11 ms·

How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

354 points by netmau5 14y ago

michaelfeathers 14y ago
Sobering. I cringe every time I remember that it is likely that someone will propose metal-detectors at movie theaters now.
- beagle3 14y ago
  While I agree with you, there is interesting data about effectiveness of these things coming from Israel: Back in 2000, Israel had a series of suicide bombing attacks, which resulted (among other things) in a law requiring every mall, restaurant, cafe, theatre, office buildings and many other businesses to have a full time security guard who will check every person coming in with a metal detector. There were a lot of cries about how useless and what a waste of money that was (as, of course, the cost was shifted to the customers). However, it turned out to be a deterrent in a strange way: There were several cases of suicide bombing later that year, in which the bomber saw the guard, and decided to go to an unguarded place (most establishments observed this law, but not all). In one case, there was no visible unguarded place, so the bomber blew themselves up in the middle of a busy crosswalk. I think the bottom line is that these measures did not change the overall outcome, which was just as tragic, but they did manage to shift the locations of the events.
  - st0p 14y ago
    So they spent a lot of money and didn't change the overall outcome? Doesn't sound effective in any way to me.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      If your store didn't get bombed you would think it very effective.
    - beagle3 14y ago
      It's like IT spending for companies that have nothing to do with technology (think about a paper supplier): You have to do it because everyone else is doing it, and if you're the only one NOT doing it, bad things will happen to you. But once everyone is doing it, everyone is no better off (earningwise) than where they were before. You have to keep running to stay in the same place.
- Jtsummers 14y ago
  Just as a note, the vast majority of schools in the US still don't have metal detectors despite incidents like Columbine. Talk about that sort of security theater, and imposing the costs on the businesses as the government wouldn't pay for it themselves, seems overblown to me. All that would happen is that the targets would shift to other, less protected, sites: malls, shops, restaurants. It would be a neverending security escalation, and an enormous financial drain directly on the businesses (not on the fed or the states) that they would likely lobby, effectively, against.
- gav 14y ago
  There's a cinema in Valley Stream, NY with metal detectors after a number of shootings in the 90s. I went there exactly once, it's off-putting enough to make me want to go elsewhere. http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/aurora-shooting-highlights-theater-safety-1.3852613 http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/aurora-shooting-highlight...
- msg 14y ago
  I understand he wasn't actually armed when he went in. Only when he returned through the emergency exit. Hopefully people will think ahead far enough to downplay the effectiveness of such security measures.
JackFr 14y ago
While I understand the point being made, Breivig apparently acted alone, and his actions were most similar to Timothy McVeigh. The proper comparison would be to compare changes in policy following Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. After the bombing of Khobar Towers, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, and finally the acts of 9/11, it would seem that US anti-terrorism policies in place at that time were not particularly effective. On the other hand, if we're just speaking of mass-murderers rather than terrorists, I don't think anyone has expressed an interest in increased police powers or surveillance, but rather implementing some rational gun laws.
- ojbyrne 14y ago
  Rational gun laws will be fought tooth and nail by the NRA, in an election year that will be a non-starter. Instead they'll find some way to circumscribe the rights of non gun-owners, that will be ineffective, but will play well in Republican states.
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  And when the next crazy guy brings in gallons of gas and lights people on fire? Edit: I don't particularly like guns, but non-representative, singular incidents to change policy seems like a very poor way to start debates or come to proper conclusions.
  - scott_s 14y ago
    And at what point do such things become a pattern? Unfortunately, mass shootings happen in the US at a rate of roughly one per year.
    - gizmo686 14y ago
      So about one shooting a year, this year's had 12 fatalities. Remember that heat wave/power outage combination we had on the east cost (USA); at least 46 fatalities [1] [1]http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/06/12597271-dozens-of-deaths-tied-to-heat-wave-over-last-2-weeks?lite http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/06/12597271-dozens...
mootothemax 14y ago
I do find it rather worrying that people around the world seem absolutely fine with all the various initiatives introduced, all in the name of preventing terrorism. I've had friends consider me crazy for complaining - way after the time, I hasten to add - that I'd had a small deodorant can taken off me in airport security, which I'd then had to purchase in the duty free shop. My wife's now tired of me complaining - again, after suffering through it in silent, stony-faced contemplation - that in any other context, I've just suffered sexual assault. I won't apologise for it; I find it extremely distressing to have my dick groped by a stranger. All because a machine went "beep" and one two many green bars lit up. And then you look at the London olympics; where the army will be frisking people who've dared to pay money to watch events. (NB: the army presence was guaranteed regardless of G4S's cockup). The army! And in this instance, it's not like the UK hasn't decades of experience of dealing with terrorism from the IRA. How well does all this work? Who knows, nobody's telling. I'd argue if there was anyone caught or something prevented by one of these systems, the government concerned would be singing from the rooftops. But no - it's "a deterrent." Gah.
- rickmb 14y ago
  If people accept it without complaining, it works exactly as intended. Let's not assume the people implementing these measures are complete morons. There's power to be gained and money to be made from a submissive, unquestioning people.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    You forgot to add, "Wake up sheeple!"
    - seabee 14y ago
      We've been yelling at the sheeple long enough to know it's ineffective. What I want to know is what would it take to wake them?
      - mcantelon 14y ago
at-fates-hands 14y ago
Quite possibly the worst comparison I've ever seen. You're taking a country that not only has an incredibly low crime rate (they had 5 homicides in the entire country in 2009) and only has a population around 5 million. By comparison, Chicago has close to 3 million people just in the city. To try and compare our reaction to terrorism and how the Norwegians reacted to their recent mass killing is completely absurd.
- Argorak 14y ago
  Seems to me like they are doing something right.
  - DirtyCalvinist 14y ago
    In response to a Swedish economist noting that there was no poverty in Scandinavia, Milton Friedman once said that in America there was no poverty among Scandinavians either. Probably apocryphal, but it does draw attention to the role that cultural differences play in what sort of rules you can implement in organizing a society.
- sheraz 14y ago
  Agreed. (and of course you were downvoted here). People love to hold Scandanavia up as an example as how the rest of the world "could be." However, I think that is such a naive point of view, and one that needs changing. Their populations are too small and lack diversity to make a realistic comparison to the USA or even their larger European neighbors. I usually like Mr. Schriener's work, but this post is a little off.
  - kmfrk 14y ago
    It's always greener on the other side; Denmark is the happiest country in the world (not really); Finland has the best K12 school system in the world (maybe). And so on and so on. There is a lot to be learnt from other countries, and I am sure it's not always easy to say that there are countries that do things better than the United States, but people tend to make it sound as if it's all rainbows and ponies, as soon as you get off the plane in Northern Europe. It's not like they don't have their own problems to wrestle with in areas where the United States does better.
sebnukem2 14y ago
Hint: they didn't attack a random [oil-rich] country, nor did they subject their citizen to naked or carcinogenic scanners, which at the time didn't seem like a patriotic thing to do by American standards.
maayank 14y ago
a. It was domestic terrorism. Compare it to American reaction to domestic terrorism before 9/11 and we may start to have some actual merit in the comparison. There was no "War on terror" on the same scale after the Oklahoma City bombing (1995). b. There's a very different social reaction to domestic terrorism ("there's something rotten in us, we can fix this from the inside") and terrorism from the outside ("we're being attacked, we need to protect ourselves from those people"). Sure, even in domestic terrorism there's a social mindset of differentiation (i.e. "us v.s. them perpetrators") but not to the same extent. c. One year strikes me as too soon to assess anything and to pat on anyone's back. d. One could argue the US can't afford what Norway can afford, whether it's because of size, number of enemies, etc. Yes, one could counter-argue those same American policies perpetuate some of these reasons (i.e. number of enemies), but please keep it mind when doing such a comparison.
- vacri 14y ago
  Regarding a., the background has changed immensely, given the US's extreme sabre-rattling 'with us or against us in this War On Terror' in the ten years leading up to the event.
- nfg 14y ago
  What about the London tube/bus suicide bombings: those were domestic terrorism and elicited a distinctly different response than we're seeing in Norway now. Or is it only domestic terrorism when the perpetrators are white one wonders!
  - praptak 14y ago
    > Or is it only domestic terrorism when the perpetrators are white one wonders! Of course the race (and religion) plays a huge role in the emotional reaction to violence. Uncomparatively more so than the technical "domestic/external" categorization based on residence, citizenship and whatnot. Race and religion are the top factors in eliciting the "us vs them" reaction.
    - berntb 14y ago
JeanPierre 14y ago
There have been no changes to the law to increase the powers of the police and security services, terrorism legislation remains the same and there have been no special provisions made for the trial of suspected terrorists. A white lie, I'm afraid. Lex Breivik [1] has changed the laws so that regional security departments have a lot more power, in fact more power than what prisons have as of today. [1]: http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnrk.no%2F227%2Fdag-for-dag%2Fna-er-_lex-breivik_-vedtatt-1.8217506 http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=no&...
- j-g-faustus 14y ago
  The "regional security departments" the article refers to are high-security psychiatric wards. The problem was that if the court declares Breivik insane, Norway couldn't (legally) put him in a high-security criminal prison, and there was no equivalent for psychiatric cases. Now there is. It is a change, and clearly in response to this case, but the scope of the change is limited.
  - JeanPierre 14y ago
    The problem was that if the court declares Breivik insane, Norway couldn't (legally) put him in a high-security criminal prison. That's wrong - they can do that without Lex Breivik. The issue is when he's declared healthy, what would then happen? It's legal to detain him if it can be proved that he constitutes a danger to society. However, if he is not considered a danger to the society, he will be able to walk freely. With Lex Breivik, they will be allowed to detain him as long the society is a danger to the person. Think about that for a moment. With Lex Breivik, you can be isolated even if you've not done anything illegal (or have finished serving your imprisonment) or is considered healthy, because some people in the society want to do you harm.
    - j-g-faustus 14y ago
      That's not what I'm reading. (I assume that you too read Norwegian, so we're not discussing artifacts of Google Translate?) From an article on the opposition to the law[1] (my translation): The Department of Health hasn't tried to hide that the goal is a stricter set of laws which can be used if Breivik is sentenced to compulsory mental health care. The department has long wanted a change of laws to improve the security in institutions that hold highly dangerous patients. This work was sped up after July 22. See also [2], which says approximately the same thing. The criticisms I've seen seem to center on that the new law makes it too simple to declare someone "dangerously insane". Do you have a link supporting your interpretation? [1] http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/lovforslag-moter-kraftig-motbor-1.8126075 http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/lovforslag-moter-kraftig-motbo... [2] http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Lex-Breivik-splitter-opposisjonen-6847648.html http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Lex-Breivik-splitter...
TomGullen 14y ago
> pledged to do everything to ensure the country's core values were not undermined. Is this not a little dangerous surely if we take this over to USA where gun ownership is part of their core values?
- aggronn 14y ago
  Not really.
  - TomGullen 14y ago
    Thanks for the insight!
meshko 14y ago
With all due respect to Mr Schneier, I think this comparison is not 100% valid. There is a substantial difference between a terrorist threat from a lone mentally ill person and an organized group with ideology shared by thousands of people.
- vetler 14y ago
  There is still debate on whether or not he is mentally ill. See day 39 - 40 here, plus closing speeches: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik#Court-appointed_psychiatrists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik...
  - meshko 14y ago
    I think this debate is in the lawyer land, not in the mental health land.
    - vetler 14y ago
      Well, court-appointed psychiatrists Husby and Sørheim see evidence of paranoid schizophrenia, and court-appointed psychiatrists Aspaas and Tørrissen say that he is not clinically insane.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > an organized group with ideology shared by thousands of people. <deadpan> This is not about Republicans. </sarcasm>
buf 14y ago
Example of what's happening in San Francisco today: Obama is in town, they shut down four city blocks. Example of when I was last in Bulgaria: Bulgarian president was in town, he danced Horo (traditional Bulgarian dance) with the people and made toasts.
- eli 14y ago
  Perhaps there's extra security for this particular event for some reason, but it is unusual to shut down four city blocks for an Obama speech. It's not like they evacuate DC every time the Presidential motorcade drives across town. I know because I've seen Obama wave from the back seat!
- vetler 14y ago
  There's a history of assassination attempts on US presidents, though. Not sure about the Bulgarian presidents?
  - rmc 14y ago
    Probably more revolutions and wars in Bulgaria
- btmorex 14y ago
  In fairness, by population Bulgaria is closest to Virginia and I'm sure you could find the Governor of Virginia dancing at some state fair at some point.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    ...yeah, sure. Let's see what you dig up.
- majorlazer 14y ago
  Yeah, let's compare the president of the most powerful country with 300M+ people with a president from a country who's total GDP is less than some of our billionaires. Makes a lot of sense. Can we please stop the USA hating around here?
TorbjornLunde 14y ago
There has been quite a debate in the wake of this, and the our anti-terror institution have admitted that no increase of power and knowledge of their part would likely not have done a big difference. It is apparently extremely difficult to detect people working completely on their own, almost regardless of resources. Some of the focus in the debate has been more about how to avoid people ending up with value systems (or mental disease) that permit and promote such horrible violence.
snambi 14y ago
Terrorists want people not to continue their way of life. This is their main objective. They want people to live in fear. By voluntarily creating fear about terrorism, we make the terrorists goal easier.
Tangaroa 14y ago
A certain segment of Norwegians reacted to terrorism by being enthusiastically for it. These included the leaders of the Labour Party, including the leaders at the Labour Party's Utoya youth camp. http://zalmi.blogspot.com/2011/07/utoya-not-so-innocent-youth-camp.html http://zalmi.blogspot.com/2011/07/utoya-not-so-innocent-yout... http://www.debbieschlussel.com/40472/karma-2-norway-utoya-camp-was-also-fatah-plo-terrorist-camp/ http://www.debbieschlussel.com/40472/karma-2-norway-utoya-ca... This is a factor that seems to go unmentioned in all discussions of the Utoya massacre, but is necessary knowledge to understand the event in its entirety. It adds detail to Breivik's motive, and it raises the question of why there has been no condemnation of the Labour Party's support for similar massacres elsewhere being conducted on racial and religious lines so long as they happen far away and are done by a faction that the Party approves of. This is beside the point that Schneier makes, so I apologise for going off topic. To that point, the US overreacted (an understatement) and Norway faced little threat of further attacks. Norway did consider fudging its laws to give Breivik a life term as a mental inmate rather than the statutory limit of years as a prisoner, and that can be questioned as an expansion of security. More generally, no one in Norway could argue a need for greatly expanded security since the threat ended with Breivik's capture.
- hansbo 14y ago
  I apologize for continuing off-topic, but the links you provide only seem to indicate that the left-wing youth of Norway are supporting Palestine. This is not an uncommon opinion; in fact, being Swedish, I can't recall that I've ever met anyone who supports Israel in their occupation. The links you provide equates this to antisemitism, which is very strange to me. Who was it, you mean, who were being "enthusiastically for" terrorism?
- vegardx 14y ago
  So - by supporting the fact that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, I'm supporting terrorists? You can support someones cause but not necessarily means. There is a huge difference, and by even suggesting that they support terrorism you are stepping way out of line.
Holeinthewall 14y ago
Maybe I fail to understand this, but we are comparing a country(USA) who (for whatever reason) is specifically targeted by terrorists on a whole different level than Norway. We are comparing an apple to a boiled egg : putting them in a microwave & trying to commend apple for not exploding ! Forget legislative or leadership moronism at times, but blasting US for reacting in a way for something no other country has ever faced seems too harsh.
- epo 14y ago
  "something no other country has ever faced"? For God's sake, catch up on world news or at least spare yourself embarrassment by not making such witless pronouncements.
  - learc83 14y ago
    If he's talking about the scale of a single incident then he is correct. The death toll from the 9/11 attacks far exceeded any other single terrorist attack.
    - swa14 14y ago
      For a moment there one might have been thinking he meant atrocious actions with high death tolls against a civilian population, in which case the OP is definitely failing to understand it with his "for something no other country has ever faced", and the "spare yourself embarrassment by not making such witless pronouncements" is spot on.
    - djeliba 14y ago
      Terrorism can be brought on by a state as well as by non state actors. Wikipedia defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion." Conscription during any of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century fits this definition nicely. Many more people died from these than on 911.
jbjorge 14y ago
Compared to the Oklahoma bombing and the recent theater shooting, Norway probably didn't act all that different, but from reading the source, this is one of the comments that captured the essence of why/how Norway stands out: "[]...What we Norwegians are afraid of is actually the situation you have in the US and UK either with Police or prosecutors with way too much power or CCTV cameras everywhere etc. We have been a peaceful society based on trust to each other for a long time, and intend to let that continue. I can only quote FDR: "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself". Stoltenberg actually had to come with that statement. As doing the "US style fixit" would have backfired on him politically. Popular demand is different here, and that is the true power of Norway."
tsotha 14y ago
It seems like every time I read something new from Schneier I lose a little of the respect he's built up over the years. Are you really going to pretend the threat posed by one self-taught and self-financed guy with no friends is in any way comparable to that of a well-financed international terrorist organization with a shared ideology that has deep cultural and religious ties? Really? Of course Norway's response is different. Norway isn't the target of a terrorist organization. It had a terrorist incident that's now over. We had something similar in the US with Timothy McVeigh, and our response wasn't any more radical than Norway's.
- radu_floricica 14y ago
  This makes sense if you're assuming the security legislation comes only from an honest effort to fight terrorism. Whatever else we disagree on, I think we're past that on HN.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    Which makes sense if you believe the people trying to grapple with this particular threat have the same set of goals and opinions. I do think the vast majority of people involved in crafting security legislation do so in an honest effort to fight terrorism.
fromhet 14y ago
I am Swedish, and Sweden is pretty close to Norway. We share culture, history and traditions. Many of my friends are Norwegians, and I've been there too. If the killer was not white and "Norwegian" (as we think a true norwegian should be), but rather a muslim extremist from Saudi Arabia, would they react the same way? Here in Scandinavia (and maybe everywhere) racism may seem alien but is never far away. I am sure, and saddened by the fact, that we would have reacted with hate and fear if the killer was not white, Norwegian and christian.
gadders 14y ago
Not really a proper comparison though, is it? The Norwegian massacres have more in common with the attack at the Batman Screening in Denver than they do with Al Qaeda/WTC etc
mjwalshe 14y ago
Single "nutters" are not "Terorists" which is where Bruces argument falls down here. Norway has not had any real "terrorist attacks" in the way the UK and Other european contries have - RAF/bader minhoff, ETA and the PIRA. For exmple in the UK the Hungerford gun attacks and the IRA and laterly the PIRA campaigns are quite diferent.
gorm 14y ago
Norway is a rather egalitarian country compared to the US and people seems to trust each other more and one theory is that this makes us more vaccinated for populist politics. I have this from the book "The Spirit Level" [1]. Also the political system is based on pluralism so there is a built in conservatism in the system that will cause changes to take time. However, changes will come and this is a big eye-opener for many people. When the bomb exploded I was sitting on work around 30m away. I remember the day well, it was very quiet because it was in the middle of the summer vacation and we were only 3 people working in the "Web Department" of the central government, which usually have 26 people on work. I was working on testing the software behind https://go.usa.gov/ https://go.usa.gov/ which is based on Drupal and I was struggling with it, working late. Short story, I suddenly was on the floor 2m away from my desk and when I looked around I was shocked to see that all my colleagues offices was blown in with papers, desk and computers laying all around. Luckily my office was facing the backside and the blast threw me away from the blown in window and I was fine again after some weeks. Anyway, one year has past and these are now only memories. I have visited the State Departement in Washington and seen the security messures in place there. It's really not comperable to Norway in any way, but Norway is living in the same world and I hope we can keep things as open as possible. Maybe in the future I can someday be as trusting again as I were when I was hacking Drupal back on the 22. July 2011. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equa...
Janteloven 14y ago
This is far too simplistic an analysis. Making new security laws takes time, particularly in a positive-law tradition state like Norway. So it is too early to say what the effects will be. Without a doubt changes are being made to Norway's security apparatus, in fact the securitization of the Norwegian state is much talked about in policy circles here. There is talk of moving from a 'Prestige' set of policies to 'Security' as the guiding principle. I don't think any state could sit by and do nothing institutionally after such a terrible event. The problem in Norway is that whilst there is a self-congratulatory air about their response to Brevik - "love and democracy", they do not seem to want to engage in substantive debate about the planned changes to their security apparatus. To be honest they trust their government to do the right thing, even if that means extremely illiberal changes to the legal right of the person and the criminal system. Whether that trust is misplaced or not, and remember this is a highly consensual society, the Janteloven that Brevik has revealed will be controlled now via new laws - including new laws on using the Internet and making comments (Brevik was a big user of the internet and left comments on Norwegian websites).
jwoah12 14y ago
I think there are two reasons why the comparison of Norway's reaction to America's reaction is not completely valid. The first is the population difference (mentioned a lot already). The second is the timeframe. Norway had the benefit of a decade of reflection on the American response to 9/11. It has been fairly obvious that the international community believes the US overreacted.

354 points by netmau5 14y ago

Sobering. I cringe every time I remember that it is likely that someone will propose metal-detectors at movie theaters now.

beagle3 14y ago
While I agree with you, there is interesting data about effectiveness of these things coming from Israel: Back in 2000, Israel had a series of suicide bombing attacks, which resulted (among other things) in a law requiring every mall, restaurant, cafe, theatre, office buildings and many other businesses to have a full time security guard who will check every person coming in with a metal detector. There were a lot of cries about how useless and what a waste of money that was (as, of course, the cost was shifted to the customers). However, it turned out to be a deterrent in a strange way: There were several cases of suicide bombing later that year, in which the bomber saw the guard, and decided to go to an unguarded place (most establishments observed this law, but not all). In one case, there was no visible unguarded place, so the bomber blew themselves up in the middle of a busy crosswalk. I think the bottom line is that these measures did not change the overall outcome, which was just as tragic, but they did manage to shift the locations of the events.
- st0p 14y ago
  So they spent a lot of money and didn't change the overall outcome? Doesn't sound effective in any way to me.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    If your store didn't get bombed you would think it very effective.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    It's like IT spending for companies that have nothing to do with technology (think about a paper supplier): You have to do it because everyone else is doing it, and if you're the only one NOT doing it, bad things will happen to you. But once everyone is doing it, everyone is no better off (earningwise) than where they were before. You have to keep running to stay in the same place.
Jtsummers 14y ago
Just as a note, the vast majority of schools in the US still don't have metal detectors despite incidents like Columbine. Talk about that sort of security theater, and imposing the costs on the businesses as the government wouldn't pay for it themselves, seems overblown to me. All that would happen is that the targets would shift to other, less protected, sites: malls, shops, restaurants. It would be a neverending security escalation, and an enormous financial drain directly on the businesses (not on the fed or the states) that they would likely lobby, effectively, against.
gav 14y ago
There's a cinema in Valley Stream, NY with metal detectors after a number of shootings in the 90s. I went there exactly once, it's off-putting enough to make me want to go elsewhere. http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/aurora-shooting-highlights-theater-safety-1.3852613 http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/aurora-shooting-highlight...
msg 14y ago
I understand he wasn't actually armed when he went in. Only when he returned through the emergency exit. Hopefully people will think ahead far enough to downplay the effectiveness of such security measures.

JackFr 14y ago

While I understand the point being made, Breivig apparently acted alone, and his actions were most similar to Timothy McVeigh. The proper comparison would be to compare changes in policy following Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. After the bombing of Khobar Towers, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, and finally the acts of 9/11, it would seem that US anti-terrorism policies in place at that time were not particularly effective. On the other hand, if we're just speaking of mass-murderers rather than terrorists, I don't think anyone has expressed an interest in increased police powers or surveillance, but rather implementing some rational gun laws.

ojbyrne 14y ago
Rational gun laws will be fought tooth and nail by the NRA, in an election year that will be a non-starter. Instead they'll find some way to circumscribe the rights of non gun-owners, that will be ineffective, but will play well in Republican states.
MichaelGG 14y ago
And when the next crazy guy brings in gallons of gas and lights people on fire? Edit: I don't particularly like guns, but non-representative, singular incidents to change policy seems like a very poor way to start debates or come to proper conclusions.
- scott_s 14y ago
  And at what point do such things become a pattern? Unfortunately, mass shootings happen in the US at a rate of roughly one per year.
  - gizmo686 14y ago
    So about one shooting a year, this year's had 12 fatalities. Remember that heat wave/power outage combination we had on the east cost (USA); at least 46 fatalities [1] [1]http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/06/12597271-dozens-of-deaths-tied-to-heat-wave-over-last-2-weeks?lite http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/06/12597271-dozens...

mootothemax 14y ago

I do find it rather worrying that people around the world seem absolutely fine with all the various initiatives introduced, all in the name of preventing terrorism. I've had friends consider me crazy for complaining - way after the time, I hasten to add - that I'd had a small deodorant can taken off me in airport security, which I'd then had to purchase in the duty free shop. My wife's now tired of me complaining - again, after suffering through it in silent, stony-faced contemplation - that in any other context, I've just suffered sexual assault. I won't apologise for it; I find it extremely distressing to have my dick groped by a stranger. All because a machine went "beep" and one two many green bars lit up. And then you look at the London olympics; where the army will be frisking people who've dared to pay money to watch events. (NB: the army presence was guaranteed regardless of G4S's cockup). The army! And in this instance, it's not like the UK hasn't decades of experience of dealing with terrorism from the IRA. How well does all this work? Who knows, nobody's telling. I'd argue if there was anyone caught or something prevented by one of these systems, the government concerned would be singing from the rooftops. But no - it's "a deterrent." Gah.

rickmb 14y ago
If people accept it without complaining, it works exactly as intended. Let's not assume the people implementing these measures are complete morons. There's power to be gained and money to be made from a submissive, unquestioning people.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  You forgot to add, "Wake up sheeple!"
  - seabee 14y ago
    We've been yelling at the sheeple long enough to know it's ineffective. What I want to know is what would it take to wake them?
    - mcantelon 14y ago

at-fates-hands 14y ago

Quite possibly the worst comparison I've ever seen. You're taking a country that not only has an incredibly low crime rate (they had 5 homicides in the entire country in 2009) and only has a population around 5 million. By comparison, Chicago has close to 3 million people just in the city. To try and compare our reaction to terrorism and how the Norwegians reacted to their recent mass killing is completely absurd.

Argorak 14y ago
Seems to me like they are doing something right.
- DirtyCalvinist 14y ago
  In response to a Swedish economist noting that there was no poverty in Scandinavia, Milton Friedman once said that in America there was no poverty among Scandinavians either. Probably apocryphal, but it does draw attention to the role that cultural differences play in what sort of rules you can implement in organizing a society.
sheraz 14y ago
Agreed. (and of course you were downvoted here). People love to hold Scandanavia up as an example as how the rest of the world "could be." However, I think that is such a naive point of view, and one that needs changing. Their populations are too small and lack diversity to make a realistic comparison to the USA or even their larger European neighbors. I usually like Mr. Schriener's work, but this post is a little off.
- kmfrk 14y ago
  It's always greener on the other side; Denmark is the happiest country in the world (not really); Finland has the best K12 school system in the world (maybe). And so on and so on. There is a lot to be learnt from other countries, and I am sure it's not always easy to say that there are countries that do things better than the United States, but people tend to make it sound as if it's all rainbows and ponies, as soon as you get off the plane in Northern Europe. It's not like they don't have their own problems to wrestle with in areas where the United States does better.

sebnukem2 14y ago

Hint: they didn't attack a random [oil-rich] country, nor did they subject their citizen to naked or carcinogenic scanners, which at the time didn't seem like a patriotic thing to do by American standards.

maayank 14y ago

a. It was domestic terrorism. Compare it to American reaction to domestic terrorism before 9/11 and we may start to have some actual merit in the comparison. There was no "War on terror" on the same scale after the Oklahoma City bombing (1995). b. There's a very different social reaction to domestic terrorism ("there's something rotten in us, we can fix this from the inside") and terrorism from the outside ("we're being attacked, we need to protect ourselves from those people"). Sure, even in domestic terrorism there's a social mindset of differentiation (i.e. "us v.s. them perpetrators") but not to the same extent. c. One year strikes me as too soon to assess anything and to pat on anyone's back. d. One could argue the US can't afford what Norway can afford, whether it's because of size, number of enemies, etc. Yes, one could counter-argue those same American policies perpetuate some of these reasons (i.e. number of enemies), but please keep it mind when doing such a comparison.

vacri 14y ago
Regarding a., the background has changed immensely, given the US's extreme sabre-rattling 'with us or against us in this War On Terror' in the ten years leading up to the event.
nfg 14y ago
What about the London tube/bus suicide bombings: those were domestic terrorism and elicited a distinctly different response than we're seeing in Norway now. Or is it only domestic terrorism when the perpetrators are white one wonders!
- praptak 14y ago
  > Or is it only domestic terrorism when the perpetrators are white one wonders! Of course the race (and religion) plays a huge role in the emotional reaction to violence. Uncomparatively more so than the technical "domestic/external" categorization based on residence, citizenship and whatnot. Race and religion are the top factors in eliciting the "us vs them" reaction.
  - berntb 14y ago

JeanPierre 14y ago

There have been no changes to the law to increase the powers of the police and security services, terrorism legislation remains the same and there have been no special provisions made for the trial of suspected terrorists. A white lie, I'm afraid. Lex Breivik [1] has changed the laws so that regional security departments have a lot more power, in fact more power than what prisons have as of today. [1]: http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnrk.no%2F227%2Fdag-for-dag%2Fna-er-_lex-breivik_-vedtatt-1.8217506 http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=no&...

j-g-faustus 14y ago
The "regional security departments" the article refers to are high-security psychiatric wards. The problem was that if the court declares Breivik insane, Norway couldn't (legally) put him in a high-security criminal prison, and there was no equivalent for psychiatric cases. Now there is. It is a change, and clearly in response to this case, but the scope of the change is limited.
- JeanPierre 14y ago
  The problem was that if the court declares Breivik insane, Norway couldn't (legally) put him in a high-security criminal prison. That's wrong - they can do that without Lex Breivik. The issue is when he's declared healthy, what would then happen? It's legal to detain him if it can be proved that he constitutes a danger to society. However, if he is not considered a danger to the society, he will be able to walk freely. With Lex Breivik, they will be allowed to detain him as long the society is a danger to the person. Think about that for a moment. With Lex Breivik, you can be isolated even if you've not done anything illegal (or have finished serving your imprisonment) or is considered healthy, because some people in the society want to do you harm.
  - j-g-faustus 14y ago
    That's not what I'm reading. (I assume that you too read Norwegian, so we're not discussing artifacts of Google Translate?) From an article on the opposition to the law[1] (my translation): The Department of Health hasn't tried to hide that the goal is a stricter set of laws which can be used if Breivik is sentenced to compulsory mental health care. The department has long wanted a change of laws to improve the security in institutions that hold highly dangerous patients. This work was sped up after July 22. See also [2], which says approximately the same thing. The criticisms I've seen seem to center on that the new law makes it too simple to declare someone "dangerously insane". Do you have a link supporting your interpretation? [1] http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/lovforslag-moter-kraftig-motbor-1.8126075 http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/lovforslag-moter-kraftig-motbo... [2] http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Lex-Breivik-splitter-opposisjonen-6847648.html http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Lex-Breivik-splitter...

TomGullen 14y ago

> pledged to do everything to ensure the country's core values were not undermined. Is this not a little dangerous surely if we take this over to USA where gun ownership is part of their core values?

aggronn 14y ago
Not really.
- TomGullen 14y ago
  Thanks for the insight!

meshko 14y ago

With all due respect to Mr Schneier, I think this comparison is not 100% valid. There is a substantial difference between a terrorist threat from a lone mentally ill person and an organized group with ideology shared by thousands of people.

vetler 14y ago
There is still debate on whether or not he is mentally ill. See day 39 - 40 here, plus closing speeches: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik#Court-appointed_psychiatrists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik...
- meshko 14y ago
  I think this debate is in the lawyer land, not in the mental health land.
  - vetler 14y ago
    Well, court-appointed psychiatrists Husby and Sørheim see evidence of paranoid schizophrenia, and court-appointed psychiatrists Aspaas and Tørrissen say that he is not clinically insane.
saraid216 14y ago
> an organized group with ideology shared by thousands of people. <deadpan> This is not about Republicans. </sarcasm>

buf 14y ago

Example of what's happening in San Francisco today: Obama is in town, they shut down four city blocks. Example of when I was last in Bulgaria: Bulgarian president was in town, he danced Horo (traditional Bulgarian dance) with the people and made toasts.

eli 14y ago
Perhaps there's extra security for this particular event for some reason, but it is unusual to shut down four city blocks for an Obama speech. It's not like they evacuate DC every time the Presidential motorcade drives across town. I know because I've seen Obama wave from the back seat!
vetler 14y ago
There's a history of assassination attempts on US presidents, though. Not sure about the Bulgarian presidents?
- rmc 14y ago
  Probably more revolutions and wars in Bulgaria
btmorex 14y ago
In fairness, by population Bulgaria is closest to Virginia and I'm sure you could find the Governor of Virginia dancing at some state fair at some point.
- saraid216 14y ago
  ...yeah, sure. Let's see what you dig up.
majorlazer 14y ago
Yeah, let's compare the president of the most powerful country with 300M+ people with a president from a country who's total GDP is less than some of our billionaires. Makes a lot of sense. Can we please stop the USA hating around here?

TorbjornLunde 14y ago

There has been quite a debate in the wake of this, and the our anti-terror institution have admitted that no increase of power and knowledge of their part would likely not have done a big difference. It is apparently extremely difficult to detect people working completely on their own, almost regardless of resources. Some of the focus in the debate has been more about how to avoid people ending up with value systems (or mental disease) that permit and promote such horrible violence.

snambi 14y ago

Terrorists want people not to continue their way of life. This is their main objective. They want people to live in fear. By voluntarily creating fear about terrorism, we make the terrorists goal easier.

Tangaroa 14y ago

A certain segment of Norwegians reacted to terrorism by being enthusiastically for it. These included the leaders of the Labour Party, including the leaders at the Labour Party's Utoya youth camp. http://zalmi.blogspot.com/2011/07/utoya-not-so-innocent-youth-camp.html http://zalmi.blogspot.com/2011/07/utoya-not-so-innocent-yout... http://www.debbieschlussel.com/40472/karma-2-norway-utoya-camp-was-also-fatah-plo-terrorist-camp/ http://www.debbieschlussel.com/40472/karma-2-norway-utoya-ca... This is a factor that seems to go unmentioned in all discussions of the Utoya massacre, but is necessary knowledge to understand the event in its entirety. It adds detail to Breivik's motive, and it raises the question of why there has been no condemnation of the Labour Party's support for similar massacres elsewhere being conducted on racial and religious lines so long as they happen far away and are done by a faction that the Party approves of. This is beside the point that Schneier makes, so I apologise for going off topic. To that point, the US overreacted (an understatement) and Norway faced little threat of further attacks. Norway did consider fudging its laws to give Breivik a life term as a mental inmate rather than the statutory limit of years as a prisoner, and that can be questioned as an expansion of security. More generally, no one in Norway could argue a need for greatly expanded security since the threat ended with Breivik's capture.

hansbo 14y ago
I apologize for continuing off-topic, but the links you provide only seem to indicate that the left-wing youth of Norway are supporting Palestine. This is not an uncommon opinion; in fact, being Swedish, I can't recall that I've ever met anyone who supports Israel in their occupation. The links you provide equates this to antisemitism, which is very strange to me. Who was it, you mean, who were being "enthusiastically for" terrorism?
vegardx 14y ago
So - by supporting the fact that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, I'm supporting terrorists? You can support someones cause but not necessarily means. There is a huge difference, and by even suggesting that they support terrorism you are stepping way out of line.

Holeinthewall 14y ago

Maybe I fail to understand this, but we are comparing a country(USA) who (for whatever reason) is specifically targeted by terrorists on a whole different level than Norway. We are comparing an apple to a boiled egg : putting them in a microwave & trying to commend apple for not exploding ! Forget legislative or leadership moronism at times, but blasting US for reacting in a way for something no other country has ever faced seems too harsh.

epo 14y ago
"something no other country has ever faced"? For God's sake, catch up on world news or at least spare yourself embarrassment by not making such witless pronouncements.
- learc83 14y ago
  If he's talking about the scale of a single incident then he is correct. The death toll from the 9/11 attacks far exceeded any other single terrorist attack.
  - swa14 14y ago
    For a moment there one might have been thinking he meant atrocious actions with high death tolls against a civilian population, in which case the OP is definitely failing to understand it with his "for something no other country has ever faced", and the "spare yourself embarrassment by not making such witless pronouncements" is spot on.
  - djeliba 14y ago
    Terrorism can be brought on by a state as well as by non state actors. Wikipedia defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion." Conscription during any of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century fits this definition nicely. Many more people died from these than on 911.

jbjorge 14y ago

Compared to the Oklahoma bombing and the recent theater shooting, Norway probably didn't act all that different, but from reading the source, this is one of the comments that captured the essence of why/how Norway stands out: "[]...What we Norwegians are afraid of is actually the situation you have in the US and UK either with Police or prosecutors with way too much power or CCTV cameras everywhere etc. We have been a peaceful society based on trust to each other for a long time, and intend to let that continue. I can only quote FDR: "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself". Stoltenberg actually had to come with that statement. As doing the "US style fixit" would have backfired on him politically. Popular demand is different here, and that is the true power of Norway."

tsotha 14y ago

It seems like every time I read something new from Schneier I lose a little of the respect he's built up over the years. Are you really going to pretend the threat posed by one self-taught and self-financed guy with no friends is in any way comparable to that of a well-financed international terrorist organization with a shared ideology that has deep cultural and religious ties? Really? Of course Norway's response is different. Norway isn't the target of a terrorist organization. It had a terrorist incident that's now over. We had something similar in the US with Timothy McVeigh, and our response wasn't any more radical than Norway's.

radu_floricica 14y ago
This makes sense if you're assuming the security legislation comes only from an honest effort to fight terrorism. Whatever else we disagree on, I think we're past that on HN.
- tsotha 14y ago
  Which makes sense if you believe the people trying to grapple with this particular threat have the same set of goals and opinions. I do think the vast majority of people involved in crafting security legislation do so in an honest effort to fight terrorism.

fromhet 14y ago

I am Swedish, and Sweden is pretty close to Norway. We share culture, history and traditions. Many of my friends are Norwegians, and I've been there too. If the killer was not white and "Norwegian" (as we think a true norwegian should be), but rather a muslim extremist from Saudi Arabia, would they react the same way? Here in Scandinavia (and maybe everywhere) racism may seem alien but is never far away. I am sure, and saddened by the fact, that we would have reacted with hate and fear if the killer was not white, Norwegian and christian.

gadders 14y ago

Not really a proper comparison though, is it? The Norwegian massacres have more in common with the attack at the Batman Screening in Denver than they do with Al Qaeda/WTC etc

mjwalshe 14y ago

Single "nutters" are not "Terorists" which is where Bruces argument falls down here. Norway has not had any real "terrorist attacks" in the way the UK and Other european contries have - RAF/bader minhoff, ETA and the PIRA. For exmple in the UK the Hungerford gun attacks and the IRA and laterly the PIRA campaigns are quite diferent.

gorm 14y ago

Norway is a rather egalitarian country compared to the US and people seems to trust each other more and one theory is that this makes us more vaccinated for populist politics. I have this from the book "The Spirit Level" [1]. Also the political system is based on pluralism so there is a built in conservatism in the system that will cause changes to take time. However, changes will come and this is a big eye-opener for many people. When the bomb exploded I was sitting on work around 30m away. I remember the day well, it was very quiet because it was in the middle of the summer vacation and we were only 3 people working in the "Web Department" of the central government, which usually have 26 people on work. I was working on testing the software behind https://go.usa.gov/ https://go.usa.gov/ which is based on Drupal and I was struggling with it, working late. Short story, I suddenly was on the floor 2m away from my desk and when I looked around I was shocked to see that all my colleagues offices was blown in with papers, desk and computers laying all around. Luckily my office was facing the backside and the blast threw me away from the blown in window and I was fine again after some weeks. Anyway, one year has past and these are now only memories. I have visited the State Departement in Washington and seen the security messures in place there. It's really not comperable to Norway in any way, but Norway is living in the same world and I hope we can keep things as open as possible. Maybe in the future I can someday be as trusting again as I were when I was hacking Drupal back on the 22. July 2011. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equa...

Janteloven 14y ago

This is far too simplistic an analysis. Making new security laws takes time, particularly in a positive-law tradition state like Norway. So it is too early to say what the effects will be. Without a doubt changes are being made to Norway's security apparatus, in fact the securitization of the Norwegian state is much talked about in policy circles here. There is talk of moving from a 'Prestige' set of policies to 'Security' as the guiding principle. I don't think any state could sit by and do nothing institutionally after such a terrible event. The problem in Norway is that whilst there is a self-congratulatory air about their response to Brevik - "love and democracy", they do not seem to want to engage in substantive debate about the planned changes to their security apparatus. To be honest they trust their government to do the right thing, even if that means extremely illiberal changes to the legal right of the person and the criminal system. Whether that trust is misplaced or not, and remember this is a highly consensual society, the Janteloven that Brevik has revealed will be controlled now via new laws - including new laws on using the Internet and making comments (Brevik was a big user of the internet and left comments on Norwegian websites).

jwoah12 14y ago

I think there are two reasons why the comparison of Norway's reaction to America's reaction is not completely valid. The first is the population difference (mentioned a lot already). The second is the timeframe. Norway had the benefit of a decade of reflection on the American response to 9/11. It has been fairly obvious that the international community believes the US overreacted.