Surveillance After London: Threats and Opportunities

Friday, July 29th, 2005

In Surveillance After London: Threats and Opportunities, Arnold Kling makes a number of points that “at first may seem counterintuitive, but which I believe make sense once you consider them”:

  1. “Homegrown” terrorism represents an opportunity as well as a threat to security.
  2. Security cameras are an inferior surveillance technology.
  3. Screening at potential target sites is an activity with high costs and low benefits.
  4. The group most in need of intense, systematic scrutiny is the Department of Homeland Security.

How is homegrown terrorism an opportunity?

Many people are upset by the fact that some of the London bombers were British citizens. If you thought that terrorism could be prevented by requiring ID cards, systematically searching for illegal aliens, and deporting everyone without proper papers, then this might make you think twice. But I was never in that camp to begin with.

On the other hand, if you believe that the best way to deal with terrorism is to infiltrate the terrorist organizations in order to obtain strategic and tactical intelligence, then the existence of homegrown terrorism is an opportunity. It is pretty hard to insinuate a CIA agent into a clan-based cell located in some remote -stan. But if terror cells include people who otherwise appear to be ordinary English-speaking citizens, then infiltration should be much easier.

Leave a Reply