From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Jul 07 2002 - 12:13:47 MDT
On Sunday, July 7, 2002, at 01:32 pm, Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, observed:
>
> <<First of all, security by obscurity doesn't work. I know that
> microsoft
> argues that open source software is dangerous and that only proprietary
> secrets can be safe.>>
>
> The kind of security that I am focusing on is less that of computer
> security, then physical security by military and non-military means,
> combined.
Understood. But even that should not conflict with "openess" and
"niceness". In fact, if airport security could somehow be made more
pleasant and the people made nicer, they probably would get more
cooperation from the public. They probably could get permission to be
even more invasive or thorough if they just could be nicer.
Although the real answer, I think, is better technology. If we could
just walk through a hallway, and have x-rays, metal-detectors, and
bomb-sniffing all be automatic, it would be a lot easier on everybody.
> My view is you are correct as long as you recognize the limits to this
> philosophy.
> For example, openess didn't seem to help last thursday. This is
> especially true when my fellow Americans have real emotional blinders
> recognizing definitive reality.
But what do you propose instead of "niceness"? Do you think that if the
airline counters are rude to people that the terrorists would just go
away? Arguing that nicess doesn't help does not show any evidence how
it hurts.
> "Niceness" may prove too nice to defend ourselves against determined
> enemies:
>
> Here is a quote to the preamble by one of Osama Bin Laden's related
> agencies:
> "
>
> Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans
>
> Finally, please read this July 2nd, 2002 article on Professor Gale at
> the University of Pennsylvania, regarding security and perceptions.
> Philadelphia Inquirer Article:
> http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/people/3585015.htm
>
> Prophet of Doom
>
> and..
>
> If Gale is right and not merely, bombastic in his analysis, then the
> USA is vulnerable, if for no other reason then it is underestimating
> its vulnerabilities.
>
I don't see what any of this has to do with "niceness". Being "nice"
doesn't mean lowering security, allowing terrorists to attack, or
underestimating the enemy. Nothing in any of your references seems to
have anything to do with niceness or openness. You seem to equate
"niceness" with "let the terrorists do what they want", but this is not
a good definition of "nice". Do you mean "permissive" instead of
"niceness"? Do you consider x-raying someone's baggage to be "not
nice"? Do you consider requiring ID to be "not nice"? I'm not seeing
the connection between security and "niceness".
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:12 MST