Comments

ConfusedAsUsualJanuary 7, 2010 6:35 PM

Maybe some should explain the concept of NP-complete to the TSA and the president..

P = NP, right?

Stefan W.January 8, 2010 12:24 AM

We are implementing a christian security: It looks as if we have to make sacrifies, to protect us from terror. It's not a rational, calculated reaction, but something with big ceremony done, visible, and arguing about its usefulness isn't wanted.

Bring your offer to the god of airports. Don't ask why.

Clive RobinsonJanuary 8, 2010 3:43 AM

Just heard on the UK's BBC Radio 4 "Today Program" an X senior of the DHS being interviewed...

First of he talks about "beefing up US airport security" whilst apparently ignoring the fact that US airport security could have done (little or) nothing to stop Cptn Underpants and Cpl Hotfoot.

A little further in the interview he came out with a solution to this. All countries would have to beefup airline security, and that other countries would have to pay for it. He then moved onto the issue of poor countries who could not afford such systems and how these same "other countries" (ie not the US) would have to pay the poor countries.

Now if you are in the US I can understand a few of your "red necks" etc comming out with such an idea (let's be honest it's not the first time). But those who where at senior level in one of the largest of US Agencies?

However those of you who think a little further might want to consider the problem a little further...

For instance in the UK may of our "red neck" equivalent people think it's a US made problem that only effects the US or those that have anything to do with th US and "What you sow, as you shall reap". There is also a large contingent sugesting in one way or another that the US is a problem the UK could do without (anti-war co-alition etc).

In Continental Europe it's not just the "red necks". A very sigificant number of people including politicians are whole hartedly sick to the back teeth with what is seen as the "US Problem".

I have a feeling that a proposal that Europe and other supposadly affluent countries (ie the "other countries") hand over significant resources to "poor countries" would not be popular at any time.

But a suggestion by the US to hand over what are now very scarce resources that these "other countries" need to repair their economies since the US started banking colapse are going to go down faster than a lead ballon. Even if they are not real policies of the current administration many will jump on them as a US "hidden agenda".

And if you live in the US ask yourself, does the US realy need to put the backs up of these "other countries". Esspecialy when the US is reliant on them for boarder control prior to touch down?

Now the less obvious bit. What happens if these "other countries" say no they are not going to hand over their scarce resources to other nations (ie the "poor countries") just to make the US boondongle of DHS/TSA policies more extensive more ineffective and bleed other nations dry for what is a "US Problem".

The typical US response as seen after the 9/11 attack is to get heavy with other nations and say "you will do this".

However these "other countries" are not going to be bullied much longer the US influance is wayning very rapidly with these countries. Why because many can say "We told you about X and you let him in". And thus they can all say "sort your own mess out first".

But that is not so with the "poor nations" who are currently economicaly dependent on the US directly or indirectly.

But for how long?

China has just overtaken Germany in the Exporter league.

Further China is known to have zero respect for IP / Copyright / etc and their government activly encorages their businesses to "rip off IP". How often do you hear the expression "Chinese Knock Off" (google it if you are not sure ;)

Now have a think about the "Green Wall" (rip off IP) and the "Great Firewall of China" to activly control the "Information sphear" of the people of China etc.

Now think about a major difference between China and the US, China very definatly takes "the long view" politicaly and economicaly. The US however appears like a drug addict to be incapable of seeing beyond "the next fix" not just politicaly but economicaly as well (banking crisis etc).

Thus China is investing heavily in these "poor countries" essentialy to get sufficient "influance" to turn them into vasal states both economicaly and politicaly. But importantly via "Information Control" technology...

This is at a time when real aid from the US and "other countries" to "poor countries" is not existant. That is the G7/G20/etc come out with bold statment, but in reality as the poor nations know it worse than "hot air", it's "poisonous hot air".

Thus who is going to give/supply the new airport systems to the "poor countries"?

It is yet another Oportunity for China to "step up to the plate".

Do you realy want the Chinese Government to build and install and operate the "airport systems" in these "poor countries"?

Thus China essentialy being responsable for US boarder control either directly or indirectly?

We have already seen China "step up to the plate" in various "poor countries" not just with major infrestructure projects but with edducation and Internet technology thus starting to get a grip on these countries "Information Supply".

Oh and if you are still not convinced about this sort of thing think about Cuba.

Castro was not a Communist, but US Policy forced Castro and thus Cuba into the willing arms of the USSR/CCCP first economicaly and thus having got Cuba "hooked" further in terms of military systems (think about the Bay of Pigs etc) for defence and finaly to the "Cuban missile" problem...

Sometimes the US cannot help making a rod for it's own back as do other countries. But the US appear to have such a short sighted view since the 1950's they repeatedly turn a problem that might be fixed moderatly easily at a later date into a significant problem that is almost impossible to fix in a life time and thus goes on to become a nightmare not just as the ghost of "Christmas Past" but also the ghost of "Christmas Future"...

aikimarkJanuary 8, 2010 7:50 AM

A bumper sticker from The Daily Show (Wed 1/6):

A Failure to Connect;
Not a Failure to Collect

ShaneJanuary 8, 2010 2:32 PM

This particular 'attack' (the underwear man) has left us all with some fairly handy quotes from the folks-in-charge that directly contest the so-called justification for ubiquitous data mining.

Haha, but what am I saying... How often do the history books speak of an empirical power relinquishing their all-seeing-eye after they've finally obtained it?

PackagedBlueJanuary 9, 2010 3:29 PM

Connecting the dots is very important today.

You know something is up when the game is to deal with the dots in the sky.

HJohnJanuary 11, 2010 9:57 AM

Part of the problem is the nature of politics. Whatever one does, the opposition frames it as nefarious.

Argument 1: President Bush/Obama didn't connect the dots (nevermind that they didn't have the information or the resources or, to be blunt, the legal authority/power).

Argument 2: President Bush/Obama is having a power grab / being a tyrrant / bypassing the constitution / being B-A-D (nevermind that this is the only way to connect those same dots that they were raked over the coals for not donnecting before).

Those two are largely mutually exclusive. It's like writing up an IT staffer for not detecting something, then writing that some staffer up for reviewing the logs necessary to detect something because its a power he best not have.

JimFiveJanuary 12, 2010 2:36 PM

I think the big issue with this attack was highlighted by The Daily Show. This was the EXACT SAME attack as Richard Reid. A single man flying from a European capital to a US Capital on a one-way, cash paid, ticket with no checked baggage has a PETN bomb concealed in his clothing.
--
JimFive

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Co3 Systems, Inc..