6 ms·

The fact that potential terrorists know that the security in the US is so high is most likely stopping many from attempting attacks in the first place. You als

by rick888 15y ago

The fact that potential terrorists know that the security in the US is so high is most likely stopping many from attempting attacks in the first place. You also can't say they've never caught a terrorist. There have been many stories on the news in the past couple of years about the TSA catching potential terrorists. It reminds me of all the Y2K people that said: "See, nothing happened. Everything was fine!" When 1000s of man hours went into preventing computer problems. "terrorizing millions of citizens" I suppose your definition of terrorism includes checking your shoes and belongings for contraband. I've flown a lot in the last couple of years and the security is a pain-in-the-ass, but necessary. I would rather be safe in this situation. The US has many enemies.

wnight 15y ago
But the security isn't necessary. It doesn't stop trivial attacks we could come up with on here, and it's not meant to, it's meant to pacify people like you who demand SOMETHING be done. We'd be safer without the theater because we'd know what was going on. Also, the freedoms we lose to this useless security aren't worth the trade-off. They wouldn't be even if the security worked, let alone with it being unworkable and counter-productive.
- rick888 15y ago
  "It doesn't stop trivial attacks we could come up with on here" Show me an attack that's happened in the last 10 years. "it's meant to pacify people like you" I feel like you are on the side of the terrorists. If not, they love people like you. You fight for your right to have more security holes in our system. As a developer, it would be like saying that I want to fight for no firewall and updates because it slows down the process of development and makes things to complicated. "But the security isn't necessary. It doesn't stop trivial attacks we could come up with on here, and it's not meant to, it's meant to pacify people like you who demand SOMETHING be done." How do you know? It's not like you can go back in time and change security to see if we have less attacks. "Also, the freedoms we lose to this useless security aren't worth the trade-off. They wouldn't be even if the security worked, let alone with it being unworkable and counter-productive." Okay, so if we do take all the security precautions away and there are attacks, can we hold you (and everyone that wants this) personally responsible? It's kind of like when I've argued with ex-girlfriends in the past: They keep fighting and fighting on a certain subject..I let them see the error of their ways (usually with bad consequences)..and in the end, I get blamed anyway. If the error means any deaths, I don't want to take that chance to show you I'm right. I would imagine you would then still blame the US government instead for their foreign policy. It's not useless security and it's very selfish of you to demand less security simply because you are inconvenienced. yes it means a little less freedom, but it's for your own good.
  - hdctambien 15y ago
    Technically Airport security missed Umar Farouk the "Underwear Bomber" It was an unsuccessful attack, but that was due to his incompetence more than any security measures that were in place. There was also Richard Reid the "Shoe Bomber". He falls into the "last 10 years" but arguably is the reason we have to take our shoes off now.
    - rick888 15y ago
      ..and if we had no security, would it be any better? I'm shocked at all the anti-security people here on HN. Do you also have no password on you wireless connection and pay for goods online with no SSL? I would really like to see if the people downvoting have any security precautions in place in their daily lives. If so, they are a little hypocritical.
      - wnight 15y ago
        > I'm shocked at all the anti-security people here on HN. Only by your misconceptions of useful security, and how it can be cobble together from unrelated and broken parts. > Do you also have no password on you wireless connection Of course I don't have a password on my wireless. Otherwise how could anyone who needed a connection use it? Sheesh. The only reason to fear someone on your LAN is because you aren't secure. If you job involves deploying anything Internet facing you can't rely on a firewall to keep the bad people away. >I would really like to see if the people downvoting have any security precautions in place in their daily lives. Of course we do. I look both ways before crossing the street, I don't burn candles unattended, I fix all visible "broken windows", and I don't use any measures that don't offer at least a fair bit of protection in the given context. Weak layers are a distraction and a problem, to you. > If so, they are a little hypocritical. Not at all. You'd probably (hopefully) object if I came to your house and replaced your smoke detector with a unicorn detector and a bad-stuff detector, even though you now had twice the number of security devices as before. If you understand why you'd object to those you'll start to understand why I object to what you see as security measures. > ..and if we had no security, would it be any better? YES! Than fake security, I mean. If we had no security we'd know it and we wouldn't take pictures we didn't want seen, or write email we didn't want read. A realistic view is always preferable.
quanticle 15y ago
Before 9/11, there were even more flaws and even fewer terrorist attacks. Most of the people DHS has caught as "terrorists" are only defined as terrorists because of a broadening in the legal definition of terrorism.

by rick888 15y ago

wnight 15y ago

But the security isn't necessary. It doesn't stop trivial attacks we could come up with on here, and it's not meant to, it's meant to pacify people like you who demand SOMETHING be done. We'd be safer without the theater because we'd know what was going on. Also, the freedoms we lose to this useless security aren't worth the trade-off. They wouldn't be even if the security worked, let alone with it being unworkable and counter-productive.

rick888 15y ago
"It doesn't stop trivial attacks we could come up with on here" Show me an attack that's happened in the last 10 years. "it's meant to pacify people like you" I feel like you are on the side of the terrorists. If not, they love people like you. You fight for your right to have more security holes in our system. As a developer, it would be like saying that I want to fight for no firewall and updates because it slows down the process of development and makes things to complicated. "But the security isn't necessary. It doesn't stop trivial attacks we could come up with on here, and it's not meant to, it's meant to pacify people like you who demand SOMETHING be done." How do you know? It's not like you can go back in time and change security to see if we have less attacks. "Also, the freedoms we lose to this useless security aren't worth the trade-off. They wouldn't be even if the security worked, let alone with it being unworkable and counter-productive." Okay, so if we do take all the security precautions away and there are attacks, can we hold you (and everyone that wants this) personally responsible? It's kind of like when I've argued with ex-girlfriends in the past: They keep fighting and fighting on a certain subject..I let them see the error of their ways (usually with bad consequences)..and in the end, I get blamed anyway. If the error means any deaths, I don't want to take that chance to show you I'm right. I would imagine you would then still blame the US government instead for their foreign policy. It's not useless security and it's very selfish of you to demand less security simply because you are inconvenienced. yes it means a little less freedom, but it's for your own good.
- hdctambien 15y ago
  Technically Airport security missed Umar Farouk the "Underwear Bomber" It was an unsuccessful attack, but that was due to his incompetence more than any security measures that were in place. There was also Richard Reid the "Shoe Bomber". He falls into the "last 10 years" but arguably is the reason we have to take our shoes off now.
  - rick888 15y ago
    ..and if we had no security, would it be any better? I'm shocked at all the anti-security people here on HN. Do you also have no password on you wireless connection and pay for goods online with no SSL? I would really like to see if the people downvoting have any security precautions in place in their daily lives. If so, they are a little hypocritical.
    - wnight 15y ago
      > I'm shocked at all the anti-security people here on HN. Only by your misconceptions of useful security, and how it can be cobble together from unrelated and broken parts. > Do you also have no password on you wireless connection Of course I don't have a password on my wireless. Otherwise how could anyone who needed a connection use it? Sheesh. The only reason to fear someone on your LAN is because you aren't secure. If you job involves deploying anything Internet facing you can't rely on a firewall to keep the bad people away. >I would really like to see if the people downvoting have any security precautions in place in their daily lives. Of course we do. I look both ways before crossing the street, I don't burn candles unattended, I fix all visible "broken windows", and I don't use any measures that don't offer at least a fair bit of protection in the given context. Weak layers are a distraction and a problem, to you. > If so, they are a little hypocritical. Not at all. You'd probably (hopefully) object if I came to your house and replaced your smoke detector with a unicorn detector and a bad-stuff detector, even though you now had twice the number of security devices as before. If you understand why you'd object to those you'll start to understand why I object to what you see as security measures. > ..and if we had no security, would it be any better? YES! Than fake security, I mean. If we had no security we'd know it and we wouldn't take pictures we didn't want seen, or write email we didn't want read. A realistic view is always preferable.

quanticle 15y ago

Before 9/11, there were even more flaws and even fewer terrorist attacks. Most of the people DHS has caught as "terrorists" are only defined as terrorists because of a broadening in the legal definition of terrorism.