The liquids ban - some sanity

[christep]

This article by a security professional very succinctly describes how utterly useless the current liquids ban is. How do we get the idiots who make these rules to understand this?

And while we're on the subject this is brilliant: HK Copy News 20 by momenteye -- Revver Online Video Sharing Network

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by christep

How do we get the idiots who make these rules to understand this?

Easy: We sack all the people who have been following, watching and catching terrorists for decades.

Then we replace them with "security professionals" whose expertise seems to lie in writing books and blogging.

Now, let's sell this to Gordon Brown.

[Rainboe]

15-30. New balls please!

[christep]

Originally Posted by Globaliser

We sack all the people who have been following, watching and catching terrorists for decades.

Those would be the terrorists that were largely acquitted recently would it? And all the innocent people stuck in Guantanamo Bay?

Originally Posted by Globaliser

Then we replace them with "security professionals" whose expertise seems to lie in writing books and blogging.

Eh? Bruce Schneier's day job is Chief Security Technology Officer for BT. I don't think he merits your sarcastic quotation marks when describing him as a security professional.

The fundamental problem at the moment is that the decisions are being made by politicians as knee-jerk populist moves. As Al Gore described so well a little while ago in his book "The Assault on Reason" politicians gathering all the data and advice of experts, making rational analysis and choosing the best course of action went out of the window some time ago.

[Rainboe]

And a smart lob by christep takes the score up to 30 All!

I don't think there are many 'innocents' in Guantanamo. I happen to think many of the residents there should continue to enjoy Uncle Sam's hospitality. It's like a spa for them really. It is good for their health. They will only get up to mischief outside and quite possibly get hurt, so stay guys!

I think we are all a bit bemused by the acquittals. But then juries sometimes do funny things. They were quite plainly Guilty AH (the 'a' means 'as'). I wonder what the make-up of the jury was?

Al Gore should not lecture anybody on anything! He is totally biased and not dispassionate and not to be trusted in all this green nonsense he is flogging to death! He's actually bending the truth to flog a dodgy position. Where is global warming? I see none of it here.

[christep]

Originally Posted by Rainboe

Al Gore should not lecture anybody on anything! He is totally biased and not dispassionate and not to be trusted in all this green nonsense he is flogging to death! He's actually bending the truth to flog a dodgy position. Where is global warming? I see none of it here.

Have a look at the book - it ranges across all sorts of subjects. It's a much more balanced work than "An Inconvenient Truth" and the environment features in only one of the nine chapters. It is also pretty well referenced - there are 20 small print pages of citations at the end.

[PaperTiger]

Whoa, talk about thread drift .

Although 'drift' seems a tad mild to describe what just happened.

[ThreadBaron]

He mentioned Citations ... that's enough aviation content for me! The drift was not 'total'.

[Rainboe]

I don't listen to Al Gore. I have got angry watching him spout his half baked green nonsense. Oil is now on its way down to $50. I see they've discovered a new large field off Rio according to CNN (I had the trots in a far away place and I was desperate). All this crap spouted by those fools here of 'Peak Oil' nonsense and oil at $200.....where are you idiots now?

Score 30 All. Serve please, or penalty!

[Pax Vobiscum]

Bruce Schneier* is not only a leading expert on computer security, having written the standard textbook on the subject "Applied Cryptography" - he also writes very well for the intelligent layman, see "Secrets & Lies" (a non-technical book on computer security) and "Beyond Fear" ( general security issues post-9/11). You can read the first few pages of his new book "Schneier on Security" on Amazon, which should give you a feel for his views on the airport security 'theatre'.

* "The closest the security industry has to a rock star" according to The Register

The fundamental problem at the moment is that the decisions are being made by politicians as knee-jerk populist moves.

'Twas ever thus - at least, since we started electing our rulers. Many of our politicians (they're not all stupid) know perfectly well the 'right' thing to do, but are afraid to do it because it will lose them votes at the next election. One advantage of an unelected second chamber (I'm well aware that there are many disadvantages).

[WHBM]

One of the best applications of security policy could be seen at Houston airport recently the afternoon before the hurricane struck.

Aircraft were being told to depart by 4.00 pm because "that's when the TSA security will stop". And if you weren't through security by then you would be stuck there. So the government, the representative of the people, is quite happy to tell people that they would rather leave them to the ravages of a terrifying storm than allow them to leave the area without checking their bags for nail scissors.

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by christep

Eh? Bruce Schneier's day job is Chief Security Technology Officer for BT. I don't think he merits your sarcastic quotation marks when describing him as a security professional.

No, clearly not: I had forgotten about all those Al Qaida-backed terrorists who've abandoned the hills of Afghanistan to run around inside BT's computer systems.

I mean, just WTF does someone like him know about counter-terrorism? He's in a different field altogether. You might as well ask a taxi driver to investigate air accidents, on the basis that he happens to drive a mechanically-propelled machine. There are many valid discussions and debates that can be had about whether what is being done is pitched at the right level, but I would have thought that a pre-requisite for engaging in that is some appropriate knowledge and expertise.

As for the people who actually do the counter-terrorism stuff day in and day out, their record of success speaks for itself.

[Beer_n_Tabs]

15-30. New balls please!

Class !!!
Somtimes some minor thing can just make me laugh out loud.

[christep]

Originally Posted by Globaliser

I mean, just WTF does someone like him know about counter-terrorism? He's in a different field altogether.
{...}
As for the people who actually do the counter-terrorism stuff day in and day out, their record of success speaks for itself.

He isn't claiming to know everything about counter-terrorism - he is simply making a point about a particular part of the process which as far as I can see is absolutely indisputable. But I am happy to be proven wrong if you would care to address his point rather than dive straight into the "ad hominem" attacks.

And I'm afraid the absence of terrorist attacks does not in itself say anything at all about the success of counter-terrorist "specialists". If you had any understanding of logic that would be obvious to you. Is there some other "record of success" that I'm missing apart from locking up lots of innocent people, inconveniencing millions more and failing in the very few cases they do get to court?

The only major success I can see is to get large proportions of the population to acquiesce to "government by fear".

And finally, I would be absolutely astonished if BT isn't very closely involved in "counter-terrorism" at many levels.

[TerminalTrotter]

I Can't see the restrictions ever being lifted now. As an analogy, have you noticed the warning signs for "Z" bends and sharp curves in the UK? They stay there forever, even though the winding country lane that existed when they were needed is now a major highway, four lanes wide and superbly engineered. If the signs were removed, someone might have an accident and sue the highway authority for not giving advance warning of an acknowledged hazard, even though it no longer exists. Not a risk that any jobsworth is going to take.

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by christep

Is there some other "record of success" that I'm missing apart from locking up lots of innocent people, inconveniencing millions more and failing in the very few cases they do get to court?

Eliza Manningham-Buller gave a rare public speech on 9 November 2006, in which she said:-

Last month the Lord Chancellor said that there were a total of 99 defendants awaiting trial in 34 cases. Of course the presumption of innocence applies and the law dictates that nothing must be said or done which might prejudice the right of a defendant to receive a fair trial. You will understand therefore that I can say no more on these matters.

What I can say is that today, my officers and the police are working to contend with some 200 groupings or networks, totalling over 1600 identified individuals (and there will be many we don't know) who are actively engaged in plotting, or facilitating, terrorist acts here and overseas.

...

We are aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy. What do I mean by numerous? Five? Ten? No, nearer thirty - that we know of.

Every defendant awaiting trial has had assembled against them enough evidence, admissible in a criminal court, that is capable of convincing a jury of laymen that there is no reasonable doubt about their guilt of the offence. Ultimately, some juries are not convinced of that; but others are. That is the nature of the criminal trial process. But every defendant against whom that much admissible evidence has been assembled already represents the fruits of success of an operation.

For every defendant against whom it has been possible to assemble that much admissible evidence, there will be other individuals against whom there is insufficient admissible evidence, even though the information available leaves no doubt at all about what they have done. As you know, the gap between evidence in court and the totality of the information available is the subject of current debate, notably in relation to evidence of intercepted communications.

And, in fact, every one of those thirty plots, 200 groups/networks and 1600 individuals represents an intelligence success. These are plots, groups and people who have been found and are being watched. Some will in due course be disrupted if they are sufficiently dangerous. Others will not need to be. But that's the nature of intelligence work.

Measuring success by the superficial tabloid process of counting criminal court convictions is just facile.

My attack is not an ad hominem attack on Bruce Schneier. I'm sure he's very good at what he does.

The attack, rather, is on the false logic of taking one statement of the view of a person who does not work in the field of counter-terrorism and is not (so far as I can see) qualified to express any views about that, and of immediately accepting that as superior to the considered views and advice of those who have spent decades in the field. As I said, if you want to get the idiots who make these rules to understand the obviously superior logic of Bruce Schneier's views on this, just sack all those whose life's work is the pursuit of terrorism, and let a computer expert handle the terrorists instead.

[Gargleblaster]

Rainboe wrote:

"I don't think there are many 'innocents' in Guantanamo. I happen to think many of the residents there should continue to enjoy Uncle Sam's hospitality. It's like a spa for them really. It is good for their health. They will only get up to mischief outside and quite possibly get hurt, so stay guys!"

I would have thought that would be for a real judge / court to decide upon ?

After all, that's what democrcy is about, no ? Perhaps you don't support such arrangements ?

Or are you God ?

If so, I'm utterly un-thrilled to have met you prematurely.

[christep]

Originally Posted by Globaliser

The attack, rather, is on the false logic of taking one statement of the view of a person who does not work in the field of counter-terrorism and is not (so far as I can see) qualified to express any views about that, and of immediately accepting that as superior to the considered views and advice of those who have spent decades in the field. As I said, if you want to get the idiots who make these rules to understand the obviously superior logic of Bruce Schneier's views on this, just sack all those whose life's work is the pursuit of terrorism, and let a computer expert handle the terrorists instead.

So please would you point me to the analysis from someone who is qualified to make such analysis (with some justification for why he is so qualified) which shows how Bruce Schneier's analysis is wrong? I can find absolutely no fault in the logic. Is he perhaps making an assumption that is wrong? I can't see any.

A politician or political appointee simply asserting that it is so is not sufficient.

[Rainboe]

I would have thought that would be for a real judge / court to decide upon ?

After all, that's what democrcy is about, no ? Perhaps you don't support such arrangements ?

Or are you God ?

If so, I'm utterly un-thrilled to have met you prematurely.

Gargleblaster, we have these people in society planning mass killings. We are in a war situation. The luxury of 'real judge / court' cannot always be supplied. I am perfectly happy where significant evidence of treason exists, then these people are locked up 'for their own safety'. It's only temporary, and they are not charged for the privilege, but it keeps them, and us, much safer. The priority of preventing them hurting themselves, or us outweighs their alleged democratic rights to a trial on demand at this time. So lock 'em up please!

I'm utterley unthrilled to have met you too Sir, and very uninterested!

[christep]

Originally Posted by Rainboe

I am perfectly happy where significant evidence of treason exists, then these people are locked up 'for their own safety'. It's only temporary, and they are not charged for the privilege, but it keeps them, and us, much safer. The priority of preventing them hurting themselves, or us outweighs their alleged democratic rights to a trial on demand at this time. So lock 'em up please!

Scary stuff indeed. Are you for real or is this just a wind up?