Posts about Terrorism

The Post reported this morning that the idea to bomb Metro came from the FBI. In other words, no terrorist (that we know of) actually was planning to hit Metro. The FBI could easily have suggested any other target. If they had suggested Ben's Chili Bowl, would we now be talking about the need to beef up security in half-smoke shops?

This is the typical pattern of reacting to security risks. As security expert Bruce Schneier frequently explains, we focus on ways to stop the most recent attack, instead of trying to determine what future attacks will look like. This seems to even hold true if the target was picked by law enforcement instead of by any actual potential terrorists.

It's great that the FBI ran the sting. Clearly, If the allegations are true, Farooque Ahmed really did want to cause harm to Americans, and by organizing this fake plot, they were able to steer his destructive desires in a way that allowed them to arrest him. I'm really glad they got him. But anyone that thinks this is evidence of a risk to Metro isn't paying attention.

Meanwhile, Metro is telling riders to be vigilant. Having average, untrained citizens report people who look odd is only proven to increase the number of useless reports. It will probably waste a lot of resources that could go to training undercover officers who could patrol stations and actually find threats.

There are terrorists out there. We need to catch them. The government should spend lots of money hiring good FBI investigators to find them, like they did here. I feel safer knowing the FBI caught a terrorist. I wouldn't feel safer by having my bag searched or seeing guards standing at the entrance to every station. I know it's hard, but Metro needs to respond based on the best way to actually prevent an attack, not the best way to simply look like they are.

Update: Commenter jcm noted that members of the public did alert police to the smoking truck in the foiled Times Square plot. That's true, and people should be paying attention to their surroundings, though after the Times Square plot there was a huge rash of false alarms. The research I was citing mainly applies to people; ordinary citizens are not good at differentiating someone who seems nervous because they're running late from someone who is about to blow up something. Instead, they typically just end up being suspicious of people who look Muslim.

Since agents of the FBI pretended to be terrorist operatives, it's not clear whether they directed him to photograph the subway or whether he did it at his own behest. Regardless, it is clear that he intended to use his surveillance and photos of the Metro to maximize damage.

This will likely lead some to call for banning photography in the Metro system and in other transit systems nationwide. That would be an unfortunate and unproductive step in the wrong direction.

Photography is not and has not been prohibited on Metro. The Department of Defense does prohibit picture taking on its property, however, which includes the Pentagon station, transit center, and surrounding areas.

But the ability of riders to take pictures is not a risk to Metro or to our national security. While some terrorists have cased targets with cameras, others have not. Most notably, the perpetrators of the attacks on the London Underground and Madrid commuter trains did not photograph their targets ahead of time.

The proliferation of cameras—and in Washington, tourists—means it will be virtually impossible to keep Metro patrons from snapping pictures. And station managers and police officers have much bigger issues to deal with.

Virtually all of the photos taken in the system are harmless. Sending Metro employees to harass tourists from Des Moines experiencing their first subway ride or teenage girls capturing a night out with their cell phone is a waste of good resources.

But a camera is a tool not only for capturing memories, but also one of creating art.

The Metro offers an exciting and challenging place to try one's hand at photography. Dim conditions, indirect lighting, complex shapes, and moving parts can combine to create some fantastic shots.

Left photo by Dsade on Flickr, right photo by DavidSC78.

A true security strategy would be able to discern harmless photography from malicious intent. Metro is right to enlist the help of riders in securing the system. But it is important that they not fan the flames of fear. Passengers jumping at shadows won't help the situation.

A good approach might be the one taken by Sacramento's transit agency, which tells riders to be wary of suspicious activity. And it lists things that are suspicious. Photography itself does not rise to that level. But, someone "taking pictures or videotaping in areas of no interest to the general public" might be worth noticing.

An outright ban, or even the suggestion that one might be appropriate, will send the wrong message. It will send the message that everyone with a camera is deserving of suspicion.

It will also send the message that there is nothing worth photographing on transit. That this daily element of our lives holds nothing desirable to capture for memory or documentation, for art or expression.

As far as I know, no one at Metro has talked about banning photography. Let's hope that they don't start now.