3 ms·

Not so fast... Some of the people criticizing the TSA (like Bruce Schneier) are absolutely experts on security. You're also right, the analogy of IT vs the us

by blhack 17y ago

Not so fast... Some of the people criticizing the TSA (like Bruce Schneier) are absolutely experts on security. You're also right, the analogy of IT vs the users is a valid one. In this case, the IT department has told the users that they are no longer allowed to browse the web between the hours of 3:30 and 3:38 because it was during this time that somebody downloaded and installed a virus. Instead of actually addressing the root of the problem (our users can download and install viruses), the IT department has put a band-aid over it so that they can say that it has been fixed.

dugmartin 17y ago
Not that I'm disagreeing with you but I wonder what the TSA could do to address the root of the problem?
- ori_b 17y ago
  What can the TSA do? Nothing short of measures that would normally be considered draconian would be any sort of reasonable solution. Screen everyone carefully. Careful tests of everything brought aboard, if any is allowed at all. Require background checks upon passport application (or application for plane tickets). Also, have a security officer on board, with orders to shoot to kill if anyone tries any funny stuff. Of course, organizations like local police forces are in a far better position to make a difference. Better detective work, with the goal of breaking up terrorist rings and locating individuals, would certainly be an effective step to combat terrorism. As this article points out - these people are often already suspects. A reasonable solution would be to give up on complete security. Put in the obvious deterrents - a security officer on board the plane, and reinforced cabin doors that don't open for the duration of the flight. Other than that, don't worry about it. When you look at other threats like drunk driving or heart disease you should realize that our panic is misplaced.
- roc 17y ago
  That's easy. Terrorists seize/destroy planes with weapons or explosives. So to the extent that the TSA can efficiently and effectively scan for weapons, explosives and known terrorists, they should. To the extent that they can't detect certain explosives (the theoretical binary liquid concern), it's reasonable to take measures to mitigate risk. (E.g. limit quantities when feasible) Beyond that? Nothing.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Why ought the TSA do anything? (or really, why ought we to have a TSA?) There are scads of targets that ought to be attractive to terrorists: sports arenas, various tunnels and bridges, power generation and transmission, etc. None of these get anything like the security attention, despite their potential to cause far greater harm than the WTC attacks did. I have the mental picture of a building with many doors. We're putting solid steel doors, deadbolts, triple padlocks, etc., on one door, while the other entries are nothing but screen doors. This is ridiculously ineffective in cost and freedom.
sabat 17y ago
Good point about Schneier, although with a caveat: he's actually an expert in cryptography, and he has opinions about more generalized subjects in security. Quite often he's right, but I don't consider him to be an actual "security expert" in any general sense. I don't think it's actually possible; "security" is a blanket term. Bruce is dead-on right in this case. Fighting the previous war won't prevent the next one.
gfodor 17y ago
Why should I care what Bruce Schneier, an expert on computer security, thinks about airline security? Should I care what the head of the TSA has to say about RockYou's password data theft, too?

by blhack 17y ago

dugmartin 17y ago

Not that I'm disagreeing with you but I wonder what the TSA could do to address the root of the problem?

ori_b 17y ago
What can the TSA do? Nothing short of measures that would normally be considered draconian would be any sort of reasonable solution. Screen everyone carefully. Careful tests of everything brought aboard, if any is allowed at all. Require background checks upon passport application (or application for plane tickets). Also, have a security officer on board, with orders to shoot to kill if anyone tries any funny stuff. Of course, organizations like local police forces are in a far better position to make a difference. Better detective work, with the goal of breaking up terrorist rings and locating individuals, would certainly be an effective step to combat terrorism. As this article points out - these people are often already suspects. A reasonable solution would be to give up on complete security. Put in the obvious deterrents - a security officer on board the plane, and reinforced cabin doors that don't open for the duration of the flight. Other than that, don't worry about it. When you look at other threats like drunk driving or heart disease you should realize that our panic is misplaced.
roc 17y ago
That's easy. Terrorists seize/destroy planes with weapons or explosives. So to the extent that the TSA can efficiently and effectively scan for weapons, explosives and known terrorists, they should. To the extent that they can't detect certain explosives (the theoretical binary liquid concern), it's reasonable to take measures to mitigate risk. (E.g. limit quantities when feasible) Beyond that? Nothing.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
Why ought the TSA do anything? (or really, why ought we to have a TSA?) There are scads of targets that ought to be attractive to terrorists: sports arenas, various tunnels and bridges, power generation and transmission, etc. None of these get anything like the security attention, despite their potential to cause far greater harm than the WTC attacks did. I have the mental picture of a building with many doors. We're putting solid steel doors, deadbolts, triple padlocks, etc., on one door, while the other entries are nothing but screen doors. This is ridiculously ineffective in cost and freedom.

sabat 17y ago

Good point about Schneier, although with a caveat: he's actually an expert in cryptography, and he has opinions about more generalized subjects in security. Quite often he's right, but I don't consider him to be an actual "security expert" in any general sense. I don't think it's actually possible; "security" is a blanket term. Bruce is dead-on right in this case. Fighting the previous war won't prevent the next one.

gfodor 17y ago

Why should I care what Bruce Schneier, an expert on computer security, thinks about airline security? Should I care what the head of the TSA has to say about RockYou's password data theft, too?