October 18, 2004 4:00 AM PDT

Poll: Antiterror tech plans are flawed

Related Stories

Start-up Oqo to launch hand-size PC

September 29, 2004
Americans don't believe the government is doing enough with technology to improve homeland security, according to a national survey conducted jointly by CNET News.com and Harris Interactive.

Drawn from a poll of 1,133 people in late August, the results portray a nation eager to embrace technology to reduce security threats but unsure how best to proceed. Only 15 percent of those polled believe they are safer today than they were a year ago, and just 20 percent predict that they will be safer in the future.

Despite widespread confidence in technology itself, only 45 percent agreed that the government's current technology initiatives are working, according to the survey. The results reflect concerns raised by taxpayer organizations and other government watchdog groups. Such groups have been critical of technology spending and related operations since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

"From the beginning, we were concerned that this reorganization had gone the way of the Department of Energy--bigger bureaucracy and few results to show for it," said Pete Sepp, vice president of the nonprofit National Taxpayer Union. "The picture isn't complete, but the brush strokes we've seen so far are pretty ugly."

The survey indicates that the issue could be a pivotal factor in the elections next month. About 92 percent of the poll's respondents said a presidential candidate's position on security would affect their vote, and 62 percent said they would support a tax increase to pay for new security measures.

The support for security is so strong that the survey's respondents were apparently willing to back measures that have been sharply criticized by civil libertarians as too intrusive. About 53 percent of respondents expressed at least some willingness to repeal certain privacy laws, while 70 percent favored the legalization of more aggressive interrogation methods.

More than 80 percent of respondents indicated a willingness to carry some type of national ID card, and about 70 percent said such a card would be a useful tool to improve security. The poll also revealed support for the greater use of cameras and advanced surveillance technologies in public places, including hand and eye scanners.

Some technology experts attributed the response at least partly to a limited knowledge of technology and what it can accomplish.

"People are putting too much faith in technology," said Bruce Schneier, founder of Counterpane Internet Security. "They don't understand how eye scanners work or how authentication fits into security. They don't understand what a national ID card means or haven't read any of the studies about the effectiveness of security cameras. They're giving opinions based on superstition, not real facts."

Nevertheless, the poll's results seem to reflect a general erosion of public confidence in the federal government, a trend that began decades ago. For homeland security in particular, nearly 53 percent of respondents said the government could do more with the technology it already has.

Zoe Baird, co-chair of the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age, said the lack of faith in the government's ability to use technology was understandable, until recently. But she said recent changes in Washington have made her more optimistic.

"Over the last year, the government, at very senior levels, has finally come to terms with how technology can make us safer," Baird said. "I hope that over the course of the next year, the public's faith in government to use technology to make us safer will increase."

Party affiliations of respondents to the CNET News.com-Harris Interactive Poll spanned the political spectrum. About 32 percent said they were Democrats, and roughly 35 percent identified themselves as Republicans. Another 11 percent were registered as independents, and the rest gave no party affiliation.

Other findings in the poll:

• 80 percent expressed varying degrees of support for a closed-border policy.

• 69 percent believe that more security at home would improve the nation's diplomacy.

• 55 percent say press reports exaggerate the threat of terrorism to their security.

This survey was conducted online within the United States between Aug. 25 and Sept. 1 among a nationwide cross-section of 1,133 adults of voting age, all of whom have Internet access. The results carry a statistical sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

4 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Re: Poll reliability
An initial read of the article suggests a willingness to trade liberty for security, but 3 concerns about the poll perhaps lessen the immediate response of concern - and thoughts of an unhappy Thomas Jefferson.
Firstly, how representative is the surveyed sample of the American population? To claim a 3% variation suggests it must be representative, yet no evidence of the universality of Internet access is advanced to justify the representative claim. (Nor is there any evidence offered to indicate the results have been weighted to be population-representative - which may also be difficult if an on-line poll only.)
Secondly, the trade-offs were not described in any detail and whether they were for "the American society" in general or for the respondent personally is unclear. The difference would or could alter answers significantly beyond the apparent reliability of the claimed 3%. As an example, respondents may accept limits for "the society" in general but not for themselves personally - the right to own guns may be limied for "society in general", but would be resisted if also limited for the respondent personally as a responsible, individual citizen, for example).
Thirdly, were the respondents fairly and clearly informed of all the activities (technological and non-technological) already in place to manitain homeland security?
Were they informed what these secutity activities were protecting them from specifically, before asking their opinions of the adequacy of security measures?
If not, the questions may have been more likely to generate an attention-getting headline and interesting story, than a fair measure of citizen intent.
The answers obtained may have been based on inadequate information and the citizens responding not from an informed knowledgeable base but from imagination - perhaps even spooked imagination, depending on the exact words used, and the practice could be akin to asking what card will come up next, without explaining how many cards are in the pack, how the pack has been shuffled or how many cards have been already drawn.
Conclusion - interesting story - but the Scottish verdict - Not proven - seems more to apply than the concern displayed.
Yours sincerely,
Philip DERHAM.
Posted by derhamp (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Re: Poll reliability
An initial read of the article suggests a willingness to trade liberty for security, but 3 concerns about the poll perhaps lessen the immediate response of concern - and thoughts of an unhappy Thomas Jefferson.
Firstly, how representative is the surveyed sample of the American population? To claim a 3% variation suggests it must be representative, yet no evidence of the universality of Internet access is advanced to justify the representative claim. (Nor is there any evidence offered to indicate the results have been weighted to be population-representative - which may also be difficult if an on-line poll only.)
Secondly, the trade-offs were not described in any detail and whether they were for "the American society" in general or for the respondent personally is unclear. The difference would or could alter answers significantly beyond the apparent reliability of the claimed 3%. As an example, respondents may accept limits for "the society" in general but not for themselves personally - the right to own guns may be limied for "society in general", but would be resisted if also limited for the respondent personally as a responsible, individual citizen, for example).
Thirdly, were the respondents fairly and clearly informed of all the activities (technological and non-technological) already in place to manitain homeland security?
Were they informed what these secutity activities were protecting them from specifically, before asking their opinions of the adequacy of security measures?
If not, the questions may have been more likely to generate an attention-getting headline and interesting story, than a fair measure of citizen intent.
The answers obtained may have been based on inadequate information and the citizens responding not from an informed knowledgeable base but from imagination - perhaps even spooked imagination, depending on the exact words used, and the practice could be akin to asking what card will come up next, without explaining how many cards are in the pack, how the pack has been shuffled or how many cards have been already drawn.
Conclusion - interesting story - but the Scottish verdict - Not proven - seems more to apply than the concern displayed.
Yours sincerely,
Philip DERHAM.
Posted by derhamp (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Inplants under skin
We don't need them an all the exter cost to set this up!!
We already have a one of a kind in plant!!
It's called our EYES
Posted by leesbee (11 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Inplants under skin
We don't need them an all the exter cost to set this up!!
We already have a one of a kind in plant!!
It's called our EYES
Posted by leesbee (11 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.