In case I've dropped off the radar since 2001...

I remember RIPA still having a reasonable amount of public discussion at least in the technical parts of the media at the time of the 9/11 attacks - it may have passed, but the issue certainly wasn't dead. My third thought (after "I hope it's not as bad as it sounds" and "I think I'd better get out of central London") was "well, that'll stop the debates." While I choose to believe that nobody in a position of authority in any of the western powers would resort to being involved in such an attack, or even be glad that it happened, I've no doubt that there was a tiny silver lining for those who wanted these powers implemented - and I said as much at the time, in the vain hope that saying something might stop a whitewash, so I should stand by it now.

Frankly my main feeling was relief was that Bush didn't decide to respond with nukes (this was why I wanted to be out of London, not because I was worried about a plane strike). I would have preferred there to be no reaction at all - there's never a way to be sure whether an act like this was performed by a terrorist trying to attack the target country, or a terrorist trying to get the target country to attack somewhere else, and as has been said before any attempt to track the terrorists will impinge on the rights of normal citizens and promote, oddly enough, terror. Not that I want to belittle the losses of anyone involved, some vigilence is obviously sensible, and I appreciate that the security authorities must always feel that if they had more information, they personally could have saved more lives. Sadly, I think human reactions got in the way of a rational response, as we've seen happening in various other cases with a high media profile - there's a lot to be said for enforcing a cooling-off period before major legislation or military decisions.

The photography thing is similar. Honestly, I think there was a misguided attempt to recruit some help by the police forces that resulted in anyone with a camera being branded as a terrorist, and one campaign on the subject a few years ago has resulted in a repeated public relations nightmare for both the police and for anyone who has photography as a hobby. As has been repeatedly said, there's no way that the guy pointing a big DSLR at a landmark is going to get information that's not already on-line, and any terrorist with sense will have wandered into the fire exits with a camera phone if he really wants to analyse the structural integrity of a building. That said, it's not just terrorism - if you avoid buildings, it's still easy to get a child in the shot and be accused of paedophilia; there's a reason I mostly do landscapes and wildlife. For a profession that relies on photojournalism, the media has something to answer for when it comes to public outcry against photographers.

Having said all that, I've always thought that Echelon might have picked me up anyway. I've spent bored evenings reading up on nuclear weapons, various venemous creatures, fast-acting poisons, deadly diseases, high explosives and rocket delivery systems. Of course, I've *also* read up on historical boxers, programming languages, CVTs, differentials, optics, electronics standards and a host of other things, because I'm curious - but I've still thought "hmm, that's an interesting browsing history, hello spooks" on occasion. Hopefully anyone watching me is fully aware that, while I may be technically capable of killing people (I remain dubious that the 9/11 terrorists were any more competent than they needed to be), I have absolutely no motivation to do so. I suspect there are a lot of people like me out there, probably more than can ever be picked up on properly by monitoring - although I wouldn't be surprised to get a visit if I started ordering old supplies of fertiliser.

It's a not-so-brave new world.

(Remember when railway stations had a reasonable number of dustbins?)

If you're going to be like that

Its good to see our supposed allies spit in our faces daily with friendly fire incidents by American troops going uninvestigated and when they are investigated a refusal to send the soldiers involved over here to face a tribunal, no apologies for all the funding you happily gave the IRA, the insistence that all our financial transaction be allowed to be monitored by your government but we can't monitor yours, a judicial system that thinks American laws apply worldwide, a one-way extradition treaty and a sympathetic ear to the president of Argentina over the Falklands even though those living there have stated they wish to remain British.

May I remind you that the nation to suffer the 2nd largest number of casualties in 9/11 was Britain. Nowhere near the number of Americans and I am not trying to diminish in any way the memory of the losses but this article was about the freedoms we have lost since the attack which have been mostly driven by American paranoia.

Frankly we would be happy if you just walled yourselves in and the rest of the world never had to hear from you again.

Will you wear a straitjacket all day?

Just to give those of us who are disturbed enough to really belong in an asylum the good example, show 'em how it's done, eh?

No? Then why is it ok when it involves "technology"?

There might even be more people in mental institutions than there's genuine "terrorists" around. Certainly more than there's been "terrorists", fake or genuine, caught by all those anti-terrorism measures and found guilty as charged.

Of course it's not easy to "balance privacy and security" and all that... except that it's completely the wrong angle. Without privacy no security, so if you're not putting that first, you're doing it wrong from the start. As for denial, well, some of them have not merely done that but gone and fabricated evidence to start wars. They're *not* trying to strengthen our societies against assault, they're going out and assailing others, with outright lies as their "reason". And critiquing this means we're "in denial"? I don't think so.

There is always another way.

Even if it is unpalatable to some.

The best deterrent to any sort of attack --- barring the last-stand, of course --- is the realization that it will be ineffective. Even the hide-bound English general staff in the Great War eventually learnt that, from the trenches.

By not allowing oneself to become afraid, all of a sudden there is no terror. Without terror, there cannot, by simple definition, be terrorists.

That is not to say that it is not a good idea to keep an eye on the "very disturbed people", as you so aptly call them. Far from it --- and technology provides a superb set of tools to do so. But a far better way is to not have disturbed people to start with. Oh, there will always be the odd lunatic about, but they are not hard to spot. Far more dangerous are the embittered individuals, those who have been wronged, or who's ancestors/predecessors have been wronged, and who seem to be content, or who have the smarts to hide their feelings. These are the ones who will cause the problems. And if they are smart, they will not be traceable, technology or not. It is still possible to communicate with nothing more advanced than a pencil and paper.

But still the greatest defence is to not become afraid. Of course it is possible that one will die, (or perhaps worse be injured or maimed) as a result of terrorism. But one is still more likely to be killed stepping in front of a bus, or by any of a myriad of other ways that are purely chance. That doesn't mean that I am afraid of walking down the street (although at times I think I ought to be: there are some nutters on our roads here) --- I get out and live. Only a certain amount of time to do that in, you know.

In short, by far the best way to deter terrorist attacks is to render them ineffective by their sheer lack of terror, and to remove the reasons for them.

I don't pretend to know the best ways to do this, but I do fear that what is being done now is not as good as it should be. As someone in the list above said, what has happened to the (and I do hate to say it for fear of sounding like Col. Blimp, but) old attitude of "Carry On"? Why should the world stop because there is a risk --- and a very real, if not gargantuan risk --- of misfortune occurring? And this I fear is an ingrained problem in the world of today: we daren't take a risk, lest an accident occur. It used to be said that there was such thing as a "happy accident"; at present, any deviation from the desired path (through life, of events, etc.) seems to be treated as a Bad Thing. Which is sad. Where would the world be if it weren't for risks being taken. I remember reading somewhere (and I forget where now) that if the New World was discovered today that the tomato ( being a relative of deadly nightshade) and the potato (having toxic leaves) would not be permitted for consumption. "We cannot allow this risk to the general public", or words to that effect. And yet (the last of these at least) has helped civilization to flourish as much if not more than it has in all of recorded history. All for the fear that something might go awry. This is sad, in a very large-scale way. And this has led to terrible, and somewhat poorly thought out, things happening. I have no doubt that the vast majority of those responsible do really believe that it is for the best. But is it not said that "The road to ruination is paved with good intentions"? Just because it is well meaning does not mean that it will not end in disaster. And this can be summed up in another axiom (for good measure): "Do not blame on stupidity what can be blamed on stupidity".

And I do apologize if I have mis-read the meaning of your comment. This is however, my considered (and in hindsight lengthy) opinion on the matter at hand, as I read it. And at the moment I am half way through writing a dissertation and so am both a) looking to procrastinate as much as possible, and b) in a rather verbose state of mind.

GK

>>"It may, irreversibility, have changed the way we think"

Well, I suppose it's at least less of a cliche than the all-too-common:

"An event that changed history... .../forever/!"

or its sister phrase with 'world' replacing 'history'.

@mectron

BZZZZT - Wrong

9/11 the day christian fundamentalists attacked their own.

(I'm looking at you here Bush)

The only difference between the Christian Fundamentalist (Bush) and the Islamic Fundamentalist (Bin Ladenis that the Christian Fundamentalist managed to get elected in charge of the most powerful army on earth.