Brussels attacks: restrain and rethink

Without downplaying the tragedy and pain of the human loss in Brussels this morning, an over-reaction by governments would not represent a healthy response.

Doubtless, security measures around major public traffic points, such as larger stations and airports, will be scrutinised again in coming days and weeks. However, over-bearing methods would only heighten public tension, frustration and anxiety.

This in turn would make the jobs of security officers more difficult, as they can only protect the public with the public's goodwill and willing cooperation. If that implicit contract of trust were to break down, terrorists would have wreaked an even greater and more lasting level of havoc.

A measured increase in security personnel on the ground may be the right approach, but authorities will also need to look at maximising the use of new technologies.

The emergence of big data analytics, powered by cloud-based super-computers, has meant that patterns of destructive behaviour within human networks can often be identified before they breed action.

Meanwhile, increasingly sophisticated biometric readers, of the type now built into "social robots", might also be employed to highlight potentially suicidal figures within a crowd.

Here again, however, any overreaction would only breed tensions. Security forces face an unenviable task of walking the tenuous line between the demands of surveillance and the ethics of privacy.

We must also keep in mind that no amount of technology will ever rule out the truly wildcard event, which is low in probability but high in impact. Our growing digital engagement can fool us into thinking that technology gives us more control over life's twists and turns than is actually the case.

Today's events in Brussels also remind us of the failure of political correctness as either a way of thinking or a government policy.

Without for a moment diminishing the responsibility of mass murderers in Brussels, Paris and elsewhere, I think it's time we acknowledged that the political correctness of the 1990s and early 2000s has failed us. It attempted only to paper over what many commentators had foreseen were vast cultural gaps within diverse cultures.

One could take this line of thinking too far, of course. I am not arguing that we have brought these attacks upon ourselves, or that tolerance ought not to be our goal in an increasingly globalised and multicultural age.

My point is that tolerance should not mean that we abandon or apologise for our heritage and core values.