Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • January 20, 2026 6:17 AM

@ Bruce, ALL,

From the article quote we see,

“This isn’t a high-security government facility. It’s Beverly Hills High School.”

Two points to note about this,

1, This is nothing to do with security but it is all to do with liability.
2, People do respond well to social engagment, but they rebel against anti-social treatment.

The first is a firm of,

“Externalising liability by excercising faux best practice.”

The assumption made at a higher level is that,

1, They will have some liability event.
2, They will be sued or in otherwise have punitive action taken against them.
3, They can give the appearance of having made a threat assessment and followed “best practice” within the limits of allowable behaviour and resources.

The fact they have no actual plan other than “faux best practice” for “appearances sake” tells you that it’s actually worse than “Security Theatre”.

Why worse well because of the social V anti-social. You treat people like criminals incarcerated in a panopticon then they will believe they are seen as criminals, and unsurprisingly behave like criminals to “spite the system” etc.

In short whilst people mostly do not object to being “socially visible” because untill very recently the visibility was both limited in reach and ephemeral, thus often forgotten by others or not even come to their attention. However most people do object strongly to being “spied upon” especially with systems that record and can be replayed copied and transmitted without limit. In people with developing but still fragile personalities being spied upon by cameras and similar can have really damaging psychological effects.

Now it really does not matter who you blame for the all to predictable outcomes, it’s the process that is in place in most cases that causes such events to happen.

It does not matter if you call it a “Chilling Effect”, “Stigmatising Effect”, or “Outcasting Effect” the result is for sufficient a “Traumatising Effect” to cause ostracism thus induce a “Sabotage Effect” against those seen as part of the ostracizing system,

Outcasts and saboteurs: Intervention strategies to reduce the negative effects of social exclusion on team outcomes

…

“… [A]ntisocial responses to social exclusion can arise in the form of aggressive or vengeful acts, pursuit of risky or self-defeating behaviors, or becoming a disengaged “social loafer”. Antisocial responses to rejection may serve as attempts to rebalance a thwarted psychological need for control over one’s environment. These reactions might be especially likely in scenarios that do not prompt a strong motivation for reinclusion in the group.”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8101916/

[I have many other references if people feel that one is insufficient.]

Clive Robinson • January 23, 2026 6:28 AM

@ Gideon,

With regards,

“I suspect it also is the result of the US seeing education as simply educating people solely for the workplace vs educating for life in society in parallel.”

It’s actually a bit more than that.

The US education system is very non inclusive compared to other Western Nations. But worse is the relentless pushing that people should be against “social” behaviour patterns, and in effect claiming they are in some manner defective.

The notion of “rugged individualism” is a way that every one has to follow to not be a failure in life is plainly nonsense.

What it is actually all about is enforcing issolation to stop collective action thus making power and control over individuals easier.

That is a person who is in effect isolated has in reality “no rights”. As they can not defend them, it is after all why bullies hunt in packs. Because you as an individual can not defend your self against half a dozen simultaneous attackers with just you bare hands and most of your attackers in effect behind you where you can not block their attacks.

It’s why you will see people deemed unworthy by their supposed peers in effect “hugging walls” as they sit or move around. When your back is against the wall you can not be attacked from behind you, and only two or three can attack you from the front. The only problem you have is staying on your feet and maintaining your balance whilst protecting vulnerable areas of your body.

There was a manual written around a century ago that became the basis for a later book that was called “All in Fighting”. Written by Capt W.E.Fairburn who had been in the Colonial Police in Hong Kong where routinely often unarmed police officers were attacked by gangs of tong members using knives and similar lethal easily concealed weapons. His system of unarmed combat was based on his research into oriental fighting skills that went back centuries.

As the book was filled out for WWII commando training it contains rather more than “unarmed self defence”. The book is still being published and is available via Amazon at quite a low price.

What it teaches an individual is to many quite shocking but the original basics of “unarmed self defence” will teach an individual a lot about how to stand move and pick your ground.

Fun thing to note, it’s why in the UK many schools have after school Martial Arts clubs and include it in sports training. Originally the idea was to “prepare boys for combat” but by the 1970’s it hand been found that it had better benefits for pupils.

So today most do not know of Fairburns book, and the influance it had on education. But many teachers kind of point pupils that are likely to be targets of bullying towards the martial arts clubs. Because they teach a pupil so much more as they “train for competitions”, self discipline and reliance along with social responsibility. I learnt judo when at school in the 70’s by an Olympic coach. It was a sport for which I was not well suited because I was the tallest in my year and most other years… Several decades later my son got taught the Korean martial art taekwondo which is more appropriate for a tall person “with reach”, and it was quite scary watching them compete even during training sessions.

Schools that do this tend to have lower rates of bullying, and acts as common ground to the notion of “team” or “tribe” even though it’s an individual sport. Thus it reduces social isolation and improves self confidence.