbling block for the government is that the majority of the British public is opposed to the ID card on the basis of the high cost.

(I wish the public would be opposing it due to civil liberties infringements and the complete uselessness of the proposal to tackle any of the major issues it is supposed to solve but that's another story)

Anyway there was a leak that the Government was intending to offset the probable cost of the ID card scheme and thus make it more palatable to the British public by the selling of the data in the National Identity Register to private companies. Which caused an uproar and the Government soon announced that in fact they had never considered doing any such thing.

Governments really should not be trusted with our personal data in my opinion. It's very easy for our privacy to be given away but far harder for us to reclaim it. The obvious counter-argument being that they must hold certain data or else how can such things as passports and driving licences be administered. In fact it is possible to create systems based upon crytographic principles that would allow officials to check whether an individual was authorised to drive a car or leave the country without knowing who they are or where they live or any other personal information about that individual.

I wrote earlier that

Even the US isn't seeking such powers and they're the home of the most powerful music industry lobbying for more and more powers to tackle filesharing and to extend the term and scope of copyright.

but that was merely in regard to media companies having access to all communications data.

Of course as you would expect the U.S. government wants to peer into phone service networks

The federal government wants to peer into your computer communications, forcing companies that provide high-speed access or Internet-based telephone service to design -- or redesign -- their networks to accommodate surveillance...

"This is like saying, `Everybody has to keep their doors unlocked because the FBI might need to get in,"' said Mark Rasch, a former attorney who handled computer crime cases for the Justice Department and is now senior vice president and chief security counsel of Solutionary Inc., an Omaha, Neb., computer security consulting company. "The harm of everybody keeping their doors unlocked all the time is much greater than the benefit."

As I argued above as they already have legislation in place to allow targetted wiretaps such a proposal is unnecessary and overreaching.

On a far more local level my car number plate is being read every time I drive into Bath to work and checked against a database to see whether I'm a wanted criminal. The Bath Chronicle: Cameras scan for criminals

Now I don't know if the data is retained or if the number plates are only in the system as long as it takes to make the check against the database. But I am worried that this data is indeed being retained and thus my and every other communter or Bath resident movements are being in effect tracked.

I have therefore pledged to create a standing order of 5 pounds per month to support an organisation that will campaign for digital rights in the UK.

The pledge is currently only a small number away from reaching it's target.

Also I intend to use the Write to Them service to contact my MP and MEP in order to express my opposition to the EU data retention legislation.

Labels: copyright, Security, Surveillance, Terrorism

So the Prevention of Terrorism Bill was finally passed and Alan Moore's V for Vendetta is looking ever more prescient. The controversy of the Bill is mainly concerned with the Control Orders which would allow suspected terrorists, whether a UK national or a non-UK national to have severe restrictions placed upon under the orders of the Home Secretary without trial.

Thanks to the truly excellent website They Work For You the entire epic commons debate is available in an easily read format with much background information. It is split up into a m umber of segments due to the bill being passed back and forth between the Houses of Commons and Lords as amendments to the Bill were suggested and considered.

9th March debates
Prevention of Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism Bill
Clause 1 — Power to Make Control Orders

10th March debates
Prevention of Terrorism Bill Debate
Prevention of Terrorism Bill Debate
Prevention of Terrorism Bill Debate

Finally the Bill was agreed upon and given
Royal Assent.

However both the Government and the Opposition are claiming victory due to the Bill being now greatly diminished from what the government wanted and yet it has now passed into law. Whoever claims rightful victory it would seem to me that it is the British public that have lost.

I have not yet been convinced of the necessity of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2005, the government is primarily argued for it's introduction to counter the threat of the 200 or so terrorists that are loose within our borders.

They fail to mention that of those 200 people most are only suspected of loose affiliation with terrorists i.e. funding or providing safe houses. Intelligence officials have estimated that perhaps only 30-40 individuals would be prepared to kill themselves or others.

In addition it must be said that the police and security services are doing their job in containing these 'terrorists'. They are clearly known individuals if we have accurate numbers and they are under surveillance. The fact that they have been in the country for years without having been arrested would be an indication that there is no evidence of wrongdoing. They may well have been trained at camps with Al-Qaeda but if they then do nothing at all with that training then they cannot really be considered as terrorists.

The BBC reports that the remaining foreign detainees at Belmarsh were released and that the Home Secretary was issuing control orders under his new powers for each of the former detainees.

The former detainees face bail conditions which include:

* Electronic tagging
* A night-time curfew from 1900 to 0700
* A ban on using mobile phones and the internet
* Obtaining permission from the Home Office if they wish to meet anyone outside their home
* Living at an address notified to the Home Office and police, who can search the property without warning
* No visitors unless the Home Office has been notified in advance, except for under-16s
* Notifying the Home Office of any intended departure from the UK, and the port of embarkation
* Bank account restrictions and sending monthly statements to the Home Office.

And finally at least we are aware that our civil liberties are being eroded unlike the Russian populace, if the newly retired chess genius Garry Kasparov's assessment is correct.

Labels: Security, Surveillance, Terrorism

I watched the first part of a three-part documentary series titled The Power of Nightmares on BBC 2 early tonight.

This series shows dramatically how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended. Together they created today's nightmare vision of an organised terror network. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

I would urge everyone to see this if you get the chance as well as watching Errol Morris's documentary film The Fog of War.

I've been saying this for a while but the concept of a War on Terror is nonsensical because not only is it a war on an abstract concept but you cannot defeat terrorists by waging war anyway. We are not at any greater risk of terrorism since 9/11 than we were before, that's not to say that there is no danger but that it is of the same level as it ever was.

To really combat terrorism requires the typical cloak and dagger stuff that the security services do such as surveillance, wiretapping and infiltration of suspect groups. Plus increasing the security of likely targets of terrorist attacks in a manner that not only appears like you are doing something to improve security but actually does improve security.

But it isn't easy to sell to the public that you are doing everything possible to combat terrorism if nothing is appears to be happening. Foiling a terrorist attack isn't something that can revealed to the public in many cases at it could hamper future operations. So for the governments to appear to their citizens that they are effective in this they need to go and wage war in the name of combating terrorism even if the enemy in these wars are only tangentially connected to terrorism if at all.

Labels: Security, Surveillance, Terrorism