4 ms·

And to sort of extend my point. We always laugh at CEOs/CTOs when they fail to provision money/resources for security software and security measures in organiza

by canistr 13y ago

And to sort of extend my point. We always laugh at CEOs/CTOs when they fail to provision money/resources for security software and security measures in organizations. That, instead of paying for security up-front, they wait until after a disaster to respond with security measures. In this case, by criticizing the spending of scanners as a deterrent to potential plots, are we not playing the part of CEO who complains about a small security expense as opposed to waiting until after a disaster to respond?

ctdonath 13y ago
The crux is what constitutes "small security expense". Locked hardened cockpit doors are cheap. Arming pilots is cheap. $1B for a fleet of marginally effective scanners isn't cheap. When the cost of security exceeds the cost of what's being protected, the solution need be reconsidered.
betterunix 13y ago
Keep in mind that we are equally critical of CEOs and CTOs who spend money on the wrong things e.g. the classic "We have antivirus software installed, therefore we are secure from hackers!" AV software does nothing to protect your network from a vulnerability in sendmail. Similarly, the nude scanners would have done very little to stop the 9/11 hijackers, whose weapons were simple and equivalent weapons could be improvised from items that anyone can find on the other side of a checkpoint. Whatever we were doing in August 2001 to stop less-determined attacks was working back then and would work equally well today. The simplest conclusion is that whatever else is being done to stop a 9/11-style attack is working, and that the checkpoints are just a distraction. Not that we should be surprised by that. The TSA was going to allow people to carry small knives through the checkpoints, and noted that you are already allowed to carry far more dangerous items through -- except for box cutters, because of their appearance. Then there was an outcry from people who are terrified of knives being on airplanes, and so the policy change never happened. With that kind of logic, it is a stretch to say that the checkpoints are keeping us safe.

by canistr 13y ago

ctdonath 13y ago

The crux is what constitutes "small security expense". Locked hardened cockpit doors are cheap. Arming pilots is cheap. $1B for a fleet of marginally effective scanners isn't cheap. When the cost of security exceeds the cost of what's being protected, the solution need be reconsidered.

betterunix 13y ago

Keep in mind that we are equally critical of CEOs and CTOs who spend money on the wrong things e.g. the classic "We have antivirus software installed, therefore we are secure from hackers!" AV software does nothing to protect your network from a vulnerability in sendmail. Similarly, the nude scanners would have done very little to stop the 9/11 hijackers, whose weapons were simple and equivalent weapons could be improvised from items that anyone can find on the other side of a checkpoint. Whatever we were doing in August 2001 to stop less-determined attacks was working back then and would work equally well today. The simplest conclusion is that whatever else is being done to stop a 9/11-style attack is working, and that the checkpoints are just a distraction. Not that we should be surprised by that. The TSA was going to allow people to carry small knives through the checkpoints, and noted that you are already allowed to carry far more dangerous items through -- except for box cutters, because of their appearance. Then there was an outcry from people who are terrified of knives being on airplanes, and so the policy change never happened. With that kind of logic, it is a stretch to say that the checkpoints are keeping us safe.