In our post-Sept. 11 lives, we are running scared. We are at war, terror has corrupted our sense of normalcy, and we have an unnatural fear of white powder. The singular goal in our collective mind is to find a way to thwart terrorism in all its forms.
We ask ourselves questions. “How can we root out terrorists before they attack?” And “How can we make ourselves safe if they do attack?” Many Americans have been listening to their inner engineer and turning to science for the answers to their questions.
First, how do we identify terrorists before they attack? Well, Visionics Corporation would say that the answer is their facial recognition technology. It feeds video from regular security cameras to a computer that reduces each individual face to a set of biometric data as personalized as a fingerprint.
This data is then compared to an archive containing thousands of faces, all presumably belonging to people wanted by the government. Individuals can install the system anywhere from airports to federal buildings to shopping centers.
Facial recognition isn?t a terrible idea, as long as the system isn?t abused for racial profiling or to make life miserable for everyone who?s had a minor shoplifting offense.
Of course, such a system would have been useless in preventing the attacks on Sept. 11, because none of the hijackers were known to be terrorists and, thus, would not have been in any database.
Also, there?s that pesky issue of the right to privacy, but bear with me, I?m not there yet.
Steve Kirsch, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, recently suggested another potential application of science to the war on terrorism.
He is advocating the use of a technology known as “brain fingerprinting” to provide security at airports.
Essentially, an officer would attach a few electrodes to your head and show you a series of images that would only have special meaning to a terrorist (the inside of a training camp, the cover of a secret terrorist manual, etc.).
The electrodes send information to a computer that monitors your brainwaves and is able to tell whether you have a special response to any of the images. The technology is incredibly accurate and is admissible as evidence in U.S. courts.
However, many people would object to having their thoughts monitored. What if someone trained as a terrorist then had a change of heart and decided to give up the lifestyle?
Brain fingerprinting would identify him as a terrorist, even though he had never committed a crime and didn?t plan to do so in the future. He would probably refuse the brain scan, or else fail it, and then officials would deny him certain liberties reserved for people who pass the scan (for example, the ability to travel on a special “safe” flight containing only people who volunteer for?and pass?a brain scan).
This would amount to a scary form of discrimination that would limit the rights of innocent people. This would also be the first step in creating a world where privacy is non-existent and the thought-police control our daily lives.
Such a world would defy everything the United States stands for, and science should not be abused to create it.
On to the next question?”How can we protect ourselves when terrorists attack?”
After Sept. 11, people criticized the World Trade Center for not being able to withstand a plane crash. Engineers claimed that a skyscraper with more internal support, thicker walls and fewer windows might not have collapsed. Theoretically, individuals can make any building plane-crash resistant, as long as cost is not an issue. But then, cost is always an issue.
Another concern is the safety of nuclear power plants. First off, a nuclear plant is much smaller and lower to the ground than a skyscraper, thus presenting a more difficult target for an airplane. Secondly, the walls surrounding a reactor core are thick, reinforced concrete that some engineers think could actually withstand a plane crash.
My question is, so what if they couldn?t?
Science can do amazing things, but in this case, I don?t think it should. If we design skyscrapers and power plants to last till the end of the world, they will cost 10 times as much, and people will stop building skyscrapers and power plants.
Also, our efforts to stop terrorism should be in equilibrium with the efforts made by terrorists themselves. If we require billions of dollars worth of engineering to thwart a few box-cutter-wielding fanatics, then which side is smarter?
Last question: What about the current anthrax attacks? Science has successfully provided a cure with the antibiotic Cipro, but at what cost? People who take Cipro preventively?even though they?ve had no exposure to Anthrax?are only accelerating the development of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.
This does not have much impact on our (I hope) temporary battle with Anthrax, but it does mean that someday you could get strep throat or a urinary tract infection, and it won?t be treatable by drugs that are available today. Once again, a misapplication of science to a problem will bear results worse than the problem itself.
Science is supposed to stimulate progress, not reverse it.
A country wherein civil liberties are absent leaves people scared to take advantage of beneficial technologies, and medicine is not available to treat common illnesses?This is a country that would resemble Taliban controlled Afghanistan more than the freedom-loving United States.
An abuse of science can only worsen the problem. What we really need is a bit more common sense (locks on cockpit doors?try it!) and a lot of diplomacy.
Next time you hang the flag in your window (or on your car, or a t-shirt, or a tattoo), remember why you love living in the United States, and think hard before you advocate irrational means to defend it.
Ashley welcomes feedback at: [email protected] or send letters to the editor to: [email protected].