Re: [privacy] U.S. Government to Ask Courts to Toss Phone

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Brian Loe wrote:

> On 6/12/06, coderman <coderman () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > i'm not sure i get this question; are you saying that a grandmother or
> > a small child would never be used to carry weapons by proxy?  i agree
> > that the odds are rediculously slim, but anything that plays by known
> > odds can be gamed by those odds.
>
> The odds are slim to the point of these searches being, at best, a
> waste of time.

You talk of "odds" as if this was some kind of random process. It isn't. 
There's an Intelligent Design behind the choice of who will carry the 
bomb, and if you guarantee that eight-year-old children, or 75 year old 
grannies, won't be searched, then that makes them good candidates to be 
the carrier.

> At worst, naturally, they may be a distraction from the
> stereotypical guy wearing big shoes. If they hold to an "unbiased",
> every fourth passenger (or whatever)...

That sounds like a good plan. 
 
> > i haven't flown in years and continue to refuse to do so, thus i'm
> > probably not the best person to ask about airline security tactics.
> > i'll let Bruce Schneier describe the ways most "security" implemented
> > these days is for theatrical enjoyment only.
>
> I don't fly either - probably for some of the same reasons, and
> additionally because they prevent my ability to ever protect myself in
> case of another hijacking! However, I did let my daughter go on a trip
> with a friend to Florida and we had to get a non-DL ID so that she
> could board the plane!!!! This isn't Vietnam, and my 12 year old
> daughter doesn't look a thing like a Muslim/extremist/terrorist.

But neither does little Abdul Mohammed, travelling under his legal name of 
John Sixpack.

_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy