Bruce Schneier | |||||||||||||||
Schneier on SecurityA blog covering security and security technology. « Business Models for Discovering Security Vulnerabilities | Main | Random Observation from the RSA Conference » February 6, 2007Dave Barry on Super Bowl SecurityAlso, if you are planning to go to the Super Bowl game on Sunday, be aware that additional security measures will be in effect, as follows: Back in 2004, I wrote a more serious essay on security at the World Series. Posted on February 6, 2007 at 7:31 AM • 14 Comments To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter. Speaking of security at sporting events, did you hear about the suspension of all football matches in Italy following the death of a policeman at a match? Posted by: Benny at February 6, 2007 8:39 AM Does anyone know if they still frisk every attendee entering the stadium at regular season football games? I know they did it a year or two ago, I'm wondering if they did it this season. Posted by: mpd at February 6, 2007 9:18 AM Haha, please tell me joking about the "tail-gating terrorists". Posted by: TeesMyBody.com T-Shirts at February 6, 2007 10:35 AM I'm all for security satire, but for once I must disagree with you, Bruce: Dave Barry has never been funny. Posted by: Anonyhmous at February 6, 2007 10:45 AM I don't know why Dave Barry thinks that Superbowl security has been improved, but in Italy, the cause is definitely quite real, and related to extremely violent supporters (a.k.a. hooligans). The British hooligans are well-known, but they are all over Europe. In the past few months, several clubs, for instance in Netherlands and in France, got in trouble because of their supporters. Making the clubs liable for their supporters is a good idea, and I believe it more or less follows the general ideas that we like on this blog. Now, how to do it is another issue. Clubs are likely to check ID's, install surveillance cameras, and many more interesting security measures. Nevertheless, stadium security is becoming a big problem in Europe, and the solution is far from obvious. Posted by: Eric at February 6, 2007 10:53 AM Eric, There's nothing here to suggest that Dave Barry actually thinks Super Bowl security has been improved: he's making fun of (a) security theatre, and (b) Prince. Posted by: Vicki at February 6, 2007 11:01 AM Has security really become so bad that people can no longer tell the difference between Dave Barry and serious government officials? Posted by: Michael Ash at February 6, 2007 11:46 AM Perhaps if Mr. Barry has used Lite Brites to get his message across, it would've been taken more seriously. (At least in Boston, anyway) Posted by: Tom at February 6, 2007 2:24 PM All we need for proof that the terrorists have won, is for good men to be forced to use Lite Brites to communicate! Posted by: bobechs at February 6, 2007 8:32 PM Dear Anonyhmous, You clearly show you are a terrorist by the fact that you have no sense of humour. I, on the other hand, nearly wet myself every time i read Dave Barry. We will be sending Prince around join you shortly - you deserve each other. Posted by: Paul at February 7, 2007 4:21 AM Re: "Elect Dave Barry!" Dave usually runs. Typically his platform involves e.g. improving urinal safety (to defend the public against exploding urinals). Looks like even Dave has to fearmonger about _some_ threat, though, to be fair, there have been more urinal explosions than Super Bowl terrorist attacks... Posted by: Corey at February 7, 2007 9:26 AM Here's a description of a Super Bowl prank that involves moving a couple of vanloads of stuff through security: http://www.zug.com/gab/index.cgi?... Posted by: Mark at February 15, 2007 3:44 PM With regards to Mark's reference to zug.com, everything is true. Ask NFL security. Why no-one takes this serious is beyond me. What if terrorists spelled a message instead of four comedians? Posted by: Johnny P. at February 19, 2007 9:11 AM Post a comment
Powered by Movable Type. Photo at top by Steve Woit.
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT. |
|
Comments