Why Care About Terrorism?

Henry Porter at the Guardian has a thoughtful article on terrorism, arguing that far too much in the way of effort, attention and resources compared to the likely threat to life.

I agree that more attention is paid to terrorism as compared with other issues relative to the actual threat to life, though the really clear examples where this is the case, aren't even the issues he cites like swine flu, but mundane issues like road safety. Presumably politicians could argue that the demand for these policies comes from the general public, and that they are only addressing their concerns. There is still a very interesting question to ask here about why it is that people worry much more about dying in a terrorist outrage than they do about crossing the road on the way to work.

Also really interesting in Porter's piece is his suggestion that downgrading this disproportionate attention would "deprive terrorists of the sense of unearthly self-importance that has done so much to and flatter their cause and encourage recruitment." I'm sure that something like this is true. It brings to mind the constant (and futile) pleas of pressure groups in America that coverage of schoolyard shootings should be as sober as possible.

Facebook: Private?

From Slashdot: Following on from the reports of people possibly having their social networking activities monitored by their work, it seems that at least one company has taken the step of prohibiting using social networking sites as part of the recruitment and hiring process.

Phorm helped Co-author Home Office Paper On Phorm's Legality

From the BBC: it looks like the government has been very cosy with Phorm in drafting its public position:

In January 2008 the Home Office thanks Phorm for comments and changes to its draft paper, which show the company making deletions and changes to the document.
The Home Office official wrote to Phorm: "If we agree this, and this becomes our position do you think your clients and their prospective partners will be comforted."

Am I being terribly unjust in seeing a parallel with the drafting of the so called 'Dodgy Dossier' in the run up to Iraq?

Permanent Record?

The government will request Internet Service Providers and mobile phone companies to hold all communications data - websites visited, emails sent etc. - so that they can be accessed by the security services. There are strikingly similar editorial pieces in the Independent and the Telegraph, and a stronger denunciation from Henry Porter in the Guardian.

I'm curious to know how long companies will be required to hold this data, and also whether there are any specific requirements regarding the the companies' security - part of concern about the creation of a central database holding all this sensitive information (a plan which the government has dropped) is the vulnerability to such a database to unauthorised snoopers hacking their way in.

Recruiting Informants

Another report of uk police pressuring people to become informants. Last week I blogged about the case of Martin Winters, a friend of a suspected Real IRA leader. Despite Winters continued refusals, he claims police harrassed him for years trying to get him to inform. At the weekend the Guardian broke the story of environmentalist protesters from Plane Stupid being pursued as potential informants. The protester secretly taped the conversation (more sousveillance?) and now anyone can have a listen over at the guardian's website.

In both cases there seem to have been a combination of bribes and threats in play. What do you think of this behaviour? Is snitching so objectionable that police should never seek informants? Should they only use the carrot rather than the stick? Does the answer depend on whether you're pursuing terrorists or not? Or is the police's behaviour fine in both these cases?