Re: Who on funsec is in the "Main Core" database?

["John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP" <bambenek.infosec () gmail com>]

Right, because seeing who is talking to overseas terrorists is the same as
the TSA fingerbanging granny at the airport.

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:47 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 May 2008 07:18:44 CDT, Dennis Henderson said:
>
> > In the US, anything considered "taking action " or "necessary" violates
> some
> > civil or constitutional right or is leaked out by some "conscientious
> > objector". It would seem some organizations care more about keeping their
> > phone calls private than allowing the government to do its one
> > constitutionally mandated function; Protecting us from all enemies,
> foreign
> > and domestic.
>
> And exactly how far are they allowed to trample over our Constitutionally
> mandated freedoms to do it?
>
> Should the President be allowed to say "screw even the minimal oversight
> of the FISA court" and do mass wiretapping of US citizens with zero
> oversight?
> In case you didn't notice, he came out and admitted flat out that He.
> Broke.
> The. Law.
>
> Are we a nation of laws or of men?
>
> And do you *really* think that all of the "Security Theater" with trying to
> get on board a flight actually does any good, when *anybody* who has half a
> brain can get into the restricted areas of the airport?  Consider the
> following
> two items from Dave Farber's I-P list about a week ago:
>
> > From: K.E. <admin () edu-cyberpg com>
> > Date: May 12, 2008 2:49:16 PM EDT
> > To: "ip () v2 listbox com" <ip () v2 listbox com>, David Farber <
> dave () farber net>
> > Subject: Security and Pittsburgh's Airport
>
> > The airport is restricted private property but if you know someone
> > and get your name on the list and go shoot animals.
> > Video: Hunting On Pittsburgh International Airport Property
> >
> > Favorite Quotes:
> >
> > The airport should have a professional wildlife biologist on site,
> > as have many other major airports, including Philadelphia and
> > Cleveland. Those airports contract with the USDA for that service.
> > Pittsburgh does not.
> >
> > Allegheny County Airport Authority gave 28 of its employees
> > exclusive rights to hunt deer on its 9,000 acres in and around
> > Findlay Township.
> > You can carry a gun and shoot . You can even bring your friends with
> > you and no one at the airport knows who those people are.
> > http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/16192688/detail.html
> > "The airport authority allows those 28 authorized employees to bring
> > buddies along, and officials have no idea who those buddies are. We
> > do not track the names of the guests," Jenny said.
> >
> > Just how many deer live on the airport's 9,000 acres is unknown,
> > because according to a 2007 USDA document, the airport authority has
> > never commissioned a deer density survey.
> > Even without the study, the USDA says current density far exceeds
> > the recommended five-to-12 deer per square mile.
>
> Second item:
>
> > From: Vadim Antonov <avg () kotovnik com>
> > Date: May 12, 2008 6:57:15 PM EDT
> > To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> > Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Security and Pittsburgh's Airport
>
> > David -- just to make it clear - deer on the airfield are a very serious
> > safety issue. Much more serious than all terrorists in the world - the
> > likelihood of hitting a deer and wrecking the landing gear (with likely
> > fatal outcome for the pilot and passeners) is much higher than being a
> > victim of a terrorist attack. And this is not like "no one knows who
> > these people are", they have to be escorted by a cleared airport
> employee.
> > Besides, "non-authorized" personnel can easily walk onto airfield through
> > the general aviation parking and FBOs in *all* US airports. As a member
> of
> > a flying club I got codes to combination locks on gates in different
> > airports, so I can pick up aircraft during off-hours - and I didn't have
> > to go through any clearance process.  I can easily bring firearms, too, -
> > no one's looking, and it is not prohibited (i.e. one can rent an airplane
> > to go for a hunting trip).  The only "guns prohibited" signs I've seen in
> > GA areas are at the entrances to the federal facilities such as control
> > towers, radar sites, etc.  Heck, I do not even have to show my ID to get
> > keys to an aircraft, as long as I know the name under which the
> > reservation has been made, the a/c registration number, and smile nicely.
> >
> > The "access to airfield" controls are security theater, plain and simple,
> > designed mostly to impress and intimidate the sheepie. It is nearly
> > impossible (and prohibitively expensive) to secure a civilian airfield
> > against an intruder which has minimal tactical and camouflage skills (and
> > a bolt cutter, if he's too lazy to climb over the fence), so no one
> really
> > tries.
> >
> > So this article should be read as a barely covered pimping for more funds
> > to TSA (and more useless restrictions and hassle for the rest of us), and
> > not as a valid alert about some new security threat or especially lax
> > attitude of the airport administration, with obligatory anti-gun paranoia
> > mixed in for a good measure.
>
> There's an airport across the street.  There's a chain link fence around
> it.
> Nobody actually expects the fence to stop a determined human - it's only to
> stop *our* local deer from wandering out there.  And by and large, it
> works,
> as I often see deer on our side of the street, and only rarely have I
> spotted
> them on the airport grounds in the 18 years I've been working across the
> street.
>
> A chain link fence is sufficient to stop a *real* threat to many airports.
>
> What *real* threat are they stopping with the "no liquids" policy,
> especially
> when there's a lot of low-wage people that work on the other side of the
> security perimeter who can probably be bribed to sell you the *special*
> bottle of liquid that you gave him before he went on shift?
>
> Or any of the 3 zillion *other* ways to attack airport security that are
> obvious and not much is done about them because they are *HARD* problems
> to solve - for instance, there's a *really* nice queue of several hundred
> people on the *outside* of the security checkpoint, where one explosive
> device could get them all.  But that's too hard, so we'll make you remove
> your shoes and belt and throw out your bottled water and lighters - but you
> can take your laptop on board, complete with all of the improvised weaponry
> that you can make with it:
>
> A broken CD shard has nice sharp corners, probably works just as well as
> boxcutters, and we know how well *those* work.
>
> Anybody who's carrying around a 3-5 foot Ethernet cable has a garotte.
>
> The lithium battery is a *much* more interesting fire source than anything
> you could have cooked up with liquids in the bathroom.  Oh, and did anybody
> mention that most of the interesting liquids require you to *sit there and
> watch it* for a half hour or more?  Meanwhile people are gonna be banging
> on the door...
>
> If all else fails, the battery and a sock make a nice improvised
> blackjack...
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.