more on In-flight cellphone proposal hits static [the real issue!]

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Forno <rforno () infowarrior org>
Date: June 17, 2005 8:50:08 AM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com
Subject: Re: [IP] more on In-flight cellphone proposal hits static  
[the real issue!]



Let's not forget that the 9/11 hijackers didn't use in-flight, cross- 
plane,
air-to-ground communications to make their actions a rousing  
success.  Bob
is dead-on here about the ignorance of reality continuing to be  
demonstrated
by our Fatherland Security -- er, Department of Hysterical Security --
planners.

It continues to demonstrate that they are not only fighting the "last  
war"
and defending against the "last attack" at the expense of thinking  
outside
the box to help prevent future ones, but don't understand technology  
or the
adversary's mindset and capabilities.

Low-tech will ALWAYS be more successful form of attack against a high- 
tech
opponent.  Low-tech is an assymentrical method used against an enemy  
who's
dependent on hi-tech to perform.  Low-tech adversaries aren't caught  
mired
in the convenience and complacency that high-tech entices and creates  
in the
minds of those wielding it, and are much more adaptable to changing  
times
and situations than the high-tech folks.

Will banning cellphones on flights increase security and prevent  
terrorists
from talking? Hardly.

Remember the tactics used by retired Marine General Riper during the  
recent
"Millenium Challenge" exercise by the Pentagon....he played the role of
terrorists, and knowing that the US would use high-tech
surveillance/monitoring/jamming of communications, he resorted to bike
messengers and "old fashioned" ways of communication to coordinate his
attack.  Long story short -- his team (the bad guys) "won" -- but the
exercise planners ended up "re-floating" half of the 'good guys" Navy
because he was TOO effective and it was incomprehensible that he (eg, a
low-tech adversary) could be so successful against "THE" American  
military.

It's clear that there's a lot of hubris, ego, and conventional wisdom at
work here in what's undeniably a dynamic security environment and one  
that's
most foreign to our government and military planners who are forced to
operate within it.

-rick
Infowarrior.org


On 6/17/05 7:53 AM, "David Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:


> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>


> Fatherland security wants to ban cell phones because terrorist might
> communicate? Well, why do they allow people to assemble at all? We
> better
> revoke the constitutional right to assemble because we are now
> defined by
> terrorism. How clueless are these people -- it's like IBM's slogan
> Freedom
> from Choice. But then, if we're on a crusade. Sorry, I can't seem to
> help
> these asides but these are the clueless people who are trying to
> "educate"
> people in their mold. They can still buy other kinds of devices and
> who's
> going to notice phones being used anyway? If these people are trying
> to keep
> us safe we're fucked (another reason for banning that word)!




-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as [USER_EMAIL]
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/