4 ms·
"What you're advocating is bordering dangerously into the realm of "security through obscurity" - a very bad principle to base any kind of security on." I don'
by larrys 14y ago
"What you're advocating is bordering dangerously into the realm of "security through obscurity" - a very bad principle to base any kind of security on."
I don't believe that is what I am saying. I'm saying you are less of a target if you are "nobody" than "somebody".
Would you agree that it is proper to have more security in place at an event like the Boston Marathon or a major league baseball game or when the prime minister visits then the dance recital at the local school?
- laumars 14y ago> I don't believe that is what I am saying. I'm saying you are less of a target if you are "nobody" than "somebody". But that's exactly what security through obscurity is! > Would you agree that it is proper to have more security in place at an event like the Boston Marathon or a major league baseball game or when the prime minister visits then the dance recital at the local school? If you must use that crude analogy then please remember than In the UK we've had terrorists blow up random buses and trains (7/11) and attack town centres on otherwise uneventful days (IRA). In America there has been frequent shootings at schools without the need for high profile dignitaries visiting. So your own example proves my point that being a seemingly low profile target doesn't mean that you're safe from attack.