Based on their historical data, it seems to happen 2-4 times per year on average. Obviously the situation is very tense right now everywhere in the world but this isn't exactly exceptional.
It’s actionable to an extent. I once worked on an infrastructure project that increased all security controls based on threat levels, automatically.
A simple example would be cancelling badge access for a janitor to a sensitive area like an engine room, but allowing it if the threat level Was lower.
Is that effective though? Does infrastructure terrorism happen any more in western countries? All terrorist threats I can think of off the top of my head involve attempts at killing citizens.
There have been occasional IRA attacks (by the branches of the IRA that don't recognize the Good Friday Agreement) against infrastructure. The other attacks they make generally don't involve "civilians", rather policemen and soliders etc.
Though if you click through to the Wikipedia page for the previous alert scheme it replaced, apparently the lowest "white" no-alert level under that was "known to have been used for periods between the Good Friday Agreement and the 9th of September 2001". Really, it's just a reflection of the times we're in right now.
I think it's a bigger reflection of the fact that there is absolutely zero incentive to lower these alerts and that the police, who inform the threat level, generally benefit greatly from the "temporarily" expanded privileges from higher levels.
> Really, it's just a reflection of the times we're in right now.
How so? Looking at charts like [1] or [2] it seems current threat levels should be much lower than in the time before 2001. Notable terror attacks in the UK have gone from a regular occurance to a once-in-a-decade deal.
The nature of the attacks is very different; the majority of historic deaths in those charts were of policemen and armed forces. It would be interesting to see similar charts with them excluded!
Note that it's gone from tracking one figure (all forms of terrorism), to three figures (international terrorism, NI-related in GB, NI-related in NI), to two figures (all forms of terrorism, NI-related in NI).
While there were three figures, NI-related in GB did reach moderate.
I'm old enough to remember the US "color code" scheme after 9/11.
It was super weird. Any time they would announce some deeply unpopular unconstitutional measure (surveillance, war) they would bang the "CODE RED!" drum for the week running up to to the announcement.
Reminds me of vigipirate (french equivalent alert level). France sends the army on patrol to mitigate the risk of terrorism. A friend in the army told me that when it is at the base level, the troops are patroling with empty rifles and no have bullet on them (basically just a display of force to make the population feel safer). When it is the medium level, they have bullets on them but none loaded in their rifles. When it is at the highest level their guns are loaded.
The victim was not likely specifically targeted. There were no signs of the guy surveiling the victim, or him getting guidance onto the man from anybody so far.
“Natives” meaning they’re born there, but their parents or grandparents are usually immigrants. The “native born” statistic is a tremendous argument for stricter immigration controls, as the cultural influence towards terrorism is so high that it can affect even the native born population.
Ignoring NI-related terrorism, that is true (many of whom likely have ancestors who lived in Ireland before the English conquest). But it is perhaps however telling that it's effectively never the immigrants themselves, which leads to questions about why later generations end up involved in terrorist groups. The answer often appears to be cultural disenfranchisement due to not being "British" enough while also being tainted by family as emigrants.
> The current level is "severe", which was set on 3 November 2020, due to a shooting in Vienna by a suspected "Islamist terrorist" in which four people died. It was raised by Home Secretary, Priti Patel, following recent attacks in Europe. It was previously held at 'substantial', set on 4 November 2019. Prior to that it was rasied to "severe" on 17 September 2017. It had been raised to "critical" following the Parsons Green bombing on 15 September. The previous threat level to that was "severe" having been reduced to that level following an increase to "critical" after the Manchester Arena bombing of 22 May 2017.
I believe they are thinking along the lines,first there was the attack in France which kicked this series off (2 is not yet a series, I know), then here in Vienna, which the attackers seemingly expedited due to the corona lockdown coming into effect today. So changing the schedule gave them a glimpse of what is yet to come elsewhere where they didn't have to change their timeline
Europe gave the world Enlightenment values and then performed a scientific experiment on itself to see what happens when you take those values to an extreme. Thank you, Europe, for everything you gave to civilization and the concept of a rights-based government. Catch ya on the flip side.
That's not really what happened, but I guess for some people it's easier to just completely forget the US's and UK's role in this whole mess [0] and how this current situation was already rather predictable nearly two decades ago [1].
It was such a predictable outcome that it triggered the largest global protest movement in human history.
Plenty of people saw the long-term consequences of the US invading a Muslim country with heavily laden religious language coming; How the refugee waves would reignite violent European far-right nationalist sentiments, the occasional disgruntled Islamic extremist attack would pour additional fuel into the fire, a violent and hateful circle steadily escalating.
By now we are pretty much exactly where Osama bin Laden wanted everybody to be: In an open and blatant "clash of civilizations" where US presidents can run on a platform of "Muslim bans" and over a billion people get constantly and casually generalized as being some kind of uncivilized subhumans because of their religion.
I'm curious if many people who have lost their parents to COVID or believe they themselves are close to dying this way are more likely to become terrorists.
I'm wondering what is the point of this threat level measurement (other than to say "see? we're doing something"). To me it doesn't seem actionable in any way, and if it was actionable (like significantly raising security), how would that help considering all the terrorists have to do is to wait for the level to go down (thus the security is lowered) before striking again?
Furthermore the threat level has never gone below "substantial" (which signifies that an attack is likely), so it's akin to "cry wolf" all the time - eventually everyone learns to ignore it and it stops being a useful metric (if it ever was one, that is).
The terrorist threat has always been to scare people into trading freedom for "security", i.e. more control over the populace and more contracts for security subcontractors. You have more of a chance of being struck by lightning.
Not really. Sometimes it's just a default move leaders have to make to cover their ass.
If you are in a position of responsibility, even for a small group, and the neighbouring building gets robbed or there is physical violence, people are going to start asking you about the security of your building.
You can ofcourse ignore/reassure them if you have built up enough trust or social/political capital. If you haven't and there are a bunch of ambitious people eyeing your chair, good luck showing the group robbery stats.
The analogy would make sense if it was lip service for a year rather than trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands dead over the course of decades.
It's useful in that it raises the alert level in the general population (in addition to the more cynical motives posited by others).
"crying wolf" or "alertness fatigue" might be an issue if this was a frequent thing, but it isn't.
It also presumably can be timed to coincide with recent attacks when there is genuine intelligence; the events in the news acting as cover for the intelligence which doesn't necessarily need to be acknowledged as a reason for raising the level.
Am I reading correctly that since 2006 it has never gone below "SUBSTANTIAL"?
From their description:
SUBSTANTIAL means an attack is likely
SEVERE means an attack is highly likely
CRITICAL means an attack is highly likely in the near future
Saying an attack is at least "likely" for 14 straight years is definitely going to cause fatigue. I might be misunderstanding it and hopefully they just mean those specific days there was a risk and every other day they didn't think there was.
But why then would they bother having a level for "LOW means an attack is highly unlikely" if they only flagged risky days? If it weren't constantly elevated wouldn't they flag the vast majority of dates as "LOW"? I think that no, they are flagging every day as having a terrorist attack "likely"!
Because if a bureaucrat officially states that risk is LOW and an attack happens, that bureaucrat's own ass is now at risk. So keeping it at SUBSTANTIAL keeps that ass covered.
Incidentally, this also applies to travel advisories, which are very quick to ratchet up the threat level and very slow to climb down.
It is a pretty good technique for expanding police powers. You allow them to do more stuff, but only when the level is high enough. Nobody will object because objecting to emergency measures looks bad. Then, whenever something bad happens you just increase the threat level. When you reach the top, "reform" the system to add higher levels.
I was thinking about the French "Vigipirate" system, which I think has "lowered" the threat level by defining higher levels at least two times now. For example I remember a few years ago, the second highest color level, red, was declared to be the now lowest level, "Vigilance". It has never been that low again since.
I think what it does is raise people's alertness levels for a while, until they regress back toward the mean. That threat level is like a volume knob you can use to make a whole society clench up, sweating out cortisol. I wonder how it is officially announced, and what the physical causal chain is from decision to wide distribution of volume knob state? I wonder how many of these there are, and how closely they are watched and anticipated, and if it wouldn't make a fun website to collect all of them together.
It’s never gone below substantial because the UK would need to change a ton of things, which are politically, legally, and practically impossible to change, for the threat level to go below substantial.
80 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] threadA simple example would be cancelling badge access for a janitor to a sensitive area like an engine room, but allowing it if the threat level Was lower.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Threat_Levels
Seems to change every year or so. It was at severe a year ago, but was reduced to substantial, now it's back at severe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/samuel-paty-teac...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/01/nice-terror-at...
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/03/930721562/at-least-4-killed-b...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-teacher-b...
Threat levels are designed to give a broad indication of the likelihood of a terrorist attack.
LOW means an attack is highly unlikely
MODERATE means an attack is possible, but not likely
SUBSTANTIAL means an attack is likely
SEVERE means an attack is highly likely
CRITICAL means an attack is highly likely in the near future
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Threat_Levels
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41288525
How so? Looking at charts like [1] or [2] it seems current threat levels should be much lower than in the time before 2001. Notable terror attacks in the UK have gone from a regular occurance to a once-in-a-decade deal.
1: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6aa8066136b8b875fc4805...
2: https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/eca0e3ae8792b445038a7dd2...
While there were three figures, NI-related in GB did reach moderate.
It was super weird. Any time they would announce some deeply unpopular unconstitutional measure (surveillance, war) they would bang the "CODE RED!" drum for the week running up to to the announcement.
LOW (deprecated)
MODERATE (deprecated)
SUBSTANTIAL means an attack has not happened recently
SEVERE means an attack has happened recently
CRITICAL means an attack has happened very recently and may be ongoing
From the Wikipedia article, which features a Threat Levels Over Time chart that is genuinely funny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Threat_Levels#Changes_to_th...
Why is this a story?
It was such a predictable outcome that it triggered the largest global protest movement in human history.
Plenty of people saw the long-term consequences of the US invading a Muslim country with heavily laden religious language coming; How the refugee waves would reignite violent European far-right nationalist sentiments, the occasional disgruntled Islamic extremist attack would pour additional fuel into the fire, a violent and hateful circle steadily escalating.
By now we are pretty much exactly where Osama bin Laden wanted everybody to be: In an open and blatant "clash of civilizations" where US presidents can run on a platform of "Muslim bans" and over a billion people get constantly and casually generalized as being some kind of uncivilized subhumans because of their religion.
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2015/9/9/the-iraq-war-the...
[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html
Furthermore the threat level has never gone below "substantial" (which signifies that an attack is likely), so it's akin to "cry wolf" all the time - eventually everyone learns to ignore it and it stops being a useful metric (if it ever was one, that is).
If you are in a position of responsibility, even for a small group, and the neighbouring building gets robbed or there is physical violence, people are going to start asking you about the security of your building.
You can ofcourse ignore/reassure them if you have built up enough trust or social/political capital. If you haven't and there are a bunch of ambitious people eyeing your chair, good luck showing the group robbery stats.
"crying wolf" or "alertness fatigue" might be an issue if this was a frequent thing, but it isn't.
It also presumably can be timed to coincide with recent attacks when there is genuine intelligence; the events in the news acting as cover for the intelligence which doesn't necessarily need to be acknowledged as a reason for raising the level.
From their description:
SUBSTANTIAL means an attack is likely
SEVERE means an attack is highly likely
CRITICAL means an attack is highly likely in the near future
Saying an attack is at least "likely" for 14 straight years is definitely going to cause fatigue. I might be misunderstanding it and hopefully they just mean those specific days there was a risk and every other day they didn't think there was.
But why then would they bother having a level for "LOW means an attack is highly unlikely" if they only flagged risky days? If it weren't constantly elevated wouldn't they flag the vast majority of dates as "LOW"? I think that no, they are flagging every day as having a terrorist attack "likely"!
Incidentally, this also applies to travel advisories, which are very quick to ratchet up the threat level and very slow to climb down.
They indeed do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Threat_Levels#Changes_to_th...
when did this happen exactly?