2 ms·
Your point is valid. I was told by a high school admissions counselor, back when such topics were interesting enough to consider counter-terrorism and terroris
by 616c 13y ago
Your point is valid. I was told by a high school admissions counselor, back when such topics were interesting enough to consider counter-terrorism and terrorism research interesting (thank God I saw the light and chose different interests over time) that the graduate of my high school who went to one of the most prestigious schools in that field (St. Andrews in Scotland, if you can believe; lots of weirdos in the CT scene graduated from there because professors are field policy guys with more war stories and connections than common sense) had interesting experiences.
He ended up doing CT for the state of Illinois. His greatest concern, as told to me, was water systems. There is terribly security at water reservoirs and water utility systems, worse than nuclear powerplants and other sensitive infrastructure. The simulations they did with predicting terrorists poisoning water supplies made him lose sleep, regularly, and he was one guy in one of fifty states who was paid to focus on such things, because he, not others felt it was a priority.
At the end of the day physical and digital security are similar: no network can be 100% secure and everything is mitigation, so is living in the real world. Terrorism can be stopped and not mitigated. People who believe the opposite are the assholes who sold out and are selling out what little is left.