4 ms·

There's a difference between "secrecy" and "security", and when people complain about how releasing some information would hamper / endanger lives, they mean th

by munin 12y ago

There's a difference between "secrecy" and "security", and when people complain about how releasing some information would hamper / endanger lives, they mean that some amount of secrecy is involved in protecting stuff. Computer nerds often don't understand Kerckhoffs's law this way. The security of a system should not be dependent on obscurity, but some amount of security will depend on secrecy, i.e. your private key / password. So for example, the list of all confidential informants is kept secret. The release of that list of informants would "hamper the department's ability to conduct operations and endanger the lives of New Yorkers", in addition to endangering the lives of the informants themselves. Does that mean that it is dependent on "obscurity", or, secrecy? Yes, but that is the way it always is. There will be some information that if disclosed could result in bad things happening. "Education in science" won't help with this basic fact about the universe. Of course, whether or not these vans genuinely represent information that should be kept secret, who knows. Often people believe that too much information should be kept secret, and when you're talking about information in a free society, we probably should accept some danger over granting someone power, but that seems to be a minority opinion...

spiritplumber 12y ago
If someone is shooting ionizing radiation at me, on purpose, without my permission, I want to know about it. Especially since I am helping pay for it. If it was me doing it to them, it'd be assault.
- munin 12y ago
  Yes. Although there are a lot of sources of ionizing radiation being shot at you, and it generally works out. I'd be worried more about the fourth amendment.
  - briandear 12y ago
    The fouth amendment concern is particularly valid. This amounts to a search as there is penetration into one's protected property and no probable cause exists just by virtue of being in public. A passive detector, on the other hand would be completely reasonable, such as a radiation detector because the material being detected is being emitted, basically being broadcast, while invasive detectors are actually 'entering' the area being targeted. My question is, how many bombs have been discovered? What's the success rate? Probably close to zero; otherwise they'd be trumpeting their successes all over the media to justify further expansion of this type of search. It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. I'd rather have a hijacking once per decade and go back to the pre 9-11 airport security system than go through a proverbial strip search every time I fly. 9-11 didn't happen because of a catastrophic failure of airport security: it was a failure on multiple levels -- from immigration enforcement, intelligence failures, etc. El Al screening methods are most effective, but TSA's political correctness has then treating an 85 year old black woman from Birmingham with the same level of scrutiny as a 23 year old from Egypt with Yemeni entry stamps in the passport.
    - SamReidHughes 12y ago
      > It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. That's the whole point. Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly -- because by all reports, people that are more "terrorist-looking" do get screened more thoroughly and frequently find themselves subject to "random" inspection.
      - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        >Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. Perhaps you'd be interested in purchasing one of my patented elephant whistles. I haven't heard of a single customer who's been the victim of an elephant attack while carrying one. Keep yourself and your loved ones safe for a very low price!
        SamReidHughes 12y ago
        We have already seen attacks that were stopped because of airline security. One example is Richard Reid, who had to resort to an unusual apparatus in order to get his bomb onto the plane. This resulted in the failure of his attack, which otherwise would have had most likely succeeded.
        1stop 12y ago
        He boarded in Paris... so the TSA had very little to do with it... He went through the "normal pre TSA" security... so you are actually disproving your own point...
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ1a0ymGCKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ1a0ymGCKA
      - 12y ago
- nullc 12y ago
  > it'd be assault Terrorism is the trendy thing.
  - olefoo 12y ago
    Are you saying the NYPD, the DHS and the NSA are terrorist organizations that benefit from terrorism? Be careful. Expressing that opinion openly and convincing others of its truth is ThoughtCrime. And could lead to your being extraordinarily rendered to a country that would torture you; or to your being tortured by agencies allied to those named above.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I suggest not comparing secrecy and security directly. I suggest the real misunderstandings are the difference between secrecy and privacy, between vulnerability and security.
tightfleece 12y ago
According to Kerckhoff, "A [crypto]system should be secure even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge." If any amount of your security depends on hiding how the system works, you have a broken system (according to said law). Nobody is arguiung that the van passcodes or personnel files should be disclosed; those specifics are immaterial. We are asking that how the system works, and how that is evaluated, be made public, and be placed under scrutiny. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe this system does anything but provide a vector for corruption.
- uxp 12y ago
  Additionally, the court is not asking for the schedule and routes of the vans to be released. Knowing where a security guard is at any given time is much more useful than knowing that security guard's name. I don't think that really falls under the obscurity part, but I could be wrong.

by munin 12y ago

spiritplumber 12y ago

If someone is shooting ionizing radiation at me, on purpose, without my permission, I want to know about it. Especially since I am helping pay for it. If it was me doing it to them, it'd be assault.

munin 12y ago
Yes. Although there are a lot of sources of ionizing radiation being shot at you, and it generally works out. I'd be worried more about the fourth amendment.
- briandear 12y ago
  The fouth amendment concern is particularly valid. This amounts to a search as there is penetration into one's protected property and no probable cause exists just by virtue of being in public. A passive detector, on the other hand would be completely reasonable, such as a radiation detector because the material being detected is being emitted, basically being broadcast, while invasive detectors are actually 'entering' the area being targeted. My question is, how many bombs have been discovered? What's the success rate? Probably close to zero; otherwise they'd be trumpeting their successes all over the media to justify further expansion of this type of search. It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. I'd rather have a hijacking once per decade and go back to the pre 9-11 airport security system than go through a proverbial strip search every time I fly. 9-11 didn't happen because of a catastrophic failure of airport security: it was a failure on multiple levels -- from immigration enforcement, intelligence failures, etc. El Al screening methods are most effective, but TSA's political correctness has then treating an 85 year old black woman from Birmingham with the same level of scrutiny as a 23 year old from Egypt with Yemeni entry stamps in the passport.
  - SamReidHughes 12y ago
    > It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. That's the whole point. Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly -- because by all reports, people that are more "terrorist-looking" do get screened more thoroughly and frequently find themselves subject to "random" inspection.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      >Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. Perhaps you'd be interested in purchasing one of my patented elephant whistles. I haven't heard of a single customer who's been the victim of an elephant attack while carrying one. Keep yourself and your loved ones safe for a very low price!
      - SamReidHughes 12y ago
        We have already seen attacks that were stopped because of airline security. One example is Richard Reid, who had to resort to an unusual apparatus in order to get his bomb onto the plane. This resulted in the failure of his attack, which otherwise would have had most likely succeeded.
        1stop 12y ago
        He boarded in Paris... so the TSA had very little to do with it... He went through the "normal pre TSA" security... so you are actually disproving your own point...
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ1a0ymGCKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ1a0ymGCKA
    - 12y ago
nullc 12y ago
> it'd be assault Terrorism is the trendy thing.
- olefoo 12y ago
  Are you saying the NYPD, the DHS and the NSA are terrorist organizations that benefit from terrorism? Be careful. Expressing that opinion openly and convincing others of its truth is ThoughtCrime. And could lead to your being extraordinarily rendered to a country that would torture you; or to your being tortured by agencies allied to those named above.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

I suggest not comparing secrecy and security directly. I suggest the real misunderstandings are the difference between secrecy and privacy, between vulnerability and security.

tightfleece 12y ago

According to Kerckhoff, "A [crypto]system should be secure even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge." If any amount of your security depends on hiding how the system works, you have a broken system (according to said law). Nobody is arguiung that the van passcodes or personnel files should be disclosed; those specifics are immaterial. We are asking that how the system works, and how that is evaluated, be made public, and be placed under scrutiny. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe this system does anything but provide a vector for corruption.

uxp 12y ago
Additionally, the court is not asking for the schedule and routes of the vans to be released. Knowing where a security guard is at any given time is much more useful than knowing that security guard's name. I don't think that really falls under the obscurity part, but I could be wrong.