From: Sunder (sunder_at_sunder.net)
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 11:08:56 PDT
This is of course totally off topic, but realistically, we were supposed
to be secure after the security lockdown post TWA800. All of the measures
in place now that supposedly make us secure are worthless. Throwing more
money at the issue won't solve a thing.
The big thing that's changed between 9/10/2001 and 9/12/2002 is a
gigantic loss of privacy and freedom. Oh, that and most of the three
letter agencies got nice big boosts in their budget, which we of course
will have to shoulder with future tax increases. Kind of nice to know
that if you're a government agency, and you fail, you're rewarded with
more money; if you do a great job, you don't get an extra dime. Gee,
that's a great formula for success, don't you think?
Our friends at the NSA seem far more interested in catching the senator or
aide that leaked the translated captured phone call instructing Atta and
company to strike, than to actually prevent such events in the first
place. Our friends at the FBI are busy playing musical chairs
reorganizing rather than taking the proper measures as whistleblowers have
indicated.
Let's get back to Newtons, shall we?
----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---------------------------
+ ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
\|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/
/|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/
+ v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
--------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, James Witte wrote:
>
> > BTW, I agree that examining by hand would make more sense.
>
> Not to step on any political toes here, but..
>
> Yeah, if you think about it it would, but since when did most of the
> regulations put in palce since 9/11 really make sense. 9/11 wouldn't have
> *happened* if either 1) the guards had noticed people carrying *multiple*
> box cutters on board, and/or 2) they had been allowed a little discretion
> for people with *mutilple* under 4-inch blades. Having 1 2-inch
> pocket-knife might be okay (pre-9/11 that, exercising common sense), but
> not having 3 of them (I don't know the exact number). And while a
> box-cutter does have an under 4-inch blade, who needs a *box cutter* on a
> plane??
>
> Not that I'm terribly ungreatful for the new-found sense of urgency, but
> making a mother drink her own breast-milk to prove it's not white-colored
> poison in a baby-bottle is just absurd.. This reportedly actually
> happened. Just think, if it actually *had* been a fast-acting nerve agent
> that would diffuse rapidly (it'd have to be, unless someone wanted to
> somehow get it into the plane's air system), it probably would have
> injured a great number of people in the terminal..
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> --
> Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html
> Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
> This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net/
>
>
-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2003 - 12:59:20 PDT