4 ms·

>> they wouldn't even tell him what they had found > Because they believe in the flawed concept of security through obscurity No, it's rather common sense act

>> they wouldn't even tell him what they had found > Because they believe in the flawed concept of security through obscurity No, it's rather common sense actually. If a suspect wanted to blow something up, he would never admit he has the chemicals he has with him (because he wouldn't be sure that the cops have actually detected that chemical, and not made some other mistake that will let him go through). But if the cops tell him what they've found, then he'll know he's screwed, and will try to make up an excuse. On the other hand, if he admits what the chemical is himself (probably with a proper excuse), chances are that he's probably innocent, and they'd let him go. So, telling him what he's being accused of having actually makes it harder for him to get himself out of the mess plausibly.

mistercow 13y ago
I find your reasoning that the terrorist "would never admit" anything about the real chemicals. If he used ammonium nitrate, he can easily say "I was using some fertilizer in my garden". If he used gunpowder, he can say "I was at the shooting range earlier", or "I was setting off fireworks with friends last night". If neither of those are what they found, they're still normal-sounding excuses that a person might give. He can give a long list of innocuous chemicals with those thrown in, and you won't have any way of distinguishing his story from that of an innocent person. But if the terrorist hasn't thought this far ahead, then his excuse is probably not going to be very good. Tell a person exactly what you found, and you might catch the terrorist off guard and be able to tell that they're lying from the weird excuse, while a normal person will either say "I don't know where that would have come from", or would actually have a plausible excuse. It's still not a very useful question even in that latter case, but it's marginally more useful if you actually name the chemical.

mistercow 13y ago

I find your reasoning that the terrorist "would never admit" anything about the real chemicals. If he used ammonium nitrate, he can easily say "I was using some fertilizer in my garden". If he used gunpowder, he can say "I was at the shooting range earlier", or "I was setting off fireworks with friends last night". If neither of those are what they found, they're still normal-sounding excuses that a person might give. He can give a long list of innocuous chemicals with those thrown in, and you won't have any way of distinguishing his story from that of an innocent person. But if the terrorist hasn't thought this far ahead, then his excuse is probably not going to be very good. Tell a person exactly what you found, and you might catch the terrorist off guard and be able to tell that they're lying from the weird excuse, while a normal person will either say "I don't know where that would have come from", or would actually have a plausible excuse. It's still not a very useful question even in that latter case, but it's marginally more useful if you actually name the chemical.