Re: Quote of the Day: Bruce Schneier

["Dennis Henderson" <hendomatic () gmail com>]

On 5/17/07, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 08:42:02 CDT, Dennis Henderson said:
>
> > These(terror attacks) are carefully planned and the perpetrators may lay
> low
> > for years waiting for the right time to strike. I think he mistakely
> > compares "rare" to one-shot-premeditated-carefully-planned" attacks. So
> we
> > shouldn't discount the rarity of terror simply because it doesnt happen
> > every day.
>
> A bit of thought will show that for planning purposes, these are in fact
> essentially identical.
>
> > Someday hopefully Bruce will dare to prescribe a solution to all our
> risks
> > instead of just arm-chairing decisions made by the government and
> > organizations around these rare risks. So Bruce, what do we do instead
> of
> > banning box cutters? </rhetorical sentence>
>
> Umm.. if you bother paying attention to Bruce, you'd notice that he HAS
> been trying to tell us what to do instead.  As you note:
>
> > If the media wouldn't make so much of these rare incidents when they
> occur
> > and if ambulance chasing lawyers wouldn't lead the charge to sue for
> every
> > little misstep that is made when these events happen, its likely that
> cooler
> > heads would prevail and security measures would  be better thought
> through
> > and implemented. Security measures that really work instead of the
> current
> > theatrical ones.
>
> Cooler heads often prevail out in industry, because "ROI" tends to
> mitigate
> most of the stupider ideas in time (it's not perfect, and some stupid
> things
> manage to survive, but a good CFO is probably security's best friend...)
>
> However, out in the political arena, this won't happen as long as The
> Great
> Unwashed are voting.  You can propose a *lot* of different "fixes" for the
> "problem" of terrorism, but *none* of them will work until you address the
> base problem, which in the case of the US is that:
>
> a) Fundamentalist Muslims find our lifestyle and culture insulting.  Most
> of
> them would be quite happy to let us rot in our own country if we let them
> run
> their country the way they want to.
>
> b) We insist on exporting our lifestyle and culture.
>
> Now, given those two setup points, how can you *possibly* expect a good
> outcome
> from us invading not one, but two sovereign countries and installing a
> puppet
> regime that we selected?
YHBT!!!

:)

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.