a cartoon artist captures some of Bruce Schneier's feelings (which many of us share) on these sorts of issues...
"I'll admit I had an OiNK account and frequented it quite often… What made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store… iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc... OiNK it existed because it filled a void of what people want." - Trent Reznor
I thought I was as calloused and cynical as I could get, but this actually made me tear up a bit in sympathy. I don't have a lot of respect for most of the TSA. Every now and then you see a good one, but by and large, those are in the smaller airports, where they are people who have to live in a community of people that know them.
I would suggest the fact that this even happened shows that this moron has done this before, and it was just this time that made it public. I don't think that the perpetrator being fired was enough.
Are you sure it just wasn't a low level of C8-H10-N4-O2?
Well, I admit to having been in the process of becoming adequately prepared for the day, but that was a pretty drastic and cruel thing to do. You can tell that I was approaching saturation, because I had sympathy for the victim, rather than the more normal violent impulse towards the perpetrator.
I actually wrote and deleted several other paragraphs, over and over, that were not work safe (although nothing people haven't heard from me before, on my way in to Coffee Wars). You're just trying to rile me up. Dammit.
By the way, I do agree. He should have been fired. Empathy for a victim is good, and violence toward the perp is perfectly normal, at least in my circles.
Thorn "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." - Catherine Aird
Holy hell things have gotten stupid. I'll post the full story later but airport security in Toronto into the us departure gates had to be the most criminally ineffecient thing and most poorly implemented thing I've seen in a while.
I definatly think now that anyone who comes up with a new rule for airport screening should have to fund the actual implimentation at the front lines because I just saw the result of a system where people are asked to fufil requirements mandated by others that they cannot and do not have the resources to impliment
If anyone can speak the lingo, I would love a translation.
I better include a "disclamer" here:
While this many seem like a funny idea as a fantasy, the reality would be much different and far from funny. So please don't anyone actually do it. Most TLA agents have little or no sense of humor.
Just hold on a second, from a security perspective, why isn't this method, though certainly controversial, have some merit as a training exercise? A terrorist using this method to introduce, and or test securities responses, is certainly in the realm of possibilities.
It reminds me of the Milgram experiment in some ways. I think people are allowing gender bias to enter into the logical equation, of does this test have merit.
How would this be different than an Infosec professional calling around their own office, trying to SE passwords from unsuspecting co-workers, for the purpose of a training exercise?
The way it should have been handled, rather than saying "just kidding". She should have been taken to the private screening area, and then been thanked and praised for being an unwilling participant in a TSA training program. A program necessary for keeping flight travel safe for everyone. She should have been told that she was a hero, and that her flight was going to held. The airline where the test was conducted, should work with the TSA, to provide these participants with a free round trip ticket to anywhere in the US. If it had been done this way, there would be no story.
As usual no one wants to compromise. I want guaranteed safe travel, I don't want to have my rights infringed upon in anyway, I want it done cheaply, and at no cost to me, rather than what can I do to help make it safe.
Just hold on a second, from a security perspective, why isn't this method, though certainly controversial, have some merit as a training exercise? A terrorist using this method to introduce, and or test securities responses, is certainly in the realm of possibilities.
It reminds me of the Milgram experiment in some ways. I think people are allowing gender bias to enter into the logical equation, of does this test have merit.
How would this be different than an Infosec professional calling around their own office, trying to SE passwords from unsuspecting co-workers, for the purpose of a training exercise?
xor
I know I'm just a terrible meanie.
No, it doesn't have merit, because you're placing someone who is totally innocent in fear of arrest and false charges. Going through airport security it stressful enough for most people, who honestly figure they'll be accused of having too much hand sanitizer, or not meeting the requirement for some other inane regulation. It doesn't matter if the victim in this case was male or female, young or old. Frankly, I didn't even think of that aspect.
Security forces have the ways an means to do blind tests on themselves. They don't need to subject totally innocent people to the fear of arrest, even if it's only for a few minutes.
Thorn "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." - Catherine Aird
I compulsively edited my post Thorn, sorry, and added some clarity.
I still feel someone who is truly innocent, as well as unaware, makes a good test subject, perhaps the purest test subject.
The way it's handled afterward is very important however. During the Milgram experiment there was extensive counseling with the staff and the actor portrayed as the test subject.
I do agree that it's controversial. There should have been a plan in place, if there was a plan at all.
Comment