From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Jul 16 2002 - 20:15:39 MDT
On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 08:20 pm, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> I don't like gambling with my life, and prefer to get rid of such
> gambles wherever possible.
>
> ### Yes, me too but all too frequently I don't have enough money to pay.
Agreed. There has to be balance, as you point out.
> This means I would like to see all bags
> scanned in airport security.
>
> ### How much (in $$ and travel time) are you willing to pay?
Not as much as you might think, which is why I stress technology and
efficiency. I think good automated security technology is cheaper and
more reliable than human guards profiling passengers and conducting
random searches. Our goals are pretty much in agreement, and only our
methods differ.
> ### No contest here. But poverty is reason enough to accept risks. The
> smallest ones you can afford.
Agreed.
> ### So where do you buy 100 suicide bombers? I'll believe it when I see
> it.
The same place you buy 19 suicide bombers, unfortunately. Anywhere that
religious or political dogma overcomes logic. Anywhere that a cause
becomes more important than truth and reason. Anywhere that the ends
justifies the means. Everyone is getting organized these days, and
terrorist groups are no different. United movements are the wave of the
future.
> ### Now we are getting somewhere. Looks like you agree that trust is
> good
> but even better if supported by additional measures. This is what I
> wanted
> to express in my posts here.
Yes, we seem to be pretty much in agreement on the fundamentals.
> ### Exactly. Almost full agreement - you can also afford some trust "on
> credit", and verify later, especially if the stakes are small.
For small stakes, this is easy. I am willing to risk the small stakes
to "trust" strangers. It is cheaper and easier to forgo the small
stakes and not try to secure every minor transaction. I don't require
security in these circumstances.
> ### I wouldn't rely on trust where stakes are high and recovery not
> possible. In the airport, just as you do, I want the best security I can
> afford, period. But in many other situations (checking in to a well-run
> motel chain, buying a known brand of cereal, etc. etc), it's good to be
> able
> to trust others - it really saves a lot of time and aggravation.
This agrees exactly with my point. Where security is critical, we want
the best. "Trust" is fine in friendly low-stakes situations where it is
not a big deal to lose a little. This sounds fine to me.
-- 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 - 09:15:29 MST