Cover your back security: always one step behind

Eleanor Dallaway

Bruce Schneier has recently addressed the trend for ‘cover your back’ security in his monthly newsletter. The tendency for security to always be one step behind is something which has become apparent since 9/11, says Schneier. He argues that the desire to protect the US from weird and repeated threats, and those that have had media coverage is unfortunately taking president over real threat assessment.

‘Much of our country’s counterterrorism security spending is not designed to protect us from the terrorists, but instead to protect our public officials from criticism when another attack occurs’, writes Schneier.

Airport security is a good example of this type of behaviour. Before 9/11 the main focus was on bombs, knives and guns. After the terrorist attack on the world trade centre however, emphasis was put on small blades and box cutters. Richard Reid was then sentenced after revealing his plan to blow up an aircraft with a bomb hidden in his shoe, and as a result, all air passengers were made to remove their shoes when passing through security. Most recently, the terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives on board several airliners travelling from the UK to the USA has also caused a ban on liquids and gels on planes.

‘Airplane security seems to be forever looking backwards’, writes Schneier. ‘The Transportation Security Administration wants to be sure that if there’s another airplane terrorist attack, it’s not held responsible fir letting it slip through’. Although one year ago, no-one would have blamed the TSA for not detecting liquids, now it is basic security regulation. ‘It’s basic job preservation to defend against what the terrorists tried last time’.

 Schneier believes that as a result, security agents are ignoring threat possibilities that don’t make the news as much. Less attention is being directed into detecting new plots and new terrorist strategies. After all, thunder rarely strikes twice in the same place.

‘Cover your back’ security also explains the TSA’s inability to take anybody off the no-fly list, regardless of how innocent they may be. “No one is willing to risk his career – no matter how remote the possibility…they may just turn out to be the next terrorist mastermind”. And then their back would be well and truly uncovered.