by Wyatt Atkins

Created on: September 07, 2008   Last Updated: September 08, 2008

To answer the question, as with any question, one needs to define the actors or variables and any dependencies or other relationships governing their part in the bigger picture. For the purposes of this conversation, I'll single out a) technology b) homeland terrorism-fighting effectiveness c) terrorism. I could break these down further, especially b), but that I'll save for another discussion. And I'll deal with terrorism very briefly for the same reason.

To begin with, we don't know what technology is, because we cannot fully comprehend what it can be; technology and the human race is a catch-22: one cannot exist without the other, and each changes the other in ways unimaginable until the time is right; then everything falls in place and takes its (temporarily) final shape. In principle, there should not be any limitations to the application of technology (and research) in any sector, provided pure and simple common sense prevails. We need to allow the human race to improve and evolve, and technology is a vital component of the process. We cannot shut down the Internet, because terrorists use email. We cannot limit web access because personal information is at stake. In an open system, as is technology, the answer lies in expanding the boundaries of the system, allow it to integrate more knowledge. Knowledge always finds its way to him/her who seeks for it. So don't shut down SMTP servers and relays; you should probably evolve existing authentication algorithms and their implementation. Don't stop banking online; buy a firewall and, most importantly, learn how to configure it correctly!

Moving on to the second key variable, how would you define security? What is security and when is it effective? Do you hide behind a fence and wait for the enemy? Or spend your life worrying the skies will fall upon you? We are the West, and we are open societies. If we have one redeeming quality for the many dark periods in our past, it is the fact that even in the face of adversity, we have remained mostly open societies. That fundamental belief and way of life carries with it an inherent, implied security risk. We must not only accept others, we should also embrace them. So some degree of spending is obviously needed and the state should pick up the bill. We've made that choice when we first read the phrase "all people are created equal" and didn't flat out reject the very notion.

So in my book, our open policy is our ticket to safety. We will be safe, or at least as safe

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>