3 ms·

i don't get why this is on hn. and to take the article example, if there is a chemical plant producing critical / dangerous products, it should be taxed by the

by mtw 18y ago

i don't get why this is on hn. and to take the article example, if there is a chemical plant producing critical / dangerous products, it should be taxed by the government accordingly; with the taxes spent on security

bootload 18y ago
"... i don't get why this is on hn. ..." Situation awareness. Vigilance is required in an era of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare Schneier is simply highlighting that what appear to be safe, reliable everyday industrial chemicals can in fact be used against civilians. For example check the disruptions of unintentional chemical spills in my own home town, Melbourne ~ http://www.google.com.au/search?q=melbourne+toxic+chemicals http://www.google.com.au/search?q=melbourne+toxic+chemicals then consider the effects of intentional use in a large city. With a bit of forethought this can be minimised. While the obvious chemicals like fertilisers (Ammonium Nitrate) are now controlled (you need to apply to purchase large quantities) chemicals manufactured or stored in large concentration are a potential weak spot and should be systematically plugged with minimum security guidelines.
anamax 18y ago
"should be taxed accordingly"? In this universe, the company will pay off the politican and some odd amount of taxes will then be used to pay for the Robert Byrd rest stop, with the maintenance contract given to a company who employs some pol's idiot son as a lobbyist. Or, someone else will pay off the politican and the taxes collected will far exceed the cost of reasonable security. The rest stop with maintenance contract will still happen as before. The only diferece is that the rest of the money will be pissed away somewhere else. (The maintance staff might get snazzy uniforms.) Never confuse "should' and "will" or "intent" and "effect".

by mtw 18y ago

bootload 18y ago

"... i don't get why this is on hn. ..." Situation awareness. Vigilance is required in an era of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare Schneier is simply highlighting that what appear to be safe, reliable everyday industrial chemicals can in fact be used against civilians. For example check the disruptions of unintentional chemical spills in my own home town, Melbourne ~ http://www.google.com.au/search?q=melbourne+toxic+chemicals http://www.google.com.au/search?q=melbourne+toxic+chemicals then consider the effects of intentional use in a large city. With a bit of forethought this can be minimised. While the obvious chemicals like fertilisers (Ammonium Nitrate) are now controlled (you need to apply to purchase large quantities) chemicals manufactured or stored in large concentration are a potential weak spot and should be systematically plugged with minimum security guidelines.

anamax 18y ago

"should be taxed accordingly"? In this universe, the company will pay off the politican and some odd amount of taxes will then be used to pay for the Robert Byrd rest stop, with the maintenance contract given to a company who employs some pol's idiot son as a lobbyist. Or, someone else will pay off the politican and the taxes collected will far exceed the cost of reasonable security. The rest stop with maintenance contract will still happen as before. The only diferece is that the rest of the money will be pissed away somewhere else. (The maintance staff might get snazzy uniforms.) Never confuse "should' and "will" or "intent" and "effect".