Terrorist attacks are inherently unpredictable but we have to try to stop them. Chemical sensors in cellphones might help
THE tragedy in Norway serves as a shocking reminder that terrorist attacks don鈥檛 always follow the script. Like the 1995 Oklahoma City bomb, the knee-jerk reaction to the explosion in Oslo was to point the finger at Islamist militants, presumably carrying out a revenge attack for Norway鈥檚 role in Afghanistan. Only later did it emerge that the culprit was in fact a home-grown militant.
The inherent unpredictability of terrorist attacks makes it incredibly hard for security services to protect us. Who would have considered Oslo a likely target? The security services have doubtless foiled many plots that could have killed and injured large numbers, but as the recent attacks demonstrate it is impossible to stop every one.
Advertisement
Technology may help. Researchers are working on a system that hitchhikes on the cellphone network to provide an extra layer of vigilance (see 鈥淪martphone surveillance: The cop in your pocket鈥�). The idea is to use small, cheap and unobtrusive sensors mounted on smartphones to monitor the environment for chemicals such a nerve gas, and automatically alert the authorities to anything suspicious. Although superficially similar to fixed networks of chemical sensors being installed in some US cities, the fact that the sensors would be widely distributed on smartphones carried by millions of people makes it more robust.
Of course, phone sensors would be powerless against a gunman on a shooting spree. As it stands they would not have detected the presence of a fertiliser bomb of the type believed to have been used in Oslo, though the developers told 快猫短视频 that it should be possible. But sensors would have given early warning of another out-of-the-blue atrocity, the 1995 sarin attacks in Tokyo, Japan, and would also be able to detect other types of bomb such as 鈥渄irty鈥� nuclear devices.
鈥淪martphone-based sensors would be able to detect some out-of-the-blue atrocities鈥�
It is tempting to dismiss such schemes as paranoid attempts to neutralise a threat so small that it is hardly worth the effort. It is true that an individual鈥檚 chance of being caught in a terrorist attack is tiny compared with the threat of, say, dying in a road accident. Yet the apparent randomness and dreadful impact of terrorist attacks demand that every effort be made to prevent them.