Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • January 12, 2010 5:22 AM

@ Ron Salvi,

“Seems we get obsessed with one thing and take for granted the fact the in other areas of crime all we can expect is that law enforcement does its best.”

Hmm I think it is the fear of “rare spectacular events” or whatever else people want to call it.

Look at it this way,

1, Somebody is killed or injured no mater how it’s “news worthy”.

2, The more people effected etc the more news worthy it becomes.

3, For natural events or accidents people say “they come in three’s”

Why would (3) that be?

The simple answer is as an event happens more frequently (especialy in a short time period) the less newsworthy it becomes.

The thing about (3) is “Act of God” (AOG) for natural events. For instance a mud slide that kills very many people may not even get mentioned if one preceading it was more “news worthy” for some reason.

Thus for AOG events that happen close together each one only gets news prominance if it was bigger or better than the last one…

The rule of “three’s” is actually a reflection of the boredom threshold of humans as seen by those reporting the news…

With Acts of Man (AOM) a similar rule applies if they are perceived as “Accidents”. Or they are carried out by many ordinary people (drink driving etc). This is because there is realy no one person or group to blaim.

The more events of this type the less they get reported. Thus even minor but very rare events get reported initialy, whilst almost every day events don’t (drink drive road fatalities).

Likewise there appears to be rules about “perceived distance”. That is a serious road accident in your town will get reported on the local news and maybe in news services adjacent to the “event area”, but it has to be particularly spectacular (or nasty) for it to make National news coverage. To be international there is 1st/3rd world bias.

All these effects can be considered the “curse of the familier” and can have important consiquences for PR types looking to get rid of a story (hence the outrage in the UK when a Government Ministers Advisor explicitly said in an E-Mail that it was a good day fore releasing bad news due to a particular news story occuping the news headlines.

“Familiarity Breads Contempt” and unless there is a single focus point for AOM events they just become one and the same. Hence the “Need for Osama Bin Laden” or “Sadam Hussain” by the GWB administration to keep otherwise un-newsworthy events in the spot light.

As an example for motoring there have been a couple of occasions when normaly un-newsworthy stories became newsworthy, one involved cars suffering problems with gas tanks in rear end shunts, another in cornering involving particular tyres etc. The reason there was a “target” to go after and people could say “Oh My God not another XXX, for Gods sake don’t get in an XXX” to those they know and love.

Believe it or not even terrorisum becomes un-newsworthy after a while. In Europe in the late 60’s through to the late 80’s various political or extrimest organisations where blowing up things and people, kidnapping others and holding them to ransom.

During the 80’s the PIRA had a “mainland bombing” campain simply because their NI bombs where not getting much attention in NI and none at all in the UK Mainland.

I happened to live and work on the outskirts of London but in different quadrants so had to “go in and come out” of central London by public transport. The first couple of “PIRA transport inferstructure bombs” caused chaos and fear. However within a month people where being told off by their employers for being late to work simply because of a “bomb scare”…

I knew the world had gone compleatly mad when I was told off buy my boss of the time (Mr Chris Patel) because when one part of the network was closed by the authorities I took positive action by using a much more circuitous route and was half an hour late. Apparently it was my fault because he as a car driver living in another part of London had an “easier” journey in that day thus it must have been my fault…

Clive Robinson • January 13, 2010 5:19 AM

@ Apalled,

“And yet, I heard yesterday that 3/4 of people polled thought the full body scanners were a good idea.”

The trouble with these “polls” like referendms is the “question” you are asked to answer yes or no to and in what “choice pre-forming” context…

For example, if I asked a person in the street,

“Madam, have you heard about the 200 people on an aircraft who only escaped death when a man with a bomb in his underpants was stoped from detonating it by the chance action of another passanger… Can I ask you do you think a full body search which would have stoped the bomber getting on the flight, Is a good idea for passangers to prevent being killed by terrorists on your flight?”

Would get a “yes” response close to (the desired) 100%

However if the question was,

“Madam have you heard that the screening procedures for those who are to use full body scanners that produce near naked pictures of you.. does not rule out them being opporated remotely by peadophiles.. Would you alow such people to scan you or your children at the airport and produce a near naked picture that can be easily enhanced and made available on the Internet?”

Would get a yes response close to (the desired) 0%.

You don’t need to be as obvious as this, there is the old sales mans “ask yes questions first” trick that works plus many more.

Thus it is not the question, but the way you ask it and in what “choice preforming” context the questioner decides…

Which brings us around to,

@ Chris Schmidt,

“In this day and age you should give everyone even children full body cavity searches at our airports and that’s just the price you have to pay for going up. LOL!!!!”

Which would prevent terrorists using “prefrence profiling” to avoid having their weapon of choice being discovered…

However the question is would the “airlines” alow it..

The airline sales model is kind of,

1, Economy covers the flight cost.
2, Business makes the profit.
3, First class makes a loss but justifies Business prices and gives frequent flyer incentives to get customer loyalty.

If familes etc stoped flying then the important “economy travelers” would nolonger cover the flight costs which would push Business flight costs up when business flights are already falling due to economic presures…

Untill recently the airlines have been pro many TSA procedures as it externalises their risk and thus saves money whilst also increases their profits by stoping private ticket transfers (from which they do not profit) thus getting a cancalation fee and seat re-sale at much higher price. It also stoping “carry ons” of food and fluids and thus alows the airline to charge significantly more for drinks etc to be sold to pasangers…

Clive Robinson • January 13, 2010 4:08 PM

@ Paul,

“ANY use of nuclear, toxic, or biological agents against a national of the United States or within the United States”

Err no you are making the same “you’re defining “weapon of mass destruction” in a more limited sense than the law” if you go back and read what you posted again.

Basicaly there are those “reasonable opinion weasle words” tucked away in there of,

“921(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. ”
“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector…”

The important bit is,

“921(C) any combination of parts… …(B) any weapon that… …through the release, dissemination, or… …their precursors;”

With,

“921(A)(vi) device SIMILAR TO ANY of the devices described in the preceding clauses;”

That is an eger beaver just has to argue “SIMILAR TO” which is a very very subjective starting point. Then winding it back trough “any combination of parts” to “their precursors”

Thus putining it the other way around,

If you have a jar of home made meat paste, it can be argued that it is actualy for the hidden production of botulinus toxin (the toxins “precursor”). And that a jar has been used for easy weaponisation (you just need to drop it to break it after all) thus it can easily be used as a component “part” in a weapon “similar” to those in 921(A).

Or as the jar has a diameter of more than 1/2 inch he could argue under

“921(B) any type of weapon… …which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter”

Is the “projectile” to be “expeled” “by the action of an explosive or other propellant”. The “propellant” is that bottle of camping gas (propane) or petrol/gas, the igniter is that peizo device in the pocket lighter and the gun “barrel” made from the plastic water pipe from the roof guttering and the propellant burn/expansion chamber is one of the 1/2 gallon paint tins under your stairs you have left over from decorating.

Then just to add the icing to the cake they just have to find a few potatos that have gone green and your store of tabaco to say you where also going to make “Green Potato and Nicotien poison” oh and that bag of raw kidney/chillie beans you have in the cupboard along with one or two bits under your kitchin sink are to get another poison…

That is you don’t have to have that much around your house to be capable making and thus chargable of posession of WMD.

Oh and if you think I’m making this up, some of it (potatos kiddney beans) where the reason used to arrest and detain for long periods some people in the UK under anti-terror laws…