Re: FBOFW 9/30/05


In the previous article, Peter B. Steiger <see.sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Well, I don't mean to get into a debate over the validity or lack
> thereof of profiling, but just playing devil's avocado for a moment
> I'd be willing to assume that someone who made it as far as (for
> example) judge, congresscritter, or governor would be on my top ten
> list of people least likely to commit a terrorist act, at least
> against US property or citizenry.

While it's ridiculous to search (just to take one example from real
life) a former U.S. vice-president's hand luggage, it's equally
ridiculous to search one-armed Amish grandmothers. If you're going to
profile based on personal characteristics, then just *profile*,
already. Exempting the politically powerful from searches smacks a
lot more (as you sort of note in snipped text) of bestowing privilege
than of making security measures more focused and effective.

> Now having said that, it doesn't preclude the possibility of someone
> covertly planting a bomb on an exempt person before they board, but
> that would be some trick getting past that person's own security with
> something small enough to be concealed but big enough to do damage.

I doubt that even federal judges generally have personal security
details assigned to watch their luggage for them. Probably not many
congressmen, either.

There is a proposal floating around out there to issue special IDs
indicating a background check and a certain measure of training (e.g.,
"Keep an eye on your damn luggage") to enable frequent travellers to
bypass some portion of the TSA checks. I have mixed feelings about
that one, but I definitely hate it a lot less than exempting certain
designated public officials.

> You can't trust a chef who won't eat his own cooking.

What about a dessert chef who simply developed diabetes along the way?
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@xxxxxxxxx|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Small scissors to be allowed on airplanes
    ... >>>will be allowed on flights. ... >> intended) how foolish the whole security gig was. ... >> in my checked in luggage fearing security would remove it from my hand ... Crystal would not have shown up on the scanner. ...
    (rec.crafts.textiles.needlework)
  • Re: Small scissors to be allowed on airplanes
    ... >>will be allowed on flights. ... After all a small pair of scissors, ... > intended) how foolish the whole security gig was. ... > in my checked in luggage fearing security would remove it from my hand ...
    (rec.crafts.textiles.needlework)
  • Windows logoff bug possible security vulnerability and exploit.
    ... Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 ... I believe that it is the purpose of the OS to provide the appropriate security and the purpose of a program to do it's task and not implement the security of the OS. ... The security problem I'm discussing occurs when a user profile fails to unload during logoff. ...
    (Bugtraq)
  • Cant create new user accounts - XP Pro SP2
    ... When logging in as the new user, XP displays an error that the profile ... following Microsoft's instructions to regenerate the security database ... Open the %SystemRoot%\Security folder, create a new folder, and ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: Wierd Profile in Document Settings
    ... by a bug in how WMI security handles Unicode. ... the profile directory is because it's actually the SYSTEM profile. ... >files in any of the folders other than the standard generic ones created ... world's premier technical IT security event! ...
    (Incidents)