As part of California's effort in the war on terror, the US state's legislators this year proposed that trucks hauling hazardous materials be fitted with technologies that would allow authorities to seize control of hijacked vehicles -- a law that supporters said should be passed "on an emergency basis".
The bill, however, was voted down after critics contended that the communication signals used in the proposed system could be easily commandeered by the very people it was supposed to stop.
"Satellite or cell phone links can be jammed by even a dull terrorist with a $20 device," said California State University professor Bill Wattenburg, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory consultant and inventor of another kind of truck-stopping technology. "A smart hijacker can kill communications and make a truck go blind when he wants to move in."
The ill-fated legislation underscores the myriad problems facing US government agencies, law enforcement authorities and industry contractors charged with developing and purchasing technologies in the name of homeland security. As the country rushes to spend billions of dollars on technology for domestic defence, the US Department of Homeland Security remains mired in strategic conflicts, bureaucratic inertia, intra-agency rivalries and election-year politicking.
Since the attacks of 11 September, 2001, a pro-security stance has been a necessity for any US political platform, and the 2004 campaign has been no exception. President Bush has vowed to "continue to strengthen security at every identified vulnerability". Even John Kerry has departed from the traditionally tempered Democratic rhetoric on defence, saying he will do "whatever it takes to make America safe".
But how much is enough? As with any political initiatives that are relatively free of opposition, homeland security programmes have the potential to spin out of control without adequate oversight. That, in turn, could slow the fight against terrorism by wasting crucial resources and distracting government bodies from the mission at hand.
To address these issues, ZDNet UK sister site CNET News.com recommends a three-point policy agenda that encompasses concerns raised in scores of interviews with US government officials, industry executives, policy researchers and taxpayer advocates: change the "target-based" strategies used to assess terrorist threats today; enforce stringent oversight of spending, especially when secrecy rules limit public knowledge of contracts; and ensure interoperability of technologies and communication networks at all levels of government.
In addition, the US government must, throughout these reforms, address privacy concerns that consistently dog proposals for new surveillance, identification and data analysis tools. Technology projects must respect constitutional safeguards of privacy, even as greater levels of information are called for in the defence against terrorism.
