If that's the motivation then this is the worst possible response. A ridiculous overreaction with a significant risk that after all this DNA/surveillance/facial recognition/manpower hubbub they don't catch them.

It is without question the motivation.

This simple act has embarrassed an entire industry, including countless highly-paid public officials; the very same people who determine how much resource is dedicated to soothing their bruised egos.

So imagine the police response is this: "Silly prank, we could certainly identify them if we tried, but it's not worth taxpayer money."

All it takes is one person to then point out that if security had been good enough to catch actual terrorists, the suspects would have been caught before or during the act. Then not only is a chunk of the post-9/11 security apparatus exposed for the security theater it is, but the cops look lazy and stupid too.

I understand the easy logic of "oh, but what if they were terrorists", but at the same time, it makes no sense. If you want to blow up a bridge, you don't put explosives at the top of the pillars. You drive an explosives-laden truck to the base, you get out and you leave in a second car. There's nothing anyone can do unless you wait too long to detonate your explosives.

The point is, you cannot prevent all terrorism on home soil through police enforcement. You can choke certain points like airports by doing person-by-person inspections, but you can't do much for land-based transportation infrastructure with millions of autonomous attack vectors. Terrorism is best prevented through political actions.

But that's true no matter what they say. Overreaction can't negate the original foolishness.

At least the current response indicates that the NYPD understands the rough operational equivalence in being able to catch terrorists vs being able to catch people who switch out flags on bridges. IOW, they recognize this as a problem (even though it's unsolvable, hence the reason for security theater rather than actual measures that would prevent terrorism).

The majority of people are probably indifferent to this. But for some reason those people who wouldn't mind NYPD not wasting money on this investigation are less vocal or less influential or something compared to the pro-security-state advocates whose position is "OMG could have been terrorists!" The latter may be mostly bureaucrats in power (perhaps the reason for the overriding influence of this paradigm) worried about it for job security reasons, but the motive doesn't matter.

>The latter may be mostly bureaucrats in power (perhaps the reason for the overriding influence of this paradigm) worried about it for job security reasons, but the motive doesn't matter.

Go talk to some ordinary people sometime and behold how easily swayed they are by cable news soundbites and shit they heard from whatever trusted idiot in their social circle they happen to take seriously for no reason at all. Be sure to have some drugs at the ready for after you're done - you'll need them.

No, it isn't just bureaucrats claiming they could have blown up the bridge. If it were, the FBI wouldn't be gearing up for a nationwide manhunt to track these people down.