On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:56:20 BST, n3td3v said: > Security threater is good because it scares potential terrorists from > being caught. It keeps the terrorists on their toes and worrying all > the time. No, it wastes lots of resources and keeps us from deploying security that actually works. There's no indication that the terrorists actually worry very much about beating security-theater policies, and plenty of indication that the security theater rules are causing *real* problems - for instance, the recent event where a pilot's gun went off in the cockpit was likely due to very poor rules on the part of the TSA: http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2008/04/12/tsa-rules-led-to-pilots-gun-firing-in-flight/ > Usually airports combine security threater and real security together, > and thats got to be a good thing, not a bad thing. Actually, there's little or no *real* security behind the theater at most airports. If there was, why is there a real and persistent problem with things like cameras being stolen from inside luggage by baggage handlers? Starting from such wrong beginnings, your essay goes rapidly downhill from there.
Attachment:
pgpw8l9iDIi3a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/