An astute observation from M.K.:
I noticed something rather disturbing about the article your LRC blog entry linked to in the Washington Post, “Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals”. No, I don’t mean the subject of the article itself, which was totally disturbing in its own right, but rather the cognitive dissonance of the writer. Toward the beginning of the article he writes:
“During November’s raids in Mumbai, for example, citizens relied on cellphones to direct police to the assailants.”
A little further down he cites the NYC Police Commissioner stating that the terrorists used “satellite and mobile phones to help them outmaneuver police…” Five seconds of web browsing reveals that the terrorist’s most valuable tool was the satellite phone and VOIP phones. So blocking the terrorists from using cell phones would have accomplished pretty much nothing.
Yet somehow he leads the reader to a completely different conclusion:“Still, analysts said, events such as the Mumbai attacks may tip the debate in favor of law enforcement.”
And he even to do so without risking his “journalistic principles” by citing “analysts”. Amazing! Do they have secret classes for this somewhere or is this kind of logic woven really so deeply woven into our intellectual culture that it’s second nature?7:46 am on February 1, 2009 Email Christopher Manion