4 ms·
The fact that these items were thought to satisfy your item number two, while more dangerous items did not, indicates that someone's feeding bad information to
by whatshisface 10mo ago
The fact that these items were thought to satisfy your item number two, while more dangerous items did not, indicates that someone's feeding bad information to security, or alternatively, that was not the criteria. There is also some indication of Mr. Robot style fantasies about the power of individual computers.
- kube-system 10mo agoWhat do you think is missing?
- whatshisface 10mo agoIf there was a legitimate purpose for banning SBCs (there is not), then all computers with wifi would have to be banned. The external fact is that raspis are not a security risk. The internal contradiction is that raspis are computers. It's their whole selling point - they're ordinary PCs.
- kube-system 10mo agoI don't think you understand the threat profile of a large public event. The typical threat to events like this are idiots who mimic crap they see on YouTube. Public safety isn't an exercise in evaluating every theoretical threat, because that list is too long to address with limited resources. It is an exercise in evaluating which threats are most commonly to be exploited, and the easiest to protect against. This is how you most effectively protect an event with limited resources. It is different than the theoretical threat evaluation that someone doing computer science might think about.
- whatshisface 10mo agoRaspberry pis are not a "likely threat," because they are not a threat. It's hard to get away from that fact when evaluating the absurdity of the ban.
- kube-system 10mo agoIdiots running script-kiddy exploits on any device is a threat. The list says "Raspberry Pi" because of the utility in communication to the parties reading the list, not because it is technically accurate. Cops are going to turn you away from this event if you carry in something that looks like circuit boards and wires.
- whatshisface 10mo agoA raspberry pi is a computer. It had HDMI ports on the back. You can put one in a box. Come on, man.
- kube-system 10mo agoAnd? There’s a lot of things that people could theoretically do. The few seconds that someone is going through event security isn’t going to stop a competent attacker, nor is it reasonable to expect them to be able to do that. The point is to stop the most common attackers who are sloppy idiots.
- sadeshmukh 10mo agoNo incompetent person could feasibly use a Raspberry Pi to do any harm, and I invite you to find any examples to the contrary. It is easier to abuse a phone.
- borski 10mo agoThis is the point. It is solving for the wrong problem. An idiot with a Pi or Flipper Zero isn’t the actual threat any more than Star Simpson was. And if you don’t agree the stupidity that Star was put through was absurd, then we simply won’t agree on the matter. There’s a difference between security/intelligence and theater. Too many people mistake the two, because they’ve been trained by folks like the TSA to mistake theater for security/intelligence.
- robocat 10mo agoAlso need to ban any Android phone models which can unlock the bootloader.