5 ms·

Devil's Advocate: You are a nontechnical person and stumble upon what appear to be plans for a terrorist attack. You talk to the person about it and they say

by samspot 12y ago

Devil's Advocate: You are a nontechnical person and stumble upon what appear to be plans for a terrorist attack. You talk to the person about it and they say "Don't worry. is computer game". A great exploration of this is the 30 Rock episode where Tina Fey reports her neighbor for what ends up being a plan to get on the show 'The Amazing Race'. The problem is, not knowing any better, you feel obligated to report the activity just in case. Let someone much smarter than yourself decide what is really going on. If you say nothing and someone gets hurt, can you forgive yourself? As a hacker, I would understand this is definitely a game. But can I really expect the same from non-technical people?

aetherson 12y ago
No particular technical sophistication should be required to understand that terrorists do not launch intercontinental missiles.
DanBC 12y ago
But the people higher up the chain don't get to see the whiteboards and so can't easily dismiss this as planning a computer game. Unless the agents took photos?
- NhanH 12y ago
  The priori of a dude planning an ICBM attack on whiteboard in an apt is so low that unless you have very very strong evidences that it exists (and words by random people without photos certainly don't count as one), for all practical purposes, it isn't true. And I sincerely do hope that if such a plan truly exists somewhere, the power that be have better evidences/ discovery than being informed by letting agents.
  - DmitriRavinoff 12y ago
    Unfortunately, the probability that someone is able to understand this logic is lowered considerably once you realize that they're working in a job where they're required to act on such threats. Most people who are capable of such calculations will not find such jobs fulfilling, and those who do will find themselves constantly second-guessed by bosses who don't have that skill. It's a profession that selects against Bayesian reasoning. Humans are -really- bad at intuitively calculating risk, and I have yet to encounter any sort of formal education in the US that teaches us how to properly calculate it.
mikeash 12y ago
It takes only the barest application of common sense to realize that an ICBM attack is not going to be planned on a whiteboard in plain view in some random apartment. It does not actually appear to be plans for a terrorist attack, because terrorists don't have ICBMs.
- Beltiras 12y ago
  Also: Terrorist are not too concerned about mouseclicks ....
  - pyre 12y ago
    He's just making a Visual BASIC GUI for the terrorist attack[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Impossible, Microsoft's EULA surely prohibits use by terrorists.
- samspot 12y ago
  1. How do I know they don't have ICBMs? Bill O'Reilly hasn't told me that yet. 2. Or, we don't have ICBM's yet. Hoping that part of the plan will work itself out. Step 1: Collect underpants ... Step 3: Profit! 2. Maybe this terrorist is just working from home and trying to understand the larger plan. Or he could be brainstorming for a future powerpoint presentation on the subject. Just having some fun with the idea.
pyre 12y ago
The problem is that everyone in the chain ends up buying into this. The police make a record of it 'just in case.' You end up on a no-fly list 'just in case.' Everyone in the chain is covering their ass 'just in case' this person really is a terrorist. No one ends up willing to stick their neck out and say, "this person probably isn't a terrorist"... just in case.
- samspot 12y ago
  Fantastic point that cannot be understated. When thinking about this I assumed the authorities would run some quick sanity check and dismiss it. While that probably does happen, we often see cases where it has not worked that way.
- Beltiras 12y ago
  And it all becomes Kafkaesque and you can't get the bureaucracy to respond because '... it might reveal our methods and tactics in combating global terrorism.'
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  The extreme example of "everyone in the chain" buying into an extreme form of this thinking came in the form of the "1% doctrine" articulated by then-Vice President Dick Cheney: "If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Much of the post-9/11 response to terrorism fits it. "We captured a bunch of people. Some are harmless unfortunate bystanders. Some are dangerous people who are nevertheless not immune to handcuffs. Still, we'd better lock them up in harsh conditions without trial just in case." "Iraq probably has no nuclear weapons and no means to deliver one, but we'd better invade the country just in case. We don't want to be wrong and end up with a mushroom cloud over Manhattan."
stevebot 12y ago
Ha nice, I immediately thought of that episode to after reading this. I really miss that show :(. It is a good point, but I wonder when it breaks down and turns into something like McCarthyism.
- lwhalen 12y ago
  Ohh I'd say about 13 years ago.
stronglikedan 12y ago
This example illustrates the very slippery slope we find ourselves on today. The problem is that it's really no ones business unless and until I break a law. I shouldn't have to justify may legal actions to anyone, regardless of what they do and don't understand.
Torgo 12y ago
Sometimes it is because, even if the chance it's real is slim, the stakes would be incredibly high. One time I thought I witnessed a kidnapping, a woman shackled and gagged in the back of a car. I contacted the police and they very thoroughly and professionally pursued it. Afterwards they told me the two people involved were engaged in sexual roleplay. She wasn't being kidnapped, it seemed kind of unusual (you had to be there) but I would have been irresponsible in not reporting it. On the other hand, they could have been SWATed, and it probably cost my city government five digits. I don't have an answer.
chrismcb 12y ago
Why do you feel obligated to report the activity?

by samspot 12y ago

aetherson 12y ago

No particular technical sophistication should be required to understand that terrorists do not launch intercontinental missiles.

DanBC 12y ago

But the people higher up the chain don't get to see the whiteboards and so can't easily dismiss this as planning a computer game. Unless the agents took photos?

NhanH 12y ago
The priori of a dude planning an ICBM attack on whiteboard in an apt is so low that unless you have very very strong evidences that it exists (and words by random people without photos certainly don't count as one), for all practical purposes, it isn't true. And I sincerely do hope that if such a plan truly exists somewhere, the power that be have better evidences/ discovery than being informed by letting agents.
- DmitriRavinoff 12y ago
  Unfortunately, the probability that someone is able to understand this logic is lowered considerably once you realize that they're working in a job where they're required to act on such threats. Most people who are capable of such calculations will not find such jobs fulfilling, and those who do will find themselves constantly second-guessed by bosses who don't have that skill. It's a profession that selects against Bayesian reasoning. Humans are -really- bad at intuitively calculating risk, and I have yet to encounter any sort of formal education in the US that teaches us how to properly calculate it.

mikeash 12y ago

It takes only the barest application of common sense to realize that an ICBM attack is not going to be planned on a whiteboard in plain view in some random apartment. It does not actually appear to be plans for a terrorist attack, because terrorists don't have ICBMs.

Beltiras 12y ago
Also: Terrorist are not too concerned about mouseclicks ....
- pyre 12y ago
  He's just making a Visual BASIC GUI for the terrorist attack[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Impossible, Microsoft's EULA surely prohibits use by terrorists.
samspot 12y ago
1. How do I know they don't have ICBMs? Bill O'Reilly hasn't told me that yet. 2. Or, we don't have ICBM's yet. Hoping that part of the plan will work itself out. Step 1: Collect underpants ... Step 3: Profit! 2. Maybe this terrorist is just working from home and trying to understand the larger plan. Or he could be brainstorming for a future powerpoint presentation on the subject. Just having some fun with the idea.

pyre 12y ago

The problem is that everyone in the chain ends up buying into this. The police make a record of it 'just in case.' You end up on a no-fly list 'just in case.' Everyone in the chain is covering their ass 'just in case' this person really is a terrorist. No one ends up willing to stick their neck out and say, "this person probably isn't a terrorist"... just in case.

samspot 12y ago
Fantastic point that cannot be understated. When thinking about this I assumed the authorities would run some quick sanity check and dismiss it. While that probably does happen, we often see cases where it has not worked that way.
Beltiras 12y ago
And it all becomes Kafkaesque and you can't get the bureaucracy to respond because '... it might reveal our methods and tactics in combating global terrorism.'
dragonwriter 12y ago
The extreme example of "everyone in the chain" buying into an extreme form of this thinking came in the form of the "1% doctrine" articulated by then-Vice President Dick Cheney: "If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."
- mikeash 12y ago
  Much of the post-9/11 response to terrorism fits it. "We captured a bunch of people. Some are harmless unfortunate bystanders. Some are dangerous people who are nevertheless not immune to handcuffs. Still, we'd better lock them up in harsh conditions without trial just in case." "Iraq probably has no nuclear weapons and no means to deliver one, but we'd better invade the country just in case. We don't want to be wrong and end up with a mushroom cloud over Manhattan."

stevebot 12y ago

Ha nice, I immediately thought of that episode to after reading this. I really miss that show :(. It is a good point, but I wonder when it breaks down and turns into something like McCarthyism.

lwhalen 12y ago
Ohh I'd say about 13 years ago.

stronglikedan 12y ago

This example illustrates the very slippery slope we find ourselves on today. The problem is that it's really no ones business unless and until I break a law. I shouldn't have to justify may legal actions to anyone, regardless of what they do and don't understand.

Torgo 12y ago

Sometimes it is because, even if the chance it's real is slim, the stakes would be incredibly high. One time I thought I witnessed a kidnapping, a woman shackled and gagged in the back of a car. I contacted the police and they very thoroughly and professionally pursued it. Afterwards they told me the two people involved were engaged in sexual roleplay. She wasn't being kidnapped, it seemed kind of unusual (you had to be there) but I would have been irresponsible in not reporting it. On the other hand, they could have been SWATed, and it probably cost my city government five digits. I don't have an answer.

chrismcb 12y ago

Why do you feel obligated to report the activity?