I spy with my little eye

I spy with my little eye something starting with N. Nothing starts with N. So does Naked. Like in those new fancy Nacktscanner as the Germans call them. Heard of them? We used to be against them in Europe. We used to be really against them in the United States. Until the Nigerian and the Powder. I'm sure you've heard that story. You know, the one in which there was a Nigerian who taped powder to his legs to blow up an aeroplane just before landing in Detroit.

Thanks to his powder he now has, quite understandably, half of the western hemisphere in an uproar. Him, and the organisation he represented. Al Qaida. I don't think the latter will be happy with him now. They provided professional powder, however the execution of the task at hand was amateurish. Or would the Al Qaida leadership have some reason to feast on an entire sheep after all? Despite failing to kill hundreds of innocent civilians including no doubt a fair amount of children, perhaps our friend with the powder did bring his mission to a reasonably succesful end in the eyes of his superiors.

Al Qaida's executive tool lost his own life. As planned. All right he is not dead, but he is in prison. Arguably that would qualify exactly as 'neutralised' as death would. Hundreds of civilians are still alive. I imagine the Al Qaida brain behind the operatoin is not very happy about that, although quite frankly, I am not entirely sure how much they actually care. After all, even without disaster, Europe and America are in shock and absolutely terrified. So it would seem that the mission has had the desired effect. Because let us not forget that fear and the deregulation of society are terrorism's ultimate goals. Exactly for that reason governments do not negotiate with terrorist organisations as the latter should under no circumstances be influencing political decisions and thereby reaching its goals. When it comes to suicide bombers however, we jump through the hoop by allowing them to limit the civil liberties we are so proud of.

In the face of a risk on death and destruction on aeroplanes due to terrorism, our political leadership has decided that the way forward in a brand new decade is making naked images of people. The problem is, some people tend not to appreciate being seen au naturel. That is private. Especially religious people are very fond of their privacy. And what about children? I used to think it was illegal to make naked images of children. For security however, we are willing to stretch privacy laws somewhat. Anything for safety. Put into percentages however, how much smaller would the chance be that I am blown up on a flight? The Powder-guy might have been arrested before boarding his flight. However, had he used a liquid explosive, that is rather questionable as liquids cannot be detected by the Nacktscanner. I am convinced the Al Qaida bomb-builders know that too.

They are also aware of perhaps an even greater pitfall that is ineffective cooperation and miscommunication between all parties and organisations involved in combatting terrorism. Our Nigerian friend with the powder almost succeeded because vital information was not passed on. His own father warned the authorities that his son should be investigated. Unfortunately no one saw any reason to communicate this information to airlanes and airports. So do I now conclude we are being lulled into a false sense of safety by are own politicians who have to take visible action to calm people down whilst being all too aware of greater and more dangerous problems within the information-sharing apparatus we call 'intelligence'? Is it then correct to state that in the end, civilians are making an offer for an idea of security that is in fact no more than an illusion? Or is it worse than that?

Europe has long been waiting to adopt policies about the use of the bodyscans. However it was prevented from doing so by a pro-privacy lobby. Do European government now grasp the occasion with both hands to go through with the implementation of their plans as fear makes people very willing to give up some freedom for security. If having a computer look through my clothes keeps me alive, fine. If having a computer scan to my phone calls keeps me alive, no problem. If having a computer monitor my internet use keeps me alive, it's all good. I just wonder how far we are willing to go for security. What are we willing to give up? And what do we actually give it up for? Although we like to think of our political systems as democratic and stable, I do think it is essential that we keep reflecting on new 'emergency' policies. Let us not forget that the state of emergency has been abused in the past to repress civil liberties.

So whilst governments play Big Brother and Bin Laden & Co (assuming they are still alive), piss themselves in their caves, millions of people remain at risk of being blown up despite allowing authorities to see what is underneath their clothes. I spy with my little eye something beginning with D. For Danger. The danger of out of fear almost blindly giving up our civil liberties without questioning the need for it.