Slashdot Mirror


What Examples of Security Theater Have You Encountered?

swillden writes "Everyone who pays any attention at all to security, both computer security and 'meatspace' security, has heard the phrase Security Theater. For years I've paid close attention to security setups that I come in contact with, and tried to evaluate their real effectiveness vs their theatrical aspects. In the process I've found many examples of pure theater, but even more cases where the security was really a cover for another motive." swillden would like to know what you've encountered along these lines; read on for the rest of his question below. swillden continues: "Recently, a neighbor uncovered a good example. He and his wife attended a local semi-pro baseball game where security guards were checking all bags for weapons. Since his wife carries a small pistol in her purse, they were concerned that there would be a problem. They decided to try anyway, and see if her concealed weapon permit satisfied the policy. The guard looked at her gun, said nothing and passed them in, then stopped the man behind them because he had beer and snacks in his bag. Park rules prohibit outside food. It's clear what the 'security' check was really about: improving park food vending revenues.

So, what examples of pure security theater have you noticed? Even more interesting, what examples of security-as-excuse have you seen?"

1,114 comments

  1. Frist Posty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Airports... Need I say more?

    1. Re:Frist Posty? by seededfury · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just got back from TRAFFIC court.... I had to go through security very similar to the airport so I could walk up to a window which was 15 feet from the front door. I walked through the front door, five feet later I was being scanned, searched and forced to return to my car because my 1 inch pocket knife was a threat, then when I got past that crap I had to stand in line and wait to talk to someone behind a window. I saw no rational reason for any of this...

      Traffic court is now very "secure"

    2. Re:Frist Posty? by dondelelcaro · · Score: 5, Informative

      Traffic court is now very "secure"
      That's generally because it's in the same building as family court. For those who don't know, family court is way more dangerous than criminal court.
      --
      http://www.donarmstrong.com
    3. Re:Frist Posty? by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well you could have mentioned the POTUS, vPOTUS, WH-Staff and USA Congress.

      The theatre, orchestration, acting, drama, tragedy, comedy (though sick/dark) for the past five-plus years has been pure theatre with little or no security.

      Patriotic Treason Theatre by politicians, dogmatist, and fools.

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    4. Re:Frist Posty? by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      An airport story from before 9/11. In 1997, I was going through security and had my key chain confiscated because it had a .44 cartridge on it. I tried to explain that the mounting drilled through where the primer used to be, that the powder was missing, and that the bullet being loose from the casing really showed that the cartridge was unusable, but they wouldn't let me through. I always suspected that one of the guards just thought it was cool and wanted it for himself.

      Another theater, though not in the airport. The security theater that I just learned about last night was MS's Information Rights Management. No_Ax_to_Grind was going on and on on ZDNET about how a lack of IRM made OO.o useless for him, and that he could send someone a document and keep that person from forwarding it or even reading it until he gave permission.

      I was intrigued, so I looked it up. From the description, it appears to be a system which only works when everyone is using MS Windows (with the Rights Management Services Client Service Pack 1!) and Office 2007. Other respondents who seemed to know about it said that the protection is simply a tag which non-compliant office suites simply ignore.

      What a joke.

    5. Re:Frist Posty? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      Don't forget the Department of Homeland in-Security.

      Truly, that is theatre.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    6. Re:Frist Posty? by octagonamassador · · Score: 0, Troll

      I regularly eat goats and barnacles, and I can confidently say the only good defense is spending as much as you can on commercial antivirus and firewall products. Because they won't get in.

    7. Re:Frist Posty? by xenobyte · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nope.

      Airports are pure Security Theater. The checks are far from perfect but all the hassle and the absurd details (shoes in the carry-on scanner, the stupid small liquid bottles etc.) make for a great show. They really doesn't do much but it's cumbersome and annoying so it must be really efficient...

      The facts are that you can make bomb that can down a jetliner with less than 200ml of liquid, you can hijack a jetliner (then kill the pilots and fly the plane into a building or two) using materials that would not show up on any of the current scans.

      If you work at an airport you can place as many big bombs in the cargo hold as you like because the security is all shell and no depth, and the shell has holes... the background checks are shallow (journalists with simple fake identities have been able to get jobs at airports with full access to otherwise secured areas) and does not take into account neither 'sleeper agents' nor sudden radicalization post check.

      So yes, airports are one of the worst cases of Security Theater.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    8. Re:Frist Posty? by ozbon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My own favourite on this was when I recently visited Heathrow.

      Went through all the security theatre no problem - along with all the warnings about knives, blades, shampoo, etc. etc.

      Had something to eat - and what was on the table? A steak knife.

      So I've gone through all the security where I can't take knives etc., then as soon as I'm through security I'm trusted with a proper knife, and that I *won't* take that on to the plane?

      Pure theatre.

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    9. Re:Frist Posty? by jurik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually the liquid prohibition in airports do serve a purpose. It is the perfect customs barrier.

      You cannot buy any local beverages and take with you because they will most likely break due to the low temperatures in the luggage compartment if you put it in the checked in luggage, and if you put it in the hand luggage security will throw it away.

      This means that if people want to take liquor etc. home they will have to buy it at the last connecting airport thus increasing revenue. Also all airports on the way (plus airlines that sell beverages on board) will recieve extra income from water sales etc.

      So instead of buying a cheap and good champagne locally in France for instance, you are forced to buy an expensive non-local champagne in the airport.

      And the really cool twist: We are doing it for security, so you - the traveller - must pay for all the security checks through your ticket and airport tax costs!

    10. Re:Frist Posty? by internewt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I went through Gatwick in February, and there's big signs and bins to get people to leave any liquids and bottles. I proceeded to down a 500ml bottle or sprite, leading to only a few very load belches, and oh-so accidentally spilt the contents of the other bottle on the floor and down the bin so I could keep the empty bottle (that didn't look against the rules).

      Once we were though the scanners and shit, we had the wait by the duty free.... where they sell bottles of water and fizzy drinks along with the rest of the crap they pedal.

      It was obvious that BAA (the major airport operator in the UK) are using security as an excuse to increase profits. Take people's drinks away under some jumped-up pretext, and then have the punters pay for drinks from BAA controlled shops. I had spotted the scheme when I heard about the liquid ban, so thats why I made a mess and kept a plastic bottle: they waste money paying someone to clean it up, and I have a bottle I can fill with tap water rather than have my wallet taken advantage of.

      On the way home from Bulgaria, my friend had his bag searched.... they didn't like the bottle of aftershave in the bag that he'd bought on the way out. Nor did they like his 2 litre water bottle. But they checked the volumes, and the flamable aftershave was allowed but the water wasn't!!

      And that's the worst thing I think about the fucking joke security in airports: they sell bottles of nearly pure ethanol just before you can get on a plane, but take away bottles of water, toothpaste, creams....

      Hell, if a crackpot wanted to take down an aircraft they could start some very nasty fires in a plane with aftershaves and perfumes or bottles of very strong booze they bought in duty-free.

      Oh yeah, if bottles of water, scissors, aerosols etc. are so dangerous, then why in airports do they insist on showing us big bins of what has been confiscated? The contents of some of those bins would burn rather dangerously, and I'm surprised I haven't heard of a case of someone dropping a burning book of matches into one of them.

      --
      Car analogies break down.
    11. Re:Frist Posty? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yup. Simply wait for the in flight dinner, takethe steak knife and stab a few people and head for the door. if you put all your weight into it you will bust it in without effort and your buddy behind you that was acting like he was trying to stop you to deter passengers from helping, stabs the pilot while you stab the copilot. All done, the airline supplied you with the weapons you need.

      REal solution? 2 guys in flack jackets with fully automatic machine guns. get up and threaten anyone you get a face full of bullets. Even if you had 8 terrorists on a plane they will NOT try to take it if they see two fully armored and armed military experts on the plane.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Frist Posty? by quixote9 · · Score: 1

      Airports. Airports, airports, airports. So much theatre it's hard to know where to begin. One thing that struck me on a recent trip -- nothing to do with Terror(tm) for a change -- was how long the seat belt sign stays on. That's supposedly for "safety." On a perfectly clear, calm day, at 35,000 feet, we're supposed to believe that the seat belt sign stays on for our sake? Puh-leeze.

    13. Re:Frist Posty? by bobcote · · Score: 1

      For some reason my tall blonde wife is always being singled out for "extra security". A couple of years ago we were taking a short flight from RI to MD when they decided her little Swiss Army knife with the two inch blade was a threat. (This after letting the guy with the tool bag, containing screwdrivers, go without question.) Maybe they thought she was a Swiss terrorist? At least they let me mail the knife to our house. In the meantime they swabbed her purse for chemicals. They let her proceed onto the plane with her knitting needles and long scissors. I guess they are sending a message to all the other 40 something women out there not to try anything - they will be caught.

    14. Re:Frist Posty? by Fishbulb · · Score: 1

      I got a dose of this just recently.

      My checked bag had: 2 bottles of soap (20oz, 16oz), a bottle of shampoo (16oz), a bottle of saline contact solution (20oz), and shaving cream (gel, really). All in a plastic bag with my "Quattttro Extreme!!" razor, and a fingernail clipper and toenail clipper.

      Hell, I figured, they wouldn't take 'em if they're in a checked bag in the inaccessible cargo hold!

      How wrong I was. They went straight past all those bottles and my razor, and extracted my clippers.

      Never mind the Swiss Army Cybertool 34 I had in the back pocket of the exact same bag.

      WTF.

      Theatrical Security Asshats

    15. Re:Frist Posty? by kermyt · · Score: 1

      REal solution? 2 guys in flack jackets with fully automatic machine guns. get up and threaten anyone you get a face full of bullets. Even if you had 8 terrorists on a plane they will NOT try to take it if they see two fully armored and armed military experts on the plane. Good idea... then you just have to trust the two asshats with guns. but how about this... just give everyone on board a gun fastened under the seat between the padding and the flotation device and advertise that fact in the in flight safety brochure. Anytime you can add guns or military force to a situation it automatically makes everything all better. So add _alot_ of guns and make it a picnic!
    16. Re:Frist Posty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was taught by Survivorman that a tiny bit of cotton from a Q-Tip and a bit of petroleum jelly can start a fire really nicely with just a spark. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers work well for fire-starting, too. Not that I'd try it on a flight or anything. Honestly.

    17. Re:Frist Posty? by mr_death · · Score: 1

      There are some good reasons that the seat belt sign stays on longer than you think it should:

      1. winds aloft reports suggest turbulence ahead. Ride reports from aircraft ahead may include turbulence. Contrary to popular belief, you can get turbulence without clouds or inclement weather (e.g., "wake" turbulence from upwind mountains, or wind shears at altitude).

      2. the flight attendants needs to serve food (rare these days, but still.) Keeping the seat belt sign on keeps the passengers in their seats, which expedites the meal service.

      --
      It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
    18. Re:Frist Posty? by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      due to the low temperatures in the luggage compartment Eh? Why would the temperatures be so low in the luggage compartment?
      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    19. Re:Frist Posty? by quixote9 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I know all about clear air turbulence. The tips of the wings didn't so much as quiver during the whole five hour flight. They either know there isn't any turbulence, or their instruments are a much bigger threat to my safety than any walking around I could do.

      And as for the food, a) as you say, there isn't any, and b) the seat belt nonsense is supposed to be about safety. But it's really more theatre. The convenience of the attendants is the real priority, especially now that they're (unsafely!) understaffed. Just like selling more overpriced drinks is the real priority behind the 3oz rule.

      (I keep wondering how hard it could possibly be to get a job in the airport MacDonalds so that you could sell your co-conspirator a nice Big Gulp of explosives.)

    20. Re:Frist Posty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? Why would the temperatures be so low in the luggage compartment? The luggage compartment is frequently not heated (I'm not sure if it's even pressurised), and outside temperatures can easily hit -50 celsius.

      There are stories of cases where the pilot forgot to turn on the heating in the luggage compartment and people who had taken pets flying landed to find their beloved cat had frozen to death.
  2. Nom nom nom by Applekid · · Score: 5, Funny

    The guard looked at her gun, said nothing and passed them in, then stopped the man behind them because he had beer and snacks in his bag. Park rules prohibit outside food. It's clear what the 'security' check was really about: improving park food vending revenues. Heh heh, the fools. The gun's cartridge was loaded with small pretzels and Tootsie Rolls.
    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
    1. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whooosh

    2. Re:Nom nom nom by JustOK · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Eat lead, mf

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:Nom nom nom by pipatron · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think I speak for everyone here at the slashdot community when I say:

      Shut the fuck up.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    4. Re:Nom nom nom by StrategicIrony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But if I were making a joke about the "cup holder" that comes out of the "hard drive", then it would be funny.

      And would lose all its funny if someone decided to point out that it's not a "hard drive" but in fact has some other arcane name, which really doesn't matter in the context of the joke. :-)

    5. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure, you may get the idea of what they are talking about, however to those who actually know better, it is not funny because they are using technical terms in an incorrect way that detracts from their intention. I have never in my life, sir, encountered a person who more needed a good toke than you. Chill, yo.
    6. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think I speak for everyone here at the slashdot

      Please don't attempt to speak for me.
    7. Re:Nom nom nom by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This isn't digg or reddit - behave yourself.

    8. Re:Nom nom nom by Grendel_Prime · · Score: 1

      I second this motion against the humorless dick.

    9. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you

    10. Re:Nom nom nom by Joshwaa · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Quite evidently he speaks for enough of the community for all three of your posts to have been modded -1. Good day sir. I suggest you stop before you lose any more mod points.

    11. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are just talking out your ass.

    12. Re:Nom nom nom by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I second the other replies:
      WHOOOOSH

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I think I speak for everyone here at the slashdot community when I say:

      Shut the fuck up.

      You are mistaken.
    14. Re:Nom nom nom by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sure, 'Anarke' might be a reasonable phonetic facsimile of the word 'anarchy', but to those who know better, it simply detracts from people thinking of you as anything other than a douche.

      Who REALLY needs to get laid.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    15. Re:Nom nom nom by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Jokes are funny."
      Ironically, jokes don't have to be funny to be a joke, it just helps.

      You on the other hand need to buy a life, and you might want to pick up a side of sense of humor with the change.

      "it is not funny because they are using technical terms in an incorrect way that detracts from their intention."

      There are many comics that do that with their humor, you might even want to say that it's the unexpected use of definition that makes it fucking funny, dumbass.

      I'm sorry, that was harsh~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh.

    17. Re:Nom nom nom by geekoid · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      After your response you think HE is a douche?

      Do you lack the ability to understand common speech?
      He certianly posted what most people we're thinking.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This isn't digg or reddit - behave yourself.
      Some guidelines:
      1. Never describe anything as "epic", especially if followed by the word win or loss.
      2. Use decent grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
      3. Conceal all enthusiasm under a smug nerdiness.

    19. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They were individually wrapped in little pieces of plastic wrap, dumbass. Don't make him pull out his gat, slap in a full cartridge and cap your ass with a tootsie roll.

    20. Re:Nom nom nom by fishizzle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Those would be some very small pretzels if they fit into the cartridge(s). Filling the magazine would offer more room, and would probably be sufficient enough to conceal it from the security personnel. ;-)

    21. Re:Nom nom nom by setagllib · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, if you manage to offend an entire tree of responders, you may be doing something wrong. It's kind of like those smartasses everyone's met in school/university by now, who may even be right, but aren't making any friends showing off. I'm just saying, take a close look at your priorities.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    22. Re:Nom nom nom by setagllib · · Score: 1

      That's just the thing... If you don't care, why did you bother being hostile in response to hostilities? Now you've just riled up more people who've made more hostile responses. You must get something out of it, otherwise why do it?

      If you don't care, don't do it. If you do care, do it better. I hope I'm not coming off as hostile. I'm just not sure I understand how this works for you.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    23. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was called a humorless dick for making the very same comments about 40 minutes ago.

      Yet you're still going on about it.....

      You might find this picture instructive.

    24. Re:Nom nom nom by fishizzle · · Score: 3, Funny

      My bad. Your post had already been modded down into the nether regions. Sorry for that.

      Although I was weary that slashdotters would care to be educated on any technology that isn't Linux-based, I found the mental image of a person in a ballpark pulling the bullet off a casing to retrieve the miniature pretzels contained within even more humorous than what the initial poster had probably intended, so I took a chance to share this. Hopefully the mod-Gods will be gentle.

    25. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, he recognized and upheld the humour. You were just too eager to invalidate a joke based on its use of terminology rather than its comic qualities.

    26. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but you see, the GP wasn't acting like a douchebag when he corrected the OP. The whole douchebaggery thing that you have going on is what isn't working. Try being friendly to the people you talk to. It helps out a lot! :)

    27. Re:Nom nom nom by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 1

      He didn't come across as dickish, though... merely good-natured and helpful.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    28. Re:Nom nom nom by setagllib · · Score: 4, Funny

      In that case, it's kind of like this: http://xkcd.com/386/

      It's funny because it's true.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    29. Re:Nom nom nom by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Apparently, slashdot is more about group dynamics of dominance
      ---

      Yes... we're the ones with the problem...

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    30. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't back down from internet tough guys because you are an internet tough guy. This isn't a joke. The internet is not after you. I am mature and intelligent; the same is true of what I am saying. You should listen: you said you would. Good luck.

    31. Re:Nom nom nom by Slashdot+Suxxors · · Score: 1

      However, should somebody mature come across and actually have something intelligent to say, I will listen
      u got own3d
    32. Re:Nom nom nom by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ur post? Epic fale. I know because I run Linux.

    33. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we can all see that you clearly don't give a rat's ass, by the way you've posted forty dozen followups.

    34. Re:Nom nom nom by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      You just keep insisting on being a complete dickbag.

      I looked at your posting history when I was foeing you, and I hope your karma enjoys all the -1s.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    35. Re:Nom nom nom by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Best response. Just tell them to fuck off and be done with it. Works for me.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    36. Re:Nom nom nom by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I think "Anarke_Incarnate (733529)" gets the Pedantic Nerd award for pointing out the correct names for the parts of the gun.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    37. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I speak for everyone here at the slashdot community when I say:

      No, actually, you don't. You're just another idiot who thinks the rest of us share your own sad, unhappy life.
    38. Re:Nom nom nom by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Cartridges are what most people who do not know any better call "bullets."

      I think that the point was that there was a second layer of security theater going on there: the search for weapons was merely a front for the actual search for smuggled food, and the search for smuggled food could be trivially foiled by hiding it inside of an object that was waved through.

      Not that any of this matters, the guy misused the word cartridge, get him!!1!

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    39. Re:Nom nom nom by Grail · · Score: 1

      You know your joke is a failure when you have to explain it to someone who didn't laugh.

      You know you're a failure when you try explaining why someone else's joke isn't funny to the people who laughed.

    40. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you ARE gay~

      note: I used ~ at the end of my sentence indicating my sarcasm

    41. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only one thing worse than someone who doesn't have enough of a sense of humour to understand a joke, and that's someone who's also too arrogant to admit they didn't understand it.

    42. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are either an interesting troll, or you are Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory. Which is it?

    43. Re:Nom nom nom by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Well, here's the thing: its not that you didn't think it was funny, you didn't detect the attempt at humor. Some jokes are really emotional intelligence tests in disguise.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    44. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friendly suggestion: have another look at the difference between what you posted and what fishizzle posted, and see if you can't get some insight into seeing yourself as others see you.

    45. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse is someone who doesn't have enough sense of humour to understand a joke, and is carrying a firearm.

      From your spelling of humour/humor I sense that this could be an American misunderstanding of English sarcasm.

    46. Re:Nom nom nom by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      How do you know it wasn't a shot pistol? Single shot, cartridge big enough for a couple of comically small morsels. Smartass.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    47. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, stop pushing that tilde thing. It ain't catching on.

    48. Re:Nom nom nom by crymeph0 · · Score: 1

      I also don't back down from internet tough guys. Oh no, someone is wrong on the internet.
      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    49. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need a +5 funny laughing at you mod for GP.

    50. Re:Nom nom nom by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      That's because you were humorless about it. The above poster tried to make it kind of funny.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    51. Re:Nom nom nom by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      He's trolling. Don't be stupid.

      --
      SRSLY.
    52. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Small snack? Cartridges are what most people who do not know any better call "bullets." The part most call a "clip", which is in fact, a magazine, could hold "some" snacks, but would probably gum up the workings to the point it would have to be taken apart, cleaned and oiled. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call "Intelligence Theater".
    53. Re:Nom nom nom by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Funny

      Now imagine a Beowulf cluster of those running in Soviet Russia! That's unpossible!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    54. Re:Nom nom nom by Gewalt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You're not too fucking bright, are you?

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    55. Re:Nom nom nom by Gewalt · · Score: 1

      4. ???
      5. Profit!

      There, finished that for you.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    56. Re:Nom nom nom by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ur post? Epic fale. I know because I run Linux. You see?! You see?! This is what happens when you make a Linux distro that's easy to use!
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    57. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the funny police showed up to rough up my pixels or something. Actually, pixels are the minute dots used to represent images (even images of text, mind you). They are usually transferred from logical data inside your computer (That box with the motorized cup holder) to some sort of screen in your field of vision (often called "Monitor", although that may be a slight bit too specific).
      The monitor would then appear to have these images on it. When you interpret the image, you usually come to some form of a conclusion.

      I think what you meant was really "I guess the funny police showed up to rough up my rhetoric".

      --------

      See, what I did there was to parody your original comment (Which was not only correct, but pretty funny!).
      This post so far, too, is a joke.

      That said, I think most of us know that you are right, but that doesn't really make it a good idea to fight with a bunch of anonymous folks on 10 fronts at once. If you want to educate the IT crowd about firearms, I'm sure there are plenty who will listen.
      May I suggest you do it in a more organized manner?


      (Posted anonymously because slashdot will not allow me to preview, and thus post, when I have made a few "Funny" moderations earlier on. Anyone know how to fix that?)
    58. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, jokes don't have to be funny to be a joke, it just helps. That's not irony!... OK, I'm leaving, I'm leaving...
    59. Re:Nom nom nom by weierstrass · · Score: 1

      seconded

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
    60. Re:Nom nom nom by weierstrass · · Score: 2, Funny

      This post tells you all you need to know about people who know the correct names for parts of guns.

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
    61. Re:Nom nom nom by robkeeney · · Score: 1

      4. Profit!

    62. Re:Nom nom nom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true because it's funny.

    63. Re:Nom nom nom by mnslinky · · Score: 1

      linux distros are like their own little event at the special olympics. You kinda feel bad for the participants, but's it's still fun to watch.

    64. Re:Nom nom nom by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      Except you were a dick about it. Dick.

  3. The Iraq theater by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No trolling intended, but the war in Iraq now is the biggest piece of security theater on the planet. It does not make the US safer ( indeed it probably does the reverse ) but it does give certain people benefits. Chaney and friends make millions on no-bid contracts, and neocons get to implement policies that in more normal conditions would not be tolerated by the public.

    1. Re:The Iraq theater by dolphino · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hmmm... I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard rather than killing them here, but I am probably strange that way.

    2. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BU$H LIED TO AMERIKKKA!!!!

    3. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      See, the thing is that there weren't insurgents in Iraq before the US got there.

    4. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I just feel safer knowing we're killing innocent people in the Middle East every day. This will remind them not to underestimate the power of the dark side and dare to

    5. Re:The Iraq theater by Duradin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Better hope the insurgents don't start thinking like that...

      An even better plan: stop killing people and *MAKING* insurgents, take some personal responsibility in securing yourself and your surroundings and then see to getting back our rights.

    6. Re:The Iraq theater by AshtangiMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the strawman most often put forth to quell the discussion. Another one is the "fighting to protect your freedoms". Pretty lame, but the bar is pretty low on how to get people behind this kind of activity. I don't recall any Iraqi insurgents ever creating any kind of trouble in any of the 50 states, so I'm curious about your rationale for the statement. Are you just parroting something you heard, or can you further explain your sentiment?

    7. Re:The Iraq theater by MrMr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard
      Insurging against you in their own backyard?

      You're not strange, your colonialism is of all ages.

    8. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine a more off topic and trollish post. What are the mods smoking?

    9. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No trolling intended, but the war in Iraq now is the biggest piece of security theater on the planet.

      It could be. Then again, maybe it's not. How can you be sure? Has the US been "attacked" since the Iraq war? Since 9/11? No. Has there been attempts? Yes. Has there been plots uncovered by people captured in Iraq and "tortured" at Gitmo? Yes. Would those plots ever develop or stopped if not for the Iraq war? Who knows?

      I would have liked to believe that the same funds spent on the Iraq war could have been spent on local defense with the same results (no terrorist attacks) but my crystal ball is broken and I cannot have predicted the future at the time that GWB had to make the decision. Unfortunately, he choose something I disagreed with but I'd also like to think he had a lot more information to base that judgment on (which obviously some turned out to be bad intel. which really sucks to find out after) than the local 9'o clock news and CNN.

      I don't believe in the conspiracy crap you toss out like "it's for profits!" and "evil corporate America is just trying to make money for the VP's companies!" What a lot of rubbish. It doesn't take much thought to realize the Iraq/Afghan war would have never happened without 9/11. If the *real* reason was profits, it would have happened either way... then again, maybe it would have?

    10. Re:The Iraq theater by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Chaney and friends make millions on no-bid contracts I tend to trust sources that spell the name of the vice president correctly. It makes me feel like you're regurgitating someone else's points rather than deciding yourself.
    11. Re:The Iraq theater by scipiodog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmmm... I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard rather than killing them here, but I am probably strange that way.

      Yes, you are strange that way.

      You prefer, it seems, to create a huge number of insurgents, just for the purpose of fighting them?

      Here's a little knowledge bomb I'm going to drop your way... They weren't there until you invaded. At least they weren't insurgents then.

      "Fight them over there so we don't have to at home" is such an odious and incredibly false catch phrase. Really it disappoints me that so many Americans swallow it. How about, don't fight them over there or at home?

      --
      http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
    12. Re:The Iraq theater by drodal · · Score: 1

      Amazing (and way off topic) I just saw on the history channel, about how the British, when the revolutionary war moved toward the south, made a proclamation to all Americans, you are either loyal to the crown, or your traitors. This pushed a lot of fence sitters off the fence, and helped the Americans win the war. So the strategy of "your with us or your against us" has never worked and never will. Were we talking about theater????

    13. Re:The Iraq theater by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah. Not enough people are dying for that to be the case.

      It's like a sick joke but it's true. Until people are dying by
      the hundreds of thousands, the people trying to treat the US
      as a paper tiger won't really understand what they're fooling
      around with.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    14. Re:The Iraq theater by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's not "colonialism".

      Islam has been waging war with the rest of the world since it was invented.

      Most of the world that is muslim now is that way because of those wars.

      Don't try to kid anyone.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    15. Re:The Iraq theater by overtly_demure · · Score: 1
      Hmmm... I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard rather than killing them here, but I am probably strange that way.

      Why did we start killing them?

      Were they a threat to us?

      Were they even there before?

      I don't understand how you can express something that clearly has no thought behind it whatsoever, and yet has such colossal, horrible consequences when millions of people like you support what is little more than a band of murderous criminals that has hijacked our government, our armed forces, and our society.

      Thanks, Dude. Thanks to you and your kind for helping fuck up the world even more than it already was. Way more.

    16. Re:The Iraq theater by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

      What are the mods smoking? - The truth

      Oh and a bunch of pot.
      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    17. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I tend to trust sources that use correct grammar, such as "...deciding for yourself."

    18. Re:The Iraq theater by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll make an exception to my long standing policy of not responding to ACs:

      The reason that America hasn't been subsequently attacked had nothing to do with punishing the silly, stupid Taleban in Afghanistan, or fomenting a war in Iraq. The perps were a group calling themselves Al Qaeda, and they haven't been touched. They were weak, tiny, and extremely clever; they got past security in NE airports, then were successful in three crashes, while the fourth dive bombed in Pennsylvania. This was not a million man army with nukes, just some very clever people. They subsequently disrupted transportation in Spain, where people were murdered, and also in the UK, where others were murdered.

      No subsequent acts have occurred for any number of reasons, almost none of which have to do with the wars, as the wars were about pride and oil. This has nothing to do with US Dept of Homeland Security, which is an oxymoron.

      Fight the bastards when they try to impinge on your privacy and your liberty. Question authority. Do so politely. Then let the judges kick them in the tender parts. That's their job. Do it again, repeat until you're free, because today, you're not.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    19. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think the average US citizen would be safer if we: Provided universal health care or killed Iraqis? Provided port security or killed Iraqis? Secured our borders or killed Iraqis? Had levies that didn't collapse or killed Iraqis? Had bridges that didn't collapse or killed Iraqis? Had a president with an IQ over 100 or killed Iraqis? Obviously the answer to all of these questions is that the war in Iraq does not make us safer than the alternatives we could pursue if we were not spending a trillion dollars in Iraq, mostly creating more people who hate Americans so that we can kill them and create more people who hate Americans, ...

    20. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah they were running rampant here before we took the fight to Iraq...

    21. Re:The Iraq theater by thsths · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard rather than killing them here, but I am probably strange that way.

      And yet you are here? Why aren't you killing insurgents in their backyard? Maybe because it does not feel all that safe after all...

    22. Re:The Iraq theater by rsborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Islam has been waging war with the rest of the world since it was invented.
      How the hell is this modded insightful? How about you try s/Islam/Christianity/ and see how that flies:

      Christianity has been waging war with the rest of the world since it was invented.
      Yeah, that's pretty flamebait, yet arguably as true.
      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    23. Re:The Iraq theater by maxume · · Score: 1

      Epistemologically speaking, isn't it rather difficult to kill an insurgent anywhere other than their own backyard?

      I mean, if they weren't in their own backyard, then they wouldn't be insurgents anymore.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You prefer, it seems, to create a huge number of insurgents, just for the purpose of fighting them? Well, sure. Who else would we find to attack? Canadia?

      Cinserelee,
      Bush <3
    25. Re:The Iraq theater by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      You know what's funny?

      If you replace islam and muslim with christianity and christian you still have a post that's on topic and insightful.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    26. Re:The Iraq theater by GigG · · Score: 1

      They did stop thinking that way back in September of 2001.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    27. Re:The Iraq theater by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard rather than killing them here, but I am probably strange that way.


      Thankfully, there's only one guy we're fighting, so it's impossible for him to be two places at once.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    28. Re:The Iraq theater by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing is, we are manufacturing more insurgents by our presence in Iraq than we are killing. Many "hearts and minds," that before Iraq were sympathetic to the US justification in Afghanistan, have instead been driven to the other side by our unjustified and incompetent moves in Iraq...

    29. Re:The Iraq theater by dolphino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but see, you don't know that (the only ones who have proposed that are the experts over at CNN).

      During my time spent in the middle east (all of which took place before 9/11) I saw... drumroll please... people who wanted to kill Americans. WHAT? DURING CLINTON?? Yes. We are not the 'cause' of these insurgents, and no matter how much you hate Bush for whatever you think it is he has done, or how much you want to blame him for the problems he inherited (from, IMO, the dem president that preceded him), he didn't make them either.

      The very boring and undramatic truth of the matter is, there are always people who will capitalize on the loss or misgivings of a group of people, and people of the Middle East happen to be the latest target. Arafat did it with the PLO (which has NOTHING to do with liberating Palestinians, and has everything with creating a power base), and the same thing is happening now around Iraq.

      So about "the sure thing is, there weren't insurgents": this rhetoric may work on your bleeding heart girlfriend, and probably works on many here on Slashdot, but don't try flinging that nonsense around vets, govt employees, or anyone else who has actually tried to DO something about these issues. It may sell books or commercial time on news channels, but it doesn't make any sense.

      Just my 2c

    30. Re:The Iraq theater by scubamage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the insurgents can't attack us in our back yard, because if they did, they wouldn't be insurgents. An insurgent attacks the established authority of their government, and according to the US the government of Iraq is their established governance. If a bunch of rednecks attacked the white house, they'd be insurgents. Iraqis attacking the white house would be an act of war. Lrn2websters.

    31. Re:The Iraq theater by bonehead · · Score: 1

      Attack Mexico. Their beach property is better.

    32. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam was waging war since its founder, Mohammed, started the thing.

      Jesus didn't wage war nor attack anyone. Nor did any Christian or group of Christians until that wonderful, benevolent, true convert, Constantine got in the way, err involved. Rather Christians were since their inception as a group targets of violence and oppression until they, sadly enough, infiltrated the power structures and politics became a driving force.

    33. Re:The Iraq theater by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, he is pretty much correct.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    34. Re:The Iraq theater by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your parent's post was insightful because it is true. Your post is flamebait because it is not true.

      In Christendom, if Christ is portrayed in a blatantly derogatory way (i.e the infamous Piss Christ), what happens? Christians write letters to the editor and threaten to boycott sponsors of the offender. In the Muslim world, draw a simple cartoon of the prophet Mohammed or write a book critical of the Islamic faith, and what happens? Muslims riot, destroy property, make death threats made (and sometimes carry them out).

      There is a vast difference between Christianity and Islam, friend. It's true that both have been spread by force, but with Christianity that is the (exceedingly rare) exception, with Islam it is far more common.

    35. Re:The Iraq theater by dutin · · Score: 1

      the thing about insurgents is...

      they are not terrorists.

      the revolutionary army in the US about 200 some odd years ago were insurgents. the French have had a ton of insurgent groups over the years. those who vote for hillary are insurgents.

      insurgent

      Main Entry:
              1inÂsurÂgent Listen to the pronunciation of 1insurgent
      Pronunciation:
              \-jÉ(TM)nt\
      Function:
              noun
      Etymology:
              Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise â" more at surge
      Date:
              1765
      1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

      --
      if you miss the humor and the lesson in this post, go mod yourself -3

    36. Re:The Iraq theater by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You say Al Qaeda. I say Emmanuel Goldstein.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    37. Re:The Iraq theater by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are no universally accepted definitions of insurgency. The common concept, in a wide range of definitions, is that it involves a desire for political power, achieved through means illegal under the rules of the existing government. It has long been used in the professional military and political literature.

      So, using that accepted common concept, there are only insurgents if they are rebelling VS the government. So of course when the government is corrupt those that are corrupt aren't the insurgents. Hussein was a bad man, Hitler was a bad man, the funny thing is though, the same people who lament that our government didn't do anything about Hitler until it involved the US (who killed his own people and invaded other countries) are the same people who think that we shouldn't go after Hussein (who killed his own people and invaded other countries).
      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    38. Re:The Iraq theater by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow. This might fly right over your head but just try for a second and think of who the Insurgents in Iraq are. If they were not in Iraq before then they are not Iraqis right? Right. So it's not some kind of base resistance to being occupied. In fact that's all a bunch of non-sense. The Iraqi people elected their government. The Insurgents are the same people as always. The same ones who are willing to give up having a home and travel anywhere that their Jihad calls them. They are the same ones setting up camp in Somalia right now to trick a mostly nonreligious group of people into following them. They are the same ones who gave up jobs and moved to Afghanistan to fight the Russians. AND... (queue thematic music) they are the same ones who flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. "BUT wait!" you say. Because that isn't the reason we went to war in Iraq. You are right about that. Really we went to war for shaky reasons but we must STAY in Iraq BECAUSE Jihadists have moved in and they DO pose a real threat to us, and the stability of the region and to our ally Israel.

    39. Re:The Iraq theater by dolphino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Were they a threat to us?

      Were they even there before? Threat? Worse than killing our children and raping our women, they started "threatening" us at the gas station back in the 1970's.

      Not sure who you are referring to as the 'hijackers of our government'. Nixon? Carter? We are not newcomers to the middle east, and even under the benevolent leadership of Clinton, the U.S. undertook several missions designed to counteract the terrorist threat.

      Just a curiosity, but did where did you get these ideas? Your service time in middle east? MTV? CNN? Just wondering what inspired such strong language (murderous criminals?). I spent years of my life over there, and the only thing that gets me emotionally fired up is the lack of reason on this side of the pond. Would it kill you to perhaps form your opinion based off of experience, rather than from TV?

      Mark this as a troll, but there HAS to be more than a handful of vets that read Slashdot and agree with this - am I the only one, and do I have to bite my tongue for EVERY post like this?

    40. Re:The Iraq theater by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Er... you do realize Iraq is not geographically contiguous to the US and that insurgents don't have to pass through it in order to get here, right?

    41. Re:The Iraq theater by overtly_demure · · Score: 1
      Hear. hear!

      It is a great tragedy of our times that this viewpoint represents a small minority of our fellow citizens.

    42. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sqwaaaack*

    43. Re:The Iraq theater by dolphino · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I was discharged from service in 1998, medically, from wounds received during "peacetime" counter-terrorist activities. I continued working with the government, but this time without a sidearm.

      Nice comeback, but please try harder next time!

    44. Re:The Iraq theater by Duradin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Apparently all the ones that changed their minds were on the planes.

      I don't see wave after wave of people trying to storm our beaches, rape our infidel women or blow up idolatrous symbols of capitalistic greed over here.

      The only reason "they" are relevant any more is that "they" are today's Commie Pinko Red Bastards.
      "They" are a useful scare tactic, and that's it. I might care once they start killing more people over here than amount that die to three wheeled volkswagen eurkel-mobile collisions.

    45. Re:The Iraq theater by Darkness404 · · Score: 0

      "Fight them over there so we don't have to at home" is such an odious and incredibly false catch phrase. Really it disappoints me that so many Americans swallow it. How about, don't fight them over there or at home?

      So, in saying that you are saying that we shouldn't have gone after Hitler? Hussein and Hitler did about the same things, both invaded other countries, both killed their own citizens, etc. Hitler never came and bombed us directly like Hussein, it was the Japanese that bombed pearl harbor, just as it was Afghanistan and the Talaban that caused 9/11. Cuba never attacked us directly, yet surely you don't think that them having missiles aimed at the US is any reason to have missiles aimed back at Cuba. The Soviet Union never attacked us directly, but surely there was a reason to keep nuclear missiles armed during the cold war.

      Bottom line: If you oppose the war in Iraq for the reasons you are stating, then you are agreeing that the USA shouldn't have done anything to stop Hitler or any other foreign power that never directly attacked the US.
      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    46. Re:The Iraq theater by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Had a friend that grew up in Ireland. He once mentioned, not long after the war started against Iraq, that in the 80's, a couple Brittish soldiers were at a security checkpoint in northern Ireland They shot up a car, that had a family in it. He mentioned that that one incident, in that one town, caused a huge number of people to join the IRA, and fight against Brittan. It took a good 10 years for things to calm back down.

      Here were people that hated a country, and wanted it to die and suffer, but they just said that all the time. One wrong action, and those people actually started taking up arms, bombings, etc. There is a big difference between wanting American's killed, and actually trying to kill Americans. He wondered how many people we moved from Haters to Terrorists in Iraq.

      Think about it for a minute. You may hate a person you don't like, and wish that they were dead. How much would it take to push you to the point that you actually murder them?

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    47. Re:The Iraq theater by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "Religion has been waging war with the rest of the world since it was invented."

      --
      Not a sentence!
    48. Re:The Iraq theater by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why did we start killing them? Were they a threat to us? Were they even there before?

      Why did we start killing Hitler and the Nazis?

      Were they a threat to us?

      Were they even there before the US was in Europe politically?

      Answer those questions yourself, using the same reasoning tactics the USA should have never been involved in WWII (at least in Europe). Your reasoning seems to suggest that we should have let Hitler take over all of Europe because he didn't attack America directly.
      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    49. Re:The Iraq theater by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Here is a little knowledge bomb I'll drop your way. If the Insurgents were not there before and they mostly are not Iraqis then where did they come from? Hint: The same terrorist recruiting camps that produced the terrorists who flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Iraqis have no reason to be angry with the US since they elected their own government. Yes there is infighting but all the coordinated attacks and almost all of the IED attacks are from organizations that just mobilize wherever they need to to advance Jihad. If they would not be in Iraq they would be in Somalia and Afghanistan.

    50. Re:The Iraq theater by zonky · · Score: 1

      When did Hussein bomb the US directly? You do know that Iraq was a US client state when they invaded Iran, right?

    51. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what does aiding Saddam into power make the US? Good or bad? Or what about helping him into war with Iran? Anglo-saxons have been meddling in Iraq for a long time (before the US it was the British) and they've also been playing innocent as if the world didn't notice. It seems only their own citizens don't notice what's going on.

    52. Re:The Iraq theater by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      My bad, It should have read Hitler never came and bombed us directly like Osama

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    53. Re:The Iraq theater by HadouKen24 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Person who does not like the US != insurgent.

      There were, in fact, people in the Middle East who really dislike America. Heck, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if that weren't the case.

      However, you have to understand that this is at least in part due to American action. Our most egregious action was probably propping up the Shah in Iran. America has a history of using both deceit and pure muscle to get its way in the Middle East, and that has created a lot of enemies. Enemies that were there prior to Iraq.

      Our invasion in Iraq certainly didn't help things. It flared up old angers that had, in some areas, begun to die out. It brought our men within striking range. It shouldn't be any kind of surprise that this situation creates insurgents. Our invasion of Iraq strengthens the political position of our enemies; their claims about America seem to be confirmed, and it helps stokes the fears that cause people to flock to such causes.

      You have to look at this historically. People in the ME don't hate the US because of our freedom. They hate the US because of how we've treated them in the past.

      (It is, of course, more complicated than that, but this is a Slashdot comment.)

    54. Re:The Iraq theater by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And we've fought ourselves many times over other things than religion. And many times not-so-religious people with desire for riches, territory or power have used religion. Sorry, it just sounded a little like the "religion is the source of all evil" argument, I think it's more well distributed than that...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    55. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the wars Christianity has been waging since the Holy Roman Empire, the Crusades, the Spanish and Portuguese "conversion" of native north and south Americans, etc. etc.

      Clearly Christianity is the religion of peace and tolerance while Islam is the religion of war and intolerance

    56. Re:The Iraq theater by Moofie · · Score: 1

      ...even if you have to make more insurgents to do it! GENIUS!

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    57. Re:The Iraq theater by Moofie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you mean "Humans have been waging war on other humans on the thinnest available pretexts since humans were invented."

      It's not religion. It's human nature.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    58. Re:The Iraq theater by HadouKen24 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Muhammad once had quite friendly relations with Christians. Some of his followers were sheltered by a Christian king in Ethiopia prior to the Hegira, Muhammad's flight from Mecca to Medina. Muhammad himself was sheltered by powerful clan members.

      While Muslim rule was spread by force, the religion was not forced upon Christians or Jews. In fact, Muslim rule was well-known for tolerance of People of the Book under its rule. "Heretics" and Jews flocked to Spain when it was under Muslim rule because they knew they could expect much better treatment.

    59. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little Bushie. How many times have I told you. We are not interested in Canadia. There aren't enough oil fields to pillage. They do have these oil sands, but we don't know how to pillage those yet. We will invade just as soon as we can make oil sands profitable don't you worry your pointy little head about it. How about we eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and watch sesame street! I will even cut the sandwich into presidential squares for you!

      Love,
      Cheney

    60. Re:The Iraq theater by UltraAyla · · Score: 1

      I'm not even going to address the fallacies of that logic. All I'm going to do is point out that more people have died in the Iraq War than died in the September 11th attacks.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

      We're fighting this war so that people don't die at home? That's a pretty good example of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you ask me.

    61. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Here's a little knowledge bomb I'm going to drop your way... They weren't there until you invaded. At least they weren't insurgents then."

      So then your saying the solution is not to invade them. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it a little late for that?

      Perhaps the war was the wrong course of action but quite frankly that's a moot point now. Wrong or not... it already happened. All the finger pointing and saying it shouldn't have happened won't change that it did.

      Now that we have knocked the bee hive down, sliced it open, stolen the honey inside, and stabbed it with a hot poker; Do you really think that running for the house means the bees are just gonna "get over it?" No. They are gonna give chase.

      Staying there and continuing on without a significant change to our strategy is not going to work but nether is pulling out and hoping for the best. If we do pull out it can't be done until there is something in place to keep them from overthrowing the existing government and turning on us. Like, I don't know, a peace agreement with the major factions.

    62. Re:The Iraq theater by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      If insurgents made it here, they wouldn't last 24 hours except in municipalities where there are gun laws.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    63. Re:The Iraq theater by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Hmm, so what was the pantomime about weapons?

    64. Re:The Iraq theater by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Cuba never attacked us directly

      It's a matter of opinion as to whether arming nuclear missiles and deploying them, targetted at the US, is an attack or not.

      The US took the position that it was an attack, and basically gave Cuba the national death penalty.
      The same government that did this is still in force (on both sides). Neither side has ever backed down.
      The person who represents Cuba has not even apologized for the affair.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    65. Re:The Iraq theater by marxmarv · · Score: 1

      So it's not some kind of base resistance to being occupied. In fact that's all a bunch of non-sense. The Iraqi people elected their government. I'm glad you brought up sham elections in a discussion about security theater. Uncanny!

      The Insurgents are the same people as always. The same ones who are willing to give up having a home and travel anywhere that their Jihad calls them. They are the same ones setting up camp in Somalia right now to trick a mostly nonreligious group of people into following them. Like the Christian neocons in the US? What was that about planks and specks and eyes?

      Can you make ANY points in your argument without referring to Israeli, British or US news sources? No? Why not? Because no one who doesn't stand to benefit from this hydrocarbon piracy has any reason to repeat this nonsense?
      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    66. Re:The Iraq theater by Ucklak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Imagine being born after 1953 or just being a kid and witnessing and find an occupying force desecrating a belief system your parents brought you up to uphold.
      I'd imagine that after 20 something years, I'd be pissed enough to take hostages too.

      Many people don't want to or can't see the bigger picture.

      Look at the small town hate that comes from a Wal*Mart installation.
      I'm not saying that Wal*Mart = China (but in a way it is) but imagine Wal*Mart being a Chinese military installation with Chinese soldiers in all it's installations.
      Would you not be upset as an American?

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    67. Re:The Iraq theater by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Today, Scott McClellan's new book of revelations of the Bush Administration became available. It outlines much of what's been feared about this administration. Before, I thought McClellan was merely a stooge and mouthpiece. He admitted as much, and regrets it.

      In a fit of heretofore unrecognized honesty, he reveals what he believes to be the truth; he borders on seditious speech, but sometimes sedition is a component of truth and change for the better.

      So twice today, I violate my own policy: first by replying to an AC, and secondly by having praise for a member of the Bush administration. Beware of meteor strikes, odd lottery ticket wins, and perhaps blue moons..... this won't happen again soon, I fear.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    68. Re:The Iraq theater by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

      > Here's a little knowledge bomb I'm going to drop your way... They weren't there until you
      > invaded. At least they weren't insurgents then.

      Sure they were. Only they were fighting against the Ba'ath government, often using weapons supplied by the US. Neither those insurgents nor the government they fought against were any danger to the US whatsoever.

      Since this is Slashdot, I'll try to be very clear. The invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US is immoral, unjustified, unnecessary, and asinine. The right thing for the US to do now would be to send in another 250,000 troops and keep them there for about five years to give the Iraqis a chance to straighten out the mess. That won't happen, though, so the next best thing to do is leave immediately. That won't happen either.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    69. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Fight them over there so we don't have to at home"

      The validity of this requires a simple test - does the nation in question have expansionist military policy?

      WWII Japan & the other belligerents we can clearly say yes to. Iraqi rebels are clearly interested in their homeland (otherwise they would be showing up in New York). Note I have carefully skirted Goodwin's law here.

      Of course, Al Qaida is more complex, but the answer is still 'no'. The goal of reestablishing the Caliphate is expansionist but the approach is not overtly militaristic - it is a political / guerilla warfare style of expansionism, hence the use of large military forces is unlikely to be successful.

    70. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were fewer insurgents before we came onto the scene because we are easier to insurge against. Since we are generally softer than saddam was.

    71. Re:The Iraq theater by marxmarv · · Score: 4, Informative

      Islam was a young religion when Christians first attacked the Middle East. How are you not supposed to harbor a grudge, or at the very least distrust, with that kind of introduction, especially when (usually wrongly) self-identified Christians indiscriminately hold a gun to Muslims' heads while their hated cousins steal their land, the "Christians" steal their natural resources, and both of the robbers tell themselves fairy tales to rationalize it?

      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    72. Re:The Iraq theater by PO1FL · · Score: 1

      How about, don't fight them over there or at home?
      Unfortunately, the US doesn't get that choice.
      --
      I'll try anything once. Twice if it's DRM free.
    73. Re:The Iraq theater by omnipresentbob · · Score: 1

      No subsequent acts have occurred for any number of reasons, almost none of which have to do with the wars, as the wars were about pride and oil. Just to play devil's advocate for a bit... But what if all the [US] military activity over in Iraq has caused Al Qaeda to focus more on staying alive and avoid detection, and less on doing damage to the States?

      Like I said, I'm not for the war, just wanted to know, what's to say the activity hasn't resulted in less Al Qaeda involvement elsewhere?
    74. Re:The Iraq theater by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard rather than killing them here, but I am probably strange that way.

      They aren't 'insurgents' if you aren't in their backyard.

      Are YOU an insurgent? Are you actively bent on killing any foreign nationals right now?
      Probably not. Unless you happen to be an american soldier you probably have relatively normal peaceful life.

      But if [insert country] invaded your backyard, and you fought back, to preserve your way of life, and your national pride, etc, etc... and guess what then YOU'D be an insurgent.

      Can you imagine how stupid you'd think it would be if the invader you were fighting told you one day that they'd prefer to fight insurgents like you in your backyard, rather then theirs?

      Wouldn't the OBVIOUS response be... "If you hadn't invaded us, I wouldn't be an insurgent, and we wouldn't be fighting!!"

      Now if there were a credible threat that Iraq was actually on the verge of attacking the US, sure, maybe it might be worth attacking them first... but seriously... there was NEVER any credible threat of anything like an Iraqi invasion on US soil. Its a laughable.

    75. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well now the FBI will be reading this random slashdot article. A lot of red flags comming into play here: taleban, licensed pilot, insurgunts, Islam... Funny how this article started off as a question about the security theater

    76. Re:The Iraq theater by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      Fight the bastards when they try to impinge on your privacy and your liberty. Question authority. Do so politely. Then let the judges kick them in the tender parts. That's their job. Do it again, repeat until you're free, because today, you're not. Is that how you have had us respond to Pearl Harbor? Arrest the people who bombed us? Treating terrorists as criminals has been tried, and has failed miserably.
    77. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are such a scared little pussy fuck. I'm not afraid, I refuse to live my life in fear, so take your little psiops bullshit elsewhere.

    78. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. but If I post this under my ID, not as AC, I get modded 'troll' ... maybe it is 'cuz my name has 'USAsuxx' in it?

    79. Re:The Iraq theater by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      what insurgents? OH .. the ones that were hiding with the WMDs in iraq. Right. I forgot...

    80. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard rather than killing them here, but I am probably strange that way. Vocabulary lesson.

      An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority.
      Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

      We had terrorists in our backyards. We haven't had insurgents in our backyard since the American Civil War and even then they were Americans. Iraq has insurgents but what the hell would they be doing in our backyards? ( ... you ignorant slut.)

      If you truly feel that way then enlist.
    81. Re:The Iraq theater by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My bad, It should have read Hitler never came and bombed us directly like Osama Wait, wait. Now you've introduced a new character? Just how many players are in this little theatre production of yours? :)

      While I agree that Hussein was a tyrant that was best deposed (the exact details being full of devils), I'm also inclined to keep it straight with who did exactly what and not confusing any of the players. Osama had nothing to do with all this.
    82. Re:The Iraq theater by stonemetal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have just proved his point. Before we went over there and started killing them they were sitting around saying we hate americans. How many americans had they killed? A big fat zero. How many have they killed since we showed up and stuck our nose where it doesn't belong? About 6K last I checked.

      That is the thing, it doesn't matter if the PLO is Arafat's power base, he isn't a US citizen so the US gov should stay out of his business. If we stop giving them a reason to hate us( such as randomly showing up with guns and shooting at them with out provocation, as we are doing now) then that power base will fall apart. He can't goad people forever with the old evil american line if the evil americans never manifest themselves.

    83. Re:The Iraq theater by Onan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Comparisons between Hussein and Hitler are pretty facile.

      Hitler was quite openly intent upon conquering most of three continents, and was part of a functional alliance that was directly attacking the US. He was at the head of an enormously powerful and aggressive military force, and represented a huge threat to both the world in general and the United States in particular.

      Hussein, on the other hand, only engaged in war with two other countries: Iran, with the US's urging and support, and Kuwait, with the US's permission. He was quite happy with his role as the US's pawn, and enjoyed only mutual opposition with the one group that had attacked America. He ruled a nation that had been so devastated by a decade of bombings and sanctions that it was mostly ineffectual even within its own borders, much less outside them. He could not have been less of a threat.

    84. Re:The Iraq theater by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      President Bush? Is that you?

    85. Re:The Iraq theater by F1re · · Score: 1

      When humans were first invented they probably didn't need pretexts. If you didn't like someone you just hit them over the head with a club...

      --
      ...there is no sig...
    86. Re:The Iraq theater by RubberDuckie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This seems to be closer to the truth. I might say: "Religion has been used as an excuse for waging war with the rest of the world since it was invented." Religion is nothing more than man's interpretation of spirituality. As such, it's a great justifier of self will.

    87. Re:The Iraq theater by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Which, I think you'll agree, is a pretty thin pretext...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    88. Re:The Iraq theater by HadouKen24 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You get the Worst Analogy of the Day Award!

    89. Re:The Iraq theater by HadouKen24 · · Score: 1

      It's correct grammar if "yourself" is meant to be the subject of the clause with "deciding" as the predicate.

      It's idiomatically poor, not grammatically.

    90. Re:The Iraq theater by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      You miss the context.

      This is about security theater-- the kind where a fellow with a tin-badge, unsworn, wants to examine you more than superficially. This isn't about a direct attack on US resources.

      Japan was the country that attacked Pearl. A small group of extremists attacked NY, the Pentagon, as well as Madrid and London. It wasn't a country, it wasn't even much of a region. And we haven't found the perps, only mislabeled many groups as being "them". The clear enemy you cite was Japan. The clear enemy I cite is the group calling themselves 'Al Qaeda'.

      Chinese weren't responsible in WW2, even though they look like they're the Japanese ethnically. It was the Japanese. In the case of Al Qaeda, they're the guilty parties, not the Iraqi, not the Afghani, not the Syrians, although none of them were particularly splendid by US values, quite the contrary.

      The word terrorist is a widely cast net. We know specifically who these individuals are. We've paid immense amounts of money to Pakistan, yet the Pakistani governments haven't allowed us the ability to get at the supposed hideouts in NW Pakistan.

      Summary: get your enemies right, and punish them. Use the rule of law, not the rule of the bullet. If the bullet is the result of the rule of law, then use the bullet but not until then.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    91. Re:The Iraq theater by marxmarv · · Score: 1

      Were they a threat to us?

      Were they even there before? Threat? Worse than killing our children and raping our women, they started "threatening" us at the gas station back in the 1970's. Arab OPEC stopped sending us oil because we were supporting their enemies in a land grab. How is this morally reprehensible in the face of the Cuban embargo, the "oil for food" program in Iraq, the global family planning gag rule, etc.?

      And who is this "they" you speak of? The elites or the commoners? They inhabit two very different worlds, you know.

      I spent years of my life over there, and the only thing that gets me emotionally fired up is the lack of reason on this side of the pond. Would it kill you to perhaps form your opinion based off of experience, rather than from TV? As humans, our perception of the world is colored by our experiences with it, and those who are compelled to interact with unfamiliar communities unconsciously build stereotypes and prejudices based upon that interaction. It's like asking a beat cop to comment on the higher aspects of human nature when they see so little of it in their day-to-day lives.

      Mark this as a troll, but there HAS to be more than a handful of vets that read Slashdot and agree with this - am I the only one, and do I have to bite my tongue for EVERY post like this? Until you take a bit more account of the facts in the matter and the smoke their leaders are blowing up their asses (and why), I wish you would at least consider it.
      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    92. Re:The Iraq theater by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Muhammad once had a friendly relation with christians, jews, and pagans because he had no choice. Him and his followers where very much few and far between. Once he was driven out of mecca to medina where he could take over his "friendly" relations changed. He came back to mecca and converted it to islam at the point of the sword. His followers have been doing the same ever since.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    93. Re:The Iraq theater by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      So, in saying that you are saying that we shouldn't have gone after Hitler?

      Quit being a fucktard. Hitler was conquering europe and exterminating millions; hussein killed some kurds (like his neighbors do) and was reclaiming some land ala china, only with more justification.

      Hitler never came and bombed us directly like Hussein

      Neither did Saddam.

      If you oppose the war in Iraq for the reasons you are stating, then you are agreeing that the USA shouldn't have done anything to stop Hitler or any other foreign power that never directly attacked the US.

      Right, because all situations are the same.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    94. Re:The Iraq theater by SteelAngel · · Score: 1

      "Islam was a young religion when Christians first attacked the Middle East. "

      What the hell? Islam as a young religion attacked the Christians of the Middle East in the 7th century AD. Ask the Copts, Mandaeans and Syriacs what happened to their nations during the first Jihad.

      Oh wait. There's hardly any of them left.

    95. Re:The Iraq theater by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      he borders on seditious speech

      So what? It's perfectly legal to advocate the overthrow of the government.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    96. Re:The Iraq theater by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not quite right. A fw years ago there were both insurgents (local who anted a different government, but didn't have enough momentum to be callled a revolution) and foreign fighters, and the US troops were mostly fighting foreigners. Heck, at one point US troops accidentally entered Al Sadr's house, apologized, and left, because we really didn't want to take sides in any fighting between locals.

      Now things have changed. The foreign fighters have mostly left. Al Quaida delared defeat, made it their official policy not to piss of US Marines, and went off to Africa where they could have more fun. What's left now is a genuine insurgency, mostly led by Al Sadr. However, he's lost most of his popular support (at least, for violent methods), so the whole local insurgency thing is finally winding down. The local insurgency was never the big threat that the foreign fighters were, but it's been there all along.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    97. Re:The Iraq theater by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There were, in fact, people in the Middle East who really dislike America

      And if there were American troops marching through Glasgow, I'd be shooting at them too. Learn to leave when you've outstayed your welcome.

    98. Re:The Iraq theater by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Hitler did invade most of Europe. Sadam only invaded Kuweit, and that was *after* Kuweit started pumping huge quantities of oil from under both countries. The US helped the (rather undemocratic) rulers back into their seat and called it quits. Furthermore, Sadam was mostly interested in power and power alone. He did some atrocious things to make sure he was left in power, but I don't think he was separating out any group of people in particular unless they were fighting them. Yes, he was brutal, but nothing as much as the Nazi party in the later years.

      But the biggest difference between WWII and Iraq is that WWII was about freeing Europe from a conqueror nobody wanted. That's why there were huge celebrations all throughout Europe when the German forces were overthrown. This is in stark contrast with the internal struggle in Irak. In Europe, the old powers came back into force after only a 4-6 year absence. In Iraq it has been trouble ever since.

      I won't call Godwin on you, because both rulers were obviously atrocious dictators, but that's where the comparison ends.

    99. Re:The Iraq theater by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not "colonialism".

      Christianity has been waging war with the rest of the world since it was invented.

      Most of the world that is Christian now is that way because of those wars.

      Don't try to kid anyone. Fixed it for ya.
    100. Re:The Iraq theater by mrogers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hussein and Hitler did about the same things, both invaded other countries, both killed their own citizens, etc.

      Saddam Hussein had American support when he killed his own people and invaded Iran, because America's policy was to maintain the balance of power between Iraq and Iran. He retained American support until he invaded Kuwait, which would have upset the balance of power. All that stuff about Iraqi troops unplugging Kuwaiti baby incubators was just propaganda - it might have been true or it might not, but it certainly wasn't the cause of the Gulf War.

      America has been quite happy to support dictatorships (Iraq and Chile in the 1980s; Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Egypt and many others in the present), to overthrow democratic governments (Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, Nicaragua in the 1980s), to look the other way when its allies invaded other countries (Israel in 1967, Indonesia in 1975, Iraq in 1980), and even to invade other countries itself (Cuba in 1961, Cambodia in 1970, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Haiti in 1994, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003). To pretend that American foreign policy is based on how well other governments treat their neighbours and citizens is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

    101. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hussein and Hitler did about the same things, both invaded other countries, If you look at what is happening in the USA post 9/11, you'll see that GWB is also doing many of the same things as Hitler did after the Reichstag fire...

    102. Re:The Iraq theater by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a map floating around the tubes from after Bush and Cheney were inaugurated but before 9/11. It's from one of Cheney's groups and is a map of Iraq divided into sectors labeled with different oil company names. Now I doubt they actually would have gone to war just to fulfill the map, but it's long been obvious that 9/11 was simply a poor excuse for the invasion.

    103. Re:The Iraq theater by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Uh, no it's not. The Smith Act is still on the books, although not enforced. Other sedition laws have been thrown out by the courts, but The Smith Act can still be used. It just isn't. Common sense warrants someone to advocate removing this Act, but there are no guts in the legislatures.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    104. Re:The Iraq theater by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      Well, history is a funny thing, really.

      I'm not really interested in your comparison of Osama or Hussein to Hitler, as neither has the resources that Germany had.

      However as far as Cuba and the missile crisis goes, we had nuclear weapons next door to the USSR before they put theirs next to us. So your argument is correct if you're defending the actions of the USSR.

      --
      I don't get it.
    105. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well no so he made them worse and now we have this situation where people just want to kill Americans even more than they did before Iraq.

      What do they call it when the direct result of a security policy actually causes safety to decline? Kind of like forcing everyone to change their password twice a week and at the same time being shocked when all those acquisition requests for reams of post-it notes come rolling in.

    106. Re:The Iraq theater by Thiez · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I wonder why we hear this "We're the Americans we're so cool and friendly because we helped out in WOII"-thing all the time. Like you say, it was pretty obvious that Hitler was a threat to the U.S.. In addition, the U.S. was attacked by the Japanese, who, as we all know, were one of the three members of the Tripartite Pact (Italy and Germany being the others). When the U.S. declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy responded by declaring war on the U.S..

      While it's great that the U.S. helped out in WOII, GP is being inaccurate when saying "So, in saying that you are saying that we shouldn't have gone after Hitler?", suggesting that the U.S. took initiative and did for altruistic reasons. Truth is, Germany declared war on the U.S., not the other way round (once again I want to point out that this did not make their assistence less welcome).

    107. Re:The Iraq theater by Grail · · Score: 1

      An excellent piece of security theatre!

      I think there's a subtle difference between having a few dozen nuclear missiles parked on Cuban soil versus having a country full of angry people cursing your name.

      Of course, the policy of "fight them over there" is self fulfilling - by invading the country you're turning all those pissed-off people in to gun-wielding militias. Then you get to point at the gun-wielding militias and say, "See! I told you so!"

      Well done!

    108. Re:The Iraq theater by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Osama attacked us on 9/11 (similar to the Japanese on perl harbor which I am comparing it to)

      Iraq had a tyrant and was allied with Osama and other terrorist groups (similar to Hitler and Nazi Germany which I am comparing it to)

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    109. Re:The Iraq theater by Onan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, okay. Not sure why, but okay.

      Why did we start killing Hitler and the Nazis?

      Because they were conquering nations left and right, killing tens of millions of people, working with and militarily supporting Japan, which was regularly attacking the US, and possessed huge military power with the stated and plausible aim of conquering the world.

      Were they a threat to us?

      Given that they were part of an active military alliance that was attacking the US and killing Americans by the thousands, yes.

      Were they even there before we invaded, rather than being created by our occupation?

      Yes, the Nazis were out doing all of the things described above well before the US went to war. I suppose you could make an argument that the National Socialist movement was engendered by the Treaty of Versailles, and thus partially the creation of the US. But in that case, you'd need to be evaluating both wars as one, in which case Germany had once again been actively conquering for years before the US became involved.

      It may have come to your attention that every one of these answers is different than the ones regarding Iraq (which, I can't help but notice, you've still dodged answering). So tell me again why you're engaging in this silly exercise of equivocating two completely dissimilar situations?

    110. Re:The Iraq theater by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      how exactly was it worse for the USSR to put nukes near the US than for the US to put nukes close to the USSR?

      protip: " because they are commies" isn't good enough a reason.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    111. Re:The Iraq theater by Thiez · · Score: 1

      Germany declared war on the U.S., not the other way round, because Germany and Japan were allies and there was a war between the U.S. and Japan (the pearl harbor thing).

      > Why did we start killing Hitler and the Nazis?

      Because they declared war on you.

      > Were they a threat to us?

      YES. See above.

      > Your reasoning seems to suggest that we should have let Hitler take over all of Europe because he didn't attack America directly.

      He would have, unless the soviets defeated the germans (they *might* have, but the odds weren't good).

    112. Re:The Iraq theater by hobbit · · Score: 1

      Hitler never came and bombed us directly like Hussein Hussein bombed the USA? And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!
      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    113. Re:The Iraq theater by denttford · · Score: 1
      That's a very whitewashed account of history, one that seems to go in hand with the whole religion of peace nonsense. I'm not going to try and cover 1300 years of Islamic and/or Arab relations with dar adh-dhimmi, to say the least, it is a markedly varied encounter depending on time and place.* In very broad strokes, for Jews, Islam was a perpetual low to medium grade persecution, with rare massacres. Under Christendom, Jews were ok until a huge spike: someone decided to expel them or massacre them (many have forgotten that Germany killed off ~20% of their Jews in 1096 - I saw this fact reduced to one line on an object label at the Holocaust Musuem in Berlin). Not surprisingly, Christians tended to do worse than Jews under Islam because there was a large competing power base that (in theory) was interested in their continued survival - which had the effect of marking them as a political liability.

      It should also be noted that the inclusiveness and application pseudopigraphic pact of Umar even to non-Monotheistic or Revelation based religions was based on self interest, not some anachronistically modern sense of inclusiveness.
      • Populations that don't expect to be exterminated won't fight as hard for governments that are at best ambivalent to their welfare
      • No resources need to be expended in either killing or converting native populations, which allowed for the incredible of rate growth of the Caliphate into the 8th century.
      • Most importantly, converting Jews and Christians to Islam would have exempted them from the jizya reducing the tax revenue brought in by conquest.


      *Good example of the diversity of acceptance: 16th century Turkey was a haven for Jews escaping the Reconquista in Spain, even being allowed to publish unedited editions of the Talmud. Late 19th and 20th century Yemen - Western ambassadors report on elderly Jews being compelled to work in sewage cleaning. Christian were exempt of course, because they had all been expelled (or in some cases, killed) by then. Or simply in one point in time: Granada - Joseph ibn Naghrela inherits this father's place as vizier of a major Muslim city-state, oft cited as the paradigm of Convivencia, a role his father held for 20 years as a prolific poet and general. Not as politically astute as his father, he gets killed. Later that night, 4,000 Jews joined him.
      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    114. Re:The Iraq theater by mrogers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the Insurgents were not there before and they mostly are not Iraqis then where did they come from?

      Where did you get the idea that most of the insurgents are not Iraqis?

      Iraqis have no reason to be angry with the US since they elected their own government.

      Here's a thought experiment: imagine that in the future the US becomes a dictatorship. Life under the dictator is hard and you long for democracy to be restored, but the regime has spies everywhere and revolution seems impossible. Then the German army invades the US. German planes destroy most of the country's infrastructure and tens of thousands of civilians are killed. Everyone you know has lost a friend or relative. The Germans fire everyone with a government job, from the police to the postal service, and try to run the country with soldiers. But their soldiers aren't trained for civilian work - they don't even speak English. Misunderstandings often lead to shootings, and the soldiers are rarely punished. Resentment grows. Many of your friends join local militias. Some are killed, others tortured - some just disappear without a trace.

      Eventually the Germans set up a new government and hold elections, but many people refuse to vote because they don't consider the new government to be legitimate. The killings and disappearances continue. Then, after five years of occupation and with no end in sight, a German tells you that you have no reason to be angry - in fact you should be grateful. What's your reaction?

    115. Re:The Iraq theater by TENTH+SHOW+JAM · · Score: 1

      Power hungry individuals have been using religion as an excuse to wage war with the rest of the world since it was invented.

      Most muslims I know are peaceful people who try to practice their religion. Most jews I know are also peaceful people. Most christians, bhudists, taoists, hindus, jedis, and pastafarians are peaceful. The ones who aren't peaceful are usually pushing an agenda separate to the religion.

      --
      A sig is placed here
      To display how futile
      English Haiku is
    116. Re:The Iraq theater by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      Leave me a message when Iraq has the capability to take over the world, and I'll be standing right next to you saying we should be there fighting them.

      --
      I don't get it.
    117. Re:The Iraq theater by Grail · · Score: 1

      Insurgent: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this definition preclude being an insurgent anywhere else but their own backyard? So yes, you're strange. If you hadn't imposed a new civil authority, there wouldn't be insurgents.

    118. Re:The Iraq theater by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      congratulations, you are the stupidest motherfucker to ever post on slashdot.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    119. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but your wrong. The Iranians and all other foreign groups combined cause only a small portion of Iraqs troubles but at the same time should not be discounted. By far the lions share of unrest are caused by native power struggles/civial war type activities. It just seems that terrorists 0wn Iraq because it sells attention in the mass media/press/US administration.

      I've listened to a number of generals responsible for Iraq directly speak to this fact. It is also documented in those ever so boaring NIEs. The percentage of havoc caused by foreign players of any kind is actually only on the order of about 3% of total.

    120. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on Slashdot can you post this reply to a disabled vet and get modded "+5 Insightful" LOL

    121. Re:The Iraq theater by Onan · · Score: 1

      Iraq had a tyrant and was allied with Osama...

      Citation, as they say, needed.

      The relationship between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government would be best summed up as "mutual loathing, verging on outright enmity." If you're going to insist upon world war analogies, the the equivalent to invading Iraq would have been for the US to respond to Pearl Harbor by invading Korea.

    122. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The notion that Al Qaeda has not been touched post 9/11 shows just how little you understand of terrorism operations.

      You don't just run a terrorist operation with ten clever guys from a bowling league pitching in an extra $10 per week for the plane tickets you'll be using for your mastermind hijacking next tuesday. This stuff is expensive. You can't run your communications over phones because the US (or Mossad) is listening to them. That means face to face, or some sort of encrypted computer communications. Computer access isn't certain when you're in the ME so drops you back to face to face, and guess what? That means driving, and flying from point to point. That adds more cost.

      Then you need weapons. Assault Rifles are not free. Neither is ammo, and neither is bribing the local PD into shutting up about the fact that you are stockpiling assault weapons.

      This stuff costs money, and after 9/11 the US managed to track down lots of it, and use that figure out who was where, and who was dealing with whom. That's a huge blow.

      This is to say nothing of losing a very sympathetic government and base of operations in the Taliban.

      Or the loss of direct foot soldiers in fighting in Afganistan.

      Or the ones in Gitmo.

      Or the ones arrested here.

      Total up the number of 'enemy combatant' casualties that the US has and it's quite a large number. And yes, it's more than the number of newly radicalized people. Mostly because... the notion that you CAN radicalize large percentages of people is not well borne out by the numbers. Look at the black population in the US. How many were beaten and killed by white cops? How many 9/11s have blacks carried out against the whites?

    123. Re:The Iraq theater by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      It's not enforced because sedition is protected speech. The only real exception is if you're a foreigner - revolt is reserved to the citizenry. I suspect that the Smith act would be struck down if they ever tried to use it.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    124. Re:The Iraq theater by HadouKen24 · · Score: 1

      He did convert Mecca at the point of the sword--and extended the same treatment to all of those who followed the polytheistic traditions of the Arabs up to that point. However, he had very different treatment for Christians and Jews--Christians somewhat better than Jews, since a group of Jews turned against Muhammad at Medina and nearly ended Islam as a movement. Nonetheless, the point stands that Islamic civilization was, up until movements like the Enlightenment, far more accommodating of people of other religions than European civilization was.

    125. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be. Then again, maybe it's not. How can you be sure? Has the US been "attacked" since the Iraq war? Since 9/11? No. I have a yellow rubber ducky that the guy who sold it to me said was an anti-mountain lion talisman. I know he was telling the truth because since purchasing it I haven't been attacked by an mountain lions.
    126. Re:The Iraq theater by FleaPlus · · Score: 1
      How many americans had they killed? A big fat zero.

      Not quite...

      http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html

      September 11, 2001 - Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.

      Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

      Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

      June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

      June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

      Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

      February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

      Dec. 21, 1988 - A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.

      April 1986 - An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.

      December 1985 - Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.

      November 1985 - Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.

      October 1985 - Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.
    127. Re:The Iraq theater by FleaPlus · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't see wave after wave of people trying to storm our beaches, rape our infidel women or blow up idolatrous symbols of capitalistic greed over here.

      It's too bad Europe can't say the same.

    128. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the insurgents That word itself is part of the theater.
    129. Re:The Iraq theater by Quarters · · Score: 1

      Exactly when did Hussein bomb us?

    130. Re:The Iraq theater by TrebleMaker · · Score: 1

      A couple years ago I had a co-worker from Jordan who has relatives in Iraq. He said on the one hand, they were thankful that we took out Hussein. On the other hand, they were angry and disappointed that we did almost nothing to secure the borders after we "accomplished" our "mission". Quite predictably, that allowed many (mostly NON-IRAQI) combatants to enter the country and foment the insurgencies. If they were pissed at us, it was because we did it half-assed, not because we did it at all.

      So, yes, I think we can safely say (pun intended) that the (mostly NON-IRAQI) insurgents are *there* because we are *there*.

      --
      In Soviet Russia a beowulf cluster of these things imagines you welcoming your new, neural-network overlords.
    131. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really that stupid? Or is this some of that "Slashdot irony" that I keep hearing so much about?

    132. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard rather than killing them here, but I am probably strange that way.

      Yes, you are strange that way.


      You prefer, it seems, to create a huge number of insurgents, just for the purpose of fighting them?


      Here's a little knowledge bomb I'm going to drop your way... They weren't there until you invaded. At least they weren't insurgents then.


      "Fight them over there so we don't have to at home" is such an odious and incredibly false catch phrase. Really it disappoints me that so many Americans swallow it. How about, don't fight them over there or at home?

      yeah just don't fight them at all. let them bomb, kill, maim, terrorize here and there, where-ever. it appalls me at how naive 'educated' people are and how little they know of the real outside world.
    133. Re:The Iraq theater by Sperbels · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One day a King decided to make war with a neighboring country because they had something he wanted. So he went to his subjects and declared the neighbor an enemy. Many of his generals didn't believe him and protested. So the King gathered up his army and marched them into the neighboring country and began burning villages. Not surprising, the people in this country grabbed whatever weapons they could and fought back. Upon seeing the villagers battling his army, the King felt reassured. He walked over to his generals and said, "See! This country is chock full of enemies!"

    134. Re:The Iraq theater by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Hmmm... I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard rather than killing them here, but I am probably strange that way

      Strange, all right. Do you seriously claim that Iraq was about to invade the US? Or even launch a terrorist campaign? (No, they didn't have anything to do with 9/11, hope that wasn't what you were thinking.)

    135. Re:The Iraq theater by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I was discharged from service in 1998, medically, from wounds received during "peacetime" counter-terrorist activities. I continued working with the government, but this time without a sidearm.

      Thank you for your service to our country.

    136. Re:The Iraq theater by Grapes4Buddha · · Score: 1

      You have to look at this historically. People in the ME don't hate the US because of our freedom. They hate the US because of how we've treated them in the past. People in ME don't like people from the US because they're "from away". Unless of course they've lived in ME for several generations, then they're okay.

    137. Re:The Iraq theater by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      How many americans had they killed? A big fat zero. Not quite...

      No, still zero.

      Here "they" was referring to Iraqis. None of your examples involved Iraq.

    138. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      stonemetal said:

      How many americans had they killed? meaning how many Americans had Iraqis killed. You (FleaPlus) said:

      Not quite... and gave a list of eleven terrorist incidents, none of which involved Iraqis. So stonemetal was right when he said:

      A big fat zero.
    139. Re:The Iraq theater by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      I'm not in denial over the fact that it's a well-funded operation. I also know that it's been dealt blows. Its figurehead remains, as do its splintered cells.

      It's a bunch of bad guys. We've spent over a trillion dollars, and have little but enmity to show for it, that and the lives of dedicated servicemen and women. My ancestors fought for a free society, not one where you nearly have to undress to get on an airliner because of airline-hires that didn't do their jobs on 9/11. They didn't fight so that some bonehead can search you before you go into a minor league baseball game. They didn't fight so that the government could listen in on just about all of the communications that you do. They fought for liberty, and these thefts of liberty don't come at the price of security-- that's foolishness that's long been cited by various real patriots.

      Gitmo is a travesty of justice. It's a dubious legal ruse. It's a place where we *torture* people, as we've done across the Middle East and EU. We're subscribers to the UN writs of human rights, signators and progenitors on pacts that forbid this.

      How silly we've gotten can be easily manifested in the arrests of the hapless bunch in Florida. If every group that bitched and threatened to do something negative towards the government were incarcerated, it would far exceed the toll in prisons now-- the highest in the 'civilized' world.

      I feel for the families of those who've been killed in this war that was based on oil-- for if it were based on dissolving terrorist threats, it would have been far less expensive and far more effective. Instead, it was based on a ruse, continues to be a ruse, and the fear-mongering that led to these wars must be ended.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    140. Re:The Iraq theater by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country
      who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people
      along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a
      communist dictatorship.

      Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.

      That is easy.

      All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and
      denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
      exposing the country to greater danger."

      Some dude said that a while back.

    141. Re:The Iraq theater by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather feel safer by not needlessly stirring up hornet's nests.

      Besides, the amount of support Saddam gave to al qaeda was basically moral support at best. Iraq didn't take down the WTC, nor did they assist in any way. I don't really think it mattered much what side did it, but our situation today may have been due to blunders. The US gave arms to Bin Laden et al. to fight out the Soviets. Why were the Soviets there? To stomp out violent religious extremists. And the US supported said violent religious extremists, and allowed them to carry on as the Taliban. Which was used as a force to allow terrorist training in Afghanistan which eventually was used to fell the WTC.

      By failing to ask questions, a sequence of events was set into motion based only on who is our current enemy and not on any possible consequences that may be had later on.

    142. Re:The Iraq theater by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      We would hope that the Smith Act would be struck down, but it's survived so far. Seditious libel goes far back in history, and I cite it as an example of how suppression of hostile speech against governments serves the governments, and not necessarily the aims of its citizenry.

      A paranoid presidency has been known to do many things. Sedition isn't protected.... yet. During the 1960's, seditious speech was real and we were at a similar tipping point in history after a failed war, a rattled economy, and the threats of violence from equality movements. We had riots. Things burned. People were in fear. Governments became paranoid, and they did stupid things. The governmental reaction against perceived sedition can happen again.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    143. Re:The Iraq theater by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative
      Iraq had a tyrant and was allied with Osama and other terrorist groups (similar to Hitler and Nazi Germany which I am comparing it to)

      Sorry, you're sadly misinformed. Saddam was not an ally of al Qaeda. He was a nominal Muslim, but his policies were anathema to he fundamentalists. (He let women work and attend university, for instance.) Saddam was on al Qaeda's hit list, and he knew it. They wanted to get rid of corrupt, loose-living secularists like Saddam and install a theocracy, like the Taliban, in every Muslim country. Saddam was an evil dictator, but never, to my knowledge, took any action against the US outside the Middle East.

    144. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but you have to look at who's dying. The people who worked in the WTC were mostly well-off people with good jobs in thinks like banking and finance. The people dying in Iraq are mostly poor Americans or foreigners.

    145. Re:The Iraq theater by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard rather than killing them here

      If we weren't in their backyard, they wouldn't be insurgents, they would just be some people who don't like use, but live several thousand miles away. Any Iraqis who want to come to the USA and blow shit up would do just that. It would actually be much easier for and Iraqi to sneak into the US and bomb a shopping mall than it would be for them to stay and fight the trained, armed, armored troops that are "in their backyard". The only reason for the insurgents to pick the more difficult option of fighting or military is because they are fighting to get get us to leave, not because they want an American jihad.

      --
      We are all just people.
    146. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think that body armor counts as security theater. We make our soldiers wear the body armor that protects the core of their body, but not their hand, feet or face.

      So instead of dying we have at least another 6,000 people with both arms and both legs blown off, blinded and deaf. Their heads horribly burned. It is the worst living hell you can imagine.

      Just so that the politicians can say that only 6,000 American soldiers have died.

    147. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're either 13 years old, or borderline retarded.

      "How many americans [sic] had they killed? A big fat zero."

      REALLY? You need to do some research pal. It should take about 4 seconds.

    148. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a matter of opinion as to whether arming nuclear missiles and deploying them, targetted at the US, is an attack or not.

      No, it is not a matter of opinion. The fact is that Cuba did not attack the USA.

      It is also a verifiable fact that the Soviets deploying missiles in Cuba was a direct response to the USA deploying nuclear missiles in Turkey.

      If deploying missiles in Cuba was, as you claim, an attack on the USA, then wasn't the USA deploying missiles in Turkey an attack on the Soviet Union? And since, in your view, the USA attacked the Soviet Union first, wasn't the Soviet Union, by your rationale, justified in its retaliation?

    149. Re:The Iraq theater by DeadChobi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually Hussein was vehemently opposed to terrorist organizations and everything that they stood for. He was on friendly terms with the US for a very long time before we decided we didn't like how he was using the guns we gave him. He affected quite a few Western fashions, including being clean-shaven and wearing business suits and ties. And he was quite a secular man as well.

      Basically what I'm saying is that what you're saying is flat-out untrue.

      And Pearl Harbor was an attack by a nation on another nation, not a criminal act commited by a bunch of thugs with flight training. There's a difference that a lot of people miss. Terrorists are not military, they are criminals. If you lump them in with military fighters then you are essentially granting their actions legitimacy as acts of war. We should not be making war on terrorists, we should be assisting soverign nations in arresting and prosecuting criminals. The second we started doing the former we granted our enemies legitimacy by accepting that we and they were equals internationally.

      --
      SRSLY.
    150. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last time we tried it your way they flew large commercial aircraft into our buildings... at home.

    151. Re:The Iraq theater by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It would be damn near impossible to get me to murder, but I'm not a silly psychopath trying to get my 72 virgins or whatever lie we're telling about Muslims (or they're telling each other) this week.

      I also wouldn't try to justify it for someone else, but this is Slashdot, where proprietary software is immoral and killing Americans is peachy fucking keen.

    152. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize you were playing stupid for the sake of being caustic, but anyone with an IQ over 60 realizes that, "I feel safer killing insurgents in their backyard rather than killing them here" means, "I want our military to have their shootouts with dangerous people somewhere far away, rather than on US soil."

    153. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the funny thing is though, the same people who lament that our government didn't do anything about Hitler until it involved the US (who killed his own people and invaded other countries) are the same people who think that we shouldn't go after Hussein (who killed his own people and invaded other countries)."

      I guess their political opponents then were the people who wanted to hold off on stopping Hitler but then wanted to go after Hussein asap? Migods, are all politicians flip-floppers!

    154. Re:The Iraq theater by Reaperducer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Learn to leave when you've outstayed your welcome.

      Yeah, like the Brits.

      America, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma, Egypt, Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Malaysia, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh... Is there any country on this planet the British haven't gotten their butts kicked out of?

      At least the Americans are good and whooped before they quit a war. They don't just run away when the tea runs out.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    155. Re:The Iraq theater by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Here "they" was referring to Iraqis. None of your examples involved Iraq.

      And a large part of the combatants captured in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia... The point is that there is a large and mobile population that has decided to make war on the US. Right now the fight is in Iraq. It has been in many other countries, including the US. If we suddenly leave the mid-east, it probably will be again. This is a war that is over 2000 years old. It will not be solved on slashdot today.

    156. Re:The Iraq theater by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "Humans have been waging war on other humans on the thinnest available pretexts since humans were invented."

      So humans were "invented" huh? I guess that tells us where you come down on the whole "religion" issue.

    157. Re:The Iraq theater by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      This is a war that is over 2000 years old. Actually it's about 60 years old.
      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    158. Re:The Iraq theater by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      And a large part of the combatants captured in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia... The point is that there is a large and mobile population that has decided to make war on the US.

      Really? How many is "large"?

      Anyway, they're not "making war on the US". They're trying to force the US out of the Middle East. Big difference. The US is thousands of miles away from the war. 9/11 was pretty spectacular, but it was a very isolated incident. One attack by 20 terrorists is not a "war".

    159. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know now that Hitler would have been a threat but how many of the US leaders at the time supported him? The only reason FDR declared war with Germany after Peal Harbour was because he was sure he would never get another chance once a war was started with Japan.

    160. Re:The Iraq theater by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 1

      Do you even know what the word "insurgent" means? An insurgent is a rebel. A native Iraqi who's defending his country against a foreign invader (US) and rebelling against a puppet government.

      If an insurgent came here he would be a foreign enemy but by no stretch of the imagination could he be an insurgent in our country.

      Try to think critically and see past the propaganda and the bullshit instead of just parroting phrases that you really can't be bothered to understand.

    161. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: the whole "fight over there, not over here" argument is not a strawman tactic. It could be called "Red Herring" or "dodgeing the question". More accurately it would be "Argumentum ad Baculum" aka: Appeal to Fear. Strawman tactics are when a legitimate argument is MISREPRESENTED to twist it into a weaker argument- one that can be attacked more easily. I respect your opinion... I'm just a jerk!

    162. Re:The Iraq theater by BryanL · · Score: 1

      "They weren't there until you invaded."

      Ah yes, Scrodinger's Insurgents. Isn't this a corollary of his cat theory?.

    163. Re:The Iraq theater by David+at+Eeyore · · Score: 1

      Hear, Hear - most 'terrists' are fanatic criminals and should be dealt with as such. Religion is used as a smokescreen for their real motives - seizing of money/land/power.

      --
      "Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups" seen on someone's blog...
    164. Re:The Iraq theater by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I guess asking you to read is a bit much. How about just renting "Kingdom of Heaven" for a start. I think it took place over 60 years ago, and it was not the first thing...

    165. Re:The Iraq theater by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hussein was a bad man, Hitler was a bad man, the funny thing is though, the same people who lament that our government didn't do anything about Hitler until it involved the US (who killed his own people and invaded other countries) are the same people who think that we shouldn't go after Hussein (who killed his own people and invaded other countries). I'm one of those people, could you please explain what's funny about this? Logically speaking, this would only be consistent if the two men were equivalent threats and equally evil, and the response to each was the same.

      Hitler was in charge of a major European power. By the time he started taking over other countries, he had amassed a fairly powerful, modern army, which was able to rival the best his opponents could muster.

      Hussein was in charge of a crappy piece of desert in a place where all the good weapons are imported from other countries. Even at the height of its power in 1991, the Iraqi Army was powerless to even slow down the US Army and its friends. The kill ratio was something like a thousand to one. After the army was essentially destroyed in 1991, the sanctions imposed on the country never let it recover. The Iraqi Army in 2003 was but a shadow of its former self, and the US Army smashed it flat in about three weeks.

      The best time to have stopped Hitler was Czechoslovakia. He took over that country, not by force of arms, but by diplomacy. The Allied powers were so afraid of war that they just let him have it. Czechoslovakia had a good, modern army and had excellent defenses prepared against Germany, but their political will to resist collapsed after France and the UK abandoned them and basically threw them to the wolves. If they had simply not abandoned Czechoslovakia, much would have turned out differently.

      The best time to stop Hussein was... well, by the time we invaded, he was not a credible threat against any of his neighbors, and the invasion didn't stop him from taking any of them over because he wasn't going to anyway.

      Hussein was no threat. It was known that he was no threat before the invasion. He may well have been as evil as Hitler, but he was never going to command anything remotely close to the military power possessed by Nazi Germany.

      Given the above, I see absolutely no inconsistency in a position which holds that Hitler should have been stopped much earlier and Iraq should have been left alone.
      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    166. Re:The Iraq theater by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The reason that America hasn't been subsequently attacked had nothing to do with punishing the silly, stupid Taleban in Afghanistan, or fomenting a war in Iraq. The perps were a group calling themselves Al Qaeda, and they haven't been touched.

      You're kidding, right? Al Qaeda has been touched badly by us - we've imprisoned some of their top leaders, killed others, and those left are hiding in Pakistan. Contrast this to the previous condition where they were openly running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and able to carry out a couple of good attacks. I agree with you that a lot of luck was involved, along with a lot of planning and some plain stupidity on the part of our law enforcement. But we've done a good job of dismantling their infrastructure. Without the distraction of Iraq, we would probably be doing a better job of it.

    167. Re:The Iraq theater by Ripit · · Score: 1

      Hush, Ari Fleischer, it'll all be OK in the morning.

    168. Re:The Iraq theater by Markus+Landgren · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I must have slept through my history classes, I had no idea the US has even existed for 2000 years.

    169. Re:The Iraq theater by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      One thing I've noticed over the years is that the military personell who tend to simplify tend to be rank and rile enlisted men. Officers tend to be sophisticated and nuanced in their views, so I'd not agree with your generalization. It is important to DO something. It is equally important to be circumspect in what you do. Thrashing out blindly may give a feeling of doing something, but it is not accomplishing much. Don't let emotions rule over your brain.

      Prior to the Iraq war, there were some people hiding in caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan calling themselves Al Queada. You might have heard of them. They had actually killed Americans; a lot of them. They had some buddies called the Taliban.

      Did we concentrate on them? No. Instead, we went after some people that look kind of like them and probably sympathized as a part of some "We're going to settle all of our scores now" effort. The problem is that America's pool of hard power is not infinite and this line of thinking tends to forget that. It also tends not only to forget the value of soft power, but to actively disdain it. While our military has been straining for five years in Iraq, those people who actually committed 9/11 have been able to make a comeback. I'm not sure I'm cynical enough to call that security theater, but it is certainly emotion coming before the brain.

      On a side note, many of those same people who advocated invading Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan are advocating attacking Iran. Iran's intelligence services actively helped topple the Taliban in the first place. Not long after helping us in Afghanistan, the Iranians were stunned to be named in the "Axis of Evil". Concluding that working with the US carries no benefits for them and that they would be next after Iraq, they began actively undermining efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure their own security. This is another example of emotions (we hate Iran because of 1979) undermining the brain.

    170. Re:The Iraq theater by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Actually Hussein was vehemently opposed to terrorist organizations and everything that they stood for. He was on friendly terms with the US for a very long time before we decided we didn't like how he was using the guns we gave him. One quibble - most of those guns came from the Soviet Union and France. I had always thought Saddam had come out of the Cold War pretty well off with support from both factions.
    171. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'll make an exception to my long standing policy of not responding to ACs:" - by postbigbang (761081) on Wednesday May 28, @05:26PM (#23576791) And, just who the hell do you YHINK that YOU are, you sanctimonious asshole?

      I will tell you 1 thing, that's just a FACT:

      Your being a "registered slashdot user"? First, that doesn't make you ANY better than anyone else, here OR elsewhere, period - In fact, it makes you STUPID, & on a security-related note (personal security that is)... since that is what this post thread subject, is about!

      Why/how?

      Because you are SO trackable, being a "registered member" here, it is NOT even funny (just clicking on your username shows me a huge chunk of your recent posting history is why & how).

      Dumb asses like yourself amaze me... the "holier than thou" type!

      (I wonder if "Mr. Bigshot registered user" can resist replying back to THIS one!)

      Anyone want to take bets he does, because it offends his sense of "I am better than you" etc.

    172. Re:The Iraq theater by Builder · · Score: 1

      And here I find myself without modpoints *shakes head*

      Mind if I steal that, paraphrase it and repost it somewhere ?

    173. Re:The Iraq theater by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      But you aren't. You're creating insurgents out of formerly disinterested parties that in the past were even sympathetic. You are diverting resources and manpower away from defence of your own interests and assets, and weakening the overall defensive posture.

      That is, if you are doing anything at all besides armchair cheerleading.

      So while the US armed forces are busy overseas, expending their resources faster than they can be replenished, homegrown radical militias like the one that spawned Tim McVieh go unchecked, harbours go unmonitored and many other radical groups feel empowered by the fact that the USA cannot engage them.

      So tell me again: why do you feel safer?

    174. Re:The Iraq theater by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 1

      AWW... Now you've gone and fucked up his whole argument without letting him in on the joke. OTOH he probably wouldn't get it even if you explained it to him.

    175. Re:The Iraq theater by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 1

      He probably won't bother to look up "Epistemologically" either.

    176. Re:The Iraq theater by julesh · · Score: 1

      You say Al Qaeda. I say Emmanuel Goldstein.

      Let's call the whole thing off?

    177. Re:The Iraq theater by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      You seem to meander, as your argument suggests that "insurgents" refers to a singular group working to one goal. In Iraq, that is demonstrably not the case.

      There are several armed groups in Iraq using covert methods, and the jihadists were never a large factor. Instead, the main forces were the Ba'ath Party and former Iraqi army members, who stood down when the US-led invasion began. Many did this due to secret deals with the US, and thought they could return to normal once Saddam was deposed. When the USA disbanded the Army and kicked all Ba'ath members out of the government, all of a sudden a bunch of well-armed men were out of work and pissed at broken promises.

      Later on, Arab nationalists came in force, to help "liberate" Iraq. The motives were not all religious, but many were inspired by regional patriotism. They were not invited, though; many faced open antipathy from the locals, and their numbers soon dropped.

      And all this time, the simmering three-way feud between Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds keeps bubbling away, and centuries-old vendettas are hot again as there is no authority to suppress them any more.

      So what was missing from this mix? A desire to destroy the USA, really. They just wanted the Americans to get out, as the occupation has made their lives worse. But the longer foreign troops stay there, resentment grows to the point of desiring "to give them a taste of their own medicine", to make Americans suffer like they suffer, to "see how they like it when they lose loved ones like we do".

      Oh, and you do know that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the US-led invasion and occupation, and even now is only a bit player? Or have you forgotten that it was Saudi wackos that hijacked the planes?

    178. Re:The Iraq theater by syousef · · Score: 1

      Hussein was a bad man, Hitler was a bad man, the funny thing is though, the same people who lament that our government didn't do anything about Hitler until it involved the US (who killed his own people and invaded other countries) are the same people who think that we shouldn't go after Hussein (who killed his own people and invaded other countries).

      I'm not going to feel pity for either asshole. However last time I checked, Hitler offed himself, and the war ended. Whereas Hussein was hung in December 2006 for his war crimes and the war still goes on. This time, when does the war stop exactly? You still have neo-nazis in Germany, but the US hasn't used that as an excuse to prolong WWII till present day.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    179. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam was a young religion when Christians first attacked the Middle East. How are you not supposed to harbor a grudge
      How long ago was that? The fucking crusades may as well have happened last week. You just made that point.
    180. Re:The Iraq theater by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1
      As I am sure you have been lectured a bit, here's a summary of your logical errors:

      Hitler never came and bombed us directly like Hussein You have admitted your error later on, in recognising that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were not allied. Still the error goes deeper in that from 1939 to 1941, Germans deliberately targeted and sank US commercial shipping to Europe. Also, just after the US declaration of war against Japan, Germany declared war against the USA and began attacking any US resources they could.

      Iraq, on the other hand, did not declare war. In fact, both Iraq and Iran issued statements of condemnation. Where Hitler celebrated the attack against the USA, Saddam tried to mollify.

      Cuba never attacked us directly, yet surely you don't think that them having missiles aimed at the US is any reason to have missiles aimed back at Cuba. Cuba never got to that point, since Kennedy was able to handle that incident without firing a shot. Whether US missiles were programmed to hit Cuba after that is classified, but it is a safe bet that they were instead aimed at more strategic targets.

      In fact, your comparing a deterrent posture to a pre-emptive invasion is simply wrong. Striking a defensive posture is not equal to taking offensive action.
    181. Re:The Iraq theater by Tom · · Score: 1

      This seems to be closer to the truth. I might say: "Religion has been used as an excuse for waging war with the rest of the world since it was invented." True, but incomplete.

      Religion is such an excellent excuse for war, and provides so many reasons of killing others, while at the same time giving you a hundred ways to get rid of your guilt, from confession to "it was His will" that it should count as a lot more than just a convenience.

      Yes, religion has been used as an excuse for a lot of wars that would very likely have happened without it. However, in addition to that, it has also started a lot of wars that would not have occurred if it weren't for religion.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    182. Re:The Iraq theater by Tom · · Score: 1

      Hitler was quite openly intent upon conquering most of three continents, and was part of a functional alliance that was directly attacking the US. He was at the head of an enormously powerful and aggressive military force, and represented a huge threat to both the world in general and the United States in particular. There's another part to that story, however.

      The 3rd Reich did not really have active plans to attack or conquer the USA. It did, however, intend to establish a european superpower (itself).

      Entering WW2 predictably turned large parts of Europe into an economic wasteland, with a decade or two until recovery. This allowed the US to emerge as an economic superpower on the world stage. After the great depression, that was very likely on someone's agenda.

      Compare economic numbers before and after the war.

      No, I don't say that was the only reason, probably just one of many. But if you don't figure in human lives at more than their economic worth, then WW2 had a pretty good return-on-investment for the USA, and a pretty shitty one for everyone else.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    183. Re:The Iraq theater by Planar · · Score: 1

      Religion is nothing more than man's interpretation of spirituality. Religion is much more than that. Religion is man's interpretation of spirituality on the one hand. On the other hand, religion is also an organization that pervades society and works very much like a mafia or a cult.
    184. Re:The Iraq theater by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Learn to leave when you've outstayed your welcome.

      Yeah, like the Brits.

      America, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma, Egypt, Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Malaysia, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh... Is there any country on this planet the British haven't gotten their butts kicked out of?

      Yep, Scotland! He's no Brit, he's from Glasgow you see.

    185. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If that's insight, I'm a fucking tower crane.

    186. Re:The Iraq theater by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 3, Informative

      We don't seem to run away as fast as the Yanks ...and most of these appear to be democracies (Except Burma...)?

      America : 1607 - 1775 (168 years)
      Turkey : ??? Not since it has been turkey?
      Afghanistan : 1839 - 1919 (80)
      Iraq : 1921 - 1932 (11)
      Burma : 1824 - 1948 (124)
      Egypt : 1882 - 1922 (40)
      Palestine : 1917 - 1948 (31)
      Bosnia : Not occupied except as part of UN force?
      Kosovo : Not occupied except as part of UN force?
      Malaysia : 1786 - 1963 (177)
      Hong Kong : 1841 - 1997 (156)
      India : 1856 - 1947 (91)
      Pakistan : Created after we left ...
      Bangladesh : Created after we left...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    187. Re:The Iraq theater by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Because the first ever foray of the west into the middle east started with the second gulf war! No democracies had been toppled there, no marauding imperial armies had swept across it, no massacres, no countries created by signing paper thousands of miles away, nothing. It was just middle easterners living among middle easerners.

      Idiot.

    188. Re:The Iraq theater by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You bleeding-heart liberals really piss me off. Brown people == brown people. Don't try to weasel your way out of this one with your logic and facts.

    189. Re:The Iraq theater by dave420 · · Score: 1

      He was even given permission to invade Kuwait - from the US. He was a team player the whole way through.

    190. Re:The Iraq theater by davide+marney · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not true that no Americans had been killed before the current Iraq conflict, as others have pointed out. The conflict had been going on for decades before.

      The big one, though, is Iraq weapons of mass destruction. Although no Americans died from these, 5,000 people died from the Chemical Warfare attack on Halabja. Throughout the 1990s, the UN found and destroyed large quantities of WMD in Iraq. Everyone certainly thought they had even more, but this turned out not to be the case.

      I remember the time immediately before the current war very well. The 9/11 attack had put everyone on edge. No one knew for sure what the Iraqis did or didn't have because Saddam was not letting the inspectors do their jobs fully. Lots of people believed that the Iraqis must have these weapons because they've used them before, they're hiding everything, and no one can find any evidence of their destruction.

      Personally, I believe that Saddam was the primary reason for the unrest in Iraq (both inside Iraq and with its neighbors). He never believed the US would ever truly invade (in spite of the Gulf War -- go figure!), and decided to play a game of cat and mouse with the whole international community over WMDs. He failed to take into account the effect that 9/11 would have on public opinion in the US, and lost.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    191. Re:The Iraq theater by dirtyangus · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's the best one of all! Hahaha! We created insurgents. I like your line of thinking...stick your head in the sand and they just don't exist. It disappoints me that so many Americans swallow that.

    192. Re:The Iraq theater by zehaeva · · Score: 1

      Wait we did go after Hussein when he invaded other countries, that was the 1st Iraq war in the early 90's. Just what did he do to provoke the ire of the great United States before we swerved from Afghanistan to Iraq? He was attacking what other country then? Don't get me wrong, Hussein was a Bad Guyâ in my book. But at the time that we attacked his nation and hanged him I can't honestly see anything that he did wrong other than abusing his own people. IF we, the United States, are going to be in the business of deposing despots who hurt their own people then I think we're going to be pretty busy for the next century or so what with the abuses China, North Korea, Chili(well I'm personally not to sure on that one), Cuba, etc., etc., etc. We can not be the police to the world, Bad People do Bad Things and theres is naught we can do to fix the whole of it. At worse we should fix our selves before we go crusading across the globe fixing everyone else. I mean where the hell were we when millions were being murdered in Darfur?

    193. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about, don't fight them over there or at home?

      Yes, because not fighting them anywhere after their unprovoked '93 WTC attack made them peaceful and content. We never had any more trouble with them.

      btw, has there been any more attacks on American soil since we've given them the opportunity to be 'martyrs' on their own soil?

    194. Re:The Iraq theater by why-is-it · · Score: 1

      Hussein was a bad man, Hitler was a bad man, the funny thing is though, the same people who lament that our government didn't do anything about Hitler until it involved the US (who killed his own people and invaded other countries) are the same people who think that we shouldn't go after Hussein (who killed his own people and invaded other countries).

      Any powerful nation's foreign policy is based entirely on perceived self interest. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    195. Re:The Iraq theater by bcattwoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lol, so true. My aunt and uncle lived in Maine for twenty years and were still considered outsiders. Of course, as Long Island natives they would probably be viewed warily anywhere.

    196. Re:The Iraq theater by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      "He can't goad people forever with the old evil american line if the evil americans never manifest themselves."

      Yeah, especially since he died a couple of years ago. Try to keep up.

    197. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You FOOL! They hate us because of our freedom! Now there can be no further discussion of this topic. I WILL NOT ALLOW IT!!

    198. Re:The Iraq theater by mrogers · · Score: 1

      Not at all, please do!

    199. Re:The Iraq theater by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Any ... nation's foreign policy is based entirely on perceived self interest. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it.

      There. Fixed it for you.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    200. Re:The Iraq theater by Grapes4Buddha · · Score: 1

      Goddam flatlandahs

    201. Re:The Iraq theater by shilly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well if people had any sense of historical fucking perspective, they'd have heard of the term Potemkin village and wouldn't assume that an impoverished dictatorship hemmed in for a decade by several powerful armed forces really would have WMD

    202. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Picture this: the whole world knows that your leader is a tyrant responsible for the deaths of many innocent civilians. A multinational force arrives, plows through your flimsy army, and deposes the tyrant. Then they come to your house in black ski masks, take your elderly uncle and your father away never to be seen again.

      What's the patriotic response?

    203. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America has been quite happy to support dictatorships (Iraq and Chile in the 1980s; Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Egypt and many others in the present), to overthrow democratic governments (Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, Nicaragua in the 1980s)
      I'm glad someone knows a bit of history.

      What probably most slashdot readers, don't know is the particular date that America helped overthrow Democracy in Chile

      I am not going to try and pass judgement on Foreign Policy, (what works well for individuals, rarely works for countries), I just wanted to make the point that nothing happens in Isolation, Actions have Re-actions, and Simplistic views of your nations history let you be easily manipulated by your politicians.
    204. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why are we doing it half assed?

      Nuke the shit out of iran,iraq,afganastan, and then make a public statment.. Who else wants to FUCK with the USA? Bring it you pussies!

      Honestly, it will fix the entire region. Yes there will be some innocent casualties, but that's the price of war.

      Doing that even on one country would shut up the cowardly jihad USa hating fuckers instantly.

      They awoke the giant, and the giant only sat there and cried.

    205. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Cool! It's not every day you get to see construction equipment posting on Slashdot.

    206. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So....9/11? Oh, wait that's right, they haven't struck out at us. And here's a little "knowledge bomb" for you, they were there, they've always been there. We just called them terrorists. You know what, we might as well call this "Shock and Awe" because here's another "bomb" for you...the actual definition of "Insurgent"...apparently you've never read it. Hope this helps.

      inÂsurÂgent/ - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sur-juhnt]
      â"noun
      1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
      2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.
      â"adjective

      Dictionary.com...you should use it.

    207. Re:The Iraq theater by psmears · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a war that is over 2000 years old. Are you seriously suggesting that there's a "large and mobile population that has decided to make war on the US" that has been around for centuries longer than either the US or (considering you refer to the Crusades in your other post) Islam, for that matter? I've got to say, that's pretty far fetched, even for slashdot ;-)
    208. Re:The Iraq theater by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was absolutely a religious assertion, not a tongue-in-cheek parallel structure with the original post. You have laid bare my devious rhetorical machinations for all to see. Whatever would the /. community do were it not for your insight?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    209. Re:The Iraq theater by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      I've seen and spoken with Mujahideen fighters. I've seen members of the Taliban. I've fought against insurgents in Iraq. I've seen the intimidation present during the Iraqi "elections". I've seen the reports and intel on Somali radical militias. I've seen 9/11.

      You are taking nearly a dozen different issues and groups and bunching them all into one mess. They're not the same. Is the only connection you can draw the fact that they're (mostly) Muslim?

      How about we turn this around and talk about any bad thing any member of any arbitrary religion has ever done. Hitler was raised Catholic, so that must mean all Catholics are evil and must be slaughtered? Stalin was basically athiest, so that must mean all athiests are responsible for gulags, right?

    210. Re:The Iraq theater by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      >> No trolling intended, but...

      No, indeed! Now sit in your corner and think about what you've done.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    211. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should read up on the things that Western Civilization has done TO these people that might have pissed them off slightly. Hell just read all the shit the CIA has done to people and you might think "oh, maybe we're not quite the good guys like we want everyone to believe"

      It's time for "modern civilization" and the US/UK in particular to take responsibility for their childish and belligerent actions. Stop fucking around in other people's business just because they do something that we* don't like.

      * - US/UK Government & Corporations. People in power basically.

    212. Re:The Iraq theater by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      killing Americans is peachy fucking keen
      Wow that is an awesome man you have built there. What is that he's made out of? Is that dry grass? Oh, it's straw. Well done.
    213. Re:The Iraq theater by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      Man, i love that image. Replace all those blue vests with PRC military uniforms.

    214. Re:The Iraq theater by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Yes. The logical consequences of your line of reasoning led to nuclear war.
      We avoided that. We put an embargo against Cuba. Perhaps it's time to lift it.
      Good luck with that. Don't tell me. Write your congressman or something.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    215. Re:The Iraq theater by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Sigh. It's too bad people can't bother to respond instead of just modding me "Troll."

    216. Re:The Iraq theater by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Hydrocarbon piracy? Buahahaha. Do we have good or bad relations with Saudi Arabia? We have good relations. Why? They didn't first let companies come in and drill for oil and then "nationalize" and steal the oil rights and the equipment used to do it.

    217. Re:The Iraq theater by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      When did I say that Muslims should be slaughtered? You like to put words into people's mouths? I don't think by a long shot that all Muslims are radical or violent. What I was connecting here is that Islam IS the motivation for the ones I did mention and they use it as an excuse to attack those who will not convert to Islam and follow Sharia law or just offend them in some way. My Point really was that the resistance mostly came from foreign fighters but even if we were not in Iraq they would find some group of people somewhere to attack either physically or mentally. It's this group of Muslims who oppress their own people and even blow up their fellow Muslims but do it all in Allah's name. It's a problem that should be addressed with force if required.

    218. Re:The Iraq theater by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      That's a nice straw man you constructed there.

    219. Re:The Iraq theater by HadouKen24 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't whitewashed as much as foreshortened.

      To be sure, the treatment of Christians and Jews frequently left much to be desired. However, I was responding to the claim that, essentially, Islam was spread by the sword. The implication that "convert or die" was the standard is clearly wrong from a historical standpoint, no matter what Islamic motivations for leniency might have been. (Though I don't think the Muslim injunctions to uphold peace and not to kill should be ignored, not to mention Muhammad's example of NOT killing Christians and Jews unless they actively worked against the survival of the ummah, or Islamic community.) I was trying to argue against a drastically over-simplistic presentation of history, not present one of my own.

    220. Re:The Iraq theater by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

      Heck, I grew up in France and people hated Americans. Not that the French have seriously been considered a threat by any military nation since Napoleon.

      Q: How many French soldiers does it take to defend Paris?
      A: We don't know, it's never been tried.

      --
      This space up for sale.
    221. Re:The Iraq theater by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

      Heck, I grew up in France and people hated Americans. It was more resentment of the culture and politics, and it led to as much as bombing of MacDonalds fast-food restaurants by some guy from Brittany, if I remember correctly.

      Not that the French have seriously been considered a threat by any military nation since Napoleon.

      Q: How many French soldiers does it take to defend Paris?
      A: We don't know, it's never been tried.

      --
      This space up for sale.
    222. Re:The Iraq theater by swillden · · Score: 1

      "They" are a useful scare tactic, and that's it.

      c.f. my sig

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    223. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The big one, though, is Iraq weapons of mass destruction [wikipedia.org]. Although no Americans died from these, 5,000 people died from the Chemical Warfare attack on Halabja


      But again, the elephant in the room for which you're ignoring America's responsibility, is that *we supplied the gas*. So, you don't get to claim some sort of moral high ground because Saddam gassed a bunch of folks when we gave him the gas and said go ahead and gas those fuckers if it'll boost profits, because we do not give a flying fuck about ethical behavior.

      That fundamental disconnect between pro America arguments and sanity is why we're rightfully despised and it's why it just keeps getting worse.

      He failed to take into account the effect that 9/11 would have on public opinion in the US, and lost.

      No, he didn't take into account that Bush and his cronies would intentionally misuse and betray the public's feelings after 9/11 in order to move ahead with a hare brained scheme for world domination which they had planned long before.

      Do you see how your just repeating the same lies that got us into this mess and how by thinking about the actual facts at hand you can actually sound like you're living in the real world? Your nonsense scenario directly contradicts reality. If you, as you clearly have, choose to ignore vast swathes of reality, then you can make your rosy picture look sane, but to everyone who doesn't plug their ears and go, "lalalala I can't hear you", you, and by extension our country, do look batshit insane.

      Please grow and start acting like an adult before we're just completely bankrupt because you're afraid of your own shadow and too cowardly to pay a little attention once in a while.

    224. Re:The Iraq theater by Darby · · Score: 1

      . This is another example of emotions (we hate Iran because of 1979) undermining the brain.

      Which was our own fault in the first place for murdering their democratically elected leader and installing a brutal, but
      American business friendly thug as per our standard MO for the past century or so.

      If it weren't so devastating to so many I'd laugh at what fucking delusional morons we must seem to any halfway intelligent person looking on.

    225. Re:The Iraq theater by Darby · · Score: 1

      Do we have good or bad relations with Saudi Arabia? We have good relations. Why?

      Because we provide them with the weapons they use to keep their own people down so they can maintain their brutal thuggish monarchy.

      I assume that was rhetorical.

      I mean the fact that they're the source of Wahabiism, they're the ones whose schoolbooks actually are full of "Death to
      America the Great Satan", points out how stupid we are to maintain good relations with them, but that's not what you asked.

    226. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've fought against insurgents in Iraq.

      I hope you capped a lot of those treasonous American scum over there fucking the place up. Without them, the place would still have been fairly peaceful. Fucking insurgent scumbags.

    227. Re:The Iraq theater by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Well I agree that we should be a little more harsh on Saudi Arabia. But the point is they didn't steal oil and the countries we don't like so much actually did. We aren't stealing oil. We are taking back what is ours.

    228. Re:The Iraq theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Jesus didn't wage war nor attack anyone.


      That's because there never was a real Jesus, dipshit.

      Nor did any Christian or group of Christians until that wonderful, benevolent, true convert, Constantine

      actually believe there ever was such an actual person.

      There actually was a real Mohammed, even though he was a fag and a child molester, so don't play like I'm playing favorites.

    229. Re:The Iraq theater by denttford · · Score: 1

      Irrespective of whatever model Mohammad's example is supposed to have provided, the jizya (and kharaj for that matter) bit was a specific directive from the Umayyads to a delegate in North Africa, IIRC.* It was specifically mentioned that converts should not be sought as the tax(es) could not be collected.* Islam was spread by force - being the prestige religion of conquerors - but usually not by the sword.

      However, your Spain comment is romanticized to the point of whitewashing (but a seductive and common one that I can hardly fault you for) - Andalus at times served as a haven, but other times drove people to find refuge elsewhere to avoid conversion by the sword.

      *I must have read this at least 8 years ago, I don't recall the specific source.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    230. Re:The Iraq theater by Darby · · Score: 1

      We aren't stealing oil. We are taking back what is ours.

      Ahhh, the true psychopath comes out. How quaint.

    231. Re:The Iraq theater by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      You're off your rocker! You do know that when we went into Iraq we didn't just take the Oil right? We fairly allowed the oil contracts to be purchased and facilitated a true market.

    232. Re:The Iraq theater by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      I think your point about perspective is well taken. While it may be true that even a small group of people can pull off something like the 9/11 attack, the fact is they can't sustain it, so the long-term threat is actually much lower.

      9/11 was the first major asymmetric attack on US soil, and people really didn't have any experience to help them judge the true severity (or non-severity) of the attack. People thought there was an attacker behind every bush and tree.

      There's no question that Bush took advantage of the situation, but at the time, people wanted him to respond forcefully. In hindsight, I think Bush could have been a lot more selective in our response, and we lost a huge amount of credibility by not being smarter.

      Nevertheless, the idea of a dictator playing coy with WMDs was really just unsupportable at the time, and I think no matter who was in office, we would have made some kind of military action against Iraq.

      That's my two cents worth, at any rate.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    233. Re:The Iraq theater by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      Please grow and start acting like an adult ... Says he who posts as Anonymous Coward. *irony*

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  4. On the web side of things by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While creating an intranet for the company I was doing some outside work for I ran into a problem authenticating through their antiquated AD system. Rather than updating everything or heaven forbid give management an actual password to remember my instructions were to "make it as scary as possible but don't actually put a password on it." I had a four tiered authentication system which would allow you to move forward regardless of what was put in the text boxes. They loved it, and a little piece of me died when I cashed the check.

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    1. Re:On the web side of things by Emperor+Skull · · Score: 3, Informative

      I ran into a problem authenticating through their antiquated AD system AD as in Active Directory? The oldest it could be is about 8 years since AD was first implemented in Windows 2000 and there have only been two newer versions. It can't have been that antiquated. It's also trivial to do authentication against AD in a variety of ways, especially from a web application. That hasn't changed much in Windows 2003 or 2008. Of course a customer that paid for what you describe probably didn't have their AD working right either...
    2. Re:On the web side of things by Chapter80 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Slightly off topic, but your story reminds me of software I was involved with.

      We created a delete function, and kept getting reports that the customer accidentally deleted records. (And we had no undelete function.) So we added a "Are you sure?" dialog.

      The incidents of accidental deletion did not go down.

      So we added text "This cannot be undone. Continue?" and still the incidents did not go down (People just randomly click OK.)

      Finally we changed it to "Please key in 'irreversible' to continue with the deletion." This solved the problem.

    3. Re:On the web side of things by dave562 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Of course a customer that paid for what you describe probably didn't have their AD working right either...

      There are a surprising number of completely borked AD implementations out there. I don't know how people manage to do it. They must try using ADSIEdit as word processor or something.

    4. Re:On the web side of things by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      The AD looked like it was set up by a blind schizophrenic monkey with ADD. The person they eventually hired for an IT person eventually convinced them to start authenticating through a Linux server. Ironically they liked my intranet system so much they wouldn't let her change the way it worked, although last time I heard she did bump up the security by requiring at least 12 characters of gibberish before authenticating.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    5. Re:On the web side of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the little piece of you was the resistance to being the one to part a fool from his money.

    6. Re:On the web side of things by ewrong · · Score: 1

      "People just randomly click OK" It's not random. They have been trained to do this. I've watched my mum using a computer and she is constantly jabbing "okay" buttons far faster than I can tell her to stop and actually read what it says; whilst she complains to me that her computer is running real slow and throwing up a bunch of annoying "pop-ups". The "are you sure?/do you want to?" pop-up is just another annoyance to her.

    7. Re:On the web side of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why the hell would you have a button that actually says "OK" on it? That's poor design, because you should know that people always click OK. A better design would be to have buttons that say "Delete" and "Cancel", with the Cancel button selected by default. Typing the phrase was a good alternate solution to eventually arrive at, though.

    8. Re:On the web side of things by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Change the name of the button. Color it red. Call it "I assume liability". People are used to messages they don't understand, and have been conditioned that "OK" means nothing. And when you think about it, "OK", all by itself, doesn't actually mean anything. So don't call it "OK"!

      Many (most?) people don't read dialog box text. But they do read the buttons themselves (if there is more than one) to see which one to click. Make sure that none of the buttons is active by default. (so clicking "Enter" doesn't do anything)

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    9. Re:On the web side of things by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 1

      You should have reveresed the default.

      Instead of asking "Are you sure?" with the 'Yes' or 'OK' as the default you should have tried "This action is irreversible. Would you like to cancel?" with 'Yes' or 'OK' as the default. (Or made 'Cancel' the default if a bit of testing showed them pressing enter instead of clicking on the button with a mouse.) Then you would harness the users innate ability to automatically click 'OK' for good rather than evil.

    10. Re:On the web side of things by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you just create a recycle bin? When everything is a warning, nothing is a warning. Dumbass programmers.
      Because the purpose was to delete. Not to hide. Not to put in a recycle bin. It was part of the specification.

      We were following the specification THAT WE WERE PAID FOR. So we are dumbass programmers for following the customer specification? Nice try.

    11. Re:On the web side of things by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you forgot the first and second rules of user-interface design:

      1) All action-item captions (menu entries, buttons, etc) should be verbs or verb phrases.

      2) Any time you give the user a choice, the default option should be the safe one. Not the one they're most likely to want, but the one that is safe.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    12. Re:On the web side of things by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      OK is a perfectly acceptable button, when it's the only button on the dialog.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    13. Re:On the web side of things by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also on the web side of things, a friend of someone I don't even know was working for a government department where certain officers with very high legal responsibility where given access to the network over the internet using an extremely locked down remote desktop type of product. These officers were given the access so they could review important and often highly sensitive files at home. Just to be clear, these officers are also cleared to take the material home on paper, so giving them this kind of access is not really a problem.

      The hole in the the system was that the secure remote desktop type product allowed them to deny certain types of access and the policy forbade the ability to print on the officer's local printers. This was to prevent the leaking of sensitive information in case the officer was burgled, or perhaps to keep the log files neater. Most likely to look good to their bosses by applying strict security measures.

      One day in a meeting on security for an unrelated project this friend of someone I have never even met used this as an example to illustrate the difference between reality and theatre by pointing out that these officers had taken to emailing sensitive documents to hotmail accounts (!!!!), then downloading them and printing them at home. You wouldn't call the colours of their anglo faces white on receiving this information, more a dull silvery grey.

      The following week it was announced that these officers would be allowed to print on local computers when logged into the network. The friend of someone I have no idea about also got a generally more pragmatic approach to security for at least three weeks!

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    14. Re:On the web side of things by PJ1216 · · Score: 1

      Warnings are there because users complain when they click a button and it breaks something because they didn't read instruction manuals on what that button does. The warnings are usually *not* general, but actually quite specific (at least when its a well written program). When people don't read instructions OR the warnings, they will break things. Dumbass users.

    15. Re:On the web side of things by ball-lightning · · Score: 1

      Edit Undo man, edit undo!

    16. Re:On the web side of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AD under a different name existed in 1993 as part of the Microsoft Gossip/x400 email system.

    17. Re:On the web side of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OK is a perfectly acceptable button

      No it is not. The GP is correct. From a UI perspective, a button does something, i.e. it is an action item, and as such it should be an action word: a verb.

      Just because Windows does it wrong so much of the time, does not make it right. "OK" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. One can even argue that Windows doing it wrong so often is why so many users hit "OK" without thinking, just like the OP was complaining of.

      when it's the only button on the dialog.

      In the example given, it was not the only button.

    18. Re:On the web side of things by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 1

      I would have walked away and not taken their money. Even though they knew their security was wide open they could have sued me when somebody penetrated their (non)security.

      The cost of defending against such a baseless lawsuit would be many times that check and you could still lose given the tech savvy or the average juror or judge.

      Even though it is often painful and time consuming to explain security to my clients, I have often refused to allow weak security on the systems I manage.

    19. Re:On the web side of things by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I had a four tiered authentication system which would allow you to move forward regardless of what was put in the text boxes.

      Did it also occasionally (randomly) display an "Unauthorized/unknown user. Please re-enter password." prompt? That way, users would have more of a reason to believe that it was actually checking something.

    20. Re:On the web side of things by Tom · · Score: 1

      And you didn't add an undo function because?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    21. Re:On the web side of things by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      And you didn't add an undo function because?
      Because it was in the specification to have a delete function. The delete function triggered a destructive deletion of records that were in our database and outside our database - outside of our control. It removed records from multiple locations and was to be used to both reduce the space used and to eliminate traces of the record.

      In this case, delete meant delete. Not "hide". Not "remove, but I reserve the right to change my mind."

    22. Re:On the web side of things by Tom · · Score: 1

      Obviously, to the users it didn't mean that. Not even after you pointed it out explicitly.

      I know your problem, I have the same in many places. A workaround that I've found that works fairly well is to "mark for deletion" and then do the actual delete in a nightly cleanup run. That allows users to change their mind for a short time (most of them realize within a few seconds that they didn't mean it) while preserving the function of delete as actually freeing up the tablespace.

      Just an idea, don't know if it applies in your case. But I'm on a personal quest to convince other techies to consider user feedback as advise instead of proof that users are dumb.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    23. Re:On the web side of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a Microsoft engineer.

    24. Re:On the web side of things by RealUlli · · Score: 1

      I recently had to use the Sun Diagnostics CD to find a problem with a controller on one of the Sun boxes at work.

      For testing the hard drives, it offers, amongst others, a non-destructive and a destructive write test on the drives.

      When you try to use the non-destructive one, it requires you to type "YES" in capital letters before the test proceeds.

      When you try to use the destructive write test, it requires you to type 8 random capital characters (basically, it says something like "QOWEJFAS" has has you type that back in) before the test proceeds.

      I think that's a pretty good example of stopping a casual user from overwriting their data...

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
    25. Re:On the web side of things by WiredNut · · Score: 0

      Okay, okay programmers aren't the dumbasses. They are simply doing what they are told to do, like good pets. The systems designer apparently sucked. I stand by the assertion that users see dozens and dozens of error screens and warnings every single day they use a computer, and they become meaningless for two reasons: 1) sheer volume (you know the boy that cried wolf?) 2) most of them ARE meaningless to end users (ever see a bookkeeper that knew what it meant when they saw a warning that a web site certificate expired? It's the most obtuse, unhelpful language they've ever seen short of an IRS form.

  5. Exteneded Validation Certificates by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If public CA's are supposed to be trusted authorities of identity on the Internet, why do we have to have "extended validation" of an entity before they get a certificate? If we can't trust the CA to validate entities before issuing certificates in the first place, how can we trust them to issue Extended Validation Certificates in the second?

    Oh, I forgot, they are in collusion with Microsoft and other CA's to inflate the cost of digital certificates they already issue.

    1. Re:Exteneded Validation Certificates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If public CA's are supposed to be trusted authorities of identity on the Internet, why do we have to have "extended validation" of an entity before they get a certificate? If we can't trust the CA to validate entities before issuing certificates in the first place, how can we trust them to issue Extended Validation Certificates in the second?

      Oh, I forgot, they are in collusion with Microsoft and other CA's to inflate the cost of digital certificates they already issue.


      Funny you say that. My company uses a cheap "domain validation only" certificate from Godaddy that costs $30/year or so. Not once, with over 300,000 transactions, has anyone questioned the validity of the SSL certificate or the certificate authority that issued it.

    2. Re:Exteneded Validation Certificates by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Verisign have always offered about 5 tiers of certificate with different levels of checking (and price differentiation to match). If you weren't already paying for the top tier, then you aren't going to need an extended certificate anyway. The explicit marking of extended certificates makes it more obvious to the end user which certificate holders have been checked properly (rather than just checking that the applying company exists and the street address matches the company register), which can only be a good thing.

    3. Re:Exteneded Validation Certificates by Sancho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There can quite easily be different levels of trust. A normal certificate tells me that the cert was issued by the CA to someone who had control over the domain's DNS records. That could be the real owner, someone who hijacked the real owner's mail remotely, or someone who sat at the owner's computer while they were away and requested the cert. Who knows?

      Extended Validation certs ostensibly try to verify that the person requesting the cert is the who they claim to be. Whether this is what happens in practice, I really couldn't say, but to suggest that the information is black-and-white is disingenuous. You might as well suggest that only one level of security clearance is needed--that either the person is trusted or they are not.

      Of course, in the real world, people may not differentiate between EV and standard SSL certs. Hell, plenty of people are fooled into providing their information to phishers. But that doesn't mean that it's security theater--it means that those people are easily fooled. EV could, in theory, benefit people who are willing to pay attention.

    4. Re:Exteneded Validation Certificates by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      Which is a fine example of security theater. Thanks. EV certificates are marketed as more "trustworthy", yet looking over the docs, the system can be gamed. Add in that the so-called EV certs turn the address bar green on supported browsers. Green means good, safe, and secure. Better than white or red, right?

      Say, isn't that little yellow lock supposed to mean something? Oh that's right. It means you have an SSL session with a web site that has a certificate issued from a trusted certificate authority like Verisign. Hmmmm.

      So what is the difference again?

    5. Re:Exteneded Validation Certificates by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Certificate Authorities don't provide anything at all but thin air and empty promises. Then they charge and arm and a leg for it.

    6. Re:Exteneded Validation Certificates by GoRK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's funny you mention this; you know they used to do this -- Back in 1997/1998 the only way to get an SSL certificate for a webserver was to submit to pretty thorough vetting of your personal or business identity. I remember having to jump through hoops for this the first time I got an SSL certificate.

      Now that you can get an SSL cert set up inside of 10 minutes that means absolutely nothing (You can even get one for free), they had to create the stupid EV system to go back and make sure that there would be an easy way for the end users to tell the difference. You know what is funny though? The vendors examine you less when getting an EV certificate now than they did to get an SSL certificate 10 years ago.

    7. Re:Exteneded Validation Certificates by dkf · · Score: 1

      Say, isn't that little yellow lock supposed to mean something? Oh that's right. It means you have an SSL session with a web site that has a certificate issued from a trusted certificate authority like Verisign. Hmmmm.

      So what is the difference again? At the cheaper end of CAs (*ahem*Godaddy*ahem*) about all they check is that you are the domain owner, which is about the absolute minimum to make SSL work correctly. What they don't check is whether the domain is owned by someone with an identity worth a damn; it's that check which is expensive and time-consuming. And the value to users? If the site scams you, you can reasonably easily track down who (in a corporate/legal sense) scammed you and sue them to oblivion. That is, you've got a guarantee of the corporation's good name, which is actually a reasonable brand most of the time, especially if the want to keep on trading.

      Most people[*] don't need that level of assurance for personal certificates, and a lot of websites don't need it for their host certificates either. But for a home banking website, it's quite nice to have an additional layer that makes things harder for the bad guys to penetrate. (Not that this is the only precaution that should be taken, of course.)

      Not all CAs are the same, and nor should you trust all certificates the same. The only thing at all reliable about them is the assertion "this is the certificate for site such-and-such", and the statement of who signed the certificate. And even those are only reliable if the CA certificate is one you trust, directly or otherwise...

      [* I've come across applications which did need this level, but in that case the CAs tended to be paranoid people you had to go to in person and show multiple forms of id to. Which I suppose is perilously close to being security theatre in itself... ]
      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    8. Re:Exteneded Validation Certificates by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      the system can be gamed. Any system can be gamed. The question is, how easily?

      Green means good, safe, and secure. Better than white or red, right? Yes, actually.

      Cheap validation certificates, for cheap CAs, pretty much just check that I own the domain. So, pretty much, they'll send an email to the person in the whois, and that's about it.

      So, an absurdly cheap certificate can be gamed by pwning your mailserver, or intercepting the mail somewhere, or catching the domain when you forget to renew it, or a very large number of ways other than pwning the CA or the client-side certificate cache.

      With more thorough validation, they'll also check things like, if you're a corporation, that you really exist, and that this is really your website (and not just a similar-sounding one), and that you've really given your actual corporate mailing address, etc, and that you're the same person who answers your phone, etc etc. I figure they'll probably check back, too.

      In other words, it reduces quite a lot of avenues of attack other than "pwn the CA" or "pwn the client-side CA cache" -- you now know, with as much certainty as that CA can give you, that this site belongs to who it says it does, and that they are a real, physical entity who you can track down and sue if they rip you off. (And, if it wasn't them, you pretty much know it's the CA and you can track them down and sue them.)

      Now, it may well be security theater in the sense that it's targeting a very specific kind of attack, and that it avoids wholesale potentially better approaches (web of trust). It certainly isn't always required -- I'm thinking I don't mind $30/year for a valid SSL cert, even if it's gameable -- it's a lot less gameable than a self-signed one.

      But at the same time, it is a worthwhile thing to do -- if I'm going to do Internet banking at all, I want to be damned sure that certificate was issued to my bank, and not to an email-intercepting bot.
      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    9. Re:Exteneded Validation Certificates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand that normal certificates only mean that you own the domain name and that the communication is encrypted. Extended certificates are (supposedly) safer in the sense that the CA must verify who is behind the domain name and make sure it is a legitimate business (there are bank accounts, the postal address checks and so on and so forth).

  6. Welcome by bobwrit · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the world of 'security'. A place where there are hidden meanings behind everyone of their smiles. When you think about it, what makes security software so adventageous? Viruses and other malware. In order to have those wou can not have security. And hense in order to make their buisness prosper they have to have a hidden agenda.

    --
    -- (this is a sig) My Computer Programming Forumhttp://www.programers.co.nr/
    1. Re:Welcome by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      MS already does that. Because Windows source code is so closely guarded, independent, law-abiding security companies or individuals can't really see what they are vulnerable too. However, the non-law-abiding malware companies and virus writers can simply attack known weak points by either A) getting an illegal copy of Windows source or B) trying attacks until they work. About the only company that produces anti-malware that would need to introduce threats would be MS and Windows One Care (or whatever they call their anti-virus) which, rather then patching Windows and including a decent Anti-Virus built-in, would rather people pay $25 or however much it is to get their brand.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  7. Apartment Accepting Packages by sgtron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 2001 I was living in an apartment complex in a North Dallas suburb. If you got a package that wouldn't fit in those teeny-tiny mailboxes then the mail man would drop off the package at the apartment complex office and you could pick it up in normal office hours.

    After September 11th, the apartment management sent out a memo to all residents that because of the heightened state of terrorism awareness the office would no longer allow packages to be held there for the residents.

    Of course my first thought was they were just tired of dealing with the packages and saw this as a convenient excuse to stop holding packages for people.

    --
    No todo lo que es oro brilla
    1. Re:Apartment Accepting Packages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think many people saw September 11 as a convenient excuse for a lot of things.

    2. Re:Apartment Accepting Packages by Hanta · · Score: 1

      Speaking of packages and mail, after Sep 11th the postal service decided to remove those blue mailboxes all over the place. I just assumed it was laziness and not wanting to collect the mail but gosh maybe they were protecting me from all those rampant mailbox saboteurs.

  8. Windows Vista? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, and "inspections" of laptops at the border.

    Yeah, that will help (actually, it does. It helps because it drastically reduces the number of willing visitors to the US)..

    1. Re:Windows Vista? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Oh, and "inspections" of laptops at the border. That's not a security issue. Customs are looking at these notebooks to prevent contraband from being brought into the country. It's theater, but not of the security variety. After all--it would be much easier to bring e-contraband electronically (by visiting a website.)
  9. Disneyland by Eco-Mono · · Score: 5, Funny

    My adviser back at University, Rich Maddox, used to tell a story from his youth, when he was dating a girl who (apparently for religious reasons? I don't remember exactly) always carried a large knife in her purse. So anyway, they were going to Disneyland with a couple of friends, and as they went through the entry turnstile they stopped Rich and asked to check his backpack for weapons and so forth. And they found a pocket knife there, and told him he couldn't bring it into the park because it was dangerous. That's when Rich called over to his girlfriend who was already inside, and said "Honey, do you still have that knife with you?" And she pulled it out of her purse and said "Yeah, why do you ask?"

    --
    (rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
    1. Re:Disneyland by Eco-Mono · · Score: 1

      P.S. When Rich tells the story he always implies that it was because the guys running the turnstile were too busy looking at his girlfriend's boobs to look in her purse. Take that however you want.

      --
      (rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
    2. Re:Disneyland by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

      P.S. When Rich tells the story he always implies that it was because the guys running the turnstile were too busy looking at his girlfriend's boobs to look in her purse. Take that however you want. Her boobs were shaped like knives?
      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Disneyland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a girl who (apparently for religious reasons? I don't remember exactly) always carried a large knife in her purse Maybe she was a Sikh?
    4. Re:Disneyland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is probably half the truth. It strikes me that the implicit assumption is that a weapon on a male is for aggression and a weapon on a female is for defense.

    5. Re:Disneyland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That would make a great web authentication system. If you have big boobs click here to bypass all security.

    6. Re:Disneyland by 77Punker · · Score: 1

      I frequently attend minor league baseball games with my fiance. They check her purse for bombs, but they have no idea about the 5 inch hunting knife that's in my pocket. Or that her DD breasts are not in fact bombs.

    7. Re:Disneyland by WRX+Gav · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you set a booby trap for them ....

    8. Re:Disneyland by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Three years ago I spent a few months in Ecuador and brought home some 21-inch machetes as gifts for my brothers. I arrived back in the UK on the 7th July 2005, the same day that some bombs went off in the London Underground.

      A week or two later I went down to visit my parents by train, passing through London. One of my brothers was also going to visit them, so we arranged to meet on the train. I took a train in to London, arriving in the early afternoon, took the Tube to Victoria, and boarded the train to my parents' town.

      Chatting to my brother, I discovered that he'd had his bag searched by police when he got on the Tube that morning, and they'd found a 2-inch penknife he'd forgotten he was carrying and told him off. I hadn't passed through any checkpoint with the machetes, though, because they wrapped up at noon.

    9. Re:Disneyland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her boobs were shaped like knives? Yes. Specifically they had pointy tips.

    10. Re:Disneyland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her boobs were shaped like knives?

      I'd rather guess that they were considered weapons of mass distraction.
    11. Re:Disneyland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a school Physics Day trip (read: waste a day of school pretending to be scientific) to a local amusement park, I too forgot about my knife. After refusing to throw it out, security signed it in to their office. Upon leaving, I walked outside the park, up to the security window, to which they told me I would have to pick it up at second window. In the park. So, I walked BACK INTO the park, they gave me my knife back, and closed the window. I was now free to do as I wished.

      Lesson learned: checking in weapons allows you the freedom to enjoy the park unencumbered until you are ready to protect yourself/wreak havoc/pop balloons

    12. Re:Disneyland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security persons seem to target backpacks much more frequently than other types of bags, so if you really want to carry something dangerous through security, don't use a backpack.

  10. I've been a part of the theatre. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recently when flying from Lima, Peru, to Toronto, Canada, I went through check in with 2 pocket knives and a tube of toothpaste in my carryon. They took my toothpaste, but let me on with everything else.

    The whole concept of taking sharps from people is stupid. Once you get on the plane, ask for a coke in the can. They will happily give it to you. Tear the can in half (bend/fold several times 1st to make it easier), and you will now have 2 very sharp jagged pieces of metal.

    1. Re:I've been a part of the theatre. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tear the can in half ... and you will now have 2 very sharp jagged pieces of metal
      and wet trousers.
    2. Re:I've been a part of the theatre. by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 0

      Excellent! Thank you for these helpful instructions on how to create lethal weapons at 30,000 feet.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    3. Re:I've been a part of the theatre. by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 5, Funny

      OK, solution. Ask for TWO cans of soda. Drink the first one and then tear the second one in half. Try to pour as much of the flowing liquid into the now empty first can.......no wait.. Ask for THREE cans......crap....

    4. Re:I've been a part of the theatre. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      What? You mean you don't have any ex-cons in your family that already could have told you about this?

      My favorite always was the vodka made from mashed potatoes...

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:I've been a part of the theatre. by socz · · Score: 1

      Although I agree with what you say, that isn't what they're trying to avoid.

      What would you rather HAVE to fight against in order to "save your life?"
      A) knife
      B) coke can

      One thing i always like to mention is i carry a full size spyderco "police" knife with full seration. It's a rather long/large knife and some people don't even want to look at it because they get scared! Can you believe that? That being said, I can still get that passed security and metal detectors... i've always said someone who is smart can think about these checkpoints and get knives and other weapons through. It's always in the back of my mind that someone who isn't in the right frame of mind might be carrying the same as I am.

      Anyways, like i said in the TSA competition to improve security and decrease wait time at security check points... you need more people that are better trained than technology, our eyes are very capable but the brains we have using them are lazy!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    6. Re:I've been a part of the theatre. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We're not scared because the knife has a serrated edge. We're scared of crazy motherfuckers who wander around and "always like to mention" that they're carrying around a big goddamn knife. We think you're the freaky weirdo who's going to flip out one day and start filleting people because the government's mind rays are becoming too powerful for your tinfoil-lined hat. And we don't find it comforting that you'll be there to protect us from criminals. We just kind of wish you'd go away.

    7. Re:I've been a part of the theatre. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they banned knives and lighters I started bringing them with me on every flight. Never had anything confiscated, it's not hard at all. I think I may start bringing a metal dildo or something instead though, I think it would add some much needed humor to the security theater.

    8. Re:I've been a part of the theatre. by bytesex · · Score: 1

      NOBODY expects that knives fashioned out of soda cans !

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    9. Re:I've been a part of the theatre. by digitrev · · Score: 1

      Incredibly off topic, but your sig had me thinking. For computers, KiB are computationally convenient; multiplying by two is easier than multiplying by 10.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
  11. Oh Sure by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time I'm held up by the "No Fly List" because I have an insanely common name, I feel like a victim of security theater. How many would be terrorists have been caught by the no fly list?

    In my opinion almost all forms of random searches are security theater.

    People putting loaded handguns in their homes in the case of a wood-be assailant or robber breaking in. This is not only security theater, it increases the risk you are putting yourself and your family in. Not to mention that in most instances of murder the victim knew the assailant. You're more likely to die of suicide than a robber killing you.

    I don't know if these are examples where the security theater is a cover for another reason--unlikely. But there's clearly examples where it just makes your life worse more often than better.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Oh Sure by maxume · · Score: 1

      A given person is more likely to die of suicide than a robber killing them.

      I'm vastly more likely to be killed by a robber, as I am way to astoundingly self important and arrogant to ever commit suicide. Or something like that anyway. The point is that you are using statistics awfully sloppily when you make that statement.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Oh Sure by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Got proof of having guns accessible (to you) is an increased threat? No, you can't start with "everybody knows that..." you have to have a substantiated set of analysis to back up your claims.

      Also, what is your point on dying of suicide vs a robbery or home invasion? What are your chances of running a flat tire? Why carry a spare?

    3. Re:Oh Sure by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      People putting loaded handguns in their homes in the case of a wood-be assailant or robber breaking in. This is not only security theater, it increases the risk you are putting yourself and your family in.

      Dude. Seriously. If someone is breaking into your house, while you are there, the chances are in the multitudes that the perp isn't alone and they have a weapon between them. And someone desperate enough to break into your house, while your home, with a weapon, is certainly desperate enough to mangle or kill you with it.

      There are leagues of reasons to be against guns. This one, however, is so far out there, you MUST be an anti-gun fanatic for some reason or another.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:Oh Sure by hobb0001 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of security theater, kids are far more likely to drown in a swimming pool or die in a car crash than to be shot by a gun. (Not that I own a gun or care to defend those that do.) Yet no one seems to be overly concerned about swimming pools or bad motorists.

      Security theater works mostly due to humans' inability to grasp simple probability.

    5. Re:Oh Sure by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 4, Funny

      And since they're a group of them, desperate enough to mangle or kill you, they certainly all have weapons. And given the situation, the weapons in question are certainly assault rifles. And they're not stupid, just desperate, so they'll rely on strength in numbers, attacking by the hundreds. At this point, having arranged a group of hundreds of heavily armed men, they pretty much have to murder you. This is why I feel much safer keeping a loaded M1 Abrams in my bedroom.

    6. Re:Oh Sure by bledri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, you can't start with "everybody knows that..." you have to have a substantiated set of analysis to back up your claims.

      Actually, studies do show a definite increase in suicide with gun ownership (seems obvious). Some studies have found the likelihood of being murdered also increases. I'm not aware of any studies that indicate owning a gun in the US actually improves ones safety, but I don't really care enough to do that much research.

      Citations:
      The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide.
      Does Owning a Firearm Increase or Decrease the Risk of Death?

      Owning a gun doesn't change the likelihood of a home invasion. It does change the likelihood of mistaking oneself for Jack Bauer while the sad truth is that most of us are more akin to Gomer Pile.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    7. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      straw man arguments sure are fun, huh?

    8. Re:Oh Sure by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      Because your five year old can't come across the spare tyre and run himself over with it.

    9. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People don't "die of suicide." They decide to kill themselves. It isn't contagious, or an accident.

    10. Re:Oh Sure by UESMark · · Score: 5, Funny

      Two things: Firstly wooden assailants are very dangerous and resistant to gunshot wounds. Your best bet against this sort of wood-be assailant is a flamethrower or an ax.

      Secondly, saying that you shouldn't have a gun because you are more likely to commit suicide than be killed by an intruder implies that either people randomly commit suicide for no reason or that people choose to have home invasions. They are not really the same sort of thing so the statistics aren't really a helpful metric.

      That said, if you are a person with suicidal tendencies you should keep neither firearms nor flamethrowers (which confusingly are not generally considered firearms) around the house. Axes however are very difficult to commit suicide with, and as such should be kept in the event you run into any would-be wood-be assailants.

    11. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >People [with] handguns [at] home... increases >[personal] risk...more likely to die of suicide >than a robber killing you.

      Poor wording aside, I think I figured out where you were heading. Could you substantiate this opinion with some data? I'd be interested in reading more about it.

    12. Re:Oh Sure by Braino420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People putting loaded handguns in their homes in the case of a wood-be assailant or robber breaking in. This is not only security theater, it increases the risk you are putting yourself and your family in. Not to mention that in most instances of murder the victim knew the assailant. You're more likely to die of suicide than a robber killing you.
      Gun vs Burglar is not security theater. It actually does have value in your defense against the burglar and it's not really a "theater" in the sense you aren't even advertising that you are keeping a gun in your home.
      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    13. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similarly, people who drive heavily armored vehicles are more likely to be attacked by missiles and shells.

    14. Re:Oh Sure by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Random searches provide excellent security, provided the punishment for getting caught exceeds the benefits multiplied by the risk. Let's say I'm asked to smuggle weapons onto a plane. Not for a hijackings or anything, just as a black market delivery. I'm offered $10,000 to do it. I've got a great plan; assuming the security screeners don't hand search my bags, there is basically zero risk of getting caught. So now it's down to the random searches. If the punishment is 1 year in prison, and they only screen 1 in 10 people, the odds are pretty good; assuming that I value my freedom at less than $100,000 per year. Now if the punishment is 20 years in prison, now my freedom is worth less than $5,000 per year.

      Let's hypothetically try to redo 9-11. (Yes, only a stupid terrorist would try that exact same attack again, but it's a good example with concrete numbers.) We're all expecting to die, so the threat of jail is irrelevant. However, if a single one of us gets caught with weapons, there is a good chance security will be stepped up and my 19 accomplices will be caught as well. That's very bad, from my terrorist point of view. Since 20 of us need to get past security, even if they only randomly screen 1 in 20 people, there is a 64% chance of at least one person getting searched and busted. 1 in 10? 87% chance of getting busted. Very bad odds.

      Now obviously it's better to only search people who are bad guys. Unfortunately the entire point of searching people is to identify the bad guys, so that's unhelpful. We can try to be clever and profile people based on, say, their ethnicity. After all, statistically aren't Arab men more likely to hijack planes and crash them? Oddly, this makes the attack easier for the bad guys. Just start flying people around without weapons. See who gets searched. The people who run several flights without getting searched are ideal for your next attack. (A good article with further links on the complexities with profiling. As he points out, profiling based on suspicious behavior is good, although hard.)

      Of course, I'm glossing over lots of details. We need to balance many other things, including civil rights. Random searches of homes would likely be a very effective way to stop many crimes. It's also a violation of the US constitution and the principles our country was founded on. Many relatively minor crimes would necessitate punishments that many people would describe as cruel and unusual to compensate for the low risk of getting caught. The benefit of stopping the bad thing may be very minor compared to the cost of the searches. (For example, random drug tests for most jobs hurts moral and costs money, with little benefit.) But fundamentally random searches do work.

    15. Re:Oh Sure by hurfy · · Score: 1

      "Yet no one seems to be overly concerned about swimming pools or bad motorists."

      lol, bad timing. They are adding plywood to the fences around the city pools, eight months before they close em down permanently and replace them. Apparently you can climb the cyclone fencing to get in....not that anyone actually has mind you....

      sigh

      tried to link but apparently our newspaper is now a pay site :(

    16. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I'm held up by the "No Fly List" because I have an insanely common name, from Wikipedia:

      According to the sixth edition of The Columbia Encyclopedia (2000), "Muhammad" is "probably the most common given name" in the world, including variations. It is estimated that more than 15 million people in the world bear the name Muhammad.
    17. Re:Oh Sure by hercubus · · Score: 1

      There are leagues of reasons to be against guns. This one, however, is so far out there, you MUST be an anti-gun fanatic for some reason or another.

      i think the whole point was the theater aspect of it. you have a gun, so you're safe? hell no

      whoever's coming in knows whoever's in front of them can be safely shot at. you, on the other hand, are going to have some hesitation. and you'll be scared shitless because it's never happened to you before, but for them it's another day at their job

      the last statistics i saw is that your odds of "winning" against a bad guy are 1 in 10 (shoot them before they shoot you) but also keep in mind 400 "accidents" happen for every bad guy taken out

      those are shitty, shitty odds

      so will you be selfish, wave the gun around next time you hear a noise, blast away and accidentally shoot Aunt Betty who popped over for a visit? or be a nice guy, not shoot at anyone, and lose some of your stuff without anyone getting killed in the case of an actual robbery

      i know the answer, you'll be blasting away at anything that moves and then say sorry afterwards. hey Uncle Monty, Aunt Betty had a long life, you'll get over her unfortunate death in no time...

      seriously dude, it's just stuff, let the bad guys have it, it's not worth anyone dying over

      --
      -- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
    18. Re:Oh Sure by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it's almost security theater if you consider the gun owner as the audience and actor simultaneously. Basically, someone owning a gun for self defense makes themselves feel more secure against a very rare threat by exposing themselves to a common one.

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    19. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People putting loaded handguns in their homes in the case of a wood-be assailant or robber breaking in. This is not only security theater, it increases the risk you are putting yourself and your family in. Owning a gun doesn't make you more vulnerable to being a crime victim or becoming a criminal. Why don't you educate yourself using statistics that filter out crimes committed by people who weren't legally in possession of their weapons in the first place? Oh, because you wouldn't have nearly so many alarmist and hysterical statistics to quote anymore, that's why. I'm so sick of these distortions being propagated by people as if they were actual facts.

      You're more likely to die of suicide than a robber killing you. So what? That's not an accident or something - it's a choice. If people chose to kill themselves how does that make guns more risky? It's not as if owning a gun compels you to commit suicide. If someone wants to die that's their business, no one else's.
    20. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your suicide argument is a complete non-issue. If people want to kill themselves than that's their business. Guns don't make people kill themselves. By the way, here are some stats which show that guns are used more often in self defense than they are used to commit crimes:

      http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm

      Seems like guns DO help to keep you safe. Seems pretty obvious that a person would be better off having a weapon to defend themselves than not. I think just about any reasonable person would think that way - that is, unless they thought of their fellow citizens not as competent adults but rather as stupid Gomer Pile's.

    21. Re:Oh Sure by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      This is not only security theater, it increases the risk you are putting yourself and your family in.

      The number of incidents of accidental gun deaths by children finding the guns is about 100/yr. Your chance of getting shot if you aren't a druggie or black/in a bad neighborhood is effectively nil - you're more likely to drown.

      Not to mention that in most instances of murder the victim knew the assailant.

      Because they're mostly gang related killings.

      You're more likely to die of suicide than a robber killing you.

      What can I say, guns are convenient for killing yourself. Just make sure you get it right, because almost killing yourself with a GSW really sucks.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    22. Re:Oh Sure by quantaman · · Score: 1

      it's not really a "theater" in the sense you aren't even advertising that you are keeping a gun in your home. The "theater" in "security theater" doesn't refer to the the impression given to the attacker, it refers to the impression given to yourself.

      Rather than optimizing your safety security theater optimizes the impression that something is being done to protect your safety.

      A good example is bullet proof vests you can buy for your kids. It's not designed to stop a bully from punching them in the face, stabbing them in the neck, or even getting hit by a car. It's designed to make you (and maybe your child) feel like your child is protected. Any other effect is purely incidental.

      Regardless of whether a gun is effective defense or not it would be your state of mind, not the burglars, that determines whether it's security theater.
      --
      I stole this Sig
    23. Re:Oh Sure by swillden · · Score: 1

      Well, it's almost security theater if you consider the gun owner as the audience and actor simultaneously. Basically, someone owning a gun for self defense makes themselves feel more secure against a very rare threat by exposing themselves to a common one.

      What common threat are they exposing themselves to? There is a correlation between gun ownership and suicides, because guns make suicides more likely to succeed. Unless you're likely to want to off yourself, though, that's not really a risk. Deaths by accidental discharge are quite rare, and they're nonexistent among responsible gun owners. My bedside gun, for example, is in a small combination safe next to my bed. I can work the combination one-handed, in the dark, and have access to the gun in about two seconds if I need it. On the other hand, unless I deliberately open the safe, the gun is completely harmless to anyone.

      Guns do stop thousands of burglaries annually, and I suspect they deter many more, especially in states with Castle Doctrine laws. It's not such a rare threat, and a gun is not an ineffective countermeasure.

      This is not a good example of security theater.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about putting away the trite quotes and anti-gun politics and answer the question that was asked? Having a gun in one's home isn't security theater--it isn't theater of any kind. "Theater" requires an audience to impress. This is just a security decision some people make.

      Of course the murder victim knows the assailant in most murder cases--murder is very often a crime of passion, and especially anger. It's kind of hard to be angry at someone you don't know. Self defense isn't murder and thus wouldn't be counted in statistics like that anyway.

      Some of us kind of don't like the idea of someone we don't know breaking into our houses unannounced and tend to look with disfavor on such individuals. Sure, you don't know what a robber is going to do, but you know what he or she just did, and committing a crime of violence justifies a violent response if one is in fear of one's life or bodily harm. If you choose not to do such a thing, that's a choice too, but don't spout unjustified garbage ("makes your life worse more often than better") to advance your terribly biased views.

    25. Re:Oh Sure by lgw · · Score: 1

      Those "bullet proof" vests are a *great* example of security theater! They'll stop a .22 bullet and not much else, but they give the family the sense that they're "doing something". Any actual security benefit (in most neighborhoods) is unimportant because there was never a significant threat in the fist place, but the *feeling* of security is very real.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    26. Re:Oh Sure by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      People putting loaded handguns in their homes in the case of a wood-be assailant or robber breaking in. This is not only security theater, it increases the risk you are putting yourself and your family in. Look up the stats on the FBI website and you will find differently. Your well known stat is wrong, and promulgated by the Brady Bunch because it sounds plausible and intimidates the easily confused.

      Go ahead, look up the stats for yourself. Very few people die from inappropriate use of guns in their own homes. More people use thme to scare off or kill burglars or other attackers.
    27. Re:Oh Sure by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      Actually, studies do show a definite increase in suicide with gun ownership (seems obvious).

      No, they show that in the US, a firearm is a common way to commit suicide. And that's only if you are a man: women tend to use other means. In other countries where firearms are not readily available, other methods are used. In Canada, it was found that restricting the availability of handguns did not change the suicide rate -- it simply caused a substitution with other means.

      Some studies have found the likelihood of being murdered also increases.

      Ah, the infamous "2.7 times more likely to be a victim of homicide". A closer look at the data used for this "study" found that people renting their home rather than owning it were 4.4 times more likely to be a victim of homicide. Makes you wonder if there are other factors at work here, and whether people are buying a firearm because they correctly perceive they are potentially a victim of a violent crime.

      However, a prior criminal record seems to be significant:

      http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0903MurderVictims0903.html

      "The notion that these (murders) are random bolts of lightning, which is the commonly held image, is not the reality," says Kennedy, who has examined the backgrounds of murder suspects and victims in a number of U.S. cities.

    28. Re:Oh Sure by lgw · · Score: 1

      Random searches by the government are fundamentally unconstitutions, wherever and whenever they're used. The whole point of the Fourth Amendment was that the government just can't start randomly searching people when it gets annoyed, it has to have specfic reason to believe that a specific person likely committed a specific crime.

      But of course no one cares about our rights these days, as long as everyone feels safe. It's quite sad.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    29. Re:Oh Sure by swillden · · Score: 1

      In my opinion almost all forms of random searches are security theater.

      Properly done, random searches are excellent security, at least when the attacker has some aversion to risk. The key is that the probability of getting caught times the penalty must exceed the value obtained by not getting caught.

      People putting loaded handguns in their homes in the case of a wood-be assailant or robber breaking in. This is not only security theater, it increases the risk you are putting yourself and your family in.

      I disagree. Properly-handled guns are no risk to their owners, except when the owners are suicidal. In that case, guns don't really change the likelihood of a suicide attempt, they just improve the odds of success.

      Assaults and burglaries are not rare, and they're particularly common in areas where people are not allowed to have a gun in their home. If SCOTUS rules in favor of Heller, I expect to see home invasions drop quickly in DC.

      Guns in homes are an example of real security, not theater. Not only do they actually stop thousands of break-ins annually, they deter many more, because they make burglary a risky proposition.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    30. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I'm held up by the "No Fly List" because I have an insanely common name, I feel like a victim of security theater. How many would be terrorists have been caught by the no fly list?

      In my opinion almost all forms of random searches are security theater.

      People putting loaded handguns in their homes in the case of a wood-be assailant or robber breaking in. This is not only security theater, it increases the risk you are putting yourself and your family in. Not to mention that in most instances of murder the victim knew the assailant. You're more likely to die of suicide than a robber killing you.

      I don't know if these are examples where the security theater is a cover for another reason--unlikely. But there's clearly examples where it just makes your life worse more often than better. not worried about the robber trying to kill me, just looking for a reason to shoot the gun in city limits. :) it's only an increase in risk if your a moron and don't know how to handle guns.
    31. Re:Oh Sure by databeast · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, stats any my own experience prove you wrong.

      1) Havent killed myself with my own gun yet.
      2) Have successfully run out someone breaking into my apartment with that useless gun of mine (did not shoot him, I dont shoot people in the back when they are running away from me)
      3) have had two similar experiences out on the street, where (thanks to my concealed carry license) a quick disclosure than I was prepared and equipped to respond with lethal force made the situation very nonviolent very fast once they realized I was not a tourist (I'm a british citizen living in the US).

      Oh, and I work as an infosec consultant, so sorry, but your little hoplophobic insertion into the commentstream falls very flat here.

      NEXT!

    32. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to say how many crimes go uncommitted because the potential criminal knew there were weapons in the home.

      I'm quite content being responsible for my own safety as the alternative is turning it over to those nice, honest men that usually show up after the bloody fact.

      PM

    33. Re:Oh Sure by PottedMeat · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is why I feel much safer keeping a loaded M1 Abrams in my bedroom. Hmm, at certain times of the month that's what I call my wife too!
    34. Re:Oh Sure by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      The stats based on guns being available to you = danger are often flawed as they include suicides to produce the desired statistical effect.

    35. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree. if someone breaks into my home and threatens the safety of my family, he or she will not find that my gun is for show and tell. they will find that i mean serious business with my loaded gun...when they wake up dead.

    36. Re:Oh Sure by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 1

      I've had guns in my dwellings for over 40 years. I don't care what your studies and statistics show because of one simple fact. If somebody breaks into my home while I am there he will be shot. Not only will I shoot them, I will shoot them as many times as it takes to render them no longer a threat. This is how law enforcement people are trained and it is a sensible response.

      An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a victim.

      If you are so sure a gun in your house is unwise I invite you to post a sign in your yard that says "Gun Free Zone."

      You may now continue with your suicidal lifestyle.

    37. Re:Oh Sure by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Well, if "Aunt Betty" breaks into my house, the bitch is getting shot. But then I don't have that many random people just walking into my house uninvited. (One, and she would be in the bed next to me) Could be because they know better...

    38. Re:Oh Sure by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Gun vs Burglar is not security theater. It actually does have value in your defense against the burglar and it's not really a "theater" in the sense you aren't even advertising that you are keeping a gun in your home.

      Maybe the theater is for the occupant of the home itself, that is, self-theater?

    39. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try a little research before you try to push your PC belief system on the world - "During the decades the American Rifleman has published "The Armed Citizen" column, thousands of incidents of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime have appeared in the magazine. Editorial space allowing, the total could have been far greater of course, as award-winning survey research shows that each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times." The anti-gun liberal left you belong to does not like people to hear the truth - in those places where people may legally carry firearms, and are allowed to use them for self-defense, CRIME RATES DROP! What a shocker - criminals don't like to get shot! In the same vein: "Alexander Aguilar skipped a day of high school to continue his criminal career. Police had been searching for him for weeks when Aguilar broke into a Dallas home with the intent to rob it. The 64-year-old homeowner was awakened when he heard a window break and, gun in hand, confronted Aguilar as he entered a back door. After Aguilar charged and threw a backpack at him, the homeowner shot Aguilar in the arm and held him until police arrived. "The homeowner won't face any charges. You have a right to defend yourself and your home," said Dallas Police Sgt. Steven Shaw. "This burglar is actually someone who has active warrants out. We've been trying to catch him for the last two weeks."(www.cbs11tv.com), TX. 5/21/08)" Can't argue with success...

    40. Re:Oh Sure by instarx · · Score: 1

      Gun vs Burglar is not security theater. It actually does have value in your defense against the burglar and it's not really a "theater" in the sense you aren't even advertising that you are keeping a gun in your home. There doesn't have to be an audience for it to be theater.
    41. Re:Oh Sure by gabrielex · · Score: 0

      This is why I feel much safer keeping a loaded M1 Abrams in my bedroom.

      Oh cool! How much for a ride?
      --
      Bye -Gabriele- http://flickr.com/photos/gabriele83
    42. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my opinion almost all forms of random searches are security theater.

      I disagree. Purely random searches instead of color/looks/religion biased ones are more likely to increase the chances of finding a given spread problem (read, finding a knive in a given set of bags) than targeted ones. We are not nuts and bolts (as an example of randomized quality control), so a person who knows falls into a target group can modify his image to avoid the given target.

    43. Re:Oh Sure by dave420 · · Score: 1

      What happens when the gun is stolen?

    44. Re:Oh Sure by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      The point is that having a firearm is security theatre in that it (theoretically) lowers the risk in one case (as a deterrent/self defence), but increases the overall risk due to accidents, usage in a quarrel, and so on.

      Instead, the money invested in owning and maintaining a firearm is better invested in more secure windows and doors. That is why owning a handgun merely for protection is considered security theatre.

    45. Re:Oh Sure by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      In another sense of the word, it is security theatre in that gun sellers use it as an argument to convince people to buy one. As far as security measures go, though, it has a low cost effectiveness.

      But there is a different form of security theatre, true. Some people put signs up advertising the possession of a firearm, but not all of them actually own one...

    46. Re:Oh Sure by houghi · · Score: 1

      Just start flying people around without weapons. See who gets searched. The people who run several flights without getting searched are ideal for your next attack.
      Her you asume that each and every person has its how box cutter. All you need is one person to pass with a box of cutters. He can even be on a completely unrelated flight a few hours or even longer earlier.

      This might increase the change of one person being cought, but decreases the chance of the other 20 getting caught.

      Now imagine that this is how it was done in the real attack. This would mean that even if we had the current kind of security we have now, we would not have been able to avoid the attack.

      However there IS a huge difference before and after 9/11 and that is not the security at the airport. It is the fact that we are now post-9/11. Only an idiot would now pull a knife in an airplane. The only possible way to get anything done is to blow up yourself and hope that the plane goes down as well with you.

      The chances of that not working are so great that it would be easier to blow up yourself waiting in line before the checkpoint. After all it is not so much body count as it is terror that they would want. A big bodycount has a bigger impact obviously.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    47. Re:Oh Sure by dirtyangus · · Score: 1

      That might be true up NE in your house, but break into mine and you'll be finding more 00 holes in your body than theater.

    48. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People putting loaded handguns in their homes in the case of a wood-be assailant or robber breaking in. This is not only security theater, it increases the risk you are putting yourself and your family in. Not to mention that in most instances of murder the victim knew the assailant. You're more likely to die of suicide than a robber killing you.

      Depends on where you live. People who live in high crime areas are certainly more likely to be shot by a stranger than to commit suicide.
    49. Re:Oh Sure by Daytona955i · · Score: 1

      People putting loaded handguns in their homes in the case of a wood-be assailant or robber breaking in. This is not only security theater, it increases the risk you are putting yourself and your family in. Not to mention that in most instances of murder the victim knew the assailant. You're more likely to die of suicide than a robber killing you. You are more likely to die from a pool that a firearms accident. Also while it's true that most robbers won't try and kill you, having a gun in the house could help prevent against theft, rape or other things. By following a few simple safety measures, Firearms can be quite safe.
    50. Re:Oh Sure by MeBadMagic · · Score: 1

      If there is a single sound that can make any grown man shit his pants, it's the sound of a pump shotgun chambering a round just after you step inside a house you think is empty for illicit purposes....

      theater? Yep
      Effective? Certainly

      B-)

      --
      A friend will come and bail you out of jail, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "damn that was fun!"
    51. Re:Oh Sure by tom's+a-cold · · Score: 1

      Random searches provide excellent security, provided the punishment for getting caught exceeds the benefits multiplied by the risk.
      That's an overly simplistic calculation. From the bad guy's point of view, what really matters is (the probability of getting caught) times (the penalty for getting caught) versus the benefits of success. Why that matters is that random searches may well have a success rate of less than 100%, especially when what is being searched for is not known by the searchers. I use the term "penalty" rather than "punishment" because delay and disruption might well matter to a terrorist planner as much as whether one of his goons winds up in jail.

      And, as you mention, that's taking the point of view that there should be deterrence regardless of cost. In real life, there is a cost to society of implementing random searches. Along with the cost of delays and the loss of liberty (to name two), there is the very real cost of false positives. For a search methodology that is attempting to catch all of a very small number of bad guys in a very large population (for example, a few dozen terrorists among a few million air travellers), the rate of false positives can be huge. I'll not do a calculation here, but with some very charitable assumptions about the specificity and sensitivity of TSA searches it's still possible to have tens of thousands of innocent people falsely detained (and possibly punished) for every real terrorist.

      --
      Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
    52. Re:Oh Sure by Darby · · Score: 1

      Hmm, at certain times of the month that's what I call my wife too!

      Dude, tell her to skip the green pills and just start on a new pack.
      Problem solved. Or at least reduced to a couple of times a year instead of every month.

    53. Re:Oh Sure by Darby · · Score: 1

      Well, if "Aunt Betty" breaks into my house, the bitch is getting shot.

      Socks and underwear for Christmas my ass.

    54. Re:Oh Sure by Darby · · Score: 1


      1) Havent killed myself with my own gun yet.


      Look, I can take you at your word on your other points , but I'm going to need some proof for this one.

    55. Re:Oh Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your all a bunch of wood-be language killers.

    56. Re:Oh Sure by databeast · · Score: 1

      wish I had modpoints to mod you up, but then I couldnt have posted in the first place... ahh the vicious circle of logic.

  12. Vista UAC by rsborg · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Security theatre in it's finest. It's so unusable that it's clear that any serious user will disable it. So why include it? The article points a valid reason: liability. Micrsoft can't keep your system highly safe without a great cost to them (re-architect the OS and severely damage backwards compatiblility). So they chose to let you either deal with the annoyance, or turn it off, and (symbolically) accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Vista UAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh boy. Can't believe this was modded insightful.

      I'm a serious user, and I didn't disabled UAC. In fact, I don't know anyone who has Vista and has disabled it. Will some users be bothered with it? Of course, but that's a given for almost all security controls.

      Also, the very same logic could be applied to unix. Hey, it's much easier to always log on as root, no need for this sudo shit. I guess that's also security theater, right?

    2. Re:Vista UAC by rsborg · · Score: 1

      I'm a serious user, and I didn't disabled UAC. In fact, I don't know anyone who has Vista and has disabled it.
      Probably because a lot of users haven't really disabled Vista UAC, but migrated back to XP or moved to Linux/OSX. I can count on my hand the number of people I know who run Vista, and most of those work at Microsoft. Of those I know that do run Vista have told me they either feel secure enough to disable UAC, or they just don't care and want to stop the annoyance.
      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    3. Re:Vista UAC by Erioll · · Score: 1

      I'm a serious user, and I didn't disabled UAC. Did you know that ANY application can disable UAC globally without you knowing that's what they're doing? Sure it'll pop up a dialog saying that it needs admin privileges, but that happens so often you'll just assume it's an incompatible app just like many other things.

      UAC is useless.
    4. Re:Vista UAC by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Security theatre in it's finest.

      What the hell are you on about? How exactly is it theatre to require elevation to perform system modifying actions? Linux does it. Apple does it.

      The ONLY reason Vista's is more 'annoying' is that a PILE of software that was written prior to UAC, and needlessly alters the system is still in use while pretty much everything for OSX and Linux that anybody uses today has been written to live in user space.

      Once Vista's been around long enough for most legacy software to be upgraded or discarded UAC will be no more of a hassle than elevating Apple or Linux.

      It's so unusable that it's clear that any serious user will disable it.

      That's the dumbest possible thing you can do. If you ever want your OS to be as secure as Linux or OSX you've got to erect that barrier between user and root, and pressure software vendors to work within that limitation.

      The article points a valid reason: liability. Micrsoft can't keep your system highly safe without a great cost to them (re-architect the OS and severely damage backwards compatiblility).

      That's absurd. MS did re-architect it, and it did severely damage backwards compatibility. That's the whole reason you are moaning about UAC. UAC isn't annoying unless you are running legacy software.

      If you use software designed with Vista in mind, the only UAC prompt you generally ever see is during the initial install, and again if and when you uninstall it. No intellgent person should turn of UAC to run an application. If you've got something that requires UAC off to run, put up with elevating it, don't run it and get something else, or run it in a VM on a legacy Windows OS.

      You wouldn't disable all your security in Linux just to run some legacy app would you? You shouldn't in Windows either.

      The only time I ever see a UAC prompt is to install/uninstall software or to mess with the system settings. Which isn't annoying and indeed is as is it should be. I do have some legacy apps, most work fine without elevation. A couple that were constantly tried doing things that UAC disallowed I've discarded and found Vista friendly alternatives for. And a couple I run in a VM while i wait for upgraded versions or alternatives to present themselves.

      You CAN'T have it both ways. You can't run all software as root and be safe at the same time. So if a pile of your software needs root to run, you can't be safe. Its not Microsofts fault if you insist on running software that needs root. An intelligent person would stop using that software, not disable their security.

    5. Re:Vista UAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't happens so often that I'll just assume it's normal.

      Most people ends up using most of the times 5-10 applications top. Some of these applications are going to trigger UAC for no reason (especially at startup), but like everyone else I ended up knowing which applications were problematic, and in what circumstances.

      People have been greatly exaggerating UAC popping continuously for no reason. Most of the times, this happened because of a mis configured installation (especially from XP updates), and now that the vendors have rolled out there compatibility patches, it's less and less an issue. In a year or two, UAC will be as accepted as the root/sudo paradigm is.

  13. TSA by rhadamanthus · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Nuff' said.

    --
    Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
    1. Re:TSA by Uberdog · · Score: 1

      Specifically the No Fly List. It is utterly trivial to change the name on a boarding pass that is expected to be printed out on a user's home computer (most are just HTML). This has received a fair amount of attention in the past, but apparently the theatrics of it suffice.

    2. Re:TSA by mishehu · · Score: 1

      Or even more specifically...
      No liquids. Did the agents get the memo? MacGyver is retired, the toothpaste + water + mouthwash + baby formula bomb won't work unless you allow nail clippers aboard too. How else are you going to ignite it?

      Honestly, what's the bullshit with no bottles of water allowed? Isn't it time that somebody sue the TSA to get them to drop this ass-in-9 practice?

    3. Re:TSA by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      Honestly, what's the bullshit with no bottles of water allowed? Isn't it time that somebody sue the TSA to get them to drop this ass-in-9 practice? I kind of assumed it was really just meant to increase profitability for the airport food vendors.
    4. Re:TSA by mishehu · · Score: 1

      But I don't think that many airport vendors sell items like baby formula and prescription medications... so I don't think that it's really a conspiracy of the airport convenience shop owners... it's just something as stupid as laws in some states banning non-missionary style and/or non-vaginal sex...

  14. MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by FranTaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I cannot verify this story, anyone else?

    Back in ArpaNet days, MIT had machines running an OS called ITS. It was a friendly and happy world and there were user accounts but no passwords. But networking means that strangers can connect and so Arpa insisted that passwords be added. So the ITS developers added a password prompt that ignored the password, and this made the Arpa people happy for a while until they figured it out and made them actually check the password.

    In a similar vein, Microsoft file server passwords were originally checked only on the client, a fact which went undiscovered until Samba came along.

  15. Wireless Security by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Funny

    I had a boss that named the wireless network "Virus". On asking him about this, he explained "it's to scare off hackers - they won't connect if they think they'll get a virus". Ah, ok.

    It's probably worth pointing out he wasn't aware you could "secure" a wireless point with a basic WPA key at least - it was completely open, anyone could walk right in, assuming they beat the fear of the "virus" that was.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:Wireless Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I had a boss that named the wireless network "Virus". On asking him about this, he explained "it's to scare off hackers - they won't connect if they think they'll get a virus". Ah, ok. I named two network printers I didn't want people using "Broken" and "Dot_Matrix" (before there were access lists)
    2. Re:Wireless Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was this at an online dating startup by any chance?

    3. Re:Wireless Security by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      I probably would have printed to the Dot_Matrix printer just to hear that sound again.....

      EEEEchchchchchchchchcEEEEEEEEchchhchchchchchchc

      Layne

    4. Re:Wireless Security by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 1

      I know someone who's wireless SSID is "DepartmentOfDefense," and someone else with (for their neighborhood) an even scarier SSID: "ImmigrationServices."

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    5. Re:Wireless Security by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Um.. I think you're thinking of a daisy-wheel printer. "dot matrix" printers are just a little noisier than an inkjet.*

      *actually, as we all know, it's a terrifically stupid term, as the inkjet also prints dots in a matrix. And a laser printer could even be classed as dot matrix if you refer to the output rather than the print head.

      "impact printer" is probably a much better term.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Wireless Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brings up an interesting question, though: How many of the administrators of large botnets have their own home computers unknowingly infected with someone else's virus? With their own virus? I suppose that the brains behind taking over other people's computers run something other than Windows for precisely this reason.

    7. Re:Wireless Security by Telvin_3d · · Score: 1

      To be fair, if I was browsing around for an open wireless network to use, my last choice would be the one named 'virus'. After all, since when is tempting fate the smart option.

    8. Re:Wireless Security by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      My first dot matrix was the Commodore MPS 801. I've you've never heard one (especially without the cover on), it was *VERY* loud.

      Layne

    9. Re:Wireless Security by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      That's why you leave it completely open and call your wireless network "honeypot" ;)

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    10. Re:Wireless Security by pyrr · · Score: 1

      Actually, most dot-matrix printers are a bit on the noisy side-- they're impact printers just as various flavors of letter-quality printers are. They have tiny pins arranged in a matrix that strike through an ink ribbon. Even though their quality is pretty abysmal, Okidata's dot matrix printers are still made (AFAIK) and are pretty common in applications where the printer works with continuous multi-part forms.

  16. Library Self-Checkouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The libraries let you sign your own books out. You place your book and card under a scanner, and then it demagnetizes the book so the alarms won't go off when you leave. The scanner only reads a barcode though, so you can stick five books on it, sign out one, and demagnetize them all. Presto, four free books.

    Of course, when the security alarms do go off at the library anyway, they just let the people walk out.

    1. Re:Library Self-Checkouts by Falstius · · Score: 1

      At my library at least, all the books have RFID tags. If you put 5 books on at once, it will read and check out all of them. I haven't seen a system that just has a barcode scanner (not that I can't easily picture a library doing that).

      Of course, security is always a tradeoff between cost and effectiveness. If they don't have enough books stolen to justify a more robust, and expensive, system then it would be stupid for them to spend money on one.

    2. Re:Library Self-Checkouts by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      So true. I was at the Santa Barbara, Calif library a few weeks ago at a sale where they were selling donated books and discarded library books.
      When I left with my purchases, the alarm at the door went off. I stopped, looked at the librarian inquiringly, and she waved me though with a bored expression.
      I wasn't just carrying a book or two, I was pushing a library cart with four large boxes of books.

    3. Re:Library Self-Checkouts by retendo · · Score: 1

      I would guess that most folks who work at a library aren't that concerned with theft.
      In fact, they would probably find joy in the fact that someone wanted to read so badly that they were willing to try and steal books.

    4. Re:Library Self-Checkouts by overtly_demure · · Score: 1
      Book? Book? What is this "book" you speak of?

    5. Re:Library Self-Checkouts by hof1991 · · Score: 1

      Many of the self checks can sense that there are more that one book (EM security involve). Good ones will refuse to check out any of them, if the setting isn't turned off. many libraries turn it off in a tradeoff of staff time/patron frustration vs losing a few books. As for RFID, that is true theater. VERY simple to beat compared to EM, since the large tags are easily visible, simple to disable (cut them in half) and have a limited lifespan in normal use.

  17. Locks.......with keys attached?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    come along folks ..its been a long day

    1. Re:Locks.......with keys attached?? by digitrev · · Score: 1

      Actually, a friend I know has a situation like that. They use it on their freezer (which they keep packed full). Since there's no latch to keep it closed, they just use the lock/key to keep it closed.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
  18. DIEBOLD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    DIEBOLD and other voting machine manufacturers take the cake for Security Theater. Throwing around words like encryption make most politicians nod ignorantly in agreement (something politicians often do). By now we should know the whole voting system is rigged, and that these fools are continuing to tout themselves as secure.

    Here's the movie that partially but convincingly explores how jacked up this situation is:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4762159260759486531&ei=Fms8SKmYKJCEqgPTx4XjAw&hl=en

  19. Shortly after 9/11 by hudsonhawk · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...while I was temping for a company in Chicago, I was asked to deliver a box of candy to a client in the Sears Tower. While entering, I went though the giant, heightened security setup - x-rays and all - and got held up because I had a box cutter in my backback.

    They held it up triumphantly and shouted at me, "Just what do you expect to do with this?!"

    I wanted to ask them them the same question back. Just what did they expect I'd do with that? In a building that had security guards with guns? Was I going to hijack the building and crash it into a plane?

    1. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

      You also had a box. You should have pointed at it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And what exactly would you do with a box cutter? Open boxes? Hah! Likely story...

    3. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by areusche · · Score: 2, Funny

      I didn't know one could fly buildings :-p

    4. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by OglinTatas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Glad to see you back from Gitmo, man. We missed you.

    5. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by mishehu · · Score: 1

      I wanna buy me one of those toys!

    6. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      long hours with Microsoft Building Simulator

    7. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by Randolpho · · Score: 1

      hudsonhawk wrote:
      Was I going to hijack the building and crash it into a plane?
      If you did, I'm sure you'd do it while singing "Swingin' on a Star" because that's exactly how much time you'd need before the alarm goes off.

      Oh, and you'd sing the verses out of order.
      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    8. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Would be nice to see that scene of Matrix, where Neo say "We need box cutters. Lots of box cutters" and then charge against the military guarded building.

      I know, noone ever did anything like that, but thats why its going to work.

    9. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by Tycho · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Back in 2005, I bought, which at the time, was a high-end Acer laptop. Less than a month later I took the laptop with me on a vacation, where I flew to Missoula, Montana from Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport. The MSP airport is also Idaho Senator Larry Craig's favorite layover destination. So after arriving at the airport on the day of the flight, I got in the line for the security screening and I did not remove the laptop from the bag, which was bad of me. I overheard one of the security screeners state to another screener that he had observed the laptop during the scanning and then my bag was flagged. Another screener took my bag, called me over and asked me to open my bag and asked me to turn on my laptop. Things seemed to go well at first, I turned the computer on and proved that it worked. As the computer was booting up, the TSA screener wiped a disposable microfiber cloth on parts of the exterior of the laptop. However, the screener had some sort of spectrometer. The screener put the cloth into this spectrometer. Something was wrong with the results and the screeneer started to wipe down the inside and outside of my backpack with additional cloths. The trace chemical results from the backpack were similar to the initial results from the laptop. The spectrometer results showed trace amounts of the explosive TNT. The screener asked me if I gone hunting with that bag, which I had not done. However, three years earlier I had been to Montana for a field camp class for my Geology degree and put several rocks in the backpack. Some of the rocks apparently had a residual amount of TNT left on them, after being blasted, and the TNT was transfered onto the surfaces of the backpack. The screener was satisfied with this explanation and allowed me to go and catch my flight.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    10. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 1

      Nah, "We need nail clippers! Lots of nail clippers!"

      That would put the fear of God into them!

      TSA - proudly keeping the world safe from nail clippers since 2001.

    11. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      You should've said that: "I'm gonna hijack this building and crash it into a cessna!"

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    13. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I visited the Sears tower on business this January and had my pocket knife with me. When it was time to go through the metal detector I put my knife, keys and cell phone in the little tray for coins and put my parka (it was January in Chicago) over it. Walked through the detector, picked up my knife, keys and phone and put my coat, that could have easily concealed an armory, back on.

    14. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I'd have been more worried about the box of candy. Rock Ridge: Never Forget.

    15. Re:Shortly after 9/11 by dwye · · Score: 1

      > I didn't know one could fly buildings :-p

      What? Of course one can. Beldar and Prymaat Conehead flew the Chrysler Building back to Remulac, on nationwide TV no less!

  20. Back button on bank's web site by rduke15 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On my bank's web site, when I used the browser's back button, things started to get out of sync. You had to click their own custom back button somewhere in the pages so that everything would continues to work.

    When I called to report it, I was explained that I had to click their own back button, not mine. When I said "Yes, I know, I just wanted to let you know so that you can fix the bug sometime", the final answer was something like "It's by design. It's for security reasons". At that point I was expected to say "ok. thank you" or whatever, and to understand that a "bug" was totally unthinkable on their super-reliable ultra-secure blah blah bank site.

    Nevertheless, a few months later, the bug was gone. I didn't call back to say I'm now worried about the security...

    1. Re:Back button on bank's web site by genner · · Score: 1

      Back buttons break most wensites.

    2. Re:Back button on bank's web site by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

      i wrote one of those back-button-disabling "for security reasons" web sites a long time ago.

      what the website is trying to accomplish is to prevent someone from hijacking your session. it sets a unique cookie, tracks the click stream, implements all page navigation with specific buttons, and then if the cookie and the session stream don't jive, it assumes the page has been hijacked and forces you to re-authorize. this was back in 1997 when we weren't willing to rely on SSL alone.

      this of course is a major PITA for users, but then again so is having your bank account hijacked. at this point, i only see this technique in use for bank/brokerage accounts, and i think a lot of them now remember the session state for the last couple of clicks so if you go back or forward in your browser a little bit, you're still okay. i presume they are checking IP address and limiting the time window to a couple minutes still.

    3. Re:Back button on bank's web site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They break websites too. Especially the ones that use sessions.

    4. Re:Back button on bank's web site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you didn't

  21. A crypto guy talking about theater ... by mark_jabroni · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Can he tell you how many millions of emails and documents are encrypted before one is protected? Because it would be nice if he met the same standards he holds others to -- it would be nice if anybody in computer security were held to the same cost/benefit standards as regular security. I used to have 16 different passwords at work, all requiring changes every 64 days, and I somehow doubt it was worth the trouble.

    His examples are bunk anyway because he doesn't understand them. Deterrents work without working, that's the point. And the baby thing -- there's a big moral and societal difference between losing a sick kid to disease and having a healthy kid kidnapped. Otherwise, why imprison kidnappers but not doctors who treated patients who died?

    1. Re:A crypto guy talking about theater ... by befletch · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, why imprison kidnappers but not doctors who treated patients who died?

      You know, the preview button gives you a chance to think about the content of your post, not just its formatting.

      --
      If you say, "now I'll be modded down because of X", I'll happily oblige.
  22. Nice Article by dunezone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article fails to talk about security as a deterrent.

    The RFID bracelets on an infant can give comfort to the parents but its more of a deterrent then anything. Sure the hospital can tell the parents that their child is protected. But the hospital is not protecting the child as much as its protecting itself. For example:

    A guard that is in the bank is not there to stop a bank from being robbed. He deters people from committing the crime itself. In a robbery situation the guard himself is useless because the individual or individuals robbing a bank would take him out first. But in most bank robberies, the criminals are going to go after a bank without a guard anyway.

    A mall guard doesn't stop people from stealing, he creates the presence of being watched, therefor deterring people from stealing.

    Same goes with cameras in stores. Most of the time no one is monitoring the cameras and if anything their used to watch employees over customers. But their deterring employees from doing anything unethical or illegal and they deter people from stealing.

    In my opinion the idea of security theater and feeling safe is crap. You might as well spend the time and effort to know your safe then make it seem like you feel like your safe.

    1. Re:Nice Article by gclef · · Score: 1

      Same goes with cameras in stores. Most of the time no one is monitoring the cameras and if anything their used to watch employees over customers. But their deterring employees from doing anything unethical or illegal and they deter people from stealing. Really? Ask the folks in London how that's working out for them.
    2. Re:Nice Article by kisielk · · Score: 1

      Apparently not so well.

    3. Re:Nice Article by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      You apparently missed the entire point of the article. Statistically speaking there is a 1 in 375,000 chance the child will be abducted. The point is that the chance the child will be abducted is so low there doesn't really need to be ANY need for security. As a deterrent, or otherwise. So why waste money on security for soemthing that A) isn't really needed and B) probably isn't very secure? To ease the mind of the parents. Security, deterrent or otherwise, isn't the point.

    4. Re:Nice Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THAN you cretinous yank.

    5. Re:Nice Article by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Statistically speaking there is a 1 in 375,000 chance the child will be abducted. The point is that the chance the child will be abducted is so low there doesn't really need to be ANY need for security. As a deterrent, or otherwise. So why waste money on security for soemthing that A) isn't really needed and B) probably isn't very secure? To ease the mind of the parents. Security, deterrent or otherwise, isn't the point.


      (NOTE: I work in a hospital.) Probably because the lawsuit that would result if that 1 in 375,000 happened in your hospital and you had no security system in place would be really expensive both in terms of settlement and bad PR. In fact, the bad PR alone could cripple your maternity ward. Imagine if you and your spouse are expecting a child and the local news reports on a recent abduction from a hospital that had no security against infant abductions and still wasn't planning on getting one. You would likely not consider delivering at that hospital.

      At the hospital I work in, the infant's RFID badge automatically sets off a "Code Stork" when the baby is moved past a certain point. Once a "Code Stork" is announced, designated staff members across the entire hospital leave their desks/posts and position themselves in predetermined spots, blocking every available exit. I take the Web Babies photos from maternity for posting on the web and happened to be near maternity one day when a Code Stork went off. As I walked back to my office, I had to pass through multiple staff members guarding against infant abduction. You can bet that, had I been carrying a baby, I wouldn't have gotten very far!

      Even if the chance of child abduction is very low, I don't see a system like this as "security theater", but as both necessary and useful. (It's the type of system that you hope never has to be used, but you're happy that it is in place when it is needed.)
      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:Nice Article by swillden · · Score: 1

      The RFID bracelets on an infant can give comfort to the parents but its more of a deterrent then anything.

      Sure it's a deterrent. That's ultimately the purpose of all security -- to convince the attacker to find an easier target. But if the cost of the security (the deterrent) exceeds the expected risk of not having security, then the security measures clearly are not actually there for security, they're theater.

      In this case, an actuary could very cold-bloodedly put a dollar value on a stolen baby, and that times the probability of a theft gives you the value that's being protected. Since the security system costs more than that, it's a bad idea to deploy it, from a true security perspective.

      However, there's also business value in making parents feel good about the job the hospital is doing in protecting their baby. That value significantly exceeds the cost of the security system, so the system is a good idea even if the actual risk of a baby theft were zero. In other words, the theatrical benefit completely justifies the expense. Any real security benefit is irrelevant.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  23. Completely off-topic... by HetMes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...but what the hell is up with these users starting their replies with something like: "I'll probably get modded down for trolling, but..." Are you saying you know your answer will not be appreciated, but you're just the kind of crazy, out-there, don't-give-a-damn, cool guy that says it anyway? Just say what you have to say and stand by it. Stop showing off your insecurity, and/or lack of knowledge on the subject.

    1. Re:Completely off-topic... by ericrost · · Score: 3, Funny

      You must be new here.

    2. Re:Completely off-topic... by HetMes · · Score: 1

      Check out the +1M UID! But the third poster's UID isn't that low either, so maybe, just maybe, I can make a difference.

    3. Re:Completely off-topic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do it for the same reason that people say "Completely

    4. Re:Completely off-topic... by rts008 · · Score: 1

      That's the spirit!

      BTW, well said above! http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=566835&cid=23576531

      For the most part I would say pay more attention to the content of a post, and pretty much ignore the UID.

      Hang in there for a while, and you will be able to tell who is posting by writing style or sig.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    5. Re:Completely off-topic... by Starteck81 · · Score: 1

      ...but what the hell is up with these users starting their replies with something like: "I'll probably get modded down for trolling, but..." Are you saying you know your answer will not be appreciated, but you're just the kind of crazy, out-there, don't-give-a-damn, cool guy that says it anyway? Just say what you have to say and stand by it. Stop showing off your insecurity, and/or lack of knowledge on the subject.

      There is a good reason why people do that. It's a technique of Neuro-linguistic programming called pacing. It's used to build rapport with someone.

      From the wiki article.

      "NLP proposed a number of simple techniques involving matching, pacing and leading for establishing rapport with people.[12] There are a number of techniques explored in NLP that are supposed to be beneficial in building and maintaining rapport such as: matching and pacing non-verbal behavior (body posture, head position, gestures, voice tone, and so forth) and matching speech and body rhythms of others (breathing, pulse, and so forth)."

      A common day to day example is a telemarketer that that verbally acknowledges that you must be busy with many other things to do, this is pacing what you're thinking, but if you'll just give them a few moments they'll make it worth your time.
      --
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
    6. Re:Completely off-topic... by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Starting off our post with that almost guarantees that your slightly controversial/off-color/funny comment will get modded up.

    7. Re:Completely off-topic... by anti-human+1 · · Score: 1

      Like ericrost says. The quickest way to an upmodded comment on slashdot is to include that exact line in the first paragraph.

      You can call it the karma-aimbot.

    8. Re:Completely off-topic... by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      ...but what the hell is up with these users starting their replies with something like: "I'll probably get modded down for trolling, but..." Are you saying you know your answer will not be appreciated, but you're just the kind of crazy, out-there, don't-give-a-damn, cool guy that says it anyway? Just say what you have to say and stand by it. Stop showing off your insecurity, and/or lack of knowledge on the subject.


      In modern America, everyone has the right to feel persecuted by their ideological opponents, and state that anyone who doesn't find them insightful and brilliant is clearly just biased against the truth. There is no irony recognized in the US anymore when a member of a massive majority claims that some small minority is "oppressing" him.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    9. Re:Completely off-topic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I'll be modded up for being awesome, but...

      They feel like their opinion is in the minority but is the True Correct View that just has to be said no matter the horrible cost to their karma. By prefacing with 'I'll ...' they are using a little reverse psychology because they often are trolling but some mods might get caught and go 'Trolls are always wrong, so if I mod him down, he'll be right, so I must mod him up'.

    10. Re:Completely off-topic... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.
      Most definitely.
    11. Re:Completely off-topic... by Kev+Vance · · Score: 1

      I use most of my mod points for knocking down posts that start with "I know I'll get modded down, but...", or end with "and now the zealots will mod me down."

      I'm still waiting for my (-1, User requested) moderation descriptor.

      --
      F0 07 C7 C8
    12. Re:Completely off-topic... by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Stop showing off your insecurity, But it's all I got!
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    13. Re:Completely off-topic... by syousef · · Score: 1

      Actually they're saying they have little faith in the slashdot community (and specifically moderators) to act in the interests of a healthy discussion. I don't think it's unwarranted.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    14. Re:Completely off-topic... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      It's an effort to forestall those moderators who will mod 'troll' or 'flamebait' without considering the actual point(s) made by the poster.

      Some people mod in a rush, and a statement like that in a post signifies that the poster
      1. Is aware that some people may be offended by the post but
      2. Feel they have a valid point to make.

      This is especially useful with potential flamebaits -- it will help prevent flame responses, hopefully leading to better discussion.

      All in all, usually rewriting a post to make it less troll-ish or flamebait-ish works better than, or just as well as, writing "I'll probably be modded troll for this..."; however, it is usually much easier and quicker to just write the preface to the post.

      You'll note that a preface/postscript intended to forestall and/or address negative commentary is pretty common with a lot of published works on 'hot' topics.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  24. The entire war on drugs by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's left to say? It's pretty clear that drugs are more dangerous when they're only available in the unregulated black market than in a regulated legal market. Criminalizing the use of drugs only hurts drug users more, yet it's done in the name of safety.

    What's worst is that we've been fighting this war for decades, no end is in sight, we've spent more money and lost more freedoms fighting it than we have in Iraq. And still, no one in power has the balls to speak out against this.

    We live in a sick, sad world. People who would meet the non-violent act of drug use with the violent acts of arrest and imprisonment are themselves violent criminals. Yet in this society they are deemed good citizens.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure it is done with safety in mind? I tend to think the WOD was started with the best, wholesome, Christian thinking. And now everyone knows you can't get elected without being a Christian... so you can't get rid of the War on Drugs!!!! Are you for Satan?! Think of the KIDS! GOD doesn't like drugs!!!

    2. Re:The entire war on drugs by lemur3 · · Score: 1

      I think we should pay attention to one of the words being used a lot here SECURITY. when we think of the DRUG WAR, and ending it or not we are talking about JOB SECURITY.... i know, its different but that just may be one of the biggest reasons for it continuing: (job) security.

    3. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the same vein, I feel MUCH safer knowing that the police all over Amerika are busy chasing adults engaged in consensual (paid) sexual acts, while many real criminals go uncaught.

    4. Re:The entire war on drugs by TorKlingberg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Strangely, the only drug liberals I see are upper class people with no personal experience of drug abuse among friends or family. Marijuana is one thing, the the harder drugs cause a lot of problems. And no, most problems are not because of the illegality itself.

    5. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd contend that drugs hurt drug users more. My mother-in-law works in a rehab clinic, and my entire family has battled drug addiction. Some people can handle it better than others, but addiction is a mental condition as much as it is a physical one. People who are the grips of addiction can not be completely objective about it. So when drug users advocate how safe drugs are, how well can we trust them?

      Some addicts function, but many (most) do not.

      You suggest cops are criminals themselves for arresting people? Prisons are over crowded the point that in Texas, the harshest state on murder, over 120 people walked last year after murder convictions without doing a single day in jail. We don't throw casual pot users in prison. We throw major dealers in jail, and for good reason. They knowingly profit on the destruction of other's lives and break the law.

      And if you think the drug industry is non-violent, you're deluding yourself.

    6. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And still, no one in power has the balls to speak out against this. Probably because they don't want to be labelled as "sympathisers"...I mean, won't somebody think of the children?

      Also, recently where I live there was an incredibly bad piece on TV about how supposedly easy it is to manufacture methamphetamine, showing a bottle of methylated spirits, some plastic jugs and filters etc and basically consisted of lies and half truths. TV is rife with this sort of misinformation but i'll be damned if I'm gonna be the one to stand up and correct them.

    7. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what's worst is this:
      While we're fighting the "War on Drugs" here at home, the CIA and their friends have been using drug trafficking to fund wars to destabilize countries that turn to profitable drug production to prop up their new regimes. Where do those drugs go? Oh yeah, in to the US in massive quantities.

      Go figure that we can't "win" it.

    8. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police really appreciates war on drugs. That's how they get significant chunk of their funding.

    9. Re:The entire war on drugs by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Criminalizing the use of drugs only hurts drug users more, yet it's done in the name of safety.
      It's not done for "safety". It's being done in the name of some calvinist anglo-saxon puritan attitude to prevent undeserved pleasure. "Undeserved" meaning not controlled by someone else.

      Anything pleasurable, be it sex, masturbation, alcohol or pleasure drugs that only depends on the enjoyer's will is bad, because it cannot be used in a carrot/stick situation.

      This is why many societies rely on religion (no sex if you don't support a bitchy whiny wife that will pump out kids to perpetuate the tribe) or commerce (no money? You dont watch that movie/hear that song/enjoy yourself in the amusement park/drink that hooch) to provide pleasure.

      God may have mercy on the poor soul who brews his own moonshine or grow his own weed. Because those people are dangerous individuals that cannot be controlled.

    10. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      excellent post

    11. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you say that people who go into prostitution, commit robberies, and generally put other peoples lives in danger because of their drugged out stupor don't lead to violence?
      Sure, you can make the argument that a pothead is a generally non-violent creature, but what about that tweaker that's high as a kite 40 hours later, is delusional, and can't even be brought down by a taser?
      What about the children of these people who essentially (if lucky) become wards of the state after mommy and/or daddy go to prison enough times?
      You could argue, economics would bring the price down and wouldn't force people into such lives of crime. Maybe not for your NYC stockbroker putting candy in his nose. But for your welfare having, can't hold a job, meth-user, they'll just use as much as they can anyways.
      If everyone lived in their own little world and didn't affect everyone else's lives with their drug use, sure, why make it illegal? But the bottom line is, that person will necessarily be costing everyone else money and their families emotional trauma, at the very least.

    12. Re:The entire war on drugs by emerald_glitter · · Score: 1

      Huh. I grew up pretty poor and have clawed my way up to upper middle class as an adult. I've got friends barely making it, others living pretty well, and you know what? Their views on drugs are pretty evenly spread out, some are liberal, some not. It doesn't matter whether they have money or not, or whether or not they have a substance abuser in the family or as a friend.

    13. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's worst is that we've been fighting this war for decades, no end is in sight, As Michael Douglas's character pointed out in "Traffic", "If there is a war on drugs, then many of our family members are the enemy. And I don't know how you wage war on your own family."

      It *can't* end in victory for the prohibitionists, because we as a country are funding both sides of it. The Cowboys have a better chance of winning a War On The Redskins.

      we've spent more money and lost more freedoms fighting it than we have in Iraq. And still, no one in power has the balls to speak out against this. That's because those in power won't yield any power to anybody who has the balls to speak out against this.
    14. Re:The entire war on drugs by julesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Strangely, the only drug liberals I see are upper class people with no personal experience of drug abuse among friends or family. Marijuana is one thing, the the harder drugs cause a lot of problems. And no, most problems are not because of the illegality itself.

      A lot of the problems with drugs are due to illegality:

      - A rather large number of people die every year because they get drugs that are either higher concentration than they're expecting or have been cut with something else that is harmful. In a regulated industry, this would not happen.
      - People with drug habits are often reluctant to seek treatment for fear of prosecution.
      - The difficulty of acquiring drugs causes a form of vendor lock-in which allows dealers to raise prices after their customer is hooked; this escalation of prices often forces the addict to turn to crime and/or prostitution to fund their habit.

    15. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm....the war on drugs in Iraq?

    16. Re:The entire war on drugs by permaculture · · Score: 2, Informative

      "the only drug liberals I see are upper class people with no personal experience of drug abuse"

      Such naïvety is easily corrected. Here's a whole website of people from all walks of life, who deal with drug abuse and would like to see the law changed.

      http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

      --
      Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
    17. Re:The entire war on drugs by permaculture · · Score: 1

      "And if you think the drug industry is non-violent, you're deluding yourself."

      Is that true for all drugs, or just illegal ones?
      If it's not true for legal drugs like alcohol (post prohibition) or tobacco, why might that be?

      --
      Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
    18. Re:The entire war on drugs by permaculture · · Score: 1

      "Police really appreciates war on drugs."

      No, not all Police.

      http://www.leap.cc/

      --
      Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
    19. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even worse than that. Drug Task Forces now confiscate cash and items, which they sell - and then drop charges against the drug dealers. Local governments are now profiting from the drug trade! It's become a symbiotic system.

    20. Re:The entire war on drugs by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the police who show up at the scenes of accidents caused by drunk drivers.

      Non-violent acts of legal drug use, violent acts of arrest and imprisonment.
      The only thing you're missing are the consequences of that drug use: impaired cognition, behavior dangerous to other parties, societal costs of repairing the damage thus caused.

      Legalizing drug use? As a simple blanket statement, you might want to put some more thought into it. Look at how good we are at actually rehabilitating folks, vs simply throwing them in the oubliette (prisons) and forgetting about them until their time is served. Extrapolate from there, how well we'd do once drugs were in even more common usage.

      Guess who pays, for the prisons, and for the rehab.

    21. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is teaching us the same bitter lesson our grandparents failed to learn with Prohibition: they created the Mafia. Drugs have now given us multiBILLION dollar drug cartels. Congress now wants to do it with guns. Those who will not understand history are doomed to repeat it over, and over, and over...

    22. Re:The entire war on drugs by Darby · · Score: 1

      And no, most problems are not because of the illegality itself.

      Actually, yes, they are.

      Feel free to try and name some that you feel go the other way.

      Be very careful not to forget to assume that all the money we piss away on the drug war was spent on treatment programs. Note that I'm not arguing we should spend that much money on anything, but if you're going to try and argue the patently ridiculous point you asserted, then it's a necessary requirement.

      Also, even if you pull that off, there are plenty of other obvious things you'll ignore if you think that argument has any merit whatsoever, which I'll be happy to point out.

    23. Re:The entire war on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because drugs like Crystal Meth that get you hooked until death (which happens pretty soon thereafter) would be just fine if only we made them legal and regulated the quality. I mean, the fact that the addicted will ruin their lives then whore around, cheat, steal, and kill for their next fix is no reason for protecting society from their behavior by throwing them in jail. Suddenly it's so clear!

      And no, having legal drugs won't eliminate the desire for the nasty, highly addictive stuff. There is always a market for 'something better'.

  25. My fave by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...is the one we've all seen in the airport: confiscation of bottled water. Every time a TSA guy finds your bottle of Dasani, he pours the suspected explosive in the trash. His very first good catch will be his last...

    rj

    1. Re:My fave by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The put all the possible liquid expolosives together in the same trash bin beside the security station in the middle of the crowed airport....

    2. Re:My fave by mishehu · · Score: 1

      I especially loved it when I had to dump out my water (not my bottle, I was keeping my bottle to refill it beyond the checkpoint) at Newark. The funny thing is I just got off an international flight with said water bottle...
      Then one of the TSA agents copped an attitude of "I'm your father, you don't pour out water in a trash can, that's what sinks are for...". Let me think about this one - my laptop and other belongs are already going through the lousy x-ray machine, I'm going to walk all the way back to the nearest bathroom to be a nice little boy and not get a lollipop as a reward?
      Oh and continuing my rant, about 2 years ago I flew from Chicago to Houston and back, and *both* times I had a rather large set of wire cutters in my carry-on by mistake, and nobody said a peep about it. I think that's more dangerous than dihydrogen monoxide.

    3. Re:My fave by 77Punker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I imagine the security checkpoint creates enough of a bottleneck that a bomb detonated right in the middle of it would kill as many people as a bomb on board an airplane.

    4. Re:My fave by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The general idea is to get it on board the plane, where it can do more damage than by itself. Why bother waiting for the TSA guard to pour it out? You could just blow it up yourself, or the entire luggage before check-in in the crowded departure hall. But then, why be at an airport at all? Might as well be in a mall or whatever. The point is to make people afraid, and then they have to be afraid of something specific. Flying is a good example, many have a natural fear of it already you can nurture. Fear that a bomb will go off and you will fall from 30,000 feet into the ground is rather nasty. Just any crowded place is so non-specific it doesn't make any sense at all, people just wouldn't feel the fear. Same with subways, nurturing the classic fear of claustrophobia. I hardly think the choices are random.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:My fave by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually that ordinary looking trash bin is in fact a titanium-bonded, lead-lined, virtually indestructible tube leading down three levels to a large containment chamber wherein lies a pool of counter-reactive liquid created by top NASA scientists to nullify the catalysts for dynamic release in most explosive chemicals.

      Ok, no it's not.

    6. Re:My fave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the point completely. IF there were a realistic chance that the bottle contains a liquid explosive, then it would be a catastrophically bad idea to pour it out into a trashcan in a crowded area of the airport. They only handle it that way because they KNOW that it is bottled water.

    7. Re:My fave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I know I'll probably be arrested for saying this, but you

      put all the possible liquid expolosives together in the same trash bin beside the security station in the middle of the crowed airport....
    8. Re:My fave by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      I think that's more dangerous than dihydrogen monoxide. You obviously haven't visited http://www.dhmo.org/ .
    9. Re:My fave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. Yeah, better not have two guys with the two halves of a binary liquid explosive in line together. 'Splodey trashcans!

    10. Re:My fave by mishehu · · Score: 1

      Oh my oh my, that's quite a site! ;-)

      Remind me to print that out next time I fly and show it to the TSA monkeys and say "you guys are doing a great job of protecting us"!

    11. Re:My fave by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the terrorists daisy-chained multiple devices together. Otherwise, the open air would allow the explosive forces to dissipate and lower the casualty rate.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    12. Re:My fave by simple+english+major · · Score: 1

      When I travel, I make sure to have my liquids in 3 oz or smaller bottles, in my 1 qt Ziploc bag. I can fit maybe 4-5 items in the bag, for a total of 12-15 oz of liquid. I usually travel with my husband and two small children, each of whom are also allowed a similar amount of liquid, in the same format. Total amount of liquid that our party is bringing on the plane: 48-60 oz. But they won't let me bring an unopened 16 oz bottle of water through security - or, heaven forbid, a 12 oz sippy cup of juice for my daughter.

    13. Re:My fave by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Fill three or four large suitcases with the most powerful explosive money can buy. Put suitcases on luggage cart. Push luggage cart into security line. When you're surrounded by people, or you catch the attention of officials, detonate the explosives.

      For best results, fill the outside parts of the suitcases with nails.

      I'm pretty sure this will create mass casualties. Your comparison is irrelevant because you can easily get a lot more explosives into a security line than you can onto an airplane.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    14. Re:My fave by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      Well, daisy-chaining multiple devices would be easy - just have multiple people walk through with a waterbottle with this explosive, and the guards themselves will put all of them together in the trashbin.

    15. Re:My fave by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Even better, For a while the TSA office at the Salt Lake City Airport was considerate enough to save unopened drinks that had been confiscated and donate them to a local shelter.

      Until some real-genius at a higher level got wind of the program, and nixed it because of the liability if some poor homeless schmuck drank a bottle of explosive orange juice. Or worse (funnier) What if "THEY" hear about this program and start intentionally taking poisened drinks through the airport security, knowing that the drinks would be confiscated and given to the homeless.

      So now all bottled beverages collected at the security check points are destroyed. And the shelter that had come to really appreciate the regular supply of free drinks, and shampoo. Once again has to do without.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    16. Re:My fave by instarx · · Score: 1

      I imagine the security checkpoint creates enough of a bottleneck that a bomb detonated right in the middle of it would kill as many people as a bomb on board an airplane. And not simply kill people. Attacking a security line would disrupt air travel even more effectively than bringing down another plane. Airport security is the biggest piece of theater around - so easy for terrorsits to defeat it's laughable.

    17. Re:My fave by wastholm · · Score: 1

      I was repeatedly allowed to board both domestic and intercontinental flights with a small screwdriver in my carryon backpack but could, of course, not bring a bottle of water. Yet if I had to kill someone and had to do it with either a screwdriver or a bottle of water, I know what I'd try first.

    18. Re:My fave by Tom · · Score: 1

      Which of course means that you can bring in your two-component liquid explosive (if such a thing would even exist) in by two different people, and let airport security do the mixing (if that were possible at room temperature without lab equipment).

      But hey, airport security is 90% theatre and 10% real security, and has been as long as I can remember.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    19. Re:My fave by syousef · · Score: 1

      I imagine the security checkpoint creates enough of a bottleneck that a bomb detonated right in the middle of it would kill as many people as a bomb on board an airplane.

      Yes but those lives are worth nothing (especially if you can claim you were following standard security procedures to prevent terrorism and therefore were not negligent), the terminal is relatively cheap, and the airplane is big bucks.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    20. Re:My fave by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I'd hazard a guess at it being far more than one plane's contents. The flow of people in airports is through a series of bottlenecks, and the resulting panic of an explosion going off will result in everyone running to the last exit they remember seeing, if one is not in sight. Couple that with large amounts of people, headed to different flights, going through security at the same time, and the amount of people who'd get killed or seriously hurt could be in the 500+ range.

    21. Re:My fave by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      Actually, there have been problems due to all liquids being poured into the same container. Some reacted to each other, and the fumes made people nauseous...

    22. Re:My fave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine the security checkpoint creates enough of a bottleneck that a bomb detonated right in the middle of it would kill as many people as a bomb on board an airplane.

      Exactly. This is what proves that airport security is 100% theater. For some strange reason, people believe that dying in a plane explosion is worse than dying in an explosion on the ground.
    23. Re:My fave by 77Punker · · Score: 1

      All righty! Sounds like time for a free-speech testing open source RTS/puzzle game to me! We could make GTA look like Sunday school.

    24. Re:My fave by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      I'd be grateful for a cite to that...

      rj

    25. Re:My fave by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      For some strange reason, people believe that dying in a plane explosion is worse than dying in an explosion on the ground.

      No. Getting seriously hurt in an airplane explosion then falling to your death might be worse than getting seriously hurt in a ground explosion and maybe surviving.

    26. Re:My fave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine the security checkpoint creates enough of a bottleneck that a bomb detonated right in the middle of it would kill as many people as a bomb on board an airplane.
      That would make sense if they were trying to protect us rather than those very valuable aircraft that got destroyed.
    27. Re:My fave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dying on the ground because of an exploding plane is not so fun.

      Dying in the airport isn't either, but you at least consciously assumed some risks in travelling to the airport (or in the plane).

    28. Re:My fave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I worry more that a bomb will go off and someone else will fall from 30,000 feet and land on me!

    29. Re:My fave by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 1

      And if no one can get through the terminal to get to the airplanes, those big bucks sit on the ground without passengers. To the aggressor it's far more valuable to shut down an airport full of planes, disrupting all inbound and outbound air travel, than it is to shut down one plane.

      What had a bigger financial impact: the FAA shutting down all flights for two days after 9/11, or the destruction of four planes?

    30. Re:My fave by syousef · · Score: 1

      To the aggressor it's far more valuable to shut down an airport full of planes, disrupting all inbound and outbound air travel, than it is to shut down one plane.

      Any attempted attack is going to cause temporary disruptions and potentially some loss of life. The key word is temporary.

      What had a bigger financial impact: the FAA shutting down all flights for two days after 9/11, or the destruction of four planes?

      Neither. The insane changes to security in the years since like finger printing visitors to your country, banning liquids, putting no-fly lists that are neither transparent nor effective, creating an entire agency of underpaid, underqualified "security" personal, has been the most destructive. You can't blame the terrorists for your own government grabbing power, using the cowardice of the citizenry to do so.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    31. Re:My fave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What had a bigger financial impact: the FAA shutting down all flights for two days after 9/11, or the destruction of four planes?
      Neither.

      Neither? So they're precisely equal, down to the fractional cent?

      I'd suggest you develop some reading comprehension skills, but you probably wouldn't understand.

    32. Re:My fave by syousef · · Score: 1

      Neither? So they're precisely equal, down to the fractional cent?

      I'd suggest you develop some reading comprehension skills, but you probably wouldn't understand.


      Ah the sweet irony of an AC troll lecturing someone on comprehension skills while choosing to take the literal meaning completely out of context...love it!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    33. Re:My fave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah the sweet irony of an AC troll lecturing someone on comprehension skills while choosing to take the literal meaning completely out of context...love it!
      I can't believe you actually said this. I thought the other AC had shut you up. Since you're sticking to your guns on your reading comprehension skills, note that the person you originally replied to asked you:

      Is the answer A or B?

      To which you cleverly replied:

      JELLO!
    34. Re:My fave by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      rj

    35. Re:My fave by syousef · · Score: 1

      I thought the other AC had shut you up.

      Ah yes, the mythical "other" AC.

      If you're going to troll at least do it intelligently. This is like being trolled by Forrest Gump.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    36. Re:My fave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "other" AC isn't mythical, it's someone else who couldn't help but notice you're incapable of even simple reading comprehension. And when you get two ACs ganging up on you to point that out, you have no credible defense and resort to "Uh, well, uh, you... you're just an...an...an... AC! Yeah! Andandand, I don't have to listen to you! LALALA, I can't hear you, LALALA! Everyone, please stop paying attention to these ACs that just pwned me, because they're ACs and I'm not!"

      Man, until this post nobody trolled you but YOU. Hoist by your own petard, or as it's otherwise known: petarded. Congratulations, take a bow--the Internet now has a permanent record of it.

  26. Passwords by qoncept · · Score: 4, Informative

    The DOD replaced reasonable passwords with Common Access Cards. The difference? Instead of having to find out someone's 8+ character alphanumeric password that changes every month, you need to have physical access to their card and need to know their 6 digit number that never changes. Meanwhile, everyone is forgetting their card in the reader when they go to lunch, so they can't get back on base -- but feel free to use it yourself in the meantime.

    --
    Whale
    1. Re:Passwords by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      The DOD replaced reasonable passwords with Common Access Cards. The difference? Instead of having to find out someone's 8+ character alphanumeric password that changes every month
      ... which people will forget, especially if they have several, and will therefore write it down on a yellow sticky conveniently pasted to the edge of the CRT.

      [...]need to have physical access to their card and need to know their 6 digit number that never changes. Meanwhile, everyone is forgetting their card in the reader when they go to lunch, so they can't get back on base -- but feel free to use it yourself in the meantime.
      After a few weeks people will remember their 6 digit code and never have to write it down again, which is more secure. At a well known defense organisation I worked for, the security people actually forbade sysadmins to enable expiring password... they felt that expiring passwords were just another example of security theater. Better to log time and date of last access and display it to the user when they log on again, in red if the last access was outside their regular hours.

      Oh and as for people leaving cards in their machines: just change the doors so that you need your card to leave as well as enter the building. Most companies already do this, including my current client, where I've never come across a card left in a machine yet.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Passwords by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > ..just change the doors so that you need your card to leave as well as enter the building.

      Great plan... until the first inspection by the fire marshall and you get written up. Exits MUST always be open. Yes you can make em hit a special button that makes a special log entry or even a loud noise. And after it gets set off a dozen times the noise gets cut out and the logs quit being looked at.

      Of course if you are in a really SECURE environment where that sort of thing is really needed you might be able to enforce the rules a little better. Might.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    3. Re:Passwords by swillden · · Score: 1

      just change the doors so that you need your card to leave as well as enter the building.

      Better solution, that doesn't run afoul of fire codes: Put card readers on the restroom doors, and lock them, or put the restroom doors outside of the secure area so that people need their card to get back to their desk. It's not a bad idea to do the same to break rooms.

      I've seen it work in a dozen places I consulted at: In no time at all, all the employees are trained to take their card whenever they leave their desk.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Passwords by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Just change the doors? We are talking about the DOD here, 2.5 million actual military personnel, at thousands of bases across the globe, not to mention all the Civilian employees also working at all those bases. Many of whom really have no need for such a security measure, except that some genius thought it would be a cool way to have people log into their computers.

      Oh and don't forget when somebody updates the CAC specifications and renders many of the card readers unable to read newly issued cards, (This has already happened at least once.)
      CAC cards do have their uses and places, but not in an organization this large, where there can be real serious problems if you forget your card, letting someone else get access to what you are working on. Or if because you left your card in the reader in the office, you now can't get back into the building or compound, and you miss a mandatory meeting or formation.

      It's not just an annoying write-up from HR you could be facing, but actual legal and financial penalties. The UCMJ is not something to trifle with.

      But all that said, at least the CAC pin does not have to be a 10 character password including at least two capitol letters, two numbers, and two special characters, that must be changed every, month 90 days, or 150 days depending on the level of classification you are working on. The CAC pin is set by you when your card is issued and does not change until you get a new card, at which time you can select the exact same pin again.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    5. Re:Passwords by swillden · · Score: 1

      You're posting? Must be really bored :)

      That's a good thing, though.

      BTW, Kris really needs an answer to that e-mail she sent you.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Passwords by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      The place I work requires you to swipe your badge to unlock the exit doors, and doesn't run into any fire code issues.

      This is because the door will also open if you just push on it. But doing that will set off the door alarm, alerting security. (Not the fire alarm - that's only set off on fire exit only doors.)

      So if the building is actually on fire, all the exits can be used as fire exits. Sure, the security alarm will be blaring, but in a real fire, so will the fire alarm.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  27. The whole shebang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    See tsa.gov. I have personally taken gasoline soaked garments on an airplane and not had them given a second look. Of course the radios I also carry always get a second look although they are EXACTLY like most of the guards carry (Motorola CP200). However, I do feel infinitely more secure knowing that an airplane will never be highjacked again, not because of anything the government does but because the passengers won't stand for it and will kill the highjackers. I suppose some passengers might die but as far as they were concerned they were dead anyway. In short, pretty much the whole airline security system is security theatre.

  28. Password Policy by Aram+Fingal · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was working with a particular system where the vendor added a strict password security policy. They require a mixture of uppercase and lowercase letters as well as at least one digit or special character. Later on, I discovered, by accident, that the password is not case sensitive when you actually go to login. It turns out that the routine for setting the password enforces stronger passwords than the underlying system can actually support. The vendor, of course, claimed that they would be upgrading their underlying password encryption algorithm very soon.

    1. Re:Password Policy by HetMes · · Score: 1

      Detail. Isn't it harder to implement a case-insensitive password layer, than a case-sensitive one? Just the use of a ToLowerCase function, but still... Weird!

    2. Re:Password Policy by certain+death · · Score: 1

      Novell, eh? I ran into the same problem with them.

      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
    3. Re:Password Policy by grizdog · · Score: 1

      I question a lot of the assumptions that are used to develop password policies in the first place. It's been years - decades, in fact - since I actually read a research paper on password policies, but all of them focused on a single password on a single system. How many passwords do you have, and how do you remember them? If you had mechanisms on all those accounts that required you to change the passwords every two months, avoid anything that looked like a real word, or anything similar to a recent password, the only way to keep track of them all would be to write them all down, which they all say you should not do. I envisage some sort of system like an RSA keyring you keep on a dedicated thumb drive, which is itself protected by a master passphrase. The software would be a tempting target for hackers, but there still might be a clean way to do it.

    4. Re:Password Policy by clanrat · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with writing your passwords down on a card in your wallet?

  29. What About... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

    What about security measures that have the opposite effect, of making the system less secure?

    Aggressive password policies, for example, that require long strings of amnemonic gibberish that must be changed every month or so and may not bear any resemblance to previous long strings of gibberish.

    The end result of this at my company is that we each use the same password for every security domain we have access to, and we tend to write it down.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  30. 2002 Winter Olympics by ryanisflyboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was living in Salt Lake City during these games. Remember that the Olympics were only a few months after 9/11. There were huge security concerns. We saw low flying helicopters over the city we were told were searching for nuclear material. We saw various 'special forces' teams deployed in the mountains around venues looking for 'snipers.' The security downtown was surreal. People were checking every car coming in and out for bombs. Everyone had to go through metal detectors (in some cases, you actually had to pass two layers of metal detectors). The amount of government agents per city block was astounding. Many were armed with sub-machine guns. For such a quiet city like Salt Lake, seeing troops walk around in full combat gear was quite theatrical.

    My favorite security theatric was an ATF agent standing on a street corner, machine gun in hand and in full combat gear. He was waving and smiling at people driving buy to be sure they all saw him and his gun. I stopped and watched him for about 20 minutes before he started using his radio while giving me the 'killer' eyes. Despite the smiling and waving, he was not friendly, not at all. I decided to vacate my vantage point. Those guys were so bored they were looking for targets to harass.

    1. Re:2002 Winter Olympics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better...

      I was there, familiar with it as I'd worked at Deer Valley several Xmas breaks during college. We went down a short private run (by the multi-million dollar homes) and tramped 50 yds up to a crest overlooking the freestyle competition. After watching for nearly an hour, we hopped off the ledge, and down onto a well used ski trail where several FBI agents were at. They apprehended us all, took our ID's, and held us until they did background checks on all of us...

      The reason? " You might have been snipers..."

      In that case, why the hell wasn't security on the highest point overlooking the damn event?? We were the only ones up there.

    2. Re:2002 Winter Olympics by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 2, Funny
      You should have started running. I knew a group of kids who--back in the day--used to mess with the cops by going into a 7-11 to buy a slurpy, and then as they left would take off running.

      Inevitably there'd be a police helicopter in the neighborhood in a few minutes.

    3. Re:2002 Winter Olympics by dwillden · · Score: 1

      The security there was for the most part definately NOT theater. It was serious, and it was effective. Events happened and things were found that never made the press. All those people with guns were armed, the weapons were loaded, and they were ready to use them.

      Of course their readiness depended on their mission. My favorite statement during those games was when one of the Secret Service agents I was working with, pointed out the Israeli security element. The agent said, "If anything goes down when there are Israelies around just hit the deck. I'll be right down there with you, because their security guys will shoot any and everybody standing, and maybe think about asking a couple questions next week."

      As to your ATF guy. It's never a good idea to sit and watch security. The bad guys do it, it's called casing, it's how you determine, if how and when to make a move. If you had stayed much longer you probably would have gotten to chat with the police.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  31. Not in 25 years in IT... by ivanmarsh · · Score: 1

    Have I heard the term Security Theatre.

    Must have been coined by someone thinking outside the box.

    1. Re:Not in 25 years in IT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, yer just old. lol

    2. Re:Not in 25 years in IT... by ivanmarsh · · Score: 0

      Yep... I can remember when things worked and people weren't paid to make up stupid names for things that already existed.

    3. Re:Not in 25 years in IT... by Knara · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we all get a little lazy when it comes to learning new things after a while.

    4. Re:Not in 25 years in IT... by ivanmarsh · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to hear you don't keep your skill set up to date. You really should you know.

  32. My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by SoCalChris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Patriot Act

    I had some stock options through my job that I tried to cash through the etrade account that had been set up for me. The stock price was rather high, and our trading window was about to close, so I tried selling at literally the last minute. The sell order failed, and no reason was given. A few days later, I received a letter in the mail from etrade telling me that my account was locked. Several years before, while living in a different state, I had an etrade account. Because the SSN was the same on both accounts, but the addresses were totally different, some part of the Patriot Act made them lock my account until I could prove my identity by sending them a notarized copy of my social security card.

    Another example, which isn't really security theater, just shitty work by the TSA happened to me a few years before that.

    My wife had to fly out of state for a funeral, and she took our 6 month old daughter with her. I took them to the ticket counter. Since she was traveling with a baby, a car seat, and her carry on bag, the ticket agent offered to print me a pass that would allow me to accompany her to the gate and help her carry her things.

    As I was getting up to the xray machines, I remembered that I had a small pocket knife in my pocket. I hadn't removed it since I wasn't expecting to go through security. As I got to the xray machine, I told the operator what had happened, and told her that I'd just go back through the line and put the knife out in our car.

    She seemed ok with that, and told me that I could just go ahead and go through the xray machine, and out the exit that was just a few feet from the xray machine, so I didn't have to go back and work my way through the line.

    As soon as I went through, several TSA agents came up and detained me for attempting to bring a weapon through the security checkpoint. I wound up being searched, my 6 month old daughter that I was holding was searched, and I was questioned for about an hour as to why I had tried to take a knife through security. Not once did they go talk to the lady running the xray machine less than 50 feet away, who had told me to go through.

    In the end, my knife was confiscated (It was about a $50 knife), and I was threatened that I could be under arrest for attempting to smuggle a weapon through the airport, and I could be facing a several thousand dollar fine for it. They filled out a report, and made me immediately leave the terminal.

    About a month later, I received a letter from the TSA saying that they had chosen not to fine me this time, but if I ever came up in their system again I would face the maximum penalties.

    That was the day that I lost all faith in our government.

    1. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      While i dont know him personally, i know of a documented story where a guy was forced to give up a decretive silver bullet keychain signed by Mr Heston.

      The TSA is totally nuts.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something similar happened to me at O'Hare outside of Chicago - I was accompanying my Little Brother to the terminal to make sure he got on the plane OK. I also had my pocket knife with me.

      Fortunately the gal at the x-ray machine was able to get a supervisor to take the knife, accompany me to the security exit, and then hand it back to me once I was outside of the "secure" area. I returned it to my car and then went back thru security without getting the 3rd degree as you did. My experiences with TSA shows that there are no consistent standards of dealing with these sort of issues and that at another time and/or place I might have gone thru the same snafu you did. In any case, I lost my faith in our government a long time ago - around the time that JFK was assassinated I think...

    3. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard of secretive I think, but what is decretive and how does it apply to ammo?

    4. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the day that I lost all faith in our government.
      Let me start by wholeheartedly agreeing that you got the sh1tty end of the stick that time. And the letter a month later is pure scary farce, from your description. But come on, you hold the WHOLE GOVERNMENT responsible for the actions of some security @$$clowns? Is it possible you may have indulged in hyperbole here, or are you serious?

      I would devote a big bunch of ire to the X-ray operator who left you swinging in the wind, and the rest to the "agents" who wasted your time. As for the letter, though, once a report was filed of course you got a followup - isn't that how the system should work?

      Let's recap: You made a mistake, somebody said it was no big deal, somebody else got worked up about it (since their job is to do just that), paperwork was filed, and you got a letter saying that you better not do any such thing again or face the full penalty of law. You didn't go to jail, pay a fine, or suffer an injury. Nevertheless, you "lost all faith in our government."

      Maybe I'm making too much of this, going all unsympathetic and style-nazi on you ... or maybe you've got more things bugging you than this. Either way, posting it to /. isn't the way to get closure, sparky.

    5. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever hear of social engineering? It sounds like the TSA guys did their job properly. The X-Ray attendant should have explained the situation to the TSA guys, and provided an escort or something. Their processes are there for a reason, they were not willy nilly thought up. If someone can just smoothtalk their way in that is *not* good.

    6. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Not once did they go talk to the lady running the xray machine less than 50 feet away, who had told me to go through.

      Who wasn't allowed to tell you to go through. I mean, if I give you carte blanche to *insert crime with victim other than me*, don't you still expect to get in trouble? Can a cashier not ring up your Wii, as a gift from the company?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats your mistake right there... You had faith in the government..

    8. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by Atriqus · · Score: 1

      Whoa, hang on. It's not like he asked the teenager running the starbucks if he could just blow through the door, he asked someone airport security what his options were. She made something up and he paid for it.

      Put it this way, what would you do if you asked a state cop what to do in some situation, then out of nowhere the FBI take you in for the actions suggested by the cop? All the meanwhile, no one acknowledges the cop that told you it was okay to do said action.

      --
      Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
    9. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by dissy · · Score: 1

      Their processes are there for a reason, they were not willy nilly thought up. Proof? Link?
      I can't trick myself into believing that :{
    10. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by lgw · · Score: 1

      And yet, that's completely how our legal system works. A cop has no authority to tell you what is or isn't legal, and any statement he makes that "X is legal" is completely non-binding. Further, *no one* has such athority, until after the fact when you're on trial for X. It's a messed-up system if you ask me.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by anti-human+1 · · Score: 1

      Decorative.

    12. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a regional airline and see TSA "Security Theater" all the time.

      One morning when reporting to work, one of the screeners pulled a large pair of toenail clippers out of the overnight bag of the captain I was flying with. (Mind you, we are in uniform and reporting to work to actually fly an airplane out). The screener tells the captain that he's not allowed to have these nail clippers past security.

      The captain politely asks why it is that he can't bring toenail clippers through. The screener tells him that "He might use them to take control of an aircraft." I don't think I've ever seen a more priceless look on the face of a human being. He just said, straight faced to the TSA goon: "Yeah, it'd be a real shame if I somehow got control of an airplane"... (At which point a supervisor was called over, and 15 minutes of debate ensued)....

    13. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by OpieTaylor · · Score: 1

      You wrote: "That was the day that I lost all faith in our government."

      You mean your faith in your government was dependent on the perfect execution of intricate security procedures by $20K/year TSA guards?

      Stunning....

      --
      Thanks a lot, big brain. (K. Vonnegut, "Galapagos")
    14. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See I do alright at the airport. I realize that those people are all degenerate morons... and act accordingly. I'd never trust one that said I could walk through with a pocketknife. Ever.

    15. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more likely that the x-ray machine lady didn't like you. Were you both of the same economic status and ethnicity?

    16. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      I guess the woman at the security checkpoint did it purposefully just to entertain herself.

    17. Re:My experience with the TSA and Patriot Act by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I am well known for typos and a total disregard for proofreading. Sometimes you have to really think hard to read my posts :)

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  33. Guard Gates by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In a past life, I worked for a major aerospace company. Security appeared pretty tight, what with armed guards checking IDs at entry points. They also had manned checkpoints to check vehicle passes at the road entrances. These were usually issued to upper management, enabling them to park inside the fence, close to the buildings. The peons had to park outside and walk in.

    Because of my job in various R&D labs, I was always hauling equipment around in my personal vehicle. There were provisions to issue employees in my position a temporary vehicle pass and a 'parcel pass', allowing us to transport company equipment through the gates.

    Throughout my career, I was never ever challenged when exiting a facility with a hatchback, obviously loaded with expensive equipment. The vehicle pass system existed only to ensure that some scumbag grunt didn't park in a manager's space. Security guards were nothing more than glorified parking enforcement.

    At some of the production facilities, gate guards were instructed to examine lunch boxes of the workers exiting to ensure that they were not swiping tools. Briefcases were exempt from such checks, as they were typically carried by trusted engineers and management. As most of the engineers working within production facilities were indistinguishable from mechanics by dress or any badge markings, I suppose it never occurred to security that a worker intent on swiping tools could obtain a briefcase.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Guard Gates by ShadowBlasko · · Score: 1

      Sounds EXACTLY like GEAE in Cincinnati.

      I was a contractor and was not on site often, but I NEVER had any problems getting on site. Many times I walked through the plant after realizing that I had left my badge in my pocket.

      Oh well. Theater it is indeed.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
    2. Re:Guard Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work for a branch of a large telecom company research division who shall remain nameless. We were on an open campus with multiple buildings and it was not unusual to move equipment (PC's, workstations, electronics, etc...) between buildings on carts. One day I was wheeling in some gear into my building when the guard at the front door stopped me and said, "You have to sign that in." I explained that it hadn't been signed out from the building it came from, but that didn't seem to matter. "You have to sign it in." So I did and went on my way figuring it was some new asset tracking policy that just hadn't made it across the campus yet. The next day, I was taking a different set of stuff to another building, so I dutifully stopped at the front desk and told the same guard I needed to sign the stuff out. "Do don't have to sign things out," he said, "only in." I never asked why for fear my brain might explode the instant I learned the answer.

    3. Re:Guard Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my organization in India, they require us to declare any electronic media and then on way out, check the backpacks and ladies purses to ensure no sensitive data is smuggled out. The facade is set up for the clients who check for such things before giving business. So where a CD or DVD grabs attention, an iPod or a USB drive or even SD card does not, obviously.

    4. Re:Guard Gates by mvdw · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the apocryphal story of the guy who stole wheelbarrows...

    5. Re:Guard Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite a few years back, I worked in a similar environment - armed guards at all the doors, tight security, and all that. We decommissioned a VAX 6000 computer (about the size of two large refrigerators), and since it was headed for the garbage, I got permission to haul it away for free. We had no provision for giving me a pass to take away something like that, so I and two pals just came in on Sunday with a trailer, and hoped for the best. We wheeled it out of the machine room, through hundreds of yards of corridors, and as the loading docks for the building drew close, we were thinking, "Home free". But, just then a security guard came running up yelling at us to stop, and I thought "well, here we go". When he got to us he said that the load looked too heavy for the three of us to get into the trailer we had safely, so he told us, we had to wait...for two other guards to get to the location and help us load it! Not one of them so much as asked to see our badges, much less our authority for remoing a large poiece of equipment...

  34. Joint account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was trying to transfer some funds out of a joint bank account. I used the phone based system (and answered the usual security questions). Then the person told me that for the transfer to be allowed, both people on the joint account needed to sign-off on the transfer.

    The other person wasn't available... so I just said "Ok, hold on I'll get him." Then waited a few seconds and said "Hi. Yes, I'm he. Yes I confirm the transfer."

    They transferred the money. No authentication, no double-checks. Just some voice on a phone (I didn't even bother faking a different-sounding voice) saying that it was ok.

    1. Re:Joint account by jfruhlinger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm often the person who's in charge of dealing with irritating, faceless corporations over the phone in our family, but quite a few of our accounts with said corporations are in my wife's name, and sometimes they refuse to deal with me because I'm obviously not her, even though I have access to all the information that she would (usually nothing more complicated than our account number and maybe her SS #). I wonder sometimes what would happen if I called claiming to be her, and talked in a ludicrous Monty Python-style falsetto -- or, better, if I just talked in my regular voice and got really offended if they gave me grief about it.

      I also met a woman named "Joshua" once. I wonder if she gets hassled by people who don't believe she is who she is.

    2. Re:Joint account by JustinOpinion · · Score: 1

      I wonder sometimes what would happen if I called claiming to be her, and talked in a ludicrous Monty Python-style falsetto Wonder no more: they would probably not question it. Check out this prank (text transcript and audio), where he's able to fast-talk his way past the whole "mother's maiden name" question, and even impersonates his mother's voice without failing the security checks.

      Actually, many of the pranks on the ZUG site are relevant to this current topic. In the credit card prank, he's able to sign credit card receipts with all kinds of ludicrous names (like "not authorized", or a picture of a house), and no one ever questions him about it.

      All that to say that phone-based authentication questions and signing credit card receipts do remarkably little in terms of security.
    3. Re:Joint account by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      sometimes they refuse to deal with me because I'm obviously not her,
      How about telling them you are in the process of a sex-change and your voice hasn't changed yet?
      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Joint account by deadzaphod · · Score: 1

      The deepening of your voice due to testosterone is irreversible, so when going through a sex-change your voice doesn't change. Most of us just practice changing our voices the same way you would if you were faking it.

    5. Re:Joint account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me when I was married to my ex-wife, who was hard of hearing. She didn't like the phone too much and let me handle most of the important work. Whenever I had to handle real personal or financial issues for her, i would have any account or personal info to get past their screenng, but they would stop me as I did not sound like a female, as her name indicated. But they were ok with talking to me after I would hand the phone to her and have her say it was ok for me to talk for her. They would not even ask her name or confirm any personal questions. As long a girl's voice said it was ok for me to talk to them, they were ok with it. She could have been anyone...

    6. Re:Joint account by Valar · · Score: 1

      This is why most banks are getting away from joint "and" type accounts and only opening joint "or" accounts. In a modern banking environment, it is just completely at odds with what customers AND newer employees are familiar with. Think about it. Debit cards are always one signer. Online banking is always one signer, as is online bill pay. As a result, noobish bank employees just aren't that familiar with the requirements of "and" accounts.

    7. Re:Joint account by emerald_glitter · · Score: 1

      I've worked in a call center before (not a large one even). As long as your voice isn't extremely masculine, and you have the correct information, most will let it pass. There's a wide range of voices out there.

      I remember one account had a special note (at the customer's request) warning that "Pat"* was FEMALE, yes she has a deep voice, the caller is she. Without that cue, I would have sworn she was male. She probably sang baritone, her voice was definitely too low for tenor.

      *Pat was not the person's real name, but I specifically remember it was a gender neutral name.

    8. Re:Joint account by Cruise_WD · · Score: 1

      My mother tends to handle all the paperwork relating to any activities of my parents. As such, she long ago learnt to produce flawless copies of my father's signiture for any forms.

      Once, in a bank, attempting to make a transaction on their joint account, the teller informed her it needed both their signatures, rather than just hers. She took it back, signed my father's name on the counter right in front of the teller and handed it back. The teller looked at her, wisely decided not to argue, and accepted the form.

      --
      [ cruise / casual-tempest.net / xenogamous.com / transference.org / quantam sufficit ]
  35. Whoosh... by msauve · · Score: 1

    because it was a revolver.

    It must suck, being you, and never being able to understand the humor in a pun.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  36. Security Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    A local school here recently went to a closed campus. They paid a lot of money to fence between all perimeter buildings (really old school), and to put up large gates.

    During school hours, the only way onto the campus is through the front office (or any door that someone opens from the inside). You can exit the campus from any perimeter door. For good measure, they mounted a security camera to watch the door into the front office.

    They placed it so that it records the back of people as they enter the office. At least it would, if they hadn't mounted it directly behind the four inch steel post they installed to mount the gate that closed the campus.

    Now, the camera takes a nice video of a shiny new fence post all day.

    Everyone knows the camera is useless in its present position. Nobody cares. All the expense of the fences, the gates, and the cameras was never about security.

    1. Re:Security Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be tempted to write a note to put on the fence post so the camera picks it up. Something like "What security?"

    2. Re:Security Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'd be tempted to answer, "Security by obscurity, of course!"

  37. Airport security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Copenhagen Airport, after the security check. In the departure hall there is a wide open area with about 30 tables from a Steakhouse restaurant, with all tables layed out with big steak knives just for the taking.

    1. Re:Airport security by dave420 · · Score: 1

      They also have steak knives in first class on many, many carriers. Which is weird, as I've never eaten a steak on a plane that needed cutting with anything sharper than a napkin, let alone with a steak knife.

  38. Beyond security theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a friend who works for *organization*. They work in a
    single-story building, in a suburb of a second-tier city. The building
    sits on its own plot of land, on a hill, in an industrial-office-park
    kind of area. The building is a lab, but it's mostly monitoring
    equipment. It's not weapons, or explosives, or significant quantities
    of chemicals.

    This is probably not what anyone would consider a high-value target.
    There's never been any kind of attack or threat against the building
    or its personnel. But after 9-11, management started obsessing about
    security.

    The first thing they did was get armed guards for the building. Armed
    guards did not make my friend feel secure. My friend wondered about
    their training and worried about getting shot.

    Guard duty is tough. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter,
    and the guards aren't in good condition to begin with, since they just
    stand there all day and never get any exercise. In practice, the
    guards spend most of their time sitting in their cars in front of the
    building, with the engine running for heat or AC.

    Management decided that this didn't look good, so they built a guard
    shack along the right-hand side of the driveway. Now the guard sits in
    the shack and watches the cars go by.

    But that didn't seem very secure either--a bad guy could just drive
    right by without stopping
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing).

    So they added a gate, and spikes, and a card reader. To pass, an
    employee stops at the gate, rolls down their window and swipes their
    card. The gate goes up, the spikes retract, and they drive through.

    My friend doesn't trust this system a bit, and makes a point of
    watching to see that the spikes have retracted before driving over
    them. There was speculation among the staff as to who would be the
    first to blow out their tires on the spikes. As it happenes, it was
    the mailman, followed some time later by two visitors who either
    didn't see or didn't understand the signs warning against following
    another vehicle through the gate.

    I suggested that they stencil silhouettes of all the vehicles they've
    caught on the guard shack, the way fighter pilots (used to?) record
    kills on the nose of their airplanes.

    My friend points out that even with a gate and spikes, the system only
    protects against attackers who
    - care about their tires, and
    - don't have trucks
    because any vehicle can blow through the gate and make it the short
    distance to the building on four flat tires, and any truck can drive
    over the curb and avoid the whole thing.

    Management decided that blowing out their visitors' tires was
    unfriendly, so they instituted a new procedure for passing the gate.
    Now, drivers stop at the gate and roll down their window. The guard
    walks from the shack (on the right), in front of the car, to the card
    reader (on the left), takes the driver's card, swipes it, and returns
    it to the driver. Then the driver can pass.

    The staff considered that the guards were now at risk of being run
    over--and it happened. An employee reached down in his car to get his
    card, his foot came off the brake, and the car rolled forward into the
    guard. The guard was taken to hospital--I don't think the injuries
    were too serious. The driver has to appear in court and pay fines--I
    don't know if it is criminal or civil.

    This is beyond security theater. This is real damage.

    1. Re:Beyond security theater by argent · · Score: 1

      This is beyond security theater. This is real damage.

      Sounds like it's be a hit at Burning Man.

    2. Re:Beyond security theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fabulous post.

    3. Re:Beyond security theater by Alioth · · Score: 1

      They should have used the bollards that are used in Manchester on the bus lanes. They'll stop a truck, well, certainly an SUV and a large van -

      When Bollards Attack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro

  39. Flying by Mike+McTernan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Anytime I've travelled through an airport in the last couple of years....

    --
    -- Mike
  40. In the post-9/11 hysteria by kent_eh · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Our company hired security guards to sit in the hall outside the unmarked door to the equipment room (in my location it's an un-marked door on the 16th floor of an office building).
    Thus making people wonder "what's so important behind that door?

    The security guard on the early shift was the most frail ancient person I have ever seen in a uniform, but dammit, we were doing something. Or at least being seen to do something, which is just as good.

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  41. Video Downloads by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I stopped going to the theater a long time ago as "today's" movie offerings suck.

    Oh wait, wrong 'theater'..... :)

    Is government funding based on how cool sounding you make it or something?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  42. Tweezers by TerminalOldFart · · Score: 1

    Shortly after 9/11 when the airport security restrictions were getting really ramped up and casual travelers didn't know what to expect, I happened to be in line behind a woman who had the unmitigated gall to be carrying a small tweezer in her purse. The security guy very politely explained that she couldn't take it on the plane, but she was having a fit. When he finally started to walk away, I leaned up to her and said "What did he think you were, a plucking terrorist?" That got her laughing and luckily the security guard didn't hear what I said, otherwise I'm sure I'd still be getting a cavity search now.

  43. Bean Bags by tocs · · Score: 1

    I was stopped at airport security and made to stand in a little glass box while they looked at my bag under the x-ray. After a half hour of questioning and digging through my stuff they pulled out three beanbags I used for juggling and was told this was the problem. They could not go on the plane with me and I left them behind.

    1. Re:Bean Bags by GigG · · Score: 1

      You juggle enough to take the bags with you on the plane. Hell, they should have shot you.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    2. Re:Bean Bags by mishehu · · Score: 1

      If you juggle, it must mean you're a clown. And we all know that clowns are evil.

  44. WOD == price support by mkcmkc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The purpose of the War on Drugs is to support the price of illegal drugs. If these drugs were legalized, the price would instantly collapse, and lot of powerful people would be very upset. (credit to Doonesbury or Outland (?) for pointing this out)

    It also helps politicians pander to ignorant members of the right.

    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
    1. Re:WOD == price support by Alsee · · Score: 1

      It also helps politicians pander to ignorant members of the right.

      I got mod points, but can't find the +1 Redundant option.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:WOD == price support by mentaldrano · · Score: 1

      Simply an observation:

      When a liberal insults a conservative, it nearly always involves a reference to lack of education.

      Conservatives usually just call liberals idiots.

      I wonder why?

    3. Re:WOD == price support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reverse can also be true though, lets look at a pack of smokes.

      Just over half the price of a pack of smokes is government taxes of some sort or another, they make gobs of cash from your addiction.

      While basic economics tells us that outlawing something only makes a black market for it, the add on to that would be 'legalizing something lets you tax it'.

      While we piss billions down the drain that is the war on drugs we also create a multi billion dollar multi-national black market and organized crime to go with it, with all the subsequent violence that goes with criminal groups fighting each other. Making drugs illegal gives drug dealers an incentive to operate, theres profit in selling drugs, A LOT of profit. Doubly so since theres no pesky regulatory boards you have to keep happy. FDA approval means shit to a drug lord.

      So we spend billions trying to stop them, while drug lords make billions, and the much touted war on drugs never nabs anybody really important.

      If it was all legalized and regulated (driving drunk is a crime, so to would driving high be, obviously) we'd cut the knees out from under organized crime, and see violent, drug related crimes vanish.

      Of coruse that would actually accomplish something useful, and we cant have that because then you lose political leverage, alas.

    4. Re:WOD == price support by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's also to provide a purpose for government agencies that would have otherwise become obsolete when prohibition ended. Government always expands, never contracts. If you create an agency to keep people from getting illegal substances, they'll make substances illegal just to give that agency something to do.

    5. Re:WOD == price support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm truly amazed at the number of people who ignore the obvious holes in the arguments for legalization.

      1) We have legalized drugs, both freely available (alcohol, cigarettes) and prescription. Yet, we still have quite a bustling economy around illegal drugs. So clearly having legal drugs doesn't stop the market for other, more potent and unregulated drugs.

      2) You can't make a blanket statement that 'all drugs' should be legal. Crack, crystal meth, heroine, etc are highly addictive and kill most people who take them. This has nothing to do with economics or legality. The drugs destroy the human mind and body, period.

      If you're not going to argue that all drugs should be legal, then what are we discussing? If you only want *some* drugs legalized... well, that's what we have and you've just said that it's a bad thing!

      3) Legal or not, expensive or cheap, many of these drugs eventually make it impossible to do things like hold down a job, care for your family, and make rational decisions about basics such as eating vs. getting high again. If the user survives long enough, addiction will usually drive people to crime once they've been out of work long enough and have alienated their families.

      I'll even play devil's advocate-- let's say a legal drug market drives the price down so there is little danger of going broke. In other words, the fact that there's an addiction does not automatically lead to price gouging and financial ruin. Is the outcome any better? Please ref: Elvis, Janis Joplin, Layne Staley, Kevin Dubrow, etc.

      4) There is no workable business model for legalized drugs. It's very simple: families of people who die from the legalized drugs can then sue the makers out of existance regardless of warnings. Just ask big tobacco, whose product kills people over the course of decades instead of months like the worst of the illegals today and have had warnings on their labels for decades.

      5) There seems to be an ongoing belief that we just need to provide better rehabilitation programs and all will be well. Name one consistently successful rehabilitation program, ever. AA maybe, and that depends heavily on how you define success. I've never heard of anything that has ever worked consistently for addicts, for any drug. And I assure you that there are enough people on the 'free the drugs' bandwagon that you have capable minds working on the problem. There's a reason that 50 years after applying labels to cigarettes we still have commercials for methods of quitting smoking that freely reference the fact of quitting "over and over". And nicotine is a comparitively mild addiction.

  45. Crossing back into US from Canada... by KC7GR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every year, my lady and I go up to Canada for the 4th of July weekend to escape the annual (and mostly illegal, under local city codes) fireworks war-zone that infests our neighborhood. We've been doing this for several years, and in fact we both just got our NEXUS cards.

    To help put this in context: I'm a ham radio operator, as well as a volunteer first-responder. I've had formal training, through our city's fire department, in disaster relief, emergency medical procedures, basic search-and-rescue, the whole bit.

    Because of the above, our minivan is well-equipped for emergencies. I've installed multiple communication radios, a navigation computer, and I carry a medical trauma kit and various safety gear such as flares and a reflective vest. Besides the small antenna farm on the roof, I also have a light bar mounted on the back end (amber, red, clear... same as many tow trucks).

    Every bit of it is legal under the road laws of every state except New York (I know, because I spent a couple of long nights going through said laws to make bloody sure!). Couple all that with the fact that I work for our state's police agency (non-commissioned, civil service).

    Now, with all the above in mind -- Last year, we're coming back through on Sunday afternoon. I normally have the radios and navigation system on while driving, and this has never, in times past, been an issue.

    Not this year. The border guard we drew seemed to be short on both sleep and temper, and rudely ordered me to turn EVERYthing off before he would even talk to us. One of the questions he asked, after that point, was who I worked for. When I told him, he said (snappily) that, for that reason alone, I should understand why he'd told me to turn everything off.

    He let us move on at that point, but before I took off I told him, flat out, "No, I don't understand."

    And it was the honest truth! If someone's going to try and set off something that goes bang via radio, or other wireless means, it strikes me that they're going to go to considerable effort to keep such activities hidden. They certainly would not do so in a hugely-long border-crossing line, where there was absolutely no way to move anywhere but through the guard posts, in a minivan that stands out like a solar flare and has ham radio callsign plates to boot!

    I have no clear idea why this guard was so nasty, or what bizarre purpose his attitude served. I will say that it did indeed strike me as pure theater.

    The only thing I can think of is that, perhaps, his sergeant or lieutenant was observing him at the time, and we didn't notice...?

    Keep the peace(es).

    --

    Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

    Blue Feather Technologies

    1. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Did you by any chance cross at Blaine, WA? I've heard of some notorious troubles with people crossing there, and even ran into trouble there myself once or twice.

      Seems like a lot of border guards are just bitter that they have to sit around and stamp crap, while you're out vacationing, or something. Either way, they seem to really enjoy power-tripping on everyone who looks reasonably well-to-do.

      It's also hilarious, since at the crossing there is a BIG poster about the DHS' commitment to providing courteous, friendly service. This is in stark contrast to the guy who opens up the conversation with "Son, do you know how to read a form?"

    2. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      What part of your setup is illegal in New York?

    3. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by Black+Art · · Score: 1

      Probably pissed because he could not pass the morris code test.

      --
      "Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
    4. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by anti-human+1 · · Score: 1

      I want to know how you didn't call out the OP for going to CANADA for INDEPENDENCE DAY. It's so awesome, I might have to try it.

    5. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      As a guess, flare gun(s).

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    6. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, if I had a nasty purpose in mind, you're exactly the kind of person I'd probably want to imitate. And if I wanted to get a really good idea of how the streets around a bank I was planning to rob were laid out, I'd go strutting around dressed like one of those Guardian Angel dildoes.

      It's human nature to concentrate on the memorable stuff...whether it's a beret and an attitude, or a van tarted up like a cross between the batmobile and an AWACS jet.

      Having said that, I'll agree that a disproportionate number customs guards, no matter who they work for, are assholes. I especially liked the American ones who picked the one cute little Asian girl on our bus to strip-search. Must have been "Feed The Lesbian Guard Day" or something.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    7. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red flashers, I think.

    8. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was really funny is that later this guy rented the video they made of the search and didn't know it.

    9. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The job seems to attract the Little Hitler type. Now, not all border personnel are like this, but there's a significant minority who are.

      This extends to things like the embassies of $COUNTRY. My Albanian next door neighbour described the process of getting a British visa as "kafkaesque". Her experience seemed incredibly familiar - I had a similar experience with the US Embassy when getting an L1 visa a few years ago.

    10. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by pbhj · · Score: 1

      One of the questions he asked, after that point, was who I worked for. When I told him, he said (snappily) that, for that reason alone, I should understand why he'd told me to turn everything off. Er, isn't the answer rather plain ... so you can hear him and he can hear you? You know, the police stop you, you turn the radio off so you can listen to what they have to say and respond. It's some weird anachronism called courtesy.

      There could be more, perhaps border guards are mic-ed to relay problems without raising alarm (in those crossing the border) and your radio equipment messes with his comms? Only you would know that as you have such an in depth knowledge of security services. This seems most likely given his comment that you "should understand".

    11. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      If someone's going to try and set off something that goes bang via radio, or other wireless means, it strikes me that they're going to go to considerable effort to keep such activities hidden. They certainly would not do so in a hugely-long border-crossing line, where there was absolutely no way to move anywhere but through the guard posts, in a minivan that stands out like a solar flare and has ham radio callsign plates to boot!


      This reminds me of my favorite security theater stories. Photographers (professional or amateur) being harassed for taking photographs in a public place. Mostly, they are harassed by security guards with an overinflated sense of authority, but sometimes are harassed by actual police officers. The photographer is inevitably using a large DSLR camera and is accused of (or it is implied that he is) taking those photographs with some terrorist purposes in mind. As if a terrorist would use a large, highly visible DSLR camera and not a small, easily concealable point and shoot camera or an even smaller, even easier to conceal camera phone.

      Combine that with airport security taking away water bottles and tiny screwdrivers and it becomes quite obvious that much of our "Homeland Security" is really just "Homeland Security Theater."
      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    12. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To help put this in context: I'm a ham radio operator, as well as a volunteer first-responder. I've had formal training, through our city's fire department, in disaster relief, emergency medical procedures, basic search-and-rescue, the whole bit.

      Because of the above, our minivan is well-equipped for emergencies. I've installed multiple communication radios, a navigation computer, and I carry a medical trauma kit and various safety gear such as flares and a reflective vest. Besides the small antenna farm on the roof, I also have a light bar mounted on the back end (amber, red, clear... same as many tow trucks).
      Wow, I never thought I'd see a real-life whacker on slashdot.
    13. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by KC7GR · · Score: 1

      I believe this was, in fact, the Blaine crossing. Just south of Aldergrove, in any case.

      I think I'll take us home through the Peace Arch crossing for the next trip.

      Keep the peace(es).

      --

      Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

      Blue Feather Technologies

    14. Re:Crossing back into US from Canada... by KC7GR · · Score: 1

      Not carrying a flare GUN. Just regular road flares.

      But to answer... One of the other posters was correct. Red flashers are not legal in NY unless you really are a commissioned officer or firefighter.

      --

      Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

      Blue Feather Technologies

  46. The question begs by BigJClark · · Score: 1


    Why did his wife feel the need to carry a gun into a stadium of full people?

    I'm not trolling, and it will probably be misconstrued as such, but perhaps people are completely missing the problem.

    Lets say, that stadium comfortably holds 40,000 people. Lets say 1% of them have guns. Thats 4,000 people. I know small countries that don't have that level of armament. Chances are, if said wife pulled her gun (I still can't fathom a reason why), she would probably be shot dead by the other 3,999 people.

    Sleep tight!

    --

    Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
    1. Re:The question begs by Duradin · · Score: 1

      There's the trip to and from the stadium for starters.

      Mr. Murphy and his laws are another reason.

    2. Re:The question begs by BigJClark · · Score: 0, Troll


      If this is true, and a person must carry a gun to safely traverse the distance back and forth to the ball diamond, then that country is an incredible amount of trouble.

      --

      Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
    3. Re:The question begs by Duradin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one could ever have something like a four hour drive to the nearest major league stadium which with one wrong turn could include a trip through the seedier part of the city?

      That'd never happen because everyone lives in perfect happy little suburban utopias where everything is a five minute walk away.

      Sad thing is I predict you'll get insightful and this will get flamebait.

    4. Re:The question begs by i7dude · · Score: 1

      *cough* 40,000 * 0.01 = 400 *cough*

    5. Re:The question begs by BigJClark · · Score: 1


      I hope not, I did not intend it as so. I don't live in utopia, and at the same time, as I am a bigger than average, older male, so I do not have the same mentality as this female. Perhaps she is smaller? Perhaps she has already endured a traumatic experience in her life?

      I just think that how far down the toilet do things have to go, before your average joe citizen says, "I'm going to make a difference.".

      You know, your average Dr Martin Luther King JR, or Gandi.

      --

      Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
    6. Re:The question begs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1% = 400 people.

  47. The blinking red light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    in 2002 I bought a ford focus zx3, complete with a blinking red light on the dash, which the dealer refered to as an "anti-theft device."

    1. Re:The blinking red light by PitaBred · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You overpaid... I got one behind the faceplate when I bought a new radio for $100 ;)

    2. Re:The blinking red light by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 3, Informative

      well, in that it's meant to deter the casual thief by tricking them into believing that your car has an alarm, it IS an anti-theft device. Just a rather unsophisticated one which most nefarious types will see through these days.
      It's just an LED, some flashing thingumy wotsit and something (probably a simple logic gate of some variety) to turn it off when the engine is running - it adds probably less than $1 to the cost of the car, which you'll more than make back if even one particularly gullible criminal decides not to break into your car because of it.

      --
      FGD 135
    3. Re:The blinking red light by Maximalist · · Score: 5, Funny

      I insist on the the most effective automotive anti-theft device ever invented or marketed: the stick shift.

      Who needs a flashing red light when there is a third pedal and gear shift that scare the crap out of 90% of potential drivers of my car?

    4. Re:The blinking red light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Delco (Chevy) radio has a blinking red light on it too. It means that if the radio is disconnected and reconnected, a 4-digit code is required to get the radio to work again. (If I deactivate this anti-theft feature, the light doesn't blink).

      If someone were to steal the radio out of the car, it would become a brick. It also disables itself if I disconnect and reconnect the battery.

      The blinking red light on the dash in my 2007 Nissan seems to serve no purpose other than to say "The ignition is off".

    5. Re:The blinking red light by Malekin · · Score: 3, Informative

      That only works in the US and Japan, though. Most of the world has a much more diverse mix of transmissions.

    6. Re:The blinking red light by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Doesn't work in Europe. Every thief knows how to drive sticks. Actually, you'd probably be better off with an automatic, everyone will shy away from stealing those. They're expensive, and only rich (and powerful) people spend money on something as frivolous as not having to shift gears.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:The blinking red light by toddestan · · Score: 1

      My Delco (Chevy) radio has a blinking red light on it too. It means that if the radio is disconnected and reconnected, a 4-digit code is required to get the radio to work again. (If I deactivate this anti-theft feature, the light doesn't blink).

      If someone were to steal the radio out of the car, it would become a brick. It also disables itself if I disconnect and reconnect the battery.


      That's actually a good example of security theatre. No thief steals factory radios - they only work in a one or few models of cars, generally aren't of high quality anyway, and really would only be useful to someone who had a broken version of the same radio. It's much easier to fence an aftermarket stereo, and they'll generally get more money for them, so that's what they steal. The only purpose the codes serve is to annoy the owners of the cars that have them.

    8. Re:The blinking red light by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Revenue... The shops charge to "fix" the radio.

    9. Re:The blinking red light by ball-lightning · · Score: 1

      This is not true everywhere. I know someone who owned a Saturn, and their entire dashboard was ripped out in Pittsburgh. Couldn't make it up...

    10. Re:The blinking red light by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Of course that $1 slightly devalues the investment by those of us whose cars have actual real alarms, so it may not actually be a net benefit!

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    11. Re:The blinking red light by cansado · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have a Ford Focus. My anti-theft device? I have a Ford Focus.

    12. Re:The blinking red light by octagonamassador · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Who would steal a focus?

    13. Re:The blinking red light by abandonment · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you seriously think that a car alarm would deter anyone from stealing or damaging your car then you are not being 'devalued', you are deluded.

      All anyone I know thinks when they hear a car alarm is thoughts of destruction imposed on the owner of said car. Hell most people would be GLAD to have the car stolen so that it would go away and shut the fuck up.

      There's a reason cities are starting to ban car alarms - they are just annoying and serve little to no useful purpose whatsoever.

    14. Re:The blinking red light by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Not every place is Manhattan, you know.

      Where I live, it's pretty quiet. Car alarms don't go off on their own. If an alarm were to go off, it would draw attention.

      Interesting that I'm deluded if I think my alarm would deter anyone, but the guy up above who thinks his non-alarm blinking light might deter someone is just fine. My alarm has a blinking light too, you know.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    15. Re:The blinking red light by profplump · · Score: 1

      I live in the middle of Iowa, and I consider car alarms an annoyance at best, and given the right circumstances, even a criminal nuisance.

      The people next door have a (presumably broken) car alarm that goes off for no reason at least 4 days a week. The thing is parked in a carport with no one around, and it just sets out honking and flashing. The owners don't even notice, but the thing drives me nuts because it's parked right outside my office window. The alarm shuts itself off after about 5 minutes, but it frequently goes off again within the next 10, and often cycles like that for hours at a time.

    16. Re:The blinking red light by profplump · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is that like "only the right (and powerful) people spend money on something as frivolous as not having to butcher their own animals"?

      There are legitimate reasons you might not want an automatic transmission -- you might like the additional control, better fuel economy, improved failure modes, etc. -- but dismissing it as "frivolous" just makes you sound envious of people who can afford a lifestyle you'd like for yourself.

    17. Re:The blinking red light by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      This comes under the category "noise nuisance" offense in many regions and is often punishable by a fine.

      --
      Deleted
    18. Re:The blinking red light by ozbon · · Score: 1

      And have you complained to the owners of the car? Asked them to fix it?

      Hell, you could even offer to go halves on fixing it, as it's annoying you more than it annoys them.

      Otherwise, have you complained to the local police, or noise-enforcement people? (I'm in the UK, and know that this kind of thing comes under the purview of the local authority/council. Not sure when it comes to Iowa!)

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    19. Re:The blinking red light by SpinyManiac · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a coded radio you can't fix yourself with the instructions which come with the car, as long as you have the code.
      My brother had to get the code for a used car from the original dealership which sold it, but they did that free over the phone after checking he was the current owner.

      My radio is unlocked by a code in the engine ECU so disconnecting the battery is no problem. Of course it still forgets your radio stations and audio settings when you change the battery.

      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
    20. Re:The blinking red light by instarx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      in 2002 I bought a ford focus zx3, complete with a blinking red light on the dash, which the dealer refered to as an "anti-theft device." Actually, this works. I regularly place a battery-powered blinking LED in my van when I park it overnight in New York City. All you have to do is make the thief decide to look for easier pickings. Face it - if the thief really wants your stuff even a real car alarm isn't going to deter him.

    21. Re:The blinking red light by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The best deterrent is to drive a used car with no real resale value and park next to expensive cars.

    22. Re:The blinking red light by Carewolf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, cars with automatic transmissions are cheaper used than cars without, because no one wants a car with worse performance and worse fuel economy, when the only benefit is that you don't have to change gears. Cars with automatic transmissions are only for the stupid and lazy.

    23. Re:The blinking red light by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I insist on the the most effective automotive anti-theft device ever invented or marketed: the stick shift.
      Only works for some people, in some countries.

      Who needs a flashing red light when there is a third pedal and gear shift that scare the crap out of 90% of potential drivers of my car?
      Why would having a third pedal and a gear shift lever scare people? I've never had to use the extra couple of gear levers on a LandCruiser (is that their name? the Toyota 4x4s), but why would their presence scare me? NOT having control of the gear selection mechanism is more scary than having control and positive feedback.
      In the 19 years which I've had a driving license and the 6 years in which I've owned one, I've seen approximately 3 cars with automatic transmissions, two of which were taxis. The one which I've had to drive was a works vehicle when I worked for an American company, which we kept mainly for when gear-shift-handicapped colleagues came into the country.
      It's more of a shift changing to driving on the other side of the road, and heavens knows that's trivial enough!

      The friend who sold me my first car celebrated me getting my driving license by taking me into the woods on the back of his motor bike, getting off it and telling me, "that's the clutch ; you change gears up and down with that pedal ; that's the throttle ; you know how a transmission matches engine revs and power to driving wheel revs and power ; you now know how to drive anything from a 50cc motorbike to a 5000 horsepower drilling rig. Go!" And I went. Wobbly, uncertain, but under control. Until I found a peat bog.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    24. Re:The blinking red light by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...and a huge sigh in the front window saying "THIS CAR HAS NO RADIO AND NO BRAKES"

    25. Re:The blinking red light by clare-ents · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Europe really is different. Almost everybody drives a manual rather than an automatic. The car hire people tell me the only reason they have automatics is so they can rent out to foreign visitors, British customers will go to a different hire car firm if a manual shift isn't available.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
    26. Re:The blinking red light by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Even better. I have a Ford Focus and two toddlers who tend to leave half eaten apple cores on the back seats.

    27. Re:The blinking red light by JoeD · · Score: 1

      No, it's not just an LED.

      There's an RFID chip in the key. Even if someone makes a duplicate, it won't start the engine unless the chip is valid.

      Touch the key to the ignition, without actually inserting it. The LED will stop blinking, indicating that the RFID check passed.

    28. Re:The blinking red light by Krneki · · Score: 0

      Automatic gears = Windows. You never know what the fuck is going on. Manual gears = Linux.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    29. Re:The blinking red light by weierstrass · · Score: 1

      where i live a lot of people used to steal car radios regardless of whether they were original or aftermarket. presumably to sell to the shops which sell radios to people who've had theirs stolen. this is the business model that hubcap theft (hubcaps only fit specific car models too) was based on.

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
    30. Re:The blinking red light by weierstrass · · Score: 1

      the code is always written in ballpoint pen inside the front cover of the 'how do i save preset stations' radio guide leaflet. which is in the glove compartment.

      and it's usually '4444'.

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
    31. Re:The blinking red light by The+Warlock · · Score: 4, Funny

      I save the "no brakes" thing as a surprise.

      --
      I've upped my standards, so up yours.
    32. Re:The blinking red light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That red light is for the engine immobilizer. It's supposed to indicate whether someone's tried to bypass it. So it is an anti-theft device, of sorts.

    33. Re:The blinking red light by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you seriously think that a car alarm would deter anyone from stealing or damaging your car then you are not being 'devalued', you are deluded

      That's not the purpose of the blinking light. The blinking light lowers my car insurance! Mine only comes on when the car is locked.

      There's a reason cities are starting to ban car alarms - they are just annoying and serve little to no useful purpose whatsoever.

      I hadn't heard that cities are banning alarms, what cities? My alarm is built into the car, it activates when the doors are locked. The only way to not activate the alarm is to not lock the car! If they should pass such a law in my city how could I possibly comply?

      I bought the car used, and it had no owner's manual. Last winter I hit the "panic" button by mistake and had no idea how to shut it off. A cop cruised by in less than two minutes, HE know how to shut it off! Now I know too.

      But the lesson I got there is the alarms DO serve a purpose. Had someone been stealing the car, they would have gotten caught.

      A friend has a "protected by XXX Security company" sign in his yard. He doesn't really have a home alarm, he stole the sign!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    34. Re:The blinking red light by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      No one is stealing a car to resell it; they steal it to chop it and sell the parts. Your beater may be worth more in pieces than in whole.

    35. Re:The blinking red light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. I was once in charge of vehicles for an organization, and the driver of one of our Focuses (Foci?) locked his key inside. We could get a replacement key made, but we had two options: 1) A new, fully function key with the RFID for some ungodly amount, or 2) one that would match, but only open the doors -- for a few dollars. Pretty easy choice, in that case. I'm just glad the key wasn't completely lost, or we'd have only the first option.

    36. Re:The blinking red light by SpinningCone · · Score: 1

      A friend has a "protected by XXX Security company" sign in his yard. He doesn't really have a home alarm,

      So when did Vin Diesel get a security company? does Riddick jump our an pwn you if you try to break in?

    37. Re:The blinking red light by chrish · · Score: 1

      Real car alarms are entirely worthless because people ignore them. Far too many false alarms.

      In Canada (Ontario, at least) having one doesn't affect your car insurance at all.

      --
      - chrish
    38. Re:The blinking red light by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Huh? My car has the code written in the owner's manual; it's not difficult to enter it. Or do you think pushing four buttons is difficult for people?

    39. Re:The blinking red light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you're not BadAnalogyGuy

    40. Re:The blinking red light by ehud42 · · Score: 1
      I have a Ford Focus. My anti-theft device? I have a Ford Focus.


      I used to think that about my 1996 3 hamster powered Geo Metro, but now I'm not so sure.... ($7,300!?!? - why can't I sell stuff to people like that....)

      --
      I'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!
    41. Re:The blinking red light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a blinking blue light. Clearly it's more secure than the older red lights.

    42. Re:The blinking red light by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You don't get it. It's far easier to whine about the problem on slashdot and blame an entire class of people and devices for it than it is to actually take steps to resolve it.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    43. Re:The blinking red light by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Does every potential vandal or thief ignore them? I posit the answer is no. I'll certainly believe that most will, but all? Even twitchy teenagers out for a thrill? If any potential criminals are deterred then there is some value. Of course you can still debate whether it's significant, or whether the value is enough to make it worthwhile, but I can't believe that they have no value whatsoever.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    44. Re:The blinking red light by neurovish · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have a "no bears" sign in my yard. Haven't had a single problem with bears hanging around my house since.

    45. Re:The blinking red light by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      There are legitimate reasons you might not want an automatic transmission -- you might like the additional control, better fuel economy, improved failure modes, etc.
      According to this and many other things I've read it would seem you are incorrect. Furthermore, as an owner of a standard transmission vehicle, I would say that a driver is MUCH more in control of a standard transmission vehicle than an automatic (particularly in rain/snow/ice). So if you want to be impressed with yourself that you can afford (and for some reason are willing to spend extra money for) an automatic transmission, go right ahead, but please spare us your "facts" supporting your decision.
    46. Re:The blinking red light by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. My car alarm will deter anyone from stealing the car or the stereo. I have 130DB of sirens under the dashboard. it is physically painful to be in the car when the alarm is going off.

      If you cause the thief pain, he will leave. Same as my anti-carjacking kit. If you open the drivers door when the engine is running it will start a timer and kill the fuel pump in 60 seconds. fuel pump will not restart until a hidden switch is toggled.

      There are good alarms out there, most are utter crap and are there to make ricer kids feel better.

      A good car alarm that has real features that will deter theft cost around $680-$1000. Mine has GSM and GPS so I can see where the car is and trigger or kill things at my whim. plus I can verbally berate those in my car when I want.

      It's cool when I can unlock the car for a colleague from 300 miles away and then relock and check it's status. I did not pay for the expensive one with a camera to take evidence/allow you to monitor the interior.

      Here's the issue, most people with "car alarms" have crappy low value cars and will not buy the real stuff. You need a car that is worth something to justify spending $1000+ on a alarm+ install+ $12.99 a month for the cellphone service.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    47. Re:The blinking red light by Gription · · Score: 1

      A combination of communication combined with punishment is probably the best choice in this case.
      A short and sweet note clearly explaining the problem should solve the problem...


      ... if you wrap it around a brick and carefully place it part way through the windshield. (The brick will help insure that the wind doesn't blow the note away!)

    48. Re:The blinking red light by ridefst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Easy guy, he's on _your_ side... Let me paraphrase... "There are legitimate reasons you might not want an automatic transmission" The legitimate reasons that you might not want an automatic transmission are that, "you might like the additional control, better fuel economy, improved failure modes, etc."

    49. Re:The blinking red light by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

      neurovish, I want to buy your sign.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    50. Re:The blinking red light by FatMacDaddy · · Score: 1
      Don't be an ass. I've driven and owned both standard and automatic transmissions. Would I want a luxury car with a stick? Obviously not. Do elderly people and disabled have to drive a stick, or are they just stupid and lazy? And though I used to like driving with a stick, moving to the hills and traffic of San Francisco got me back to an automatic.

      I would also say that any fuel advantages of a stick are probably often outweighed by the driving habits of the driver.

      Lastly, not everyone has the luxury of buying their cars new. Some times you have to take your pick of what the best deal is at the time, and in some of those cases you might find yourself driving an automatic that still gets good mileage.

      Of course, around here and the DC area, the big advantage to automatics is that commuters can still drive while reading the paper, applying makeup, etc., etc.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    51. Re:The blinking red light by pthisis · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, cars with automatic transmissions are cheaper used than cars without, because no one wants a car with worse performance and worse fuel economy, when the only benefit is that you don't have to change gears. Cars with automatic transmissions are only for the stupid and lazy.


      "Manual transmissions get better mileage than automatic transmissions" is one of those things that was absolutely true 20 years ago but requires more thought these days.

      It depends entirely on the specifics of the transmission, vehicle, and driver. e.g. the 5-speed automatic in the Toyota Rav4 gets better mileage than the 5-speed manual, no matter how carefully you shift. But the 4-speed automatic gets worse mileage than a careful driver.

      The Toyota FJ cruiser likewise gets better mileage in the automatic than the manual. I think the Mazda5 with the 5-speed auto is another.

      Moreover, even in cars where the reverse is true studies show that most drivers don't optimize their shifting for fuel economy. Most people wind up getting better performance but worse fuel economy than most modern automatic transmissions (which are significantly more advanced than older versions).

      Now, manuals do give more control (e.g. allowing better engine braking on snow/ice). And they almost always have better performance. You can pop-start them if the starter/battery dies. In many places they're cheaper. And if you're careful about driving for fuel economy, you can get better mileage in most models (but you'll lose the performance benefits then).
      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    52. Re:The blinking red light by Dop · · Score: 1

      Typically I'd agree. Then someone stole the radio out of my stick-shift truck.

    53. Re:The blinking red light by dpilot · · Score: 1

      My anti-theft devices are better - old cars, both with >100,000 miles on them. Boring too, a Taurus and a minivan. Nobody would want to steal them.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    54. Re:The blinking red light by Heian-794 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who would steal a focus?

      An Internet Explorer-equipped dashboard?

    55. Re:The blinking red light by sjames · · Score: 2, Funny

      A friend of mine was almost a victim of auto theft. He found it pulled half out of it's space with the driver's side door opened. However, it seems that the would be thief didn't know how many times to pump the gas and the exact ratio of gas and clutch required to avoid stalling the engine (a truly tiny window in that car).

      Or perhaps he noticed the smoke detector light for the engine compartment and the lanyard that operated the fire extinguisher so you didn't have to stop to handle the occasional fire.

      I guess they didn't get far enough to notice the missing tooth in the steering pinion.

    56. Re:The blinking red light by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      Your argument is logically flawed -- who knows if the light causes thieves to leave your van alone? I mean, your van also hasn't been crushed by stampeding elephants, but it's not because the red light scared them away.

      My car (a '99 BMW 323i in excellent condition with 118k miles, if anyone's looking to buy) is parked overnight in NYC every day with no red light. It has yet to pick up so much as a scratch, let alone a robbery attempt. Of course, I use The Club for the same reason you use the blinkenlight--hey, you never know if it might help--but I wouldn't make grand claims on its behalf.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    57. Re:The blinking red light by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1
      The best deterrent is to drive a used car with no real resale value and park next to expensive cars.

      Here in Vancouver, Canada, it's the "used cars with no real resale value" that are stolen the most.

      Why? Here, generally cars are stolen for the following reason -

      1) Scumbags need an easy way home, so they steal a car, drive it home, and dump it
      2) Scumbags decide to go on a joyride to impress some girl and get laid, usually crashing up the car for fun in the process
      3) Scumbag drug addict thieves who steal a vehicle in order to go do a B&E - They steal a car, rob someone's stuff, drive the goods to the fence, get a few bucks, then drive to their dealer and buy drugs. They then dump the car.

      Older vehicles are much easier to steal than the new, expensive ones. You can steal and old honda with a screwdriver.

      I've had two vehicles stolen - In both cases they were fifteen years old at the time of theft. I got both of them back, in sadder shape.

    58. Re:The blinking red light by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      Well crap! That's what I get for reading too quickly before jumping on my manual-transmission-soapbox. Thanks for the well deserved re-direct (and apologies to Profplump for the friendly fire).

    59. Re:The blinking red light by thatwouldbeme · · Score: 1

      instarx, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers?

    60. Re:The blinking red light by Avohir · · Score: 1

      I'm american and I would too, because I'm used to manual and when I try to drive an automatic (like my girlfriend's car) I start doing an interpretive dance I like to call "where's the @#%&ing CLUTCH?!"

      --
      To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer
    61. Re:The blinking red light by instarx · · Score: 1

      Your argument is logically flawed -- who knows if the light causes thieves to leave your van alone? I mean, your van also hasn't been crushed by stampeding elephants, but it's not because the red light scared them away. Get a sense of humor for crying out loud.
    62. Re:The blinking red light by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Everything has "value" even if it's only in the raw materials the item is made out of. The question people really mean when they talk about value is if the value of the item in question is significantly greater than the cost of the item to the point that it justifies the investment.

      As for car alarms, they have the value of reducing your insurance under some providers, as well as potentially deterring inept thieves, although considering that the biggest danger with most cars is not car thieves but people stealing the car stereos or the car contents which a alarm will only be a very minor deterrence to, perhaps this isn't much of an advantage. On the negative side of things they tend to go off a lot for no apparent reason, they annoy the crap out of you and everyone that's anywhere near you, and there's a pretty good chance that if some twitchy teenager was thinking about ripping off your car they'll just settle for trashing it instead. It could also potentially work against you in the case of someone stealing a car stereo because they'll be less likely to take their time and try to reduce excess damage to the car and instead go for the most expedient smash and grab they can.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    63. Re:The blinking red light by sjames · · Score: 1

      Here, the primary reason for theft is to part the car out. If your car is old enough and doesn't have much resale value, the parts are similarly cheap anyway, so the thief cannot get a good enough for them to be worth it. They prefer the flashy cars with expensive radios and chrome wheels they can sell for a fraction of the legitimate retail price and still get plenty.

    64. Re:The blinking red light by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Well, not everyone's car alarm is a twitchy SOB which constantly goes off without cause. To my knowledge, the only time my alarm has done this is when I've been foolish and accidentally triggered it myself, by setting it while I was still inside or by trying to open it without the key when I left the window open. It's possible that I'm just one of these ignorant doofuses whose alarm pisses everyone else off but I don't think so, it doesn't seem particularly twitchy.

      As for a negative value of the alarm, I have a hard time believing in a careful thief who inconveniences himself in order not to cause damage to my vehicle. If he were that considerate he probably wouldn't be out stealing people's stuff in the first place.

      If some insurance companies give a discount then I'd say this is a pretty good indicator that it has some useful value. After all, they're in it for the money, and they have mass statistics you and I don't have access to. That discount wouldn't be there if they got fewer claims from people who had them.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    65. Re:The blinking red light by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I am obviously talking about Denmark and north europe in general. Used cars with automatic transmissions are sold cheaped than used cars without, despite cars with automatic being more expensive when new. I am just trying to explain why that might be.

    66. Re:The blinking red light by Sciros · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work in Japan, either, from what I remember. More manuals there than in the US, and if you're a car thief in Japan you're probably prepared to drive off with a manual. I have no numbers to back that up, just an impression.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    67. Re:The blinking red light by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Yes, not all alarms are created equal, but even considering your alarm that only goes off when it's supposed to, the utility of it is somewhat ruined by all the "bad" alarms that go off for no reason at all (because people will be inclined to ignore all alarms, good or not).

      As for the thief taking their time, it's less about not wishing to inconvenience themselves as it is them wishing to draw as little attention as possible. Taking the 30 seconds it requires to pick a lock and then another minute or so to extract a radio is probably considered a fair trade by most over the noise and attention smashing a window and yanking a radio out would cause. Of course all that goes out the window if you've got an alarm blaring as you're already drawing attention and whats smashing a window going to really add? There's also the off chance that they actually do feel a little guilty about what they're doing and that reducing the inconvenience to you is sort of the least they could do. In my case when I had a stereo stolen a couple years back the cops told me I got lucky that the thief pulled the plugs out, that in a number of cases (they hit a couple dozen cars in this area that night) they simply cut the wires just behind the jacks rather than take the time to unplug them.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    68. Re:The blinking red light by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

      When I attended college in Arlington, TX (UTA) in the early 90's I already knew people ignored car alarms. Across the street from where I lived was one of the largest parking lots (at the time) for the University. Whenever a thunderstorm rolled through...yeah...often...the thunder of nearby lightning strikes would set those bad boys off en masse. VERY annoying.

      I've never met anyone who's had their car NOT stolen due to a car alarm. Although I have known people to have their car found before trashed due to LowJack.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    69. Re:The blinking red light by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I've never met anyone who's had their car NOT stolen due to a car alarm. That's kind of meaningless, because unless you reacted very fast and didn't just ignore the alarm like most people do, you'd never know that it had just scared away a thief instead of being set off by thunder or whatever.
      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    70. Re:The blinking red light by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

      good catch -- I did that on purpose to see if anyone was paying attention.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    71. Re:The blinking red light by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I agree with your comment, a person should be able to use what ever type of transmission they want to but in what universe does having a machine do something for you (change gears) give you more control?

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    72. Re:The blinking red light by RichiH · · Score: 1

      So do German customers unless they are in the US or, reportedly, Japan.

    73. Re:The blinking red light by RichiH · · Score: 1

      You lose neither the economy nor the performance if you know how & when to shift gears. And as you know when you want to change gears earlier a split second before you are able to depress the acceleration paddle far enough for the car to realize, I would argue you win even more performance.

    74. Re:The blinking red light by Mozk · · Score: 1

      He was being sarcastic.

      --
      No existe.
    75. Re:The blinking red light by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Ah, argumentum ad humoram. Classic and guarantees to shut mouth of nerds.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
  48. Find out what they need but do what they want. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The consulting algorithm:

      1) Find out what they want. (They will ask for bells and whistles and not tell you core process basics.)
      2) Figure out what they actually need. (Research their actual process and design improvements.)
      3) Try to convince them to want what they actually need and change the spec go with that.
      4) After step 3), give them what they now want, whether it's what they need or not. (Provided it's legal and ethical.)

    And of course:

      5) Profit!

    They are the bosses / customers. They decide what to spend money on. You are the hireling. You agree to do what they want in trade for the fee they pay. After step 3) your moral and ethical obligations are discharged - and if your suggestions are good you've proved your worth. If they're smart they go with what you suggested - or know something about their business that you didn't and reject your suggestion on that basis. But if they decide to do something you think is stupid once they've been informed, it's their business, so it's their call.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Find out what they need but do what they want. by swillden · · Score: 1

      If they're smart they go with what you suggested - or know something about their business that you didn't and reject your suggestion on that basis.

      In my experience, more often than not it's the latter.

      But you're absolutely right that regardless of whether what they say they want is really what they need, they're signing the checks.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  49. Write your Congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He'll love to hear that story and if you ask nicely he may get your record erased.

    1. Re:Write your Congressman by SoCalChris · · Score: 1

      I didn't think of that at the time. I did contact the local media though, and a few of them were interested in running a story about it. They lost that interest though when I wound up not being fined or charged with anything.

  50. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A gun a sports game? A knife at an airport? Glad I don't live in the USA.

  51. Firearms and security by pieleric · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since his wife carries a small pistol in her purse... Maybe everyone from the US will consider me trolling, let me apologize for this but, reading your little story, I wonder if the second amendment is not one of the biggest security theatre ever, allowing gun manufacturers to keep their sales high.

    It's rather hard to believe that authorizing everyone to carry firearms can in any way make the society safer... Here, in Europe, if I met a girl who carries a pistol in her purse, I would immediately freak out and run away!
    1. Re:Firearms and security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
      And maybe everyone in France will consider me trolling, but...

      I would immediately freak out and run away!
    2. Re:Firearms and security by Xuranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder if the second amendment is not one of the biggest security theatre ever, allowing gun manufacturers to keep their sales high.

      Really? I mean REALLY? The 2nd amendment was written with the pre-NRA NRA in mind? I've heard some pretty far out things on this site but wow, that just takes the cake.

      --
      "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
    3. Re:Firearms and security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, chicks with guns are hot. Hot chicks with guns are super hot.

    4. Re:Firearms and security by novakyu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's rather hard to believe that authorizing everyone to carry firearms can in any way make the society safer It has nothing to do with "making the society safer" (as if they were worried about crime rates in late 1700s). It has everything to do with preventing the government from oppressing its citizens so much that they cannot even rise up in a bloody rebellion when the government becomes too oppressive to endure.
    5. Re:Firearms and security by overtly_demure · · Score: 1
      That may have had some practical value in the 18th century, but these days it is laughable.

      I am totally anti-firearm, but I would just as soon leave the second amendment as is. I have come to the lamentable conclusion that taking it out would be every bit as idiotic as leaving it in, but leaving it in is much easier.

    6. Re:Firearms and security by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      No you wouldn't. You'd think it was hot, just like we do here in the States.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:Firearms and security by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Here, in Europe, if I met a girl who carries a pistol in her purse, I would immediately freak out and run away!

      How do girls deal with obsessive ex boyfriends in Europe?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    8. Re:Firearms and security by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      First off, concealed carry is the exact opposite of theater because you never advertise that you have a weapon unless absolutely necessary. Even with a permit, drawing a weapon without good cause is a severe crime.

      Secondly, not only is it not security theater, it's effective security because even a small fraction of citizens are armed it vastly increases the likely cost of committing a crime. For instance, the average time served for rape in the US is 4-5 years with a roughly 50% chance of conviction: 2 effective years. On the other hand, if only 2% of women carry guns then a would-be rapist is now facing a much larger potential cost.

      Thirdly, I support the 2A and CCW on the fundamental principle of human freedom. An activity that does not cause concrete and particularized harm to another human being cannot properly be the subject of government regulation.

    9. Re:Firearms and security by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      Nice theory. In practice it seems that what happens is that if 2% of law-abiding citizens carry guns then 80% of criminals carry guns.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    10. Re:Firearms and security by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

      Cliche':

      When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

    11. Re:Firearms and security by swillden · · Score: 1

      It's rather hard to believe that authorizing everyone to carry firearms can in any way make the society safer...

      It's hard to believe if you don't pay attention to the statistics showing that crime, and especially violent crime, decreases as the number of law-abiding citizens carrying weapons increases.

      Keep in mind that you can't make direct, cross-culture comparisons of the numbers. The US is fundamentally more violent than most of Europe, irrespective of the presence or absence of guns. That's a sad state of affairs, but within that context it's quite clear that authorizing citizens who have no criminal record and no history of mental illness to carry firearms actually reduces the crime rate.

      I carry a gun whenever I leave my house. I've never had need for it, and hope never to have a need for it, and I don't really even do it to defend myself. I carry it because my society is safer when plenty of rational, even-tempered, law-abiding people like me are carrying, and I don't think enough are.

      I'm sure your first reaction is to think that I'm nuts, that some of those normal people are going to get angry or just flip out and start shooting. Lots of people here thought the same thing when the movement to freely issue concealed carry permits started about 20 years ago. But history has shown that, in fact, it simply doesn't happen.

      Permit holders are twelve times less likely to commit a crime than the average American, and there have been an increasing number of incidents where ordinary citizens were able to stop murderers because they had guns. The most recent was the case of a man who entered a large church (thousands in attendance) with a military-style rifle and one THOUSAND rounds of ammunition. He wanted to kill hundreds. He shot two before a nearby woman shot and wounded him. Seeing that his plan had failed he then took his own life.

      Widespread lawful carry of firearms may not make your society safer, but here it really does help. If you met a girl with a legally-concealed gun in her purse, you can be certain that she's got a non-violent past and is the sort of person who's willing to take steps to protect herself, rather than just hope that nothing bad happens to her. Why would you run away from such a responsible person?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Firearms and security by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 1

      Actually, there was a small town somewhere in the Midwest where they passed a law requiring every home-owner to buy and learn how to properly use a gun. (Kennesaw, GA for one.)

      Crime went down.

      There have been other small towns that do this and crime goes down.

    13. Re:Firearms and security by dcollins · · Score: 1

      No, it has to do with keeping a well-regulated militia. Learn to read.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    14. Re:Firearms and security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I mean REALLY? The 2nd amendment was written with the pre-NRA NRA in mind? I've heard some pretty far out things on this site but wow, that just takes the cake. When John McCain is elected, everyone will have straw men like that ... under their fingernails!
    15. Re:Firearms and security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, in Europe, if I met a girl who carries a pistol in her purse, I would immediately freak out and run away!

      And how is the weather in France today?

    16. Re:Firearms and security by swillden · · Score: 1

      That may have had some practical value in the 18th century, but these days it is laughable.

      Not in the slightest. You vastly underestimate the power of large groups of rifle-armed guerrillas. Tanks and airplanes are only useful when you can get the enemy to bunch up, and while modern infantry weapons are significantly better than what citizens typically own (a state of affairs which is of questionable constitutionality, IMO), the force multiplier they provide is at best a factor of 10 or so -- not nearly enough to offset the advantage inherent to embedded guerrilla forces.

      Further, military weapons have largely evolved to be lighter and less powerful than hunting weapons, and our soldiers' body armor, etc. is developed to counter those. What will stop a 5.56 NATO round, or even a 7.62x39mm (AK-47) round, will not stop a 7.62x63mm (Springfield 30.06, the most popular hunting rifle caliber) round. Hunting rifles are also nearly ideal for sniper attacks, able to hit accurately at ranges nearing 1000 meters. Not to mention the fact that in spite of their high price, Barrett is selling large numbers of .50 BMG rifles into the civilian market. In the hands of a skilled shooter, those rifles can hit with devastating force from over 2000 meters away. Most of the buyers are avid long-range target shooters.

      Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto understood these facts when he declared that it was impossible to invade the US mainland because "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". It's the same whether the enemy force is foreign or domestic, assuming enough provocation to get a significant body of Americans to fight.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:Firearms and security by swillden · · Score: 1

      No, it has to do with keeping a well-regulated militia. Learn to read.

      Which consists of every able-bodied man over 18 and under 45 years of age. "Regulated" in this context, means "equipped".

      The original purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that citizen militias were well-armed for any purpose required, whether that be repelling foreign invasion, or overthrowing a tyrannical government. If you read the writings of the founders, particularly Jefferson, it's very clear that the latter was an important part of the intent. Even without reading their words, the historical context is enough to make it clear. These were words written by men who had only a few years earlier rebelled against their government and established a new one they thought would be better.

      We're supposed to get the US Supreme Court's take on what, exactly, the second amendment means in a couple of weeks. It'll be interesting to see what they say, but I'll be very surprised if they don't state that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and unrelated to government-organized militias.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:Firearms and security by overtly_demure · · Score: 1
      Interesting, cogent, and concise reply. Credible, too. Not so common around these parts.

      Thanks!

  52. Favorite Example of Security Theater... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Kabuki
    As illustrated in SCRUBS: Resident Kabuki Theater

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  53. Credit cards. by Warll · · Score: 1

    When people sign their credit cards "[See] Photo ID". All that does is slow things down, since any place that checks the card and makes you sign is still going to make you sign.

    1. Re:Credit cards. by KeithIrwin · · Score: 1

      Wow. This is post really reflects what Bruce Schneider was saying the other day about the difficulties of teaching a security mindset. This poster is clearly thinking about how the security measure works when nothing has gone wrong, but the security measure is meant to effect things when something has gone wrong.

      People don't sign their card "Please ask to see ID" because they don't want to put their signature down. It's not some kind of security blanket for when everything is going well. It's so that if their card is lost or stolen and someone else tries to use it, it will be more difficult for them to do so since they won't be likely to have ID with their picture and the credit card holder's name.

      It's not a guarantee since ID can be faked and credit cards can be cloned, but it at least makes it more difficult for fraudsters and means that the mean time between acquiring a credit card and being able to use it fraudulently is longer, increasing the odds that the card will be canceled before being used.

    2. Re:Credit cards. by Warll · · Score: 1

      Scenario one: "I'm sorry mam but this card is not in your name" "Oh yeah you see its in my husband's name" Scenario two: "I'm sorry sir but this card is not in your name" "Oh yeah you see its my same sex partner's card" Scenario three: Someone has stolen the card, does not go to a cashier to use it. Instead goes to ATM. Scenario four: Someone has stolen the card, does not go to a cashier to use it. Instead uses it over the internet. Oh course granted there is a slim chance that it would work. Of course most of the people how have "Photo Id" written on their cards don't have the card signed.

    3. Re:Credit cards. by KeithIrwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the card specifically says "please ask to see id" I doubt that very many clerks would accept the "it's my husband's card". Generally speaking, most stores will not take a card unless they believe that it belongs to the person presenting it. If they can show ID with matching last names, then maybe, if you're lucky they'll take it. Generally, people who share credit card accounts get separate cards with their own names on them. They don't use other people's cards.

      Using the card at an ATM requires a PIN number. They aren't going to know your PIN number. There are special credit-to-cash machines in some casinos which process a credit card charge and then give you 95% of the money, but those are not very common outside of casinos, so for those of us who don't live near a casino, it imposes an additional delay.

      Using it over the internet usually (although not always) requires the billing address associated with the card. The reason they require this is because it is something that the cardholder knows that someone who stole the card or found a lost card probably doesn't know.

      Admittedly, writing "Please Ask to see ID" doesn't offer any improvement over signing the card in the later two scenarios, but just because a security measure doesn't help in all possible situations doesn't mean that it isn't an improvement, especially when those situations are less common anyway.

      In the end, what it comes down to is:
      1) Signatures are easier to fake than IDs are, especially when you have an example of the signature to work with. Most store clerks, even if they check, are not knowledgeable enough to recognize the difference between someone's real signature and a copy. Making it worse is the fact that the signature field on a credit card is only about half the height of most people's normal signatures, so the signature in the field often doesn't really resemble the person's signature.
      2) Even people who don't check the signatures sometimes notice the "Please Ask to See ID" written in the signature line. Several times I've seen clerks not check signatures for people in front of me, but then, when I hand them my card to swipe, they notice what's been written in the field and ask to see my ID.
      3) In most states, the driver's licenses have the signature on them, so they can still check the signature even if the card doesn't have one on it.

      So, sorry, but this legitimately does make it tougher to use a stolen credit card, whether or not it's inconvenient to you.

    4. Re:Credit cards. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Well those people are stupid. Technically, not signing the card invalidates the card. It's printed right there under the signature thingie.

      Stores accept them anyway because they don't want to lose business, and that's why "please ask for ID" is a kind of security theater.

      Also, the signature isn't a security measure. It's a decision marker. Both the card and the receipt are contracts and your signature indicates that you agree to the terms, not that you are who you say you are. Misunderstanding that is why people think that "see ID" is a reasonable thing to put there.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Credit cards. by nxtw · · Score: 1

      When people sign their credit cards "[See] Photo ID". All that does is slow things down


      Actually, it makes your card invalid unless your legal signature is also "See ID"
    6. Re:Credit cards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my post office there is a sign saying they will not accept a credit card without a signature. (Including ones that say "Please see ID.") They say this is at the credit card company's request. I wish I knew the reason for that.

  54. Card readers by dubbayu_d_40 · · Score: 1

    Often times in commercial property, card readers (and occupancy sensors) are a great way to determine if equipment (HVAC, lighting, water chillers) for a section the building actually need to be on. It's nothing nefarious, but it's not really security.

  55. Here's a good one from today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our national telco made a number of highly confidential documents available on its website. These included interconnection agreements, CEO's contract and all sorts of other goodies.

    The theatre bit? The website was https instead of http and the host was secure1.the_telco.com. Perhaps they didn't think it was possible to navigate to https://secure1.the_telco.com/ceo_contract.pdf

    It is. Good one guys. Our local papers are grateful :)

  56. Stop digging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you're in a hole (as you are now), the best advice is to stop digging.

    1. Re:Stop digging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you stoned?

    2. Re:Stop digging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I speak for everyone here at the slashdot community when I say:

      Shut the fuck up.

    3. Re:Stop digging. by scrollios · · Score: 0

      Mind if i take that shovel?

      --
      Doot!
    4. Re:Stop digging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I refuse to believe Anarke is serious. If he is, I apologize, he may suffer from autism of some sort, or possibly just the worst sense of humor. In any case, he is to be pitied, not mocked. I recommend the complete works of Bugs Bunny, to be followed with a regular regiment of stooge therapy.

    5. Re:Stop digging. by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Actually, I laughed. I think only you didn't get it, which according to the general rules of society, makes you wrong. And a dick. Congrats.

    6. Re:Stop digging. by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

      Nah, if he were stoned, he would have thought it was funny.

      Also, the suggestion of pretzels would have made him hungry.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    7. Re:Stop digging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *ahem* The fools! The magazine in the firearm was loaded with snacks instead of ammunition!

  57. Fake Camera by daveywest · · Score: 5, Interesting
    My wife manages an apartment complex. She was having problems with messes left in the laundry room. We installed a fake camera with a flashing led light.

    The office had a second door with a peep hole into the laundry. To give the camera an air of legitimacy, she sat in the office one night and made a note of everyone who came into the laundry. When they came in to pay their rent the next week, she mentioned that she saw them doing their laundry on the "tape" and asked about a fictitious mess that was left.

    She managed to do this to a couple of the complex gossips, and never had a problem in there again.

  58. Hospital Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's one that will be unbelievable to many of you here, but I swear its true.

    A local hospital just spent something like $80M on a new building. In this building they installed three major things: A security camera system which covers most of the building, and which feeds into some kind of Phillips data recorder which is web-assessable for the security folks, keycode punch locks, and a system which uses little RF transmitters which are attached to babies so that they don't get kidnapped.

    So I'm walking through the hospital and see this web browser up at one of the nurses stations which shows a bunch of camera video. In the address bar of the browser is the IP address of the server. I jot it down, walk over to another computer, and type in the address. I get a login and password screen, along with the model number of the equipment. Hmmm. 15 seconds of a Google search and I have the default password. I key it in and -- surprise -- they never bothered to change it. I now have administrator access to their entire security camera system.

    The punch locks? They never bothered to change the default codes.

    The infant monitoring systems? These things are basically radio transmitters which are picked up by receivers all over the hospital, so that they can track an infant. The actual tag consists of a small plastic transmitter with three leads on each side, which an attachment goes in to and then is secured to the child. Take a paper clip and short the top two leads. It beeps. The system picks it up. Then disconnect it. Ten minutes later, the system alarms continuously, goes apeshit because it can't find the tag, and forces the administration to turn it off and reboot it, then reenter the tag data. Meanwhile, you could have just walked out with half the nursery.

    Security theatre.

  59. NJ Army National Guard by charlie763 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was an intelligence analyst in the NJ Army National Guard until my contract ended in 2006.

    We were deployed twice to protect Port Authority facilities around NY and NJ. On both deployment we had our weapons M16A2s or pistols. On our second deployment we were not given ammunition. Yes, we were walking around in uniforms holding empty rifles.

    The best we could do is radio the Port Authority Police or possible club someone trying to steal our weapons. Our combat effectiveness was slightly above that of Nerf.

    --
    Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
    1. Re:NJ Army National Guard by Herkum01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Remind me of a friends story while in China. His friend, who was Chinese, was driving down this shortcut and in front of him was the very professional, and heavily armed Chinese soldier standing in the way. He decided to just drive around him and my friend started to freak out and asked him, "what the hell was he doing, he could have gotten them killed!" His friends reply was, 'oh they don't give them any bullets!"

    2. Re:NJ Army National Guard by peektwice · · Score: 1

      I was stationed at Ft. Hood, TX for three years, and during my stint, we occasionally had to pull guard duty. While doing so, we were required to check out an M16, but were not given ammunition. After complaining to the Sergeant Major, and explaining, that we would be more effective with night clubs, our M16s were taken away too.

      --
      Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
    3. Re:NJ Army National Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that we would be more effective with night clubs,

      Heh, I think you mean nightsticks.

      Thanks for the chuckle.

    4. Re:NJ Army National Guard by instarx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      National Guard troops posted in Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station to provide security. What a joke. They are clearly untrained for transportation hub security duties. If they had to fire their weapons they would kill more civilians than terrorists. They stand around in groups of four or five (grenade fodder). They try to pick up girls. They window shop. Their weapons are unsuitable for indoor fire fights. Contrast this with professional securty guards at airports and train stations in Europe. They travel in pairs, always moving. They do NOT try to pick up girls. Their weapons (SMGs not assault rifles) are slung across their chests and always held in a ready position. They are always observing and evaluating. They are clearly the real thing, not theater like in the US.

      I could forgive this lack of training in US security immediately after 9/11, but it has now been seven years and they still aren't trained. I blame the NG commanders who are clearly incompetent and don't think it's important to get real and appropriate training for their men, and I also blame Homeland Security who are trying to do security on the cheap by not establishing a professional and highly trained security force. Farce.

    5. Re:NJ Army National Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's really, really strange if not stupid. In Sweden (which has pretty harsh gun regulation) the conscripts guarding the royal palace are armed and allocated at least five rounds. Hell, even the mounted dragoons are issued the full amount of ammo their 1894 issue carbines can take (five rounds). And this is a major tourist attraction guarded by 18 or so year old conscripts.

      I've never been to the US but I find it strange that any state or local authority would post guards with assault rifles and not issue any amunition.

      Posted anonymously not to undo previous moderation.

    6. Re:NJ Army National Guard by swillden · · Score: 1

      I blame the NG commanders who are clearly incompetent and don't think it's important to get real and appropriate training for their men

      I don't. The commanders understand perfectly well that their troops are there purely for show, and that it doesn't even matter whether or not it's a good show. Given that fact, spending money on training would be wasteful. Much better to spend that training budget on training them for their wartime job, whatever that may be for the units in question.

      Oh, and don't worry about the guardsmen shooting innocents in a firefight -- they don't have any ammunition so they can't shoot anyone.

      I also blame Homeland Security who are trying to do security on the cheap by not establishing a professional and highly trained security force.

      This I can agree with somewhat, but only if we assume there is actually any real value in deploying security forces at the train stations. If not, the better approach is to just drop the act.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:NJ Army National Guard by instarx · · Score: 1

      "I blame the NG commanders who are clearly incompetent and don't think it's important to get real and appropriate training for their men"

      I don't. The commanders understand perfectly well that their troops are there purely for show, and that it doesn't even matter whether or not it's a good show. Given that fact, spending money on training would be wasteful. Oh, and don't worry about the guardsmen shooting innocents in a firefight -- they don't have any ammunition so they can't shoot anyone.

      The Madrid train bombing and London bus bombings prove the risk to transportation systems is real no matter what you think. Spending money on training would be wasteful!? Training that could save civilians and even the soldiers own lives, and maybe prevent significant damage to a major transport hub and the economic consequences that would result? I'll grant that a lot of money is being wasted to prevent attacks on sites that would never be attacked, but major transportation hubs in New York City aren't in that group.

      Do you have any evidence that the NG troops in Grand Central Terminal are unarmed or are you just making stuff up as you go along?

    8. Re:NJ Army National Guard by swillden · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence that the NG troops in Grand Central Terminal are unarmed or are you just making stuff up as you go along?

      I don't know anything specific about the troops in NJ. However, I have friends and relatives in guard units in a half-dozen other states who were also asked to pull post-9/11 guard duty, and without exception they carried guns without ammunition. In some cases they didn't even put magazines in their rifles, to make them look "less scary".

      For corroboration, there's another post in response to this article about NY guardsmen who were denied ammunition. I don't know any NY guardsmen, but I don't doubt it in the slightest.

      The Madrid train bombing and London bus bombings prove the risk to transportation systems is real no matter what you think.

      Perhaps. I think it makes sense to wait for at least some credible intelligence of plans to attack rail stations before spending money on defending them. Until then, spend the money on intelligence-gathering, especially infiltrating terrorist organizations. It provides much more security value for the investment.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  60. Presidential Visit by PPH · · Score: 1

    Back when Geo. Bush visited our little town a while back (Bellevue, WA), the Secret Service, with support from our illustrious local police force, provided the usual high visibility security detail around the Marriott Hotel.

    About an hour before they were due to close the surrounding roads down, I found myself driving by the entrance to the facility. As I passed by, I observed the preparations including pedestrian barricades and police officers stationed every few dozen feet. I also happened to spot one of our local city hobos with his head in a dumpster in the adjacent alley, probably digging around for empty cans for the recycling fee.

    Unchallenged by the cops, of course.

    Like al Qaida doesn't have any bearded, disheveled-looking operatives available on their staff.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Presidential Visit by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 1
      I was flying through Salt Lake City when George H decided to visit. They stopped all aircraft while he swanned about, so we spent the best part of an hour sitting on a taxiway. At my next connection on the east coast, I had to run between gates to catch my connection, when I had planned to get some dinner. (My flight out of SLC was of course also sitting somewhere in the outfield, so that was not a problem)

      Security Theatre of the Absurd.

      --
      Squirrel!
    2. Re:Presidential Visit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I liked that they broadcast his travel down 405 where there were plenty of unguarded overpasses on LIVE TV (and on the traffic monitoring website)... Genius!

  61. The Wilshire VA hospital in LA by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Back in the mid-80s, a patient flipped out and attacked a doctor. After that, they brought in metal detectors that you had to pass through to get to the waiting room. These were kept in use for roughly 20 years, even though there were no more incidents. Not only that, they weren't at any of the entrances to the hospital itself; they were at the entrance to the waiting room for outpatients. That means that if you had a belt with a big buckle, you'd have to take it off to see your primary doctor, but if you wanted to go to the pharmacy or had an appointment in any other department you could walk in with a great big pocket knife, a leatherman or both if you felt like it. Every time I spoke to a manager or supervisor there, I complained about this, as did a number of other vets, and it was eventually stopped, although the machines are still there. Now, you have to show your ID to get into the building, as if that's going to do any good.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  62. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Informative

    In a similar vein, Microsoft file server passwords were originally checked only on the client, a fact which went undiscovered until Samba came along.

    It wasn't just Microsoft. NFS at one point in my life was synonymous with "no fucking security". It trusted the UserID that you transmitted with it. UserID 0 was a handy value to use...

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  63. Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been frisked at a sports event. Car was stopped while driving to the parking. We were frisked, allowed to get back into the car, and parked.

    It is secure, isn't it?

  64. Email Confidentiality Notices by wmpp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These things have bugged me for a long time. I mean, have they ever really been tested in court? The last time I checked, I couldn't find anything apart from "experts" recommending their use.

    If I put a confidentiality notice on a postcard, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy?

  65. Security as an excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Make no mistake, the TSA is not there for security purposes, if so, then the back end of the airport would be secure as well, it's not.

    The TSA exists only to make sure you get good and used to being bullied by thugs with guns while having your rights violated.

    No other reason.

  66. Vista. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Need I say more?

  67. 3 oz Liquid Restrictions by SandwhichMaster · · Score: 1

    My brother and I were flying out of the country for vacation, and we got stopped at luggage inspection. When the security guard angrily called us over, my brother turned pale, realizing he'd checked the wrong bag.

    The guard shouted at him, yelling something about "the weapon" in his bag. He pulled out a 5 oz tube of sun block, and let us on the plane.

    The reason my brother turned pale, wasn't because of the sun block. Resting directly underneath it was a 6 inch knife (don't ask me why he needed it for vacation). Apparently sun protection is a bigger risk than I thought.

    1. Re:3 oz Liquid Restrictions by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you *sure* it wasn't the sunblock that made him pale?

  68. Airport Security & Mystery Liquids by Uhlek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not having flown a commercial airliner recently, I'd completely forgotten about the liquid/aerosol rule and decided to carry my luggage onboard. After standing in line for awhile, I noticed the signs and remembered. Crap! I had my mouthwash, an aerosol can of deodorant, and my aerosol shaving cream with me. Given the length the line had grown to, I decided to just forgo those items than risk being late.

    A bit about those three items. Both the shaving cream and deodorant were in aerosol cans, both larger than the size allowed, but obviously retail items. The mouthwash was too large as well, and was a generic amber bottle, about 14 or so ounces, with a prescription sticker (I have gingivitis).

    I pull all three items out, and just tell the TSA guy that I know I need to toss them. He glances at all three and tells me I have to ditch the deodorant and the shaving cream, but I can keep the mouthwash.

    Because it's prescription.

    So, the two retail aerosol cans that are nearly impossible to inject anything into are verboten, but the amber bottle with the mystery liquid in it, that's okay, because it has a sticker with a Walgreens logo on it. Fan-fucking-tastic.

    1. Re:Airport Security & Mystery Liquids by raygundan · · Score: 1

      No kidding. I learned this on accident as well. I had a big ol' bottle of some prescription mouthwash after some minor oral surgery. It was opaque, and held at least a liter-- but because of the prescription sticker, it was allowed on. I eventually finished the stuff and tossed the bottle, but probably should have cleaned it and kept it for bringing something to drink on the plane.

    2. Re:Airport Security & Mystery Liquids by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      The mouthwash was too large as well, and was a generic amber bottle, about 14 or so ounces, with a prescription sticker (I have gingivitis).
      I believe you mean "the gum disease gingivitis."
    3. Re:Airport Security & Mystery Liquids by Repton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was flying internationally (Wellington to Sydney) recently. The security guards stopped me after x-raying my bag --- turned out that I had some roll-on deoderant in there that I had forgotten about. Oops.

      So I apologise and hand it over. The security officer places the deoderant in a plastic bag, hands it back to me, and sends me on my way.

      Clearly the bag was made of some kind of special anti-explosive plastic...

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    4. Re:Airport Security & Mystery Liquids by Atriqus · · Score: 1

      I fly about 10 times a year, and I can say with complete confidence that every bit of the airport is entirely theater. You want to see their entire system broken in two words?

      Obsidian Knife.

      But anyway, since everyone mentions the security bottleneck, I'll say the other one that bothers the hell out of me: the arbitrary no electronics time. At this point, I don't bother to turn anything off. In fact, I've turned on devices just out of spite. I don't even bother to hide it; the moment I get on a plane, I put on my headphones and mp3 player and lay back.

      For the longest time, no one said anything to me. But then about 3 months ago, a flight attendant asked me prior to take-off of my headphones were on. When I said yes, she told me to turn them off because they interfere with the plane's systems and it's for everyone's safety or something generic like that.

      I said back to her, "It doesn't interfere with anything and perfectly safe to leave on, but I'll play the game." I then turned off the noise canceling on the headphones, which turned off a red led, and she predictably mistook that for the power button.

      Normally I'm not that much of a prick, but listening to misinformation being propagated over and over makes me care considerably less.

      --
      Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
    5. Re:Airport Security & Mystery Liquids by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      We have the 100ml liquid limit on international flights from Australia, primarily because it's mandated by US and UK airports.

      It shits me to tears for several reasons:

      1) If people wanted to bring in something dangerous, there's plenty that would be less than 100ml. Sarin anyone?
      2) Even if there was a zero liquid policy, there's plenty of powders that could also cause havoc. Anthrax anyone?
      3) Cabin air is very dry and it messes with my contacts. Unfortunately the smallest lens solution bottle I can find is 120ml.
      4) Airlines dont hand out enough water and taking your own on board is very good for your health

      It's such an absurd and arbitary requirement. For the last 20 years we've been allowed to take in litres of strong alcoholic spirits (and you still can if the duty-free shop is in a sterile area) that could cause quite a significant fire, and yet there's almost never been a problem. Just because one angsty idiot wanted to make a weapon out of a couple of liquids, we're all suffering.

      Complete theatre.

    6. Re:Airport Security & Mystery Liquids by weharc · · Score: 1

      Related to liquids and airports, I love how in most airports in Australia once you're inside the 'secure' zone you can usually buy drinks from cafes / bars while waiting for your plane.

      Including drinks served in glass bottles. Which would be trivial to then take onto the plane, smash and use as a weapon.

    7. Re:Airport Security & Mystery Liquids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually "the gum disease known as GINGIVITIS"

  69. Today at The Daily WTF by adavies42 · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
    -kfg
  70. Fingerprint scanners by hobb0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Security systems that will let you in with nothing more than a fingerprint scan. Gee, what's more difficult: guessing the correct password within 3 attampts, or lifting a fingerprint and making a gelatin mold? (hint: see Mythbusters to see how difficult it isn't to create a gelatin mold)

    1. Re:Fingerprint scanners by F1re · · Score: 1

      Didn't one of the scanners work with just a photocopy of the fingerprint?

      --
      ...there is no sig...
    2. Re:Fingerprint scanners by Lehk228 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      some will work if you blow on the glass.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:Fingerprint scanners by maxume · · Score: 1

      It may be easier to just take the hand.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Fingerprint scanners by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      The used to have thumb scanners for auto ignitions in South Africa until car jackers started taking thumbs with the cars...

    5. Re:Fingerprint scanners by dysan27 · · Score: 1

      Or even a photocopy, again see Mythbusters

    6. Re:Fingerprint scanners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better: take an original and authentic finger instead. So called 'live checks' are notoriously weak.

    7. Re:Fingerprint scanners by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The most recent example of this was when the German Chaos Computer Club published the fingerprints of Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany's Innenminister (sort of like the UK home secretary or the USA's DHS head). They even distributed it as a film with their magazine, since there is no law against publishing fingerprints.

      This English-language article at Heise Online gives all of the gory details...

    8. Re:Fingerprint scanners by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, the most expensive one was the easiest to defeat. The cheap ones at least needed better than a photocopy.

    9. Re:Fingerprint scanners by 1110110001 · · Score: 1

      Actually the most recent example is Austrians Innenminister Günther Platter: http://platterwatch.at/PLATTERS-FINGERABDRUCK.html
      There are also some other Austrian politicians who made their fingerprint public: http://platterwatch.at/IHREN-ABDRUCK-BITTE.html

  71. Old new! Where have you been since 1939? by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Worked for Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz" movie.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_(1939_film)
              "A confused Dorothy awakens to discover the house has been caught up in the twister. Through the bedroom window, she sees a parade of people fly by, including Miss Gulch, who seemingly transforms into a frightening witch. Moments later, the twister drops the house, Dorothy and Toto back onto solid ground."
    Doesn't seem very controllable though.YMMV

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Old new! Where have you been since 1939? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Ah. Suddenly it makes sense! Wicked Witch Security!

  72. You CAN have it both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can have TWO kinds of wrong.

    When they get security in Vista RIGHT, we can't have it both ways.

  73. The Retail Scare... by rMortyH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course there are the obvious TSA stories, but I think the more common stuff may actually be worse.

    Working as a contractor for a giant Electronics retailer that shall remain nameless, I saw a memo regarding their policy of searching people's bags as they left, and sometimes entered, the stores.

    The public reason given for searching those who left the store was, of course, loss of merchandise. The public reason given for searching those entering was safety...

    However the REAL reason for both of these, was to (paraphrasing from memory) 'Establish [company name] as the authority figure in the sales transaction and subsequent customer service encounters...'

    Yikes! 'We're in charge here, we've got big scary minimum-wage thugs, You'd better Buy as we say!'

    Now if that's not 'Security Theatre' at it's worst, I don't know what is....

    =R

    1. Re:The Retail Scare... by marxmarv · · Score: 1

      Working as a contractor for a giant Electronics retailer that shall remain Fry's TFTFY.
      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    2. Re:The Retail Scare... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Both Frys and Circuit City have done that at various times. Of course, they can't actually stop you if you don't feel like it.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    3. Re:The Retail Scare... by Plumber,+Programmer, · · Score: 1

      I shopped at a "giant electronics retailer" that used to do that.
      They're out of business now.

  74. Insurgents, Resistance Fighters, Terrorists by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Some of the people in the current Iraqi Civil War are insurgents opposing the legitimate government of Iraq that was established some years after the US invaders set it up, some of them are Resistance fighters who were opposing the US invaders before they set up their puppet government, some of them are warlords fighting each other, some are street gangs looting, some are just pissed-off individuals, some of them are tribal groups fighting their traditional enemies, some of them are armies of the US invaders and the Coalition of the Willing, some of them are foreigners who came to fight a jihad against the Great Satan, and some of them are carpetbaggers like Halliburton.


    Separately, some of the fighters on multiple sides have used terrorist tactics against the civilian population, so they're terrorists. Some of those terrorists work for governments, and some are carpetbaggers who think they're part of a jihad.


    And some of those fighters, terrorist or otherwise, not only don't like the US, but are getting good training and a great recruiting tool to get people to join them.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Insurgents, Resistance Fighters, Terrorists by dutin · · Score: 1

      -3

  75. Fixing what ain't broke by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 1

    At one of my previous jobs, the front entrance to the building consisted of two doors: an inner door and an outer door. The outer door was left unlocked during regular business hours, and was locked at all other times - if you needed evening or weekend access you would have to contact security and ask them to unlock it for you. The inner door had a keypad lock, and between the two doors was a phone and an employee directory so visitors could call someone and ask them to come open the inner door.

    All in all, it was a reasonably secure system - admittedly, everyone using the same 3-digit code on the keypad lock isn't ultra-secure, but it would at least deter casual thieves.

    However, management decided it wasn't secure enough. The solution: employee access cards! The old keypad was removed and replaced by a fancy new card reader... unfortunately, they put the card reader on the outer door. So now we have an inner door with no lock and an outer door that only employees can open - still pretty secure, right? Wait, we forgot: visitors need to be able to get past the outer door. Solution: leave the outer door unlocked during business hours.

    In the name of increased security, we went from a half-decent system where only people who knew the door code could get in, to a system where anyone could walk right in the front door. Still, with all these fancy new access cards, the system must be more secure, right?

    --
    I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
  76. My pharmacy by anomaly · · Score: 1

    I was told that only a doctor's office could fax a prescription in to "prevent fraud."

    The original is a letter-sized piece of paper with the doctor's signature on it. If I wanted to be fraudulent, I could fake a prescription to look exactly like this piece of paper, and hand carry the fake to the pharmacy - no problem!

    Sometimes it makes me crazy!

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
    1. Re:My pharmacy by raygundan · · Score: 1

      You sure about that? Don't physically delivered prescriptions have to be on the doctor's numbered/watermarked/authorized prescription pad?

      The faxed prescriptions might be simpler, but have to come directly from a trusted source like a doctor's office, rather than being delivered by the patient.

      And even then, if there is any question, they almost always verify with the office of the prescribing doctor.

    2. Re:My pharmacy by kognate · · Score: 1

      If you are in the US it's not that simple. Sure, it's easy to fake a script for Penicillin, but any Scheduled drugs require a DEA number that the pharmacist will authorize before filling the prescription. The system is not really designed to prevent one-off frauds, however, it's designed to catch abuse (doctors selling scripts) and wider fraud (someone pushing fake scripts all over town).

    3. Re:My pharmacy by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      they almost always verify with the office of the prescribing doctor.

      You mean, they call the number on the prescription, to make sure it's from a real doctor's office? Whew, that was close.

  77. Offtopic bitchslap re: guns vs criminals by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > People putting loaded handguns in their homes in the case of a wood-be
    > assailant or robber breaking in.

    I won't even bother trying to reason with you because it would only devolve into my statistics are better than yours, nyee nyaa. Been there, done that, you guys are immune to rational thought.

    So I'll just ask you to put your ass where your propaganda is. Put a "Gun Free Zone" sign in your yard. Better, get all yer loony neighbors to make your whole neighborhood a Gun Free Zone.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Offtopic bitchslap re: guns vs criminals by wwahammy · · Score: 1

      Um I fail to see how he said anything related to making his neighborhood a gun free zone. All he did was point out that you (or someone you know)are more likely to hurt yourself or your family (the suicide comparison was dumb) than you are using a gun to protect yourself.

      Oh and just so you know, some of us people who think owning a gun is moronic support your right to have one.

    2. Re:Offtopic bitchslap re: guns vs criminals by lgw · · Score: 1

      Moronic? No. Just different values.

      Owning a gun increases the chance on injuring myself accidentaly, but a lot less than owning a car does. In any case the risk is in my hands, and I'm comfortable with it. It's safer than a lot of hobbies.

      On the other hand, the risk of home invasion (accidental or otherwise) is not one I'm comfortable with. The risk of that is also quite low, of course, but I'd far rather shoot myself in the foot than have some stranger in my house and be unable to defend myself.

      I place a very high negative value on the intruder thing, and a low negative value on the accident thing. It's more than just the odds, it's how much you (subjectively) lose if they come up.

      Also, the "accidental gun injury" numbers are a crock, as many of those "accidents" are deliberate, but that's a different topic. "Shot himself cleaning his gun" means "committed suicide, but we want his family to get the life insurance payment".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Offtopic bitchslap re: guns vs criminals by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      A gun owner is still most likely to die from a heart attack. Number 2 is cancer. Number three is "Other medical." (Love that one) A car wreck is still well above gunshot...

    4. Re:Offtopic bitchslap re: guns vs criminals by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      I think you miss the point of "security theatre". As I replied to another poster, the increase in one area is offset by the increased risk in others. This makes firearms less cost-effective as a security measure.

      Better investments would be in alarm systems, or simply in installing better windows and doors. The problem with a firearm as a theft deterrent is that the intruder doesn't know you have one, unless you advertise the fact. Even then, it is cheaper to advertise owning a gun without actually owning one...

    5. Re:Offtopic bitchslap re: guns vs criminals by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 1

      A nice large kitchen knife or cleaver is always close at hand if someone breaks in and it's probably far quicker to access than to unlock the gun cabinet and load the gun. Hell, keep the axe inside, or shovel. There are plenty of "weapons" around the house to defend yourself with if our inclined to confront an intruder.

    6. Re:Offtopic bitchslap re: guns vs criminals by lgw · · Score: 1

      Nothing even clomes close to the deterrent power of a 12-guage pump-action shotgun. I *really* want to scare someone off, not to fight them! Of course, a dog would work just as well, but I'm not a dog person.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Offtopic bitchslap re: guns vs criminals by Darby · · Score: 1


      So I'll just ask you to put your ass where your propaganda is. Put a "Gun Free Zone" sign in your yard. Better, get all yer loony neighbors to make your whole neighborhood a Gun Free Zone.


      They have those all over Garfield Park and other shitty areas in Chicago. Of course guns are already illegal and people in those areas get killed all the fucking time. *That's why* they have the signs up.

      I'm not much for obeying stupid laws, and I'm not arguing the whole gun control issue with you.
      Just saying you might think about coming up with a different example.

  78. Armed guard at the door, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After being checked you could walk for no more than 10 steps then read the root password of all production servers - yes, there was a single password for all of them - printed in big letters on a giant sheet attached to one of the racks.

  79. Cerner Healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The abilities of Cerner's flagship Millennium health care systems had a big security problem relating to passwords until recently. The user's password could only be letters and numbers up to 8 characters (after that was ignored) and it was case insensitive. I will leave you to the math of how easy health records would be to access...

    1. Re:Cerner Healthcare by Jouster · · Score: 1

      I will leave you to the math of how easy health records would be to access... 1/2,821,109,907,456 chance of getting the password with each try. I hope you type fast.

  80. Most everything done since the 9/11 attacks. by mtc0420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Patriot Act, DHS, color coded security threat levels, etc.

  81. Ever fly to the US from overseas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a Canadian living and working in Washington, DC, and was recently returning from a vacation in the UK. Before I was permitted to check in and hand over my luggage, I had to endure 10 minutes of interrogation by "Continental Airlines Security".

    After running my passport through their system, they asked me about where I lived, why I live in Washington, DC, why I work there, what I do, to produce proof that I live in DC, why I don't have a visa in my passport (Canadians don't require one), where I visited in the UK, why I chose the UK for vacation, who I knew in the UK, where I stayed while I was there.... and on and on...

    In the end, I started to give roundabout answers to questions I didn't think were the airline's business, and she eventually waved me through. Incidentally, when I got to immigration in the US, they smiled, said hi, and stamped my passport with no questions.

    What was the airline hoping to prove?

  82. "Anti-theft" chip by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

    I once had a bicycle that was equipped with an "anti-theft" chip. So when it was stolen, I was wondering what that chip actually is and how it could help in getting my bike back. I was surprised to learn it is some kind of RFID chip located inside the lock.

  83. MAD by bledri · · Score: 1

    Mutual Assured Destruction?

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  84. FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For the longest time, I was on the "do not fly" list. I never knew why, but my name is very common. Turns out somebody used an alias the same as my name in the Bahamas to commit international wire fraud - I found this out when it took 6 hours to open a $100 bank account. It wasn't identity theft - just coincidence.

    So here I am, not only taking my shoes off, but also being escorted to the back room for the "enhanced" security check every time I fly on an airliner. The only problem is that I'm an FAA-licensed pilot, and have all the clearance to enter just about any area of the airport! (once I get past the extended searchdown, that is)

    What a joke...

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by SnappyCrunch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the no-fly list weren't a joke (and sadly, it is) then I would hope that people dressed like pilots get more scrutiny than other people. People dressed in a uniform are often given no scrutiny in places where plainclothes would get questions. If people dressed as pilots can get through security without any fuss, then you can rest assured that someone who wants to do harm will dress as a pilot.

    2. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you notice, I was talking about when flying "commercial airliners", which should have been a clue to my attire. But I'm a private pilot, I don't fly for a job, and never wear a "pilot outfit", even when I'm flying "left seat".

      I have no problem identifying myself with my FAA pilot's license, and even tried to show that to security once. If anything, it annoyed the guard and I got a more thorough checkout! (WTF?)

      What's odd is that I could go across the street from the commercial terminal to the General Aviation terminal AT THE SAME !@## AIRPORT and identify myself with my state driving license and pilot license, and then DRIVE MY VAN OUT ON THE TARMAC to load up my plane!

      All after identifying myself, that is, which I'd much rather do than watch some condescending guard pull on yet another pair of blue surgical gloves. (Seriously, why do they wear these things? It's not like they give me a rectal exam...)

      Seriously, when you fly private, it's a whole different ball of wax...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    3. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by ShinmaWa · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've always thought the way the TSA treats pilots was a bit.. odd. A couple years ago, a TSA agent was giving a pilot a hard time over a small jeweler's screwdriver in an eyeglass repair kit.

      The pilot said to him, "Well, you can confiscate this if you want, but -- and I don't mean to alarm you -- I have a fire axe in the cockpit."

      --
      The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
    4. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look on the bright side. Whenever you feel like playing hooky from work, you now have the perfect excuse from being on the "do not fly" list.

    5. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Kudos. That was funny. No mod points, though.

    6. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      As a student pilot, it is indeed a whole different ball of wax flying privately. But I would rather pay my loan payment on my plane, my fuel, my insurance, and even my training costs, than fly commercially.

    7. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 1

      That sucks

    8. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      It's completely reasonable if you approach it from the proper point of view.

      From the TSA's point of view they aren't searching pilots. They're searching people who appear to be pilots.

      This is a key distinction. If you let pilots go through the checkpoint with no search, then all you do is encourage the bad guys to dress up like a pilot and acquire some fake pilot ID.

      It's simpler and more effective for them to just search everybody than it is to have a complex failure-proof system for deciding who is and who is not a legitimate pilot.

      I'm as anti-TSA as anybody and overall I think that their policies are insane and worthless, but searching flight crew is actually a completely reasonable thing to do.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    9. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by hughk · · Score: 1

      Its ok, just be a cleaner instead.

      It appears that the checks on cleaning staff are minimal (spot checks) with access both airside and sometime to the aircraft. The pay is crap and there is a huge turnover so nobody is willing to check the staff properly. They end up often with guest passes or 'john-doe' passes (reused passes of colleagues who have quit).

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    10. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      All after identifying myself, that is, which I'd much rather do than watch some condescending guard pull on yet another pair of blue surgical gloves. (Seriously, why do they wear these things? It's not like they give me a rectal exam...) I always wondered this as well. Its actually in case you bleed on him and give him some contagious disease. This is actually yet another piece of "Security Theatre" designed to make him feel better about searching people who look like they would be infectious.
      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    11. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Typical GA planes are not feasible for longer trips. They are awesome for "mid-range" trips, where you replace a day-long drive with a few hours' flight, trips too short to make commercial flights feasible. But they suck at longer trips.

      For example: Sacramento, CA to Houston, TX, round trip.

      Southwest = $330, 6 total hours flight, 4 hours total time at airports. If it's a business trip, you'll fly in the day before, and leave the night of or the day after your business event.

      Cessna 172 = $1,200 in fuel (avgas) costs alone. Around 25 hours of flight time, plus about 2 hours at FBOs. How would this make sense? It's a 2 day trip either way!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    12. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
      I agree completely that it's not cheaper to fly GA than commercial.

      Take the cost for me to fly GA instead of commercial for a single flight. Subtract what it would have cost me to fly commercial (Assume $1600 for fuel, hours on the plane, landing fees if need, etc. and $330 for the commercial ticket). So I'm paying a $1270 premium. I'm paying that to not deal with airport security, not sit on the tarmac for hours at a time, and not have the inconvenience of getting bumped because someone who is "1K" gets priority for my seat. At the same time, I'm building hours towards a commercial pilots license (while the requirements are dropping hour-wise at most carriers, you still need 250-500 hours to fly co-pilot). For someone who makes a decent salary $80-120K/year, this premium isn't that expensive. If you're flying for business, you can even declare it as a business expense under certain conditions (check ahead with your tax guy).

      So don't look at it from simply a financial standpoint. I never said it would be cheaper to fly GA. But I happily would (and do, in the form of my 172 and turbofan 2 seater) pay a premium not to deal with the hell that is the commercial aviation world.

    13. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Ok, this thread has become a conversation!

      I fly for pleasure, mostly. I have no intention of wearing epaulets anytime soon. So for me, it IS a simple dollars and cents and time equation. And the difference between 6 hours of flight time and 25 is pretty significant.

      Someday, I'll probably fly GA to Sun & Fun in Florida from my home near Sacramento. I'd even like to fly around the world in a Cozy Mark IV. But even the Mark IV goes just shy of 2x as fast as the tin-can Cessna most GA pilots knock around in. (~ 200 Knots vs ~110)

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    14. Re:FAA pilot on the do not fly list. by Darby · · Score: 1


      So here I am, not only taking my shoes off, but also being escorted to the back room for the "enhanced" security check every time I fly on an airliner.


      You should stop changing your socks ;-)

  85. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty much everyone's password was "rms". Yes, seriously.

  86. Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Simonetta · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Whatever the reason that the 'guard' was searching handbags, the fact remains that discovering that someone has a gun puts you in the position of immediately deciding what you are going to do if the person with the gun doesn't want you to know about it or inform anyone else about it.

        If they have the gun and you don't have one, all the more reason to just be cool about the situation. If you find someone with a gun in America and they are white middle-class, then there's a good chance that you could lose your job by hassling them about it. If you find someone with a gun in America and they are not white middle-class, then there's a good chance that you could lose your life by hassling them about it.

        Either way, it's easier to be Mr. Righteous Bad Ass Security Guard with someone with illegal potato chips than someone with a gun. At least it is for me.

    1. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      If they have the gun and you don't have one, all the more reason to just be cool about the situation. If you find someone with a gun in America and they are white middle-class, then there's a good chance that you could lose your job by hassling them about it. If you find someone with a gun in America and they are not white middle-class, then there's a good chance that you could lose your life by hassling them about it.
      Excuse me, but I live in America, too, and here, if someone is caught with a gun, he goes straight to the jail, and he won't get out for a darn good while.
    2. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by AJWM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At the point the Snack^WSecurity Guard is searching the bag, he has the gun, and the owner of the bag doesn't.

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by trb · · Score: 3, Funny

      I believe the word you're looking for is "snackurity."

    4. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by epilido · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they have the gun and you don't have one, all the more reason to just be cool about the situation. If you find someone with a gun in America and they are white middle-class, then there's a good chance that you could lose your job by hassling them about it. If you find someone with a gun in America and they are not white middle-class, then there's a good chance that you could lose your life by hassling them about it.
      Excuse me, but I live in America, too, and here, if someone is caught with a gun, he goes straight to the jail, and he won't get out for a darn good while. 2% of us citizens have permits for concealed carry. Thats about 6 million. Not everyone with a gun goes to jail. I havent for the last 14 years.....
    5. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by realjd · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but I live in America, too, and here, if someone is caught with a gun, he goes straight to the jail, and he won't get out for a darn good while. Do you not have concealed carry permits where you live?
    6. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would depend on which state they're in, and whether they had a license to carry a concealed weapon, if I remember correctly.

    7. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by lgw · · Score: 2, Funny

      He might live in California, where the second amendment is a distant memory, something about arming bears (there's a bear on the flag, right?).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Heaven forbid Canada would let anyone and his dog carry a deadly weapon, less hiding it...

    9. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Problem: You're some security goon. You get paid like 4 bucks an hour. You are, of course, unarmed. You are facing someone with a pistol.

      Question for 500: Do you ask him to surrender it? Or do you let them in, because either nothing happens and nobody gets hurt, or something happens and you lose your 4 bucks an hour job?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now here's a funny one for you from my country: You may own hunting rifles, you may have scopes and everything for it (pretty much giving you a top level sniper gun), with whatever calibre you like (want a .50 sniper gun? No problem) without a permit, you just have to claim you're a hunter, but getting the permit to carry a conceiled 9mm pistol is very near impossible.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The logic behind it is pretty simple if you stop and look at the statistics ... long guns make it onto the news maybe once or twice a year (you know, as in "crazed cabin-dwelling schizophrenic kills three, details at eleven"), while handguns make it onto the news daily (you know, as in "two people were taken to hospital in critical condition when shots rang out at a housing complex, four hooded suspects were seen fleeing on foot, details at eleven").

    12. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by DeadChobi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please note that it is VERY difficult to conceal a 4-foot long rifle in the front pocket of a hooded sweatshirt. And walking around on the street with one is likely to get you very odd looks, if not phone calls to and visits from the police.

      --
      SRSLY.
    13. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Please note that it is VERY difficult to conceal a 4-foot long rifle in the front pocket of a hooded sweatshirt. And walking around on the street with one is likely to get you very odd looks, if not phone calls to and visits from the police.

      No, that is not a rifle in my pocket! I'm just glad to see you!

    14. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Problem: You're some security goon. You get paid like 4 bucks an hour. You are, of course, unarmed. You are facing someone with a pistol.

      Question for 500: Do you ask him to surrender it? Or do you let them in, because either nothing happens and nobody gets hurt, or something happens and you lose your 4 bucks an hour job?

      You just let him do his thing. Nothing in the world is worth your life. And you don't lose your job either, we have laws to protect workers against such blatant abuses, and also a much better minimum wage, to protect workers against abusive employers.
    15. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Now here's a funny one for you from my country: You may own hunting rifles, you may have scopes and everything for it (pretty much giving you a top level sniper gun), with whatever calibre you like (want a .50 sniper gun? No problem) without a permit, you just have to claim you're a hunter, but getting the permit to carry a conceiled 9mm pistol is very near impossible.
      So?

      (Here's a funny one for you from my country: here, people are seldom killed by guns).

    16. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by julesh · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please note that it is VERY difficult to conceal a 4-foot long rifle in the front pocket of a hooded sweatshirt. And walking around on the street with one is likely to get you very odd looks, if not phone calls to and visits from the police.

      Or you could just come to England, where simply wearing the hooded sweatshirt is likely to get the same reaction.

    17. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2% of us citizens have permits for concealed carry. Thats about 6 million. Not everyone with a gun goes to jail. I havent for the last 14 years..... Taking all that into account, I think you may mean "not everyone with a gun goes to jail every year".
    18. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so very few people in your country are killed by guns? Then perhaps you live in Switzerland, where almost every house has a fully automatic assault rifle in it - well armed societies, unless there are other societal problems like disparity in the distribution of wealth or racial/cultural conflicts, usually have very low incidences of violence and crime.

    19. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by bjelkeman · · Score: 0

      The data does not support your argument. Most European countries have stricter gun control laws than the U.S but despite this we have lower homicide rates than the US. The United States has the highest rates among developed countries, which some account to the loose firearm laws in the U.S. compared to other developed countries. Source United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, via Wikipedia.Very nice clickable tables for sorting on.

      --
      Akvo.org - the open source for water and sanitation
    20. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but the US has higher rates of death by people killed by knives than most other countries. We have higher rates of assault (often with cars) than other countries. We are unfortunately, a pretty violent country, with or without guns.

      If you look at the situation holistically, it's not clear that guns are a primary cause of the violence. Gun ownership rates are highest in the rural areas, while gun violence rates are highest in the urban areas. This book, has some very interesting, and fairly rigorous statistical analysis.

      Many students of the situation note that the gun violence didn't rise in the US, until the war on drugs ramped up. A large amount of gun violence is directly related to drug commerce.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    21. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by znerk · · Score: 1

      A large amount of gun violence is directly related to the war on drug commerce. There, fixed that for you.
      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    22. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by jandrese · · Score: 1

      America already has a case study where handing thug types (gangs) a reliable revenue stream increases violence considerably. It was called prohibition, and obviously politicians have not learned from the past because they're making the same mistakes all over again with the so called War on Drugs.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    23. Re:Can't get shot by beer and snacks by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      I completely agree.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
  87. Air travel... but not what you think by nsayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've read a lot of replies that said that TSA security checks were theatre, and they're right, but nobody has mentioned the requirement to present identification. To me, this is the most glaring bit of airline security theatre, because it has almost no security value at all, but a huge ulterior motive for the airlines.

    1. Re:Air travel... but not what you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but you don't have to show ID if you're under 18. Which is hard to prove without ID, so they would just have to take one's word for it assuming that you look reasonably young...

      However, my main concern is getting on the plane with as few hassles as possible, so I just show my driver's license despite fitting into this age group. And come to think of it, how would making sure the person holding the ID match the name on the boarding pass help, other than making it impossible to give your ticket to someone else without a fee?

    2. Re:Air travel... but not what you think by nsayer · · Score: 1

      how would making sure the person holding the ID match the name on the boarding pass help, other than making it impossible to give your ticket to someone else without a fee? Ding ding ding... That's the huge ulterior motive of which I made mention.

  88. Slightly OT, but by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    So we added text "This cannot be undone. Continue?" and still the incidents did not go down (People just randomly click OK.)

    There are times when I get bad data and don't know how to react. So I throw up an error dialog (complete with exclaimation point) that explains what happened (in English) and that now would be a good time to save your work and restart. I have internal users complain that things act funny, when I go to their desk to watch them reproduce it, they get one of my messages. I then read the box to them, and they don't even notice I'm reading off of the screen.

    It cuts down on my debugging time at least.

    Oh, and to those who ask why I don't point out the box, their (and our mutual boss's) opinion is that no one reads error dialogs.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  89. Genius online gambling site by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

    I was withdrawing some money from an online gambling site. They phoned me for some reason and I had to give the answer to my 'secret question' to validate who I was. Problem was I had no idea what it was. It was like a game of 20 questions... "I have no idea...is it a name?" "No" "A place?" "Yes" "A city?" "Yes" and so on...

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    1. Re:Genius online gambling site by eric76 · · Score: 1

      Could it have been a "verbal captcha"?

      Maybe they just want to make sure you aren't a bot.

    2. Re:Genius online gambling site by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      what more do they need other than him answering the phone?

  90. I used to practice security theater by eric76 · · Score: 1

    I used to drive an old farm pickup most of the time. (I never had to worry about another dent in it.)

    Whenever I had to park it in a high crime area, I made a big show of locking the door even though the lock did not work. But I figured if someone saw me get out and close the door behind me without locking it, they'd figure it was certainly unlocked since pickups of that vintage did not lock automatically and maybe just go after it on general principle.

    I wasn't as worried about someone coming along testing the doors to see if any were unlocked. They'd probably skip it anyway.

    Noone ever broke into it in spite of the several hundred dollars worth of tools under the seat.

    I also used to park it next to the cafeteria on campus. If it was raining when the workers there would get off work, some of the workers would wait in it for their rides. They never stole or damaged anything so that didn't bother me at all.

    1. Re:I used to practice security theater by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 1

      In Australia, it is against the law to leave your vehicle unlocked. You could have been fined!!! I still haven't figured out why such a law was required.

    2. Re:I used to practice security theater by digitrev · · Score: 1

      Not trying to justify the law, just trying to figure out the justification. I think that the logic is something along the lines of "If you leave your vehicle unlocked, that means that a criminal could steal it and use it in a crime. By locking your car, you reduce the odds that a criminal will steal it, and hence reduce the odds of crimes happening." Just my thoughts though.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
  91. The silliness of airport security. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work at a coffee shop type store beyond the security gates of a major airport.

    The passengers were made to go though the normal security routine where as I, who had a photo-ID pass could walk past them and through a different security terminal. This one had a single guard and the metal detector but was rarely used because I typically carried goods from our storeroom.

    It takes about 4 months to get the same level of security pass as I had.

    Once past this point, any individual wishing to do harm could pass off a smuggled item to a passenger that has went through security. Passengers were not checked again past this point.

    Had an individual desired to, they could have handed a passenger an AK-47 and boarded the plane with it. I'm not kidding. Someone actually took a 7" santaku knife aboard a plane and just before take off the passenger calmly told a stewardess that their security sucked and handed the knife to her. (Yes he was arrested but not charged)

    It was like this from Dec 2001 until I left the terminal in 2005. That incident happened in 2004.

  92. Ball Park Security - its important! by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 1
    Just think what could have happened - the patron could have brought in a bag of poisoned chips and then shared them with neighbors in the stands.

    By making sure only food purchased from the concessions is consumed at ball games, we make sure the poisoning is more evenly spread.

    The way my team has been doing, a quick death from poisoning has to be preferable to watching them play an entire game.

    --
    Squirrel!
  93. TSA of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I fly every week as part of my job. One trip I left a large tactical folder (big scary knife with serrated edges) in my backpack and had forgotten about it. I made it through security screening to my destination and back without it getting detected (For those who can't figure it out, I was on the plane with a knife). While waiting for the plane, I opened my bag to get something and noticed the huge knife. I was shocked. After a few minutes of contemplating and looking at my bag contents, I realized how they missed it. I flew 6 more trips without it being caught. Finally one screener noticed something and had three other people come look at it. Nobody could identify the knife so they ended up searching the bag. The guy searching the bag almost missed it also. Sad. I won't say how I did it, but I feel pretty confident that with a few other mules to carry dissemble parts, I could get a gun or something on a plane pretty easy. I told the TSA supervisor exactly how I did it, he didn't seem interested at all and acted like I was wasting his time. Very sad...

  94. The Flip Side by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

    How about situations where you expect there to be at least some security "theater," but when you get there there is no performance at all?

    My elderly mother has been in and out of the major hospital in our city quite a few times over the last decade. You name a part of the building, she's been there: ER, ICU, various floors and wards, various testing and imaging areas, the adjacent short-term rehab facility, etc. Because I am such a nice son, I frequently visit her when she's there. Amazingly, no matter where I wander in that huge facility, no matter the time of day or night, no matter how I am dressed (in the most casual mode, I probably resemble a homeless man) I have never been stopped, challenged, or questioned about my intentions. The ONLY exception is the ER treatment area, and that probably because they simply don't want kibitzers getting in the way. Hospitals, at the very least, used to enforce visiting hours, and restrict visitors to immediate family and/or people specifically authorized or requested by the patient. Every time I have found myself wandering around the hospital (it's easy to get lost in that large and poorly-designed thing) trying to find where they have moved my mother or where she is having some test done, I often think how I could be ANYBODY, and with the vilest of intentions, and no one would stop me. You'd think they'd at least manufacture a reasonable facade of security: a uniformed security guard or two (I have never seen a single one) at the main entrances, checking an ID when entering certain areas or wings, having to check in with the nursing station before entering a patient's room, etc. But....nothing.

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  95. Theatre is a great form of security. by ewrong · · Score: 1

    Like good /.ers we seem to be mostly deriding the fact that theatre is used instead of "proper" security. As is not wrong. Though I beleive that good theatre is actually one of the best forms of security.

    By giving the impression that a security breach is difficult to acheive you will deter 99%+ of people. By implying that breaching the security will incur severe penalties; you will discourage 99.9%+ of people. That leaves the very small percentage that you would probably have been dealing with anyway but you spent less money.

    Take the Houses of Parliament in the UK as a great example. I've seen men dressed in super hero outfits and pregnant women unfolding banners from the roof on national televison, so obviously security isn't that great. But when walking past the place with 10,000 camera's pointed at me and machine gun toting police every 5 yards I don't feel particularly keen to test it.

    1. Re:Theatre is a great form of security. by KeithIrwin · · Score: 1

      Yes, nothing's better than the sort of security which deters casual walkers-by, but lets in people who have something to gain by evading it.

      Is your logic that without security theater everyone would just constantly be hijacking planes and bombing parliament? I mean, you seem to be saying that security theater prevents the 99.9% of people from doing bad things, but, let's face it, most people don't have any urge to do this sort of thing in the first place. They would be deterred from doing it if you told them that they'd get a stern talking to.

      But more to the point, you're misunderstanding the goals of security theater. People weren't allowed to take nail clippers onto airplanes after 9/11 not because it would deter terrorists. Nail clippers were banned to give people the impression that something was being done and that they were being kept safe even though they weren't actually any safer than before. Security theater is unlikely to deter anyone who is actually going to plan an attack. They'll just look at the system, see the gaping holes, and attack there. It's purpose is so that people using the system who aren't planning an attack will look at it, say "gee, this system looks secure, I guess I/my family/my money/whatever will be kept secure here, so I'll use it."

    2. Re:Theatre is a great form of security. by try_anything · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the number of "evildoers" is more important than their competence or the seriousness of their intentions. For example, if I stick a can of Coke down my pants when I go watch Ironman, my little transgression will cost the theater a couple of bucks. If I go crazy and decide that I absolutely hate the movie theater and will do anything to bring them down, I can still only cost them... a couple of bucks. Maybe ten bucks if I bring my own popcorn. It's not like I can smuggle a 20 mega-Coke neutron beverage in my pants and detonate it in the theater, thereby costing the theater tens of millions of dollars in soda sales and bankrupting the entire company.

      The same thing applies to other limited-harm events like shoplifting and disruption of public events. Every person you deter saves you a few bucks, no matter how casual they are. Even if they were bound to get caught anyway, it saves you the trouble of dealing with them.

      For more serious folks like the TSA, I'm sure that deterring casual mischief improves their signal-to-noise ratio, since they can look for one imaginary terrorist per ten thousand violators instead of one imaginary terrorist per one hundred thousand violators. (Erm, wait, 0/10000 = 0 = 0/1000000, so maybe not. Should I be using infinitesimals here? Yeah, that's probably it; I remember the Bush administration had problems with people who didn't understand nonstandard analysis.)

  96. Department of HS Fiasco by reynolds_john · · Score: 1

    My (then pregnant) wife got rear-ended on the freeway by a medium size rental car. In the car were three female Department of Homeland Security lawyers. Needless to say, they were very nice and horrified with what had occurred (my wife was fine fortunately).

    We started the process of getting reimbursed through the DHS. We found that a lot of stuff had to be sent in within a very, very short time period, and if the DHS hasn't responded to you in six months, then they aren't required to at all.

    Yes, you read that right. Basically they can (through proxy) damage your property, make you jump through hoops, then, without any fault of your own, simply ignore the fact that anything ever happened, and you are powerless to do anything about it. We have tried calling multiple times to their posted phone numbers without success. We filed through our insurance agent because she thought (through prior experience) we wouldn't get reimbursed - and at least if DHS didnt' cover us then our insurance company would. It's nearly the 6 month mark or more now, and no word.

  97. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not quite the story as I heard it. RMS tells the story in Revolution OS (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409).

    IIRC, the story is actually about the MIT AI guys hacking the authentication system, and then mailing each user their password and letting them know they can stick it to the man by changing their own password to a blank one.

  98. The 800 computers of my bureaucratic overlords by cptnapalm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All computers scattered all over a county are hand configured; there is no DHCP. Reason given: security.

    All computers are required to have only Internet Explorer 6. Reason given: security.

    All computers have their CD-Rom drive disabled. Reason given: security.

    All computers allow USB flash drives. Reason given: security.

  99. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by novakyu · · Score: 2, Informative

    UserID 0 was a handy value to use... ... which is why there is such a thing as "rootsquash" on the export option.

    BTW, what do you mean "at one point"? I thought NFS still accepted UID for filesystem permisson purposes, unless you have the "secure" option set, which then it requires one to "keylogin".
  100. Got any bombs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During the first gulf war, I visited several nuclear power plants with coworkers. At Palo Verde in AZ, the guards had submachine guns and bomb sniffing dogs. They used mirrors under the car, examined the contents of our bags, they separated us and asked us questions and confirmed the answers were consistent. They then made us park half a mile from the nearest building with barricades preventing closer vehicular access. The next week in Louisianna, the guard simply asked, "Got any bombs?" When we replied in the negative, he waved us in with a beautiful ZZ-Top swirl. I honestly feel that the second plant had better security.

  101. Data Centers by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    What Examples of Security Theater Have You Encountered? Data centers are notorious for security theater. The data center we host our servers at utilize multiple palm scanners to gain entry through their doors, yet the walls touching these doors look to be drywall thin enough to where an intruder could very well just kick through them. Another example is data centers that are built from old missile silos. I mean c'mon. How many companies' data is important enough to where it warrants a site that could withstand a nuclear holocaust?
    1. Re:Data Centers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another example is data centers that are built from old missile silos. I mean c'mon. How many companies' data is important enough to where it warrants a site that could withstand a nuclear holocaust?

      ummmmm
      What do you want the data centre to do? Spend $$$$ making the walls thinner on the old missile silo they bought on the cheep ?

  102. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION by Grym · · Score: 1

    Studies do show a definite increase in suicide with gun ownership (seems obvious).

    But what does a positive correlation between suicide and gun ownership really mean? Do guns cause people to commit suicide? Or do suicidal people actively seek guns? Furthermore, if suicidal people were unable to obtain guns, does such a correlation imply that they would then NOT commit suicide? Or is it possible that these people would simply find another method?

    Some studies have found the likelihood of being murdered also increases.

    Again, what does this correlation mean? Are guns causing these people to be murdered? Isn't it possible that people more likely to be murdered (because of their career, neighborhood, lifestyle, etc.) own guns out of the legitimate fears for their safety? Furthermore, if these people did not own guns, does such a correlation suggest that lives would have been saved? (I personally find it hard to believe that someone would kill you simply because you owned a gun, but I digress...)

    Simply pointing to the correlation between gun ownership and suicide or the likelihood of being murdered as arguments against gun ownership are rather weak and generally an intellectually dishonest tactic to imply conclusions that don't actually fit the data.

    -Grym

    1. Re:CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION by epilido · · Score: 1

      Studies do show a definite increase in suicide with gun ownership (seems obvious).

      But what does a positive correlation between suicide and gun ownership really mean? Do guns cause people to commit suicide? Or do suicidal people actively seek guns? Furthermore, if suicidal people were unable to obtain guns, does such a correlation imply that they would then NOT commit suicide? Or is it possible that these people would simply find another method?

      Some studies have found the likelihood of being murdered also increases.

      Again, what does this correlation mean? Are guns causing these people to be murdered? Isn't it possible that people more likely to be murdered (because of their career, neighborhood, lifestyle, etc.) own guns out of the legitimate fears for their safety? Furthermore, if these people did not own guns, does such a correlation suggest that lives would have been saved? (I personally find it hard to believe that someone would kill you simply because you owned a gun, but I digress...)

      Simply pointing to the correlation between gun ownership and suicide or the likelihood of being murdered as arguments against gun ownership are rather weak and generally an intellectually dishonest tactic to imply conclusions that don't actually fit the data.

      -Grym

      Well stated Grym.....People will find another way. Japan has had a recent run of suicide by gassing which has placed a few unintended victims in the hospital because they were in the same building. The last I had read of this was that the Japanese government was requesting that websites remove the recipe so as to decrease the amount of suicides. Btw Japan has a high suicide rates link and it is almost impossible for private ownership of firearms.
    2. Re:CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION by bledri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (I personally find it hard to believe that someone would kill you simply because you owned a gun, but I digress...)

      I think the scenario is that some burglar breaks in to steal your goodies, you try to be Rambo and it turns out he's a better shot. Another possibility is the lover's quarrel that escalates to murder in the heat of the moment. Or if you have a concealed weapon in our purse and it gets snatched, you just armed the thief. Come on, I'm sure you can think a few ways that having a gun could backfire, so to speak.

      Simply pointing to the correlation between gun ownership and suicide or the likelihood of being murdered as arguments against gun ownership are rather weak and generally an intellectually dishonest tactic to imply conclusions that don't actually fit the data.

      Who said I was against gun ownership? I was amused by the call for a citation that didn't include one, so I Googled a couple. I should have said "some studies show," although I did try to make my lack of expertise clear. I don't really care if people own guns, and as a matter of fact I support the 2nd amendment given the current reality. But I think it is just as dishonest to assume that guns are an equally good idea for all households. If you live in a low crime area, have children, etc. it's is perfectly possible that you are safer not to have a loaded gun lying around. And if it's not loaded and easily accessible it loses a lot of the home protection value.

      You are right about correlation and causation, but when making decisions you've got to start somewhere.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    3. Re:CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1

      But what does a positive correlation between suicide and gun ownership really mean? Do guns cause people to commit suicide? Or do suicidal people actively seek guns? Furthermore, if suicidal people were unable to obtain guns, does such a correlation imply that they would then NOT commit suicide? Or is it possible that these people would simply find another method?

      The correlation is actually with successful suicides. The proportion of suicide attempts isn't significantly correlated with gun ownership, but the proportion of successful attempts goes up dramatically, for obvious reasons.

      You can state your opinion that "these people would simply find another method," but empirically, while those who attempt suicide are statistically fairly likely to try again, the number of successful suicides even given repeated attempts is still lower when guns aren't accessible.

      You might not think this is a compelling reason to oppose gun ownership, but GP's claim was substantially correct.

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

    4. Re:CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION by Grym · · Score: 1

      You can state your opinion that "these people would simply find another method," but empirically, while those who attempt suicide are statistically fairly likely to try again, the number of successful suicides even given repeated attempts is still lower when guns aren't accessible.

      What does "when guns aren't accessible" mean? When someone is under suicide watch? When somebody is in a hospital, prison, or psychiatric facility? I think statistical correlations like these are inflated by other factors that are completely unrelated to the presence or lack of a firearm.

      You might not think this is a compelling reason to oppose gun ownership, but GP's claim was substantially correct.

      It's not a compelling reason to oppose gun ownership among healthy, stable people. Such arguments posit that the theoretical decrease in negative outcomes among an incredibly small minority of people (those who attempt suicide, or 4.6% of the general population** according to one study ) is a valid reason for the very real violation of the rights of healthy, law-abiding gun-owners.

      -Grym

      ** I just wanted to note that those who attempt suicide are much more likely to have co-morbid psychiatric disorders compared to the general population and, thus, would already be unable to legally obtain firearms anyway. Thus, of the people who could legally own firearms, the lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts is logically much lower than even this 4.6% figure.

  103. Presidential Security by ubergamer1337 · · Score: 1

    During the 2004 election circuit, GW Bush came to the town next to the one I live in, and gave a stump speech in a gym. The HS band I played in at the time was invited to come and play at the event.

    We came in uniform, and of course our uniforms have little metal bits all around them. We were sent through metal detectors, but after about 3 kids (out of 300 in the band and colorguard), they stopped caring if you beeped or not. It would have been easy to bring in a weapon.

    The worst part was that once we were inside, the Secret Service said we couldnt play when the pres was in the building, so that they could hear if a gun was fired. When he got there, they ended up blaring a recorded version of the national anthem on their setup speakers at a much louder volume then we could have produced!

  104. how smart is this? by Quadraginta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I dunno, man. There's a whole lot of amazing confidence in these broad statements:

    The reason that America hasn't been subsequently attacked had nothing to do with punishing the silly, stupid Taleban in Afghanistan, or fomenting a war in Iraq.

    No subsequent acts have occurred for any number of reasons, almost none of which have to do with the wars, as the wars were about pride and oil.

    And you know this because....? Because you're tight with the top thinkers inside al Qaeda? You've got good contacts in the backcountry of Pakistan? You speak all the relevant languages and have access to intelligence intercepts of the phone conversations? You've spent two decades studying the history of terrorism from original sources, interviewing suspects and counter-terrorism agents?

    Or is it just that these conclusions seems reasonable to you, based on your average-Joe reading of the news and your common sense (supplemented of course by your ideology)?

    I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't have access to all the information necessary to make a judgment one way or the other, and I know that.

    But I daresay if some politician made some equally sweeping general statement about why Microsoft is despised by Linux groupies, or whether or not the GNU license model made sense or not, based on a similar combination of what's in the nightly TV news plus his own "gut instinct," you'd jump all over him for being an arrogant ass and speaking far more assuredly than he should about stuff that is for the most part completely outside of his experience.

    I realize this is /. and all, but perhaps there's something to be said for following the same standards of knowing what the f*** you're talking about before you open your mouth that folks here demand of others when they, for example, opine or legislate on tech issues. Otherwise the general perception of this crowd as pointy-headed geeks who are immature children outside their area of professional expertise is...well, justified.

    1. Re:how smart is this? by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm a researcher. I don't pick and choose my views, rather, they're the culmination of vetted research rather than innuendo. The great conspiracies have been debunked. Yes, there are groups out there with bad intentions, but they don't warrant what the administration has done to civil rights. They have, however, allowed their aggressive and boorish behavior to motivate a lot of people that weren't interested before, in doing the US harm.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:how smart is this? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I dunno, man. There's a whole lot of amazing confidence in these broad statements:

      Nothing compared to the bold bravado of claiming that the security theater enforced by the TSA and DoHS is why we haven't been attacked since 9/11, especially since it's not true.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:how smart is this? by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      It was about eight years between the first World Trade Center bombing (February 26, 1993) and 9/11/2001. Al Quaeda already has a long history of taking plenty of time between attacks on U.S. soil. We'd need to wait until maybe 2012 to be reasonably sure our procedures were actually dissuading them.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  105. Hospital vs Federal Reserve by LaminatorX · · Score: 1
    Back in '02 I was working as a courier for a while. Whenever we went to "Orange Alert" (cue the bubble from the Prisoner), a hospital to whom I made deliveries would no longer allow me to stop in the non-emergency loading zone by the main enterance, forcing me instead to use the visitor parking around the side of the building. Thus, my 18' cargo van potentially loaded with explosives was parked outside the Maternity Wing rather than the lobby. Good to know that they placed a higher value on the gift shop than the nursery.

    In stark contrast to this were the Condition Orange procedures at our local Federal Reserve branch. There I was required to exit my vehicle and ring a bell, at which point an armed guard in body armor would emerge and search my and my vehicle.

    While I'd object to that level of scrutiny as a private citizen going about his way, I welcomed it in the context of passing through an honest-to-god secure checkpoint on official business in a secure area. It was nice to know that at least somebody wasn't half-assing.

    1. Re:Hospital vs Federal Reserve by lgw · · Score: 1

      Many Federal Reserve buildings store significant amounts of somehting valuable (US currency, gold, foreugn currency, etc). The have real security because they really want to stop people from robbing them. Real security for a real threat, vs security theater for an imaginary threat.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  106. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a similar vein, Microsoft file server passwords were originally checked only on the client, a fact which went undiscovered until Samba came along.

    It wasn't just Microsoft. NFS at one point in my life was synonymous with "no fucking security". It trusted the UserID that you transmitted with it. UserID 0 was a handy value to use... NFS still works that way. At least Microsoft has improved.
  107. "...a wood-be assailant..."[SIC] by littlewink · · Score: 1
    Did you intend
    • "an assailant with a woodie" or perhaps
    • an assailant made of wood or
    • an assailant who would be wood if he could or
    • what?

    Of course the first would be the most terrifying. Never had to deal with an assailant with a woodie before and woodn't[sic] know what to do were I confronted with one.

  108. Raised Tile Computer Floors by DeanFox · · Score: 4, Funny


    I had a contract at a high security government site. At one location an MP actually had a M16 pointed at me while I worked but that's a different story. At this location the computer room was raised and had a ramp leading to a secure door. Not having the proper card to get in I always needed an escort for access. The problem was no one was ever around when I needed in.

    One day after waiting 45 minutes for my escort I had an idea. I lifted one of the tiles in front of the door, slipped under and came up the other side of the raised floor. Another 45 minutes and my escort finely arrived beside himself I was already in the room. He lectured me about Top Secret this and Top Secret that, the ramifications and had to know how I got in... So I told him. They installed a barrier under the floor.

    The next time it happened I looked up and saw a tile ceiling. The lecture worked because I didn't go over but I was tempted.

    -[d]-

  109. Hand Scanner by raygundan · · Score: 1

    I worked at an office "secured" with a high-tech palm scanner connected to an electronic door lock. Very futuristic. Unfortunately for actual security, you could simply turn right instead of left when you got to the top of the stairs, and walk around to the other side of the "secure" door.

    Several laptops were eventually stolen by some random guy that just walked in, picked them up, and casually left.

  110. hello, earth to anarke by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

    But then you were like, "I'm sure Hansel's heard of styling gel," like you DIDN'T know!

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  111. NORAD and 911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NORAD was a complete failure on 911:

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=norad+911&search_type=

  112. Cruise ships -- excessive checkpoints. by ArghBlarg · · Score: 1

    The wife & I were on our first (and probably only) cruise this January. To board the first time, we had to go through three checkpoints; one inside the harbour building, then once at the first end of the boarding ramp, then *again* at the ship-side end of the boarding ramp. There were absolutely NO entries or exits accessible after passing the initial checkpoint.

    At each port of call, returning to the ship required two checkpoints at each end of the boarding tube.. again, no entries or exits, so they were just checking if someone magically transmuted into a terrorist in the 300 yards or so along the closed ramp. Totally useless.

    No body pat-downs either, but all bags had to be put through a scanner -- obviously to prevent cheap drinks making their way onto the ship, which is all they really cared about.

    --
    ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
  113. Libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've worked in a library where the 'security' gate was unplugged because it was nonfunctional. We hid the plug sitting on the floor with a plant. It's amazing the number of people that are still stopped by such setups. Obviously it doesn't stop those dedicated to getting something out, but stops a large portion of casual/"unintentional" thefts.

  114. 2 examples from France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, admiting I am French will not get me modded up in slashdot, but, well, as an AC, should I care ?

    1) Since the terrorist attack in 1996 in Paris (a bomb in a subway station), we enjoy the "vigipirate" plan (aka "Vigipicrate" [vigilante wine -- drunk vigikantes] or "vichypirate" [vichy piracy -- Vichy was the home of the French collaborating governement in WW2]) . It means that we have military with machine guns in train station since then. They are useless, but instilling fear of the governement twice a day is a priceless thing.

    2) Since a few year, the SNCF (the railway system) ask you to put your name and address on your luggage for "improved security". Of course it does not improve anything (ok, it improves you chances of beeing robbed while you goes on holidays, but I don't think they see this as a negative..)

  115. Sikh? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nah. A Fremen.

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  116. The Chase Bank website by phreakhead · · Score: 1

    Chase.com: They have the most annoying system where you have to call them and authorize whenever you try to login from a new IP address, and yet they send your password in cleartext!. (The login page is on the homepage and is not https. Every other credit card company I use has a https homepage...) I complained about it years ago but they still haven't done anything about it, except for adding the way overdone IP authorization feature!

    In a related note, how come none of the credit card companies let you use special characters in your password? Do they want hackers to guess it?

    1. Re:The Chase Bank website by lgw · · Score: 1

      In a related note, how come none of the credit card companies let you use special characters in your password? Do they want hackers to guess it? No, they want you to be able to enter it on a phone keypad. My bank also has one of those cool RSA random-number generator thingies to use with your password, but you can bypass it by just using the telephone.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:The Chase Bank website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The page loads in http. The login form posts to https. If you look at the HTML, you'll find it posting to:

      https://chaseonline.chase.com/siteminderagent/forms/formpost.fcc

      Sorry phreakhead... score -1 for not knowing how the web works.

  117. knife-boobs by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    I saw that on 4chan, too.

  118. Security theater is everywhere by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

    There's more theater than real security. Examples and anecdotes are legion. Its very nature lends itself to being a favorite haunt of every huckster and charlatan born. So long as people swallow the idea that more secrecy is always more security, they'll be in there, unintentionally demonstrating the many ways that isn't true.

    Here are a few of my favorites:

    The intentional confusion of secrecy with security. Too often these are used to cover up problems or corruption or illegal spying. They're used shore up fundamentally flawed insecure systems, as Diebold and other voting machine vendors have tried. There's withholding of info from people who have the right and really do need to know by claiming they don't, for purposes of weakening their position (perhaps they work for a someone who could be a competitor). We may never know all the details of the reasons Cheney tries so hard to keep everything secret, as in that time he went way over the top by claiming the vice presidency was not part of the executive branch. "It's not a bug, it's a feature" is improved by claiming it's not just a feature, but a security feature!

    The confusion between security for everyone, and security for small groups against everyone. Specifically, DRM, and the ludicrous claims that DRM enhances our security!

    The login dialog. "Pressing ctrl-alt-delete to log in makes your computer more secure!" No, no it doesn't! Encrypting the hard drive with a secure key does. Then having to log in would actually be a little real security. If it's not encrypted, all the login does is ask you to tell who you are, just to keep things organized, not secure.

    Arbitrary password requirements. Must be 8 characters long (but no more?!!), must have at least 1 capital letter, 1 lower case letter, 1 number, and 1 "special" (non-alphanumeric) character.

    The password isn't good enough! (And that after you've put in all these special characters they demanded.) Answer these questions too! What is your mother's maiden name? What city was your father's brother's former roommate's 2nd cousin's spouse born in?

    WGA being passed off as a "critical security update".

    Door locks on convertibles. Enough said.

    Security cameras trained on doors with badge readers, or locks on office doors, that can all be bypassed by going over the top because the wall stops at the ceiling tiles, not the real ceiling.

    File cabinet and desk locks that can be jimmied by anyone, in 15 seconds, with a paper clip.

    The keyboard lock that was common on early PCs.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:Security theater is everywhere by internewt · · Score: 1

      The login dialog. "Pressing ctrl-alt-delete to log in makes your computer more secure!" No, no it doesn't!

      Years ago on an NT training course I was told that Windows and Windows alone will respond to ctrl-alt-del, so when you press ctrl-alt-del you are definately giving your password to Windows, and not a password capturing trojan.

      Of course, that relies on Windows doing what it is meant to, but that's a different argument.

      --
      Car analogies break down.
    2. Re:Security theater is everywhere by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Doesn't sound like you believe what they said in class. I don't either. For instance, probably wouldn't be too hard to hack up GRUB or LILO to present something that looks like the Windows login screen and does respond to ctrl-alt-del.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    3. Re:Security theater is everywhere by damium · · Score: 1

      We have a saying at work: "Physical access trumps all security measures."

      I have not yet found or been able to think of a security measure that could not be bypassed in some way using physical access (although at some point the physical access needs to be quite low level).

      Once you have physical access you can perform a number of counter-security measures to a computer such as hardware based key loggers or direct modification of the OS and/or memory. From a security standpoint these are only detectable events and detection is nowhere near perfect.

  119. Perkin-Elmer front desk security by EWAdams · · Score: 1

    My wife used to work for a Perkin-Elmer lab in California. Front desk security was charged with searching all bags, boxes, etc. -- anything carried by an employee on the way in and out of the building -- EXCEPT purses (they might contains tampons, which could embarrass a lady) or briefcases (they might contain top secret business data, I guess, which could embarrass a man, or anyone carrying a briefcase). The policy made no sense whatsoever. She carried a small backpack because it was more convenient than a purse, though about the same size, and had to put up with having it searched all the time. When she pointed out the stupidity of these exceptions, she was told that she was risking her job (by demonstrating to management that it was dumb as a fucking stump). What were they actually searching for? Who knows. But if it could be got in or out in a purse or briefcase, they never would have found it.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
    1. Re:Perkin-Elmer front desk security by lgw · · Score: 1

      Whan I worked at Compaq they had a strict policy that lunch boxes must be searched, but briefcases must not be searched. I asked a security guard abotu it one day, and it turned out that the policy made some sense: the couldn't legally have a rule that manufacturing workers must be searched, but not engineers. The policy in place nearly achieved the desired search practices. Whether manufacturing workers were really more of a theft risk than engineers is a different question, of course.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Perkin-Elmer front desk security by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 1

      So ... why didn't people start carrying their lunches in briefcases?

  120. Well, they've never caught me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been smuggling my own food and drink into theaters since I was a kid and I've never been caught.

    1. Re:Well, they've never caught me by digitrev · · Score: 1

      Same here. I think my favourite vector is a coat. Just hide your bag of chips (I've actually managed to get a full bag of chips in on many occasions) in your coat, and carry it in (you're too warm). Besides, most places in my area just don't care.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
  121. Disney World by swillden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hehe. One of the incidents that prompted me to ask this question was my own experience at Disney World two weeks ago.

    The friendly security guard carefully looked through my backpack, even making me pull the cover off my camera to check that it wasn't dangerous, and then passed us on in. So the only thing the guard was keeping out was weapons in bags. Weapons carried on the body sail right in.

    As someone who frequently (and legally) carries a gun hidden on my body, the situation just made me shake my head.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  122. Box cutters in the airport by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have any of you heard what happens if you get caught with a box cutter in an airport? Well, I'll tell you. I accidentally left some tools in the side-pockets of my backpack after a camping trip. One of them was a honest-to-God Sears box cutter. Not any of that dayglo plastic crap--this thing could bludgeon as well as it could cut.

    So, I'm at the airport, ready to board an international flight with that same backpack. To their credit, the security checkpoint found the thing, but what do you think they did? Nothing! No taking down names and numbers, no "Why don't you have a seat over there?"--nothing. They just threw it in a big red bucket with, among other things, at least two other bright orange box cutters.

    Now, seeing as how I was just trying to get to Frankfurt in one piece and that it was an honest mistake, they did the right thing. But what other than "security theater" can you call it if you've set up the infrastructure to catch box cutter-wielding hijackers (whether that's a threat or not), and you just let folks on after anonymously checking their cutlery.

  123. My favorite by thesandbender · · Score: 1

    My company did some contract work with contract work with a Motorola group out in Phoenix. This was a commercial project but for some reason the offices were in the middle of a secure Northrop Grumman facility. Motorola failed to tell us this. I show up with the other contractor, a exceedingly bright and very likeable guy ... who happened to be British. As soon as the NG staff found out, they were hell bent on throwing him out. This guy had been an officer in the RAF, had security clearance in GB and had basic security clearance here in the US but as soon as they found out he wasn't a US citizen they went berserk. The best part about it was they asked me if I was a US citizen "Yes" (I am)... and that was that. They didn't actually ask me for any proof and there was no question of security clearance at all. We finally struck an "agreement" where he had to be escorted by NG security personal when he was outside of the Motorola area. Which included the restrooms and the dining hall. We only put him through two weeks of that b.s. before we shuffled assignments. He got sent off to Vegas while I was stuck in Phoenix. Figures :p

  124. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a similar vein, Microsoft file server passwords were originally checked only on the client, a fact which went undiscovered until Samba came along. Not really. The only bypass-able password that I've ever seen in windows was on the Win 3.1/9x side of things. The login prompt could be bypassed by pressing the escape key. But this would still prevent you from accessing network resources.

    AFAIK, there has never been a network or fileshare password that was ignored.
    You could have "Share-level" auth, or "Domain-level" auth. Both required valid credentials.

    You may be referring to the fact that the "password" is never given to the authenticating fileserver (for Domain-auth). Instead, the user's DC-authenticated SID is used.

    Though, if you have a link, I'd love to be corrected.
  125. Telephone Banking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a mate who had some money taken from his bank account. Apparently his telephone banking account had a numeric pin he could choose himself, and he had to enter two numbers from it.

    At this point I asked if the first digit was 0, 1 or 2 and the third digit 0 - he looked at me in amazement until I pointed out that 90% of all dates met that configuration (my inner geek has just forced me to calculate that accurately to 79%). Keep calling the access number until you're asked for that combination, then you've got three tries.

    Moral of the story: Don't allow 6 digit pins. People will choose a date every time.

  126. No deception about NFS by FranTaylor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It was well documented and everyone knew about it. There's no theater if there's no deception.

  127. secure thumb drives by Uzik2 · · Score: 1

    don't work.

    --
    -- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
  128. Security Theater? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone who pays any attention at all to security, both computer security and 'meatspace' security, has heard the phrase Security Theater

    Sorry, no. Do you use twitter too?

  129. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by dissy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It wasn't just Microsoft. NFS at one point in my life was synonymous with "no fucking security". It trusted the UserID that you transmitted with it. UserID 0 was a handy value to use... Thats exactly how NFS works, how its documentation states it works, how it was designed, and why you should only use NFS in an environment where that is acceptable.

    That's not a case of security theater, that is just a case of someone using the wrong tool for the job.

    If you want authentication on top of sharing files over a network, there are other options for that, none of which is NFS alone.

    Granted today NFS tries to take authentication into the picture as well, but originally that was not its intent.
    There are now addons to it (such as keylogin) which can be used, and of course one can run NFS over a VPN which handles the authentication and possibly even encryption if you wish.

  130. Airlines are my favorite by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 1

    Generally, airlines and airports have many "security" measures which have nothing to do with security.
    1. economy passengers must use the lavatories to the back of the plane. I recall the 9/11 hijackers flew first class... In any case, the steel cockpit door is locked, right?
    2. ID is required to fly. On some flights, you get to show your ID again at the gate. This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the airlines ensuring there is no secondary market for flight tickets.
    3. An oft heard question is "Sir, do you have any liquids" (because I couldn't find them if I tried). I've boarded flights with liquids that were never found. It's very hit or miss. To the TSA agent reading slashdot, come get me!
    4. Finding liquids causes no harm. A would be attacker can keep trying to smuggle liquids on board until he succeeds. The worst that happens is that his special brew gets dumped a few times.
    5. Dim, poorly trained and paid TSA screeners. I've seen many verboten items make it to flights (a diving knife for example).

  131. If you can see it.... by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    ... it's "theater".

    It may be the visible portion of a security system, it may be a visible representation of a similar system, it may be a visible deflection from a different system, or it may be a complete fabrication meant to fool you into thinking there's a system in place.

    Only in the first case does the theater and the actuality coincide. In the second, it is theater designed to allow the system to "hide in plain sight". The third is the "card game", with the false front often being designed as a "straw man" that can fall without the actual system failing. The article implies the last of these in its use of the term, but all are "theater" in that public perception matters.

    In any case, a real security system operates unseen, because its own security system is the visible portion, whether real, constructed or imagined.

    BTW, one can easily and with equal validity substitute "authority" for "security".

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  132. I could get anything into the city courthouse by peetsasaki · · Score: 1

    Ok, this was a long time ago, long before 9/11 but: I was a bike messenger in Baltimore, MD one summer. The city courthouse had metal detectors at the front door, naturally. A bike messenger carries oodles of metal: Bike lock, keys, various buckles, change for the payphone (remember those?) so we set off the detector every time. The guards just let all the bike messengers go through unchallenged. Imagine the piles of shotguns, explosives and whatnot that you could fit into one of those huge messenger bags? But get this: we were all required to leave our bike helmets at the front desk, because it was against some rule to wear a helmet in the building. So, any observant crook would just have to dress up as a bike messenger, load up with weapons, and just make sure to leave that pesky helmet at the desk!

  133. WEP Keys by AusIV · · Score: 1
    I know WEP used to be a viable form of security, but most geeks now realize a WEP key can be broken in well under an hour.


    Nonetheless, I know people who continue to use it. Typically, they have a device that can't sign in to WPA, or an access point that doesn't support it. The rationale is generally that anyone looking for a wireless network for whatever reason will pass over the WEP protected network and hop on to a neighbor's open network.

    1. Re:WEP Keys by nxtw · · Score: 1

      WEP might be easily defeatable to those with the right tools, but it is still a working security measure. It's significantly more than a deterrent (and therefore not security theater).

    2. Re:WEP Keys by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

      WEP does have a viable purpose however, it "marks" the network as "private".
      Thus, if somebody used a WEP-protected network without permission (no matter how easy that is) they can be prosecuted for computer hacking, but if they use an unprotected network they can legitimately say that they had no idea that it was private, especially if other circumstances support it (such as being in range from a place that does offer free wifi or having an SSID like "Open Access", etc).

  134. Swab the baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A year and a half ago I was going through airport security at Sea-Tac. After passing through, I heard a baby crying. I turned around to watch a TSA officer ask a woman for her baby so he could check for explosives. The TSA officer swabbed the baby like he/she was a piece of luggage hoping that they would get their promotion by finding traces of nitroglycerin on a diaper.

  135. Time to check the disctionary ... again by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Person who does not like the US != insurgent.

    Thank you. There seem to be so many people who have bought the propaganda to the point that they no longer understand what some words mean, or perhaps they never knew so the definitions have been defined by propaganda.

    Insurgents rebel against legal authority, they are individuals within a group that rebel against the group. People from one country who attack another are generally invaders, aggressors or terrorists depending on the scale, government involvement and nature of the attacks.

    The US has not experienced an insurgency in Iraq. The Iraqi government has, but that government is of dubious standing in Iraq given that it has been installed by an illegal invader. Hypothetically reverse the conflict and ask yourself if someone invaded the US and installed the government they wanted, would you fight against it or simply accept it? If you would answer the former, you could well be labelled a "terrorist insurgent", or "resistance fighter" depending on the political standpoint of the labeler.

    Not many monitors or practitioners of international law consider the invasion of Iraq legal, close to zero. There was no UN mandate to support it, there were mandates supporting the use of force but they were irrelevant to the situation at the time. The only people who argue that it was legal are American neo-cons, hardly known for their understanding or respect of international law, their cronies and idiots who buy the propaganda.

    Please re-read the dictionary because while the definition of terrorist has changed recently, the definition of insurgent has not yet been corrupted in the good book.

    --
    I don't therefore I'm not.
    1. Re:Time to check the disctionary ... again by Fishbulb · · Score: 1

      Don't forget 'rebels' and 'revolutionaries'!
      http://www.wovoca.com/hidden-history-american-revolution.htm

      By definition, the founding fathers of the US were insurgents.

  136. TSA Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While applying for my TWIC (Transportation Worker Identification Credential) I was appalled at the password requirements. While I understand the theory that a strong password is key to our national security, the first thing I did once I finally found a password that worked was wrote it on a post it note and put it with my documents. HARDLY secure.

    Requirements are: A password must be at least 8 characters in length. Passwords must contain at least one of each of the following: one alphabetic uppercase, one alphabetic lowercase, one numeric, and one special character. Passwords shall not contain any two identical consecutive characters. Passwords shall not contain any dictionary word. Passwords shall not contain any proper noun or the name of any person, pet, child, or fictional character. Passwords shall not contain any employee serial number, Social Security number, birth date, phone number, or any information that could be readily guessed about the creator of the password. Don't use a password that contains part of your User ID. Passwords shall not conatin any simple pattern of letters or numbers, such as "qwerty" or "xyz123". Passwords shall not be any word, noun, or name spelled backwards or appended with a single digit or with a two-digit "year" string, such as 98xyz123.

  137. Grammar peeve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man that's a pet peeve of mine

    Unless you were actually standing on top of some sort of accident when you learned it, you learned it by accident.
    Which is proper short form for "by way of an" accident.

  138. MOD PARENT DOWN!!!! by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

    He didn't start his post sound like a pathetic grovelling little worm!!!

    --
    I don't therefore I'm not.
  139. police state is here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was stopped by a random checkpoint on a CA 2 lane highway at a natural choke point for "drunk test". In reality almost all of the tickets and enforcements issued were for registration and expired licenses and essentially none of the arrests were for DUI.

    Later I was stopped at a "fireworks inspection" that one of my better connected friends later informed me was a checkpoint to look for a deadbeat dad on the run. The general public on holiday was inconvenienced for HOURS to do something about a "deadbeat dad" where the child was NOT involved!!!

    Anon

  140. Agriculture inspection exiting Hawaii by try_anything · · Score: 1

    It has nothing to do with security against violence, but I couldn't help noticing at the Lihu'e airport that the guy manning the agriculture inspection machine was just staring off into space as travelers' bags went through his machine. Wondering what he was supposed to be doing, I watched the display he was sitting at. It showed a colorful image of two bags. A static image. An image that did not change at all as bag after bag went through the machine. In fact, I watched him for at least five minutes as my line at the ticket counter inched along, and nothing on the display or any other part of the machine changed at all as the bags went through. He just sat there staring at the wall.

    The only "security" was provided by the workers who asked each traveler whether they were carrying any fresh fruits or vegetables. I guess flowers, seeds, and cuttings were okay -- they only only asked about fresh fruits and vegetables.

    To top it off, the agents who questioned travelers were not like the evil-eyed Border Patrol checkpoint guys who are ready to call for backup and a dog if your cheek twitches. They were dull, shrinking teenage girls who probably made minimum wage and would rather lose their job than make a tourist angry. If I had said, "Yeah, I've got a papaya in here, so what?" they probably would have laughed and pretended I was kidding.

    Thankfully, the agricultural inspection only took about thirty seconds, or I would have been pissed about the waste of time.

    1. Re:Agriculture inspection exiting Hawaii by neglogic · · Score: 1

      In the Honolulu airport, you must go through the ag inspection point for that airline. If you are flying United, you can only use United's ag inspection point, etc. Why? What does it matter? I saw several passengers that had mistakenly used the "wrong" ag inspection point and had to be scanned again. What's the point? Is United's ag inspection better than Norwestern's?

  141. Workplace security by russotto · · Score: 1

    (posting anonymously for obvious reasons)

    My employer has fancy infrared cameras that aren't hooked up to anything.

    1. Re:Workplace security by russotto · · Score: 1

      (posting anonymously for obvious reasons)

      Err, or not.

      Well shit, that was sloppy. Time to "Ask Slashdot" about new employment opportunities. By the way I work for T.J. Maxx in Lawrence, KS.

  142. Just go back to the SuperNAP post... by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 1

    SuperNAP
    The security seems tight, but the author makes allusions to it being just for show. Why would an as yet unheard of company with such sensitive (and one can assume lucrative) government contracts suddenly make itself public? Maybe the government contracts aren't so sensitive or lucrative, and maybe the company isn't so successful financially? Got to put on a good show for potential investors. ;)

  143. What State? by BarefootClown · · Score: 1

    In what state did the OP's story take place? In some states, the ballpark may not have had the authority to ban legally-carried firearms; it may also have been their policy to prohibit only unlawfully-carried firearms; the permit would have covered that.

    Of course, for security theater, I'd say the no-guns policy itself is just for show. Does anybody really believe that somebody intent on murder is really going to be deterred by a sign? If so, why not just post a sign saying "no murder?"

    Forbidding carry-under-permit is theater if the place allows cops entry; permit holders are statistically less likely to commit a crime than police officers, and much less likely than the average citizen.

    --

    "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
    --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

  144. At least our french fries are safe! by defireality · · Score: 1

    I spent an entire year of my life as a security guard. My job was to guard a potato proccessing plant from 11pm to 7am every night. Frozen fries don't attract many criminals.

  145. University of Winnipeg by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 2, Informative

    (Quotes are paraphrases)
    (Yes, I have emails to back this up and CTV and Global has on-line articles to corroborate the facts below)

    A while back at the University of Winnipeg some delinquent wrote that (s)he would "shoot this place up" on a specific date at a specific time. After that, the University's President Lloyd Axworthy said that "Universities are under attack." Which is rather an embarrassing statement. There is a profound difference between bad things happening AT Universities and bad thing happening TO Universities. Universities are certainly NOT under attack.

    They at least planned the typical impotent measures. Namely, more CCTV, bag checks, etc. Nothing that would actually improve security. Worse yet, I personally emailed them not only telling them of this, but I provided recent real world examples of these measures not working. Point of fact, the answer that I got from Lesely Thomson (Senior Executive Officer & Advisor to the President) was that (exact quote) "we will now have a new "normal" and we are in the process of establishing that." You know, mandatory bag checks at entrances that create bottlenecks enough to create proverbial fish in barrel. Nice work.

    But, here's a kicker. The same things were happening at Brandon University (and I believe that the University of Manitoba as well). All of this and the President of the Student Unions at both BU and the UofW were quoted as happy with the reaction and found it completely appropriate. I was also still subscribed to the UWMSSA mailing list and its President encouraged co-operation of these nonsensical measures. I'd expect better from a Math person given the high level of critical thought required in that discipline. I also cc'd both UofW student reps and got zero replies from them (at least that I saw).

    The entire episode was a ridiculous over reaction with profoundly negative impacts for our future. One of the pillars of society, our educational institutions, had fallen that day. When the world of education and critical thought can't use what it apparently teaches... such things are so very disturbing.

  146. Airport search while everyone else boarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I was flying with my wife. A big black guy and I were called over to the side of the door before boarding started. We were forced to be wanded and patted down the entire time the plane was being boarded. Right next to the boarding door.

    This was after having to pass through the main security line and having everything X-rayed and metal detected once already. It was obvious that they weren't even looking for anything, just passing time so that the other passengers could see that the big scary men were being searched extra specially well.

    One of the big ugly male security guards cupped my penis and balls through my pants during the search. For several seconds. There was motion like he was weighing what he found. I told him that usually a man has to buy me dinner before I let him touch me there. He just glared at me.

    Good times.

  147. Improvised weapon... by Media_Scumbag · · Score: 4, Funny

    Some 3 weeks after 9/11, I was flying from PHX to SJO and had my toenail clipper confiscated by airport security.

    As I walked to the gate and sat in the waiting area, I spied a very-cute young blonde. I sat next to her and noticed that she was knitting.

    I asked what she was making, and in the process of telling me, she explained that the needles she was using were 16" long and made of stainless steel.

    I was so struck with the absurdity of the situation that I became flustered, and unable to secure her phone number.

  148. Where did the topic go, oh, I don't know~ by orangesquid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Actually+, I think all sentences should be punctuated so as to indicate tone` We could reform the world^ /Everyone knows how beautiful% perl scripts are---why hasn't this spread to the rest of printed# text? It could@ do &wonders for ==human.computer interaction!_ ))Just think: with{everything so clear,$we,could,see+world+`peace]`within&&our$lifetime! \|Misundersta%%ndings %{in*^written)()communi+[cation,"would@become^things&of the past@@

    --
    --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    1. Re:Where did the topic go, oh, I don't know~ by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      You forgot the ~.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
  149. Colo facilities by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    I used to be a customer of many colo facilities back in the dot-com days. Above.Net, Exodus, GlobalCrossing etc... Anyhow, at one Exodus facility to get to the second floor via the stairs you had to:

    1. Go through a keycard and palm reader.
    2. Enter the stairwell / climb stairs
    3. Go through yet ANOTHER keycard and palm reader.

    The worst part? Exodus had some 65+ yr old security guard sitting in the stairwell all day and all night long.

    Actually the worst part was they made this poor guy sit there even when they were painting the stairwell.

    How about those chainlink fences the colos use? Many dotcommers used those to anchor KVM cables to. Nothing's going to stop you from walking by and pulling a few cables out of a server/switch. Or using a $.50 squirt guy to take down a web farm.

    Or the fact that I'd never seen Exodus clean the 'palm reader' once. Nothing like having some moron not wash his (there were no women in colos during the dotcom days) hands and then you have to follow him to the palm reader.

    Some of the colos had "shared cages", whereby you rented space by the rack or half rack. So you could be sharing a powerstrip with some random customer.

    I also worked with a SSP (Storage Service Provider), they claimed they encrypted and then vaulted tapes to a remote (60mi away) Iron Mountain facility. The problem? Netbackup didn't support hardware encryption and the vaulting facility was 5mi away. Also, most of the time this SSP kept your tapes in the same cage in boxes piled up.

  150. Security vs. accountability by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    It makes sense when you realize two things: First of all, all the newfangled terror security is fake and lipservice at best, and second, security (and lack thereof) and risk is a game of chances.

    The only reason airports readily jumped the terror hype train was that they were paid to do just that. And they will do whatever bare minimum is required to fulfill the required duties to retain that money.

    And second, the chance that this medicine is some sort of explosive is minuscle compared to the chance that this is actually some sort of medicine required to keep you healthy and/or alive. And since the brainiac working at security there (remember, bare minimum) usually can't offer the intelligence required to discriminate between absolutely necessary medicine and feelgood stuff, his standing order is to let everyone in with medical supplies.

    No, that doesn't make sense. Yes, a terrorist would probably use that venue (or some of the other glaring holes in airport security). But what for? Why bother trying to blow up a plane when there are so many other things that are by heaps less well secured?

    The whole airport anti-terror security is just a money making scam.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  151. 19 guys? by apparently · · Score: 1
    19 guys speak for all of "them"?

    19 guys that weren't from Iraq?

    Nice math.

  152. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by WatersOfOblivion · · Score: 1

    I think there's a story about ITS and its passwords in the book "Hackers" by Steven Levy http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/other-books/hackers I can't remember for sure though... I haven't read it in a while...

  153. My Thoughts on Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally, I myself feel that any form of security is nothing more than an illusion. Any determined individual with enough time on his hands can find his way around even the most intricate systems. Of course you can always substitute determined and time with well funded. Because believe it or not, compromising security requires tools, the better the tools the less time or effort required.

    The only thing security really provides is a piece of mind for those seeking it.

    1- Physical, locks which are constantly evolving (but a large percent of homes in the United States are protected by locks that can be bypassed by amateurs in only a few minutes)
    2- Local alarms, great if someones home, or your neighbors are around to call it in, or even concerned enough. Now that you can usually expect to hear a car alarm going off at least once a day (in most suburbs/cities) people are becoming desensitized and learning to tune them out.
    3- Monitored systems, ADT, Brinks, etc. - This is my favorite, in our quest for security we have completely opened our privacy up to a stranger at a computer (not to mention the externally accessible system requires even an additional level of security to prevent any digital attack or unauthorized monitoring).
    I also try to keep in mind the targeted markets for security products. In specific these systems, which I'd be willing to bet that half of the users could not identify nor comprehend half to all components used in the system. Additional service style agreements might have the occasional maintenance visit which could provide an additional point of compromise to social engineering. (always check ID, and verify unscheduled technicians with their company, if it's a problem with the neighbors cable, ask yourself why they need to be in your house).

    Ok thats my rant, hope you the /. community enjoyed it.

    1. Re:My Thoughts on Security by edraven · · Score: 1

      So you leave the keys in your unlocked car outside your unlocked house at night? What was your address again? Keep in mind that not telling me represents security through obscurity.
      The point being that although no security is impenetrable, that's never been the point of security measures. Security measures exist to raise the difficulty of penetrating them to the point where the cost outweighs the reward. Where they fail is when an unforeseen approach reduces that difficulty to the point where the reward is worth the effort. Where they become security theatre is when the effort of creating the security measures actually outweighs the penalty if the measures were penetrated (spending $15 to keep $10 safe) and/or where the measures taken don't actually increase the difficulty of penetrating them significantly.

  154. Security theatre works by kbahey · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here is Southern Ontario, we have two problems: tigers and elephants. The former eat our pets and can be dangerous to children in backyards. The latter wreaks havoc on our lawns.

    I sprinkle pepper on the lawn and have some special rocks that I put in front of the house.

    Both these procedures keep tigers and elephants away, and so far, they have been 100% effective ...

    Yes, security theatre does work ...

  155. Re:Watching employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't remember the numbers, but most shoplifting is done by employees.

  156. Any Smithsonian Museum, Washington, DC by berendes · · Score: 2, Informative
    Scenario 1: My wife carries small black purse (maxes out at Ipod + cellphone + small digital camera) through the door. Guard insists on "inspecting" it by poking inside with a wooden drumstick.

    Scenario 2: My wife puts camera in one coat pocket, Ipod in second, cell in third along with the collapsed purse, and walks right through security.

    Makes. Me. Crazy.

  157. High School Parking Lot by WatersOfOblivion · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At the local High School, here in rural south Georgia where just about everybody has a pickup that could scale Mt. Everest without so much as breaking a sweat, the parking lot is in the middle of a field whose elevation change can be measured in microns. Just an island of asphalt with a sea of grass lapping at its black beaches. There one two-lane asphalt road leading up to the parking lot, similarly drenched in fields.

    There is no seawall, no fence, no border of any sort. Except where the road meets the lot, however. Here there is a small aluminum swinging gate which is faithfully unlocked and opened half an hour before school starts and ends, and locked back half an hour before school starts and after school ends.

    It is there, of course, to keep students from skipping class by driving off campus...

  158. US Government Agency in Washington DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scene: Metal Detector, Baggage Scanner, 3 Security Personnel

    Sign: All ID Must Be Touched By Guard

    Effect: Guard reaches out to touch the ID Card without looking at it to match the face and the picture.

    (Metal detector and baggage scanner not used)

  159. It depends on where you are by coyote-san · · Score: 1

    It depends on where you are, how quickly police can get to you, etc. Don't forget that there are large parts of the country where the nearest cop may be an hour away. Or both of them might be busy handling another situation.

    This happened outside of Denver a few months ago. Scumbag with long criminal record broke into a not-quite-empty house, and continued struggling with homeowner even after he was (allegedly) repeatedly told that he could just walk away -- he said the homeowner would shoot him in the back.

    The homeowner eventually managed to reach one of his guns. The intruder no longer had to worry about hypothetical situations. The homeowner doesn't have to worry about the intruder's true intentions. He doesn't have to worry about the law either since Colorado law gives broad protection to homeowners.

    IIRC the news said it did take the police about an hour to arrive. This situation might not be common, but it does happen.

    I'm -not- saying that guns are always a good idea. In fact, I agree that most urban and suburban residents would probably be better off without them. But you can't make broad statements. Millions of people live far from police assistance, millions of people have specific threats, etc.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  160. At the White House by Goonie · · Score: 5, Funny
    I visited Washington DC in 2003, and went for a wander around the White House boundary fence.
    One thing you don't realize when you see it on television is just how big the garden is, and how far away the fence is.

    But that's by the by. As I was walking around the boundary fence, I noticed a security guard, armed with what appeared to be a shotgun, hiding behind a bush. What was even stranger, he was attempting to, but failing, to hide from me, armed with what was obviously a digital camera and nothing else.

    I continued walking around a bit, looking at him. He continued to edge around the particular shrub; again, trying, and failing, to keep out of my view.

    It was so patently absurd that I felt like taking a photo of the scene, but given that the guy was carrying a shotgun and this was the White House, I thought it might be prudent to ask first.

    So, I called out to the guy "excuse me, but do you mind if I take a photo"?

    The reply comes back "no, don't take one". And he tries even harder, and fails, to hide himself.

    This is despite the fact that anybody with a pair of binoculars, or a long lens camera, would have easily spotted the bloke from several hundred yards away. The Secret Service must, of course, know this, and probably had two other armed guards I hadn't spotted watching me.

    For the life of me, I still don't understand what this guy was trying to achieve hiding behind the shrubbery. Look, everybody expects there to be guards in the White House gardens, some of whom you'll see, some of whom you won't unless you try something insanely stupid. But this whole hide-and-seek routine made absolutely no sense at all.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:At the White House by astrokid · · Score: 1

      So you saw the White House Ninjas ... but did you see the pirates?

      --

      Chewie does not get a medal. Come on, George. Can a Wookie get a medal?
    2. Re:At the White House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has done guard duty I can tell you that he was probably just fucking around with you. That sounds exactly like something one of my bored platoon mates could've come up with.

    3. Re:At the White House by edraven · · Score: 1

      He'd have to go inside for that.

  161. visa application by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 3, Funny

    Applying for a work visa in the USA requires male applicants between 16 and 40 to fill out a supplemental form that asks for details of prior military experience (either as a combatant or a civilian), and any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons experience. There are too many problems with this retarded fucking system to count, here are a couple to get you started:

    1. This is the 21st fucking century. What, are women incapable of understanding all that nucular stuff? Females aren't a threat?

    2. Anyone over 40 is not even worth questioning?

    3. Even if you are part of the tiny demographic that are even questioned, does Immigration think undesirables are going to tell the fucking truth on the application form?

    1. Re:visa application by LNO · · Score: 0

      Even if you are part of the tiny demographic that are even questioned, does Immigration think undesirables are going to tell the fucking truth on the application form?

      This results in two possible situations:

      1) An undesirable tells the truth on the form. Holy shit, he fell for it. Reject.
      2) An undesirable lies on the form. Once this is uncovered, he's now committed an immigration violation, which is grounds for deportation. It's an easy excuse to kick someone out of the country -- look at their immigration papers, find the smallest thing out of line, and boot them.

    2. Re:visa application by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 1

      Thus resulting in an increase in undesirables over 40, and female "terrorists." I still find it hard to believe that anyone in the usa is any safer because of this policy, which is why I rate it as Security Theater.

      And any lies on immigration papers are unlikely to be "uncovered" until after the undesirable has committed their crime and the authorities have reason to double-check their application.

      From reading any newspaper it seems I am far more likely to die a violent death at the hands of a US citizen anyway.

  162. Not true. Look at alcohol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After Prohibition alcohol (again) became legal. Did the price "instantly collapse"? No. The alcohol companies are making big $$$.

    1. Re:Not true. Look at alcohol. by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Price decreased. Quality increased.

      You are far better off buying alcohol these days than the bathtub gin and moonshine of Prohibition times.

  163. Court security by nickrout · · Score: 1

    The local District Court is where (alleged) criminals appear after arrest and in subsequent stages. They've been increasing security for a few years. At one stage they had security scanners at the front door but not other doors, leading to a situation where you could go in another door, through a little known but public set of stairs and corridors and be inside the security cordon with no checks at all. Now they fixed that, but the checking gets packed up at about 10:15 (at the latest) after court starts for the day. Most crims don't actually have to be there at 10:00 as there case probably won't get called first. So if they hang around until 10:15 they avoid the search. Crazy. Mind you I did hear of the security guys balling out a uniformed cop the other day for ducking under the barrier rather than going through the scanner. Nice to see them being even handedly inefficient.

  164. National Gallery of Canada rights-grab... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada's National Gallery, paid for by taxes, engages in this fraud/theft:

    They have many cultural treasures there that are public domain
    ( like centuries-old carvings ),
    and many that aren't.
    Since public domain stuff can easily be known for what it is,
    by them ( they curate their collection, or at least they demand subsidy to do so! )...
    their assertion of authority...

    "Visitors may take pictures for personal use, with a hand-held camera and electronic flash, of the public spaces of the National Gallery of Canada. For copyright reasons, it is not permitted to reproduce or to sell the photographs, and to photograph works in the galleries."

    Notice that for ALL works, public domain included!, in the name of "copyright", they are blocking humanity from capturing photos -- as all, not just locals, legally have the right to -- while...


    "The National Gallery of Canada (NGC) and the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography (CMCP) offer a wealth of images to researchers, publishers and others seeking to visually enhance their projects and products. Photographic reproductions of many works of art in the permanent collection are available for use in books, journals, newspapers, theses, on websites, cards, posters, CDs, and other merchandise."

    selling their photos of the same stuff.

    TRY exercising your legal right in that "institution",
    and you WILL be stopped / thrown out.

    Robbery of human cultural rights from all
    Legally Public Domain Cultural Wealth,
    by their misrepresentation of the "law",
    while commercially exploiting Canadians' collection,
    while being subsidized entirely on taxpayer's backs.

    And yes, they do throw around their security "authority".

    Getting them to acknowledge Canadian law,
    and to permit legal photographing of public domain work might be possible,
    but having dealt with such "institutions",
    I'll believe it only when it's in writing, publically,
    and others that they are unable to intimidate are watching.

  165. Fingerprints? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are in the process of international adoption. It is a long process, and you have to have your fingerprints made for imigration services. What I don't understand is how my fingerprints expire every 16 months. As ours were about to expire, we recently had our fingerprints taken again. We went together, but two different agents wound up taking our prints. When we got back to the car, my spouse informed me that she had asked here agent why fingerprints expire. She had been told that as you grow older, your fingerprints stretch. "Funny", I said, "my agent told me it was because the don't have enough disk space to store all the fingerprints so they have to purge them periodically".

    If they're going lie to you, I wish they would at least tell the same lie.

  166. My favorites by ameyer17 · · Score: 1

    I went to a Cubs game in April 2002, and the search they did on purses involved sticking what appeared to be the barrel of a baseball bat into the purse and stirring it a bit.
    No clue what they were actually hoping to achieve there.

    Also, Amtrak's security has seemed to rely entirely on checking ID (because the TSA tells them to, apparently) every time I've traveled by train. Not sure exactly how that's supposed to achieve anything.

  167. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  168. mod parent up by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

    i find it frankly insulting that the op compared hitler with hussein.

  169. Post 9/11 security freak-out by darkonc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    about 5 months after 9/11 I was running a game-server. On a weekend where the newly minted DHS was warning of an elevated "Orange" threat level, I had a player who had previously talked to me about his issues as a somewhat fundamentalist Muslim who was acting up on the site.

    When a support admin threatened to permanently kick him off of the system, he replied "That's OK. I won't be alive tomorrow."

    Hmm... Elevated threat level, warnings of possible suicide attacks in the next day or so, and a fundamentalist muslim kid warning that he intends to die roughly in that time frame.... Sounds like something worth investigating (if only because we've got a kid that seems to be threatening to kill himeslf ... terrorism or no).

    Being a Canadian, I call the Canadian 1-800 terrorism tip line (remember ... less than 6 months since 9/11) and find that it's been disconnected.
    I then turn to US sources, and try to leave information in various places. Then I turn to the local US Consulate and leave an urgent message. After about 24 hours of trying various routes (both Canadian and US), I finally get a callback from a completely disinterested consular official who pretty much has the attitude of "explain to me why I shouldn't hang up on you".

    Less than 6 months after 9/11, an orange threat level, and a suicidal fanatic on my site, and I'm fighting to explain why a US official should even take a report from me. "call us with any tips you might have" ... Yea, right!

    That was the last time I took post 9/11 security fanaticism seriously. (other than as a threat to my civil rights).

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    1. Re:Post 9/11 security freak-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a similar experience, where I was receiving business communication from a guerrilla group, considered terrorists by the UN & USA. I tried to find a 'hotline' for such reports, which proved very difficult. I gave up on contacting Homeland Security because they simply had no decent contact information.

      I eventually found contact information for the FBI, which was interested and scheduled to have an agent visit. After repeatedly rescheduling, they eventually told me that they "didn't have time" due to a string of local bank robberies. They told me that if I wished to, I could do business with this group, and they didn't care.

      Despite of the FBI's opinion, I decided to reject this group's business. Later, I realized that this group was not only on the US Treasury's list of banned entities (SDN), but was specifically mentioned in Bush's Executive Order 13224 which would have made me a "supporter of terrorism". By following the FBI's advice, I could be sitting in Gitmo today...

  170. JPL Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At a previous job (pre-9/11) I often had to go to JPL where I was given a visitor badge to wear. The badge stated I should be escorted at all time (I'm not a US citizen). The first time thgere, the badge was checked once or twice. The second time, I was left by my escort for a while in the canteen and, unknown to me at the time, my badge driopped off on the floor. I was able to wander around the place without any comments because everybody assumed that if I didn't have a badge visible thenI was staff and only the visitors would bother to wander around with their badge showing. I'm guessing things have been tightened up now ;-)

  171. Egypt by Chief+Camel+Breeder · · Score: 1

    Egypt does security theatre routinely. The antiquities sites all have metal detectors on the entrances. They are all turned on and the guards make visitors walk thorugh. The alarms go off for maybe a third of the visitors - coins, belt buckles etc., nothing bad. The attendants never check visitors who set of the alarms. They treat the detectors like some magic amulet that wards off evil; no human intervention needed.

  172. Same-color login form and text by m0rphin3 · · Score: 1

    I used to work at a major telco, and as I was logging in to one of their legacy systems through a terminal, I noticed that the password field didn't show the usual **** stars, but rather stayed blank. Intrigued, I marked the text field with my mouse to see what happened, and discovered that yes, there appeared to be text there. I copied it, and there was my password in plaintext! What they had done was simply to make the password text the same color as the text field... I had a good laugh about that one.

    --
    for great justice
  173. Nazi Germany. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    I think one of the most intriguing examples I've seen recently was in a documentary (link totally not included here. Sorry. It's too late into my day to go hunting through my browser history), about Nazi Germany.


    Apparently, aside from an astonishing level of clerical and managerial chaos which affected every level of the Reich, the reality of SS intelligence, at least in Berlin, was completely at odds with the perception. The offices responsible for monitoring the population and for doling out punishments for those expressing anti-government sentiment or for being friends with jews or for generally not heiling with enough vigor; that office was staffed with only a handful of over-worked clerks surrounded by mountains of un-processed 'reports' filed by nosey neighbors and crafty tattle-tales trying to get in good with the reich for one reason or another. --But the perception was entirely different, and the effect was that the population effectively policed itself into the condition history has made infamous.

    The imagination is the most fearsome weapon. Provide a few displays of violent public oppression, and then no matter how wide and large your enforcement net is, the public will imagine something even bigger and meaner. --Thus the mere suggestion that you might be watched and swatted is enough to keep the population in line.

    On the one hand, I find it comforting to know that no matter how bad a police state appears, it's true condition is arguably going to be far less than perceived. But on the other hand, the fact that people willingly turn each other, become informants when it is not necessary, work to create hell on earth by becoming their own worst enemy, is truly depressing. --But even in this there is hope; knowledge of the reality spread widely and openly enough should logically be all that is necessary to prevent a horror.


    -FL

    1. Re:Nazi Germany. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that far a stretch of the imagination to see that sort of thing happening here.

      I wish that documentary would see more airings on television, in lieu of shit like Flavor of Love and So You Think You Can Dance...

      "Learning from the mistakes of history lest you repeat them," and such.

    2. Re:Nazi Germany. . . by tom's+a-cold · · Score: 1

      I belive the proverb is "Cut chicken to scare monkey."

      --
      Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
  174. Carefully locked doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work at a small (and fairly obscure) college. After 9/11, some genius decided that terrorists might attack us, so we needed to lock the doors of all the buildings to "control access". Only that was pretty inconvenient, especially for recruiting prospective students and taking deliveries. So they left one door on each building unlocked. Then they put up signs on all the other doors, telling people which door was unlocked.

    Nope, no guards. That would have been expensive.

    I put up a sign that read, "Attention terrorists: Please do not read any of the other signs on this door." Somebody else took it down. I put it back up, it came down again. I went through 40-50 signs before the dean called me in and told me he'd had a complaint that my signs were making somebody feel unsafe. That happened the day after they gave up on the door locking, so I had already stopped with my signs. I never did find out who was tearing my signs down.

  175. Reak Secuity is Forbidden by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Truth is not something that most businesses can live with. Public systems such as school boards and schools themselves also could not survive if they were transparent.
            Security, when done right,makes people accountable. And just as that flashy new security system can detect shop lifters or information thieves it can also be used in a court to show black people being searched disproportionately by store security employees, detect illegal workers or perhaps document the level of sexual harassment that a boss is pushing on an employee.
              So it comes down to good security being a real hazard to the businesses that install it.

  176. How Not To Be Seen by Anynomous+Coward · · Score: 1
    Watch and learn, from H.M. Government Services:

    No 42: How Not To Be Seen

    (Association invoked by your use of the word "shrubbery".)

    --
    I'm not a coward by any name.
  177. Well... by vegiVamp · · Score: 0

    isn't most meatspace security a form of theatre, in a way ? Even (or especially) the cops, are little more than an illusion - if the mass of the punters were to decide that they don't much care for the silly laws anymore, there's not much to stop them.

    Not unlike the traditional japanese paper walls, it's more of a convention, to remind ourselves that life would get rather less comfortable if we don't believe in the illusion.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
  178. tl:dr by weierstrass · · Score: 1

    in summary:
    Most americans drive automatics, and many would actively avoid having to drive stick
    Most europeans drive manuals, and many would actively avoid having to drive a manual

    Both ways have advantages and disadvantages and it's not quite important enough to have world war III over. Please don't debate this further here

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
    1. Re:tl:dr by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Most europeans drive manuals, and many would actively avoid having to drive a manual

      Is that why Europeans drive less?

  179. VicPol HQ Flinders St, Melb AU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    If you sit in the cafe behind the complex, close to where their credit union (And I have forgotten its name) is, unless you wear ear plugs you can pick all manner of choice bits and pieces, from their opinions about The Organization to their plans for a corporate secure back up strategy.

    To be honest its just blokes mouthing off, but yea, given the context of the whole area you would think they would be more circumspect.

    I wonder if they read Slashdot.

  180. Exploding Turtles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had the pleasure of flying from LA to DC on 9/11/2004. Needless to say the airports were in a state of "heightened security".

    In LA there was a kind of jughead TSA checkpoint guy who was just amped out of his mind with excitement by the possibility that on that day he might be the lucky hero that single handedly thwarted some terrorist plot that would probably unfold to mark the third anniversary of 911.

    It so happened that in front of me there was a little boy carrying two tiny turtles the size of silver dollars in a glass bowl with blue rocks at the bottom. The security guy glared down at this kid, and then with preposterous seriousness gruffly demanded that the boy take the turtles out of the bowl. With utmost caution, and pretense of scientific acumen, the TSA guy wiped the turtles down with an explosive detection tissue. The kid's jaw dropped - the absurdity of the situation was not lost upon him. Of course his turtles were not explosive, but the TSA guy seemed disappointed by that, and returned the turtles resentfully as though he had been outmaneuvered.

  181. Heathrow Airport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The response to the Glasgow airport attmepted bombing was to switch around the drop off area and the bus station. Because bombers always follow "buses only" signs, right?

    And then the new drop off zone is patrolled by police officers (not even traffic wardens I think) to harass anyone who dares to use the drop off zone as a pick-up point. (there is no pick-up point) Now there could be three reasons for this -
    (a) to keep traffic moving. This can't be the case as they still harass people late at night when there is no traffic and the place is almost empty. Also they don't use traffic wardens.
    (b) to somehow mitigate the risk from terrurists. Seeing as terrurists wouldn't stop and wait in their car for 2 minutes before doing their thing, this would achieve nothing.
    (c) to boost car parking revenue. The short term car parks are so exorbitantly priced (it's cheaper for you to tell your family to get a taxi home!) that this is an essential measure to prevent people using the drop-off zone as a pick-up point.

    What a waste of police resources and my tax money - to maintain revenue to a monopoly-abusing private company. Grrr!

  182. Re:WOD == price support ? by pbhj · · Score: 1

    So all those reformed addicts and families of those that died through their drug lifestyles, those that work in rehab centers and to campaign against the proliferation of drugs in our communities. Those people are doing it to keep the price high?

    I'll grant you there may be some elements of the higher echelons that are purely evil and wish to profit from the destruction of peoples lives that hard drugs leads to, but such pure capitalist are a small element I warrant.

    If all drug dealers, runners, growers were shot on site ... that too would end the "war".

    Pardon my ignorance.

  183. How is this possible? by why-is-it · · Score: 1

    Even better. I have a Ford Focus and two toddlers who tend to leave half eaten apple cores on the back seats.

    Dude - if you have figured out how to clone yourself, you should let the world know about it in a big way - not post it in an un-related article like this!

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    1. Re:How is this possible? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, nerds can have sex! You may wish to peruse A Nerd's Guide to getting Laid.

      NKB checked for this OT post (even though it's on-topic for the comment it responds to)

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:How is this possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, nerds can have sex! You may wish to peruse A Nerd's Guide to getting Laid.
      No, they just wank alot to virtual sex dvds they pirated. Just like you're spanking the monkey when you post links to your dumb journal or uniclopecidetia
  184. Car Park Folly by DaveTuck · · Score: 1

    My company had a problem with people from other companies parking in our car park, meaning there wasnt enough spaces for our employees. Their solution? Make everyone who works here register their vehicle details with reception, and provide everyone with badges to display in their car window. The problem? Nobody patrols the car park to check the badges, so the people who illegally parked before are still doing it, meanwhile we jump through hoops for no reason.

    --
    Launch each 'sig'.
  185. RFID tags in Hospitals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you are missing the real security feature here - these are not set up to protect babies from being stolen, the beep at the door is just an added feature. The real security is that it keeps hospital workers form administering the wrong medications to a patient - a threat that is more like 1 in 4...

  186. Weird by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that autos have an expensive price premium in Europe - In the U.S. it has gotten to the point where a manual commands a significant price premium, if you can even get it.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Weird by nakajoe · · Score: 1

      When I bought my Yaris (in the US), I saved ~$950 by going manual over auto.

    2. Re:Weird by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's completely not true. For any normal car, new, you pay more for an automatic. Don't know about fancy performance type cars though, where the stick shift might be part of an expensive "extra performance" package.

    3. Re:Weird by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I've not seen a car where the Manual has a price premium over the Auto, but the difference is usually on the order of $650 or so, not exactly a bank breaker. The caveat is that is the sticker price, since the dealer (at least in the states) tends to only have a handful of manuals (if any) on the lot, there is a much greater chance he'll have to order the car. If he does that it's a lot harder to get a good deal on it at the bargaining table. Also, it can be very difficult to find a used manual for some cars, especially if you want to avoid one that's been "riced". If you are looking for a truck or a sports car you can generally find a manual, but for a boring old 4 door sedan your odds diminish quickly.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  187. Shopping mall security farse by Twylite · · Score: 1

    In November 2007 there was a shootout at my local shopping center during an attempted jewelery heist. The center management decided to post security guards at all entrances, ostensibly to prevent such incidents from happening in the future.

    What's wrong with this picture?

    • The security guards are not law enforcement officers and cannot physically interfere with you or detain you. They get upset when you just walk/push past them, but they can't actually stop you.
    • The guards are only present 8:30AM to 12PM, offering ample opportunity to enter the center and plant your weapons inside.
    • The guards search your body if you are male (using a metal detector wand) or your handbag if you are female (visual inspection). Women and children can carry weapons on them without trouble. If you want to bring in a lot of weapons at once put them in a box (say a TV box "for return"), or in a shopping cart.
    • Some entrances only have one guard, who is entitled by law to lunch and rest breaks ...
    • Some service entrances were - so far as I am aware - unguarded.
    • If you are carrying a firearm - even with a permit/license - you will not be allowed to enter the center (unless you are a law enforcement officer). This may prevent future shootouts but makes further heists less risky as there will be no armed civilians.
    • Oh wait: private cash-in-transit security are permitted in to pick up cash ... with automatic weapons ... even in peak hours ... despite recommendations that they should be restricted to service entrances and corridors.

    Did it work? Perhaps. There have been no further heists. Much like in the years preceding this incident. The werewolf deterrent in my fridge also appears to be working...

    --
    i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
  188. Some fictional security theatre (videos) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Encountered this link; some government agency level security related theatre:

    http://hacksawru.narod.ru/

  189. Password policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not as mind-boggling as some of these other stories, but I work for a company that has a strong password policy... for the peons. Management is exempt.

  190. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by swarsron · · Score: 1

    IIRC the client didn't check the password but told the server how long the password was. So you could just tell the server the password is one char and then brute force it

  191. Several examples by Duck+of+Death · · Score: 1

    At work: To "improve security and enhance employee safety" my employer installed turnstiles at the building entrances that open when you wave your ID badge at it. It's basically to prevent "tailgating" (unauthorized person(s) entering behind authorized ones) by requiring that people go through one at a time and requires that each person has a valid ID badge. The security theater aspect is that there is no check to ensure that the badge being used actually belongs to the person using it. I also have to use the badge to open doors. Between the front door and my desk I have to use my security badge 4 times (door, turnstile, door, door) and the first three readers are within 20 feet of each other. I feel safer!

    At home: We live in the suburbs on a busy street near the center of town. Our dog just died and we're planning to get a new one at the end of the summer after vacations are over and we're back on a routine and able to devote the time to train the dog. My wife announced that she doesn't feel safe without a dog and wants to install an alarm system. We've lived here for over 9 years wihout any incident, we're ten feet from the second busiest street in town, we're at an intersection, and there are street lights. We are a terrible target. An alarm system won't make us any safer because we're already very safe, but it will make my wife feel safer. Pure security theater.

    In my view alarm systems (home and car) can actually make people less safe because the best way to get around the alarm is to commit the crime while the owner is present.

    DD

    --
    "Can I finish? Can I finish? ... Okay, I'm finished."
  192. Fly to Japan by kegon · · Score: 1

    Last year Japan immigration introduced fingerprint scans and face photographs for all foreign entrants to the country for "terrorism prevention". The only terrorist acts ever committed in Japan were by Japanese people (who aren't scanned when returning to Japan).

    The real reason is to satisfy their paranoia that a high percentage of crime is committed by foreigners, which statistically is untrue; and to capture the odd illegal immigrant.

    Believe me, Japan is not the golden land for immigrants or hot target for terrorists.

    Furthermore, one of my friends flew from the UK to Japan via Germany. At Frankfurt the security directed him through another security gate which checked for forbidden goods. The 500 ml jar of expensive honey he'd bought as a gift at Heathrow duty free had to be binned because of the liquids restriction. Totally insane.

  193. Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a supreme being watching over you. Protecting you.
    And if you communicate with him telepathically, and you're sincere enough,
    he'll do nice things for you. Like if you're in some kind of trouble or danger.

  194. 2nd amendment fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to the local discount chain to get a small plinking gun - a Ruger 10-22, pretty much the gun you'd buy a 12 year old to practice with. In this rural town of a few thousand, it's the rare family dog who doesn't have his own rifle.

    They said they had to do a background check. OK, I guess I don't want Charlie Manson getting a weapon, I'll wait the fifteen minutes.

    They told me I was denied, but could check back in a few weeks. I asked why. The girl didn't know, but had assumptions. "You must have a felony conviction".

    "No, I never had a felony." They couldn't deny me for that pot possession ticket 20 years ago, could they?

    "Well, you must have a case pending." She turned back to stock the large-caliber hollow points anyone can buy without even showing ID.

    "No, the worst I've gotten in the past few decades is a ticket. Maybe it's because I moved here from out-of-state last year?"

    "Oh, maybe...where from?" Her Pacific NW facade of polite warmth much cooler now.

    "New York City"

    "Oh, of course, you know, since 9-11..." she trailed off, as if she had actually said something meaningful.

    Right. Because it was native Brooklynites who dropped the planes on Manhattan during the great inter-boro civil war of 2001, and a .22 is the terrorist's top choice for mowing down squirrels.

    A few weeks later I got the OK and picked up my rifle. Turns out they have to check with your home state for domestic violence convictions, actually a pretty reasonable rule.

    Presumably people from New Orleans won't be allowed to buy bottled water there now lest they create a flood with it.

  195. Password expiration by cryptoguy · · Score: 1

    The policy of forcing users to change their passwords monthly does not effectively counter any real-world threats, and creates additional threats. Instead, force users to pick a strong password and never change it unless there is suspicion of compromise.

  196. Only on Slashdot would you complain by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    I pull all three items out, and just tell the TSA guy that I know I need to toss them. He glances at all three and tells me I have to ditch the deodorant and the shaving cream, but I can keep the mouthwash. Because it's prescription. So, the two retail aerosol cans that are nearly impossible to inject anything into are verboten, but the amber bottle with the mystery liquid in it, that's okay, because it has a sticker with a Walgreens logo on it. Fan-fucking-tastic. So the guy did you a favor and you're bitching? Only on Slashdot...

    By the way, have you read how incredibly difficult chemists have stated that it is to actually mix explosives on a plane? It requires beakers, ice and precision and the chances of making a mistake and not being able to take down the plane are quite high.
    1. Re:Only on Slashdot would you complain by Uhlek · · Score: 1

      So the guy did you a favor and you're bitching? Only on Slashdot... The guy wasn't doing me a favor, that is TSA protocol. Prescription and over-the-counter drugs are exempt from their restrictions on liquids. Link: http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/9-25_updated_passenger_guidance.shtm

      By the way, have you read how incredibly difficult chemists have stated that it is to actually mix explosives on a plane? Not just that, but, the chemicals that you mix are easily detectable and flammable materials anyway. The idea that you can take two inert, innocuous liquids on a plane undetected and combine them to form OMG SUPER EXPLOSIVE is just ridiculous.

      But, lets say it wasn't. Lets say that the movies were right and you really could do such a thing. If that's the case, then anyone aiming to take down a plane could bypass the liquids restriction simply by placing them in medicine bottles. So what's the point in having the restriction in the first place?

      There is none. It goes back to the original topic -- security theater.
  197. Re:Gun ownership by SirLanse · · Score: 1

    I live in Florida, we are allowed to stand our ground.
    We have the right to have guns on our property without registration.
    If you come onto my property, I can shoot you. ONLY survivors talk to police.
    We can't take them everywhere, but we can have them in our cars.
    That is why car jackers look for rental cars not local cars.
    I would prefer an airline that hands out knives.
    I trust 200 armed citizens against 5 nut jobs,
    more than 200 unarmed sheep against 5 nut jobs.
    I am proud to be a citizen and not a subject.

  198. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by greed · · Score: 1

    NFS still does assume UIDs are trustworthy. Keep in mind, Sun did NFS and NIS roughly together, and they use the same RPC mechanism. But it is very much a relic of the "trusted LAN" era. If you've got switches that allow arbitrary machines to connect, and DHCP servers that give arbitrary machines address information, NFS is probably not for you.

    Even with root squash, there's still no security. That just means I need to switch to someone else's UID before I can read their files--and that's just a quick vi /etc/passwd away. Even easier if NIS is up, because I can get the entire passwd file from the NIS server.

    The great thing about the various attempts to add security to NFS is, they don't work with everything. The only redeeming feature of NFS is that every UNIX-a-like can at least operate as an NFS client. If you now have to do PKI and token management, why not install a good distributed file system instead? Maybe something with aggressive-but-useful client-side caching with server invalidation?

    (Wanders off to play with OpenAFS some more....)

  199. logging into windows? by cryptozoologist · · Score: 1

    yeah, that'll protect my data.

  200. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by Petronius+Arbiter · · Score: 1
    Ah yes. ITS = Incompatible Timesharing System.

    The story sounds slightly unlikely. The ARPANet was so small then that everyone knew almost everyone else. There were no malicious people on the net. Also, ITS had, SFAIK, no internal security, and anyone could create his own account (and then access others' accounts). So, passwords would have added nothing.

    ITS also had a feature where someone could eavesdrop on someone else's session, to offer help. I don't think it required the consent of the eavesdroppee.

    In case it needs to be said, this was a research machine. Production work was done on machines with passwords.

    Contemporaneously with this, at a college a few miles up the river, an undergrad was using the DARPA funded PDP-10 to implement a simulator with which to create the first BASIC interpreter for a micro, which he then sold. There was a rumor that he used so much time that DARPA complained. Using a government computer for private commercial gain is a big no-no. That kid later said that he skipped his CS lectures to attend management classes, which explains a lot about the company he co-founded. A few years ago he bought the college a new CS building.

  201. USS Constitution has a security cordon by Petronius+Arbiter · · Score: 1

    The USS Constitution, the 200 year old wooden warship docked in Boston Harbor, is protected by a security cordon including metal detector, X-ray, and divers checking under the ship.

    It was a fearsome weapon in 1800. However, if you smuggled sufficient gunpowder abord and fired its cannons now, the ship would probably split apart.

    1. Re:USS Constitution has a security cordon by dwye · · Score: 1

      The USS Constitution, the 200 year old wooden warship docked in Boston Harbor, is protected by a security cordon including metal detector, X-ray, and divers checking under the ship.

      For the same reason that there is one around the ferry to Liberty and Ellis Islands. They are historical landmarks, and worth defending for the propaganda value in their destruction. Likewise, the official copies of the Declaration Of Independence or the Constitution. Would the USA become an English possession again if the official copies of the Declaration were all destroyed, or would we go under the Articles of Confederation if the official copies of the Constitution were all gone? No, but something would be lost. I imagine that the English protect the official copies of the Magna Carta, too.

      Actually, it is still a commissioned warship, as well.

      It was a fearsome weapon in 1800. However, if you smuggled sufficient gunpowder abord and fired its cannons now, the ship would probably split apart.

      Both it and the USS Constellation, in Baltimore (not a commissioned warship, but still a frigate of the period), were repaired within the last decade to approximately their commissioning condition, replacing large sections with new wood (live oak not available, though, in as thick pieces as before, so sometimes they had to use multiple pieces bound together). If they just had trained crew, as well, they would be as effective as they were back when.

      And it is "aboard" you land lubber, not "abord" :-)

    2. Re:USS Constitution has a security cordon by internewt · · Score: 1

      I imagine that the English protect the official copies of the Magna Carta, too.

      Yeah, there's a small sign next to it asking people not to take flash photographs.

      --
      Car analogies break down.
    3. Re:USS Constitution has a security cordon by dwye · · Score: 1

      > > I imagine that the English protect the official copies of the Magna Carta, too.
      >
      > Yeah, there's a small sign next to it asking people not to take flash photographs.

      But you can otherwise finger the parchment? :-)

  202. Antivirus Software by Portikon · · Score: 0

    The company I work for uses (unnamed) antivirus. It's a joke. Our employees believe that if they have it installed they are immune to spyware. I haven't seen a single piece of AV software that stopped even 6 month old spyware. The fact our company has to spend money on this stuff or risk our customers telling us we're "insecure" depresses me.

  203. Airport security by torbenm · · Score: 1
    The comments are full of examples about how annoying the over-zealous airport security measures are. But I could live with that if I for one moment believed they would keep me safer than if they were dropped. But there are so may ways to circumvent it that I don't believe it:

    - You can have anything in your carry-on bag up until the point you pass through security. So you could easily fill a maximum-allowed-size bag with dynamite and set it off in the middle of the line to security, probably killing as many people as if you blew up a plane and probably disrupting traffic even more.

    - If you don't want to be in the line when the bag blows up, find a nice elderly couple and ask them to look after your bag while you go to the bathroom. If you look like white middle class, there is little risk they will refuse.

    - Arrange with 20 other people to each bring in the allowed amount of liquids and mix it to a sizeable amount of explosive after getting through security. Or -- equally effective, and a lot easier -- to a poisonous gas.

    - Many synthetic cloths are highly flammable and develop dense, poisonous smoke when burning. So just take off your jacket and set fire to it.

    And many more. A problem is that the security measures are mainly reactive -- they handle only the things that have been tried before, and it is not difficult to come up with new idea. And when that happens, they just add new measures, but tehy can never stop everything.

    I'm not saying that all security should be dropped, but the measures that are most invasive and annoying should be. I don't mind sending my back through X-rays etc. and walking through a metal detector. But please let me keep my shoes on and belt on and have a deodorant and a laptop computer in my bag without having to dig them out.

  204. Re:WOD == price support ? by mkcmkc · · Score: 1

    If all drug dealers, runners, growers were shot on site ... that too would end the "war". Sure, just like it's working with al Queda in Iraq.

    Pardon my ignorance. I pardon thee. ;-)

    You seemed to have missed the point of my original post. I didn't say that (say) rehab center workers would be upset by legalization--I was referring to those who make large profits from the illegal drug trade.

    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
  205. NYPD's illegal subway searches by arclyte · · Score: 1

    How about the campaign that the NYPD started on the New York City subway system over a year ago? Apparently, entering the subway system alters ones constitutional rights and makes it ok for the police to illegally search your bags with no need for probable cause. You either submit to random searches of your bags or you are not allowed to ride the subway. Nevermind the fact that cops seem to be randomly placed in random subway stations on random days checking random people's bags... If I were a terrorist I would simply leave the station and walk a few blocks to the next one. Unless they have cops searching everyone who gets on the subway at any station along the line, this is all either theater or an agenda with ulterior motives (catching other types of criminals/contraband on the subway?). My fiance had her diaper bag searched when she was taking our toddler to the park, but when someone tried to steal her purse one night on the subway the cop _watching the whole thing go down_ told her that she "looked like she could handle herself".

  206. Obviously confused by edraven · · Score: 1

    Years ago I worked at the computer labs at a university, and the administration instituted a policy forbidding users to use the 'chfn' command to change their "Real Name" on the UNIX systems used by the students for email. This was done ostensibly for security reasons, but when you asked what specific security concern this would mitigate you got yourself a bad reputation. I'm given to understand that the new head of the department had received an email from one of the students who had changed his "Real Name" to Mickey Mouse, and that he'd been offended.
    Now around this time I happened to notice that the hostnames of the lab PCs from which the students would access the UNIX machines were all based on their location (the lab they were in and the number of the station, printed on the monitor). So if you walked into a lab and happened to notice a pretty girl you wanted to stalk, you could log into the UNIX system and if she was checking her email the list of who was online would tell you her name based on what workstation she was sitting at. When I raised that as a possible privacy concern, I was pretty much ignored.

  207. Ultimate Security Theater by Catiline · · Score: 1

    Gun control laws -- especially in "Gun Free Zones" implentations -- are the ultimate security theater.

    Let's assume for a moment that the "Gun Free Zones" were literally that: places no firearm went. Well, the the post office shootings of the early '80s would never have happened -- government buildings have been weapons-free zones for ages. And the Columbine school schooting -- well, not only was that a Gun Free Zone, but both shooters were not old enough to legally carry or own firearms!

    When you look logically at the "more guns mean more killings" argument it falls apart with astonishing speed. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun show? What about at a gun range? The availability of weapons in either of those places is very high -- but somehow it's the places that the firearms aren't supposed to be that are at risk.

    Extend this logic just a half-step further and gun control laws of all stripes start looking stupid. I will accept gun control when the advocates for it can tell me why criminals -- people who by definition break the laws -- will respect gun control laws while they completely ignore laws against drugs, theft, and murder.
  208. Two points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First let me address the claims above that the war in the middle east is security theater:

    The fact that Saddam Hussein and more importantly his two children are dead makes the entire world more secure. If you think otherwise go read up on some of their recent history, such as torturing (REAL torture, not this waterboarding crap everyone seems to think is torture these days, I'm talking slice-open-your-thigh-and-put-wasp-larvae-in-it, then-sew-it-back-up-and-watch-you-squirm torture), maiming, and killing people that didn't agree with what the Iraqi government were doing, among other things.

    Now we are stuck there because we didn't correctly fill the power vacuum that we created by removing these three monsters.

    Now on to point two:

    Security Theater is EVERYWHERE. Airports? My favorite bit of theater in airports these days are the (usually) Air Force guys there with M16's with empty magazines in them, and the breach locked back. If *I* noticed it and wasn't even looking for it, you think anyone intent on malfeasance wouldn't?

    London is one giant piece of security theater. The most camera coverage anywhere in the world, and statistics prover what we already know, the cameras don't actually deter crime, they just help the cops figure out what happened, and occasionally catch the ones responsible.

    If you want some even more amazing examples of security theater, check out Johnny Long's talk on no tech hacking to learn exactly how insecure all this security theater is making us.

  209. Random security checks can make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it sounds like since your name was on a 'no fly list', the checks weren't random, they were the result of a filtering system with a high false positive rate.

    Random checks are not security theater, at least not in principle.

    It seems very rational to do a random check if:
        A) you lack confidence in your non-random screening functions (the ones that force a mandatory check),
        B) AND the random check will provide more information than the non-checking case,
        C) AND if the random check requires an cost (in economic or liberty terms) that would not be acceptable if everyone was checked all the time.

    A random check also allows the checker to cloak or obscure their screening function (to some degree) since an attacker cannot probe the presence/absence of the screening criteria without expending an effort that correlates with the frequency of the random checks.

    That said, random checks don't make sense if:
        - the consequences of failing to check and someone getting through aren't that serious,
    OR
        - attackers are infrequent and the the random check is infrequent enough that your overall detection rate isn't helped
        - AND you don't care about obscuring your screening function

    While I don't know enough facts about costs or detection rates and false positive rates to gauge whether random airline passenger screening checks make sense, it seems plausible that they could in theory be reasonable.

  210. No... by raygundan · · Score: 1

    They look up the doctor's name in their list of doctors (often on a computer! amazing!), and call the number that their system lists. At this point, if the doctor's name is fake, they already know you're full of shit. If it's real, they'll have verification from the doctor or their administrative staff shortly as to whether or not that prescription was actually given out by that office. It's happened to me on prescriptions with no potential for abuse (once on an inhaler, and another time on some medicine for altitude sickness)-- I can only imagine how thorough they have to be with abuse drugs.

  211. We have that here with fire marshal's permission by professorguy · · Score: 1
    We have a door in our hospital which requires a key card swipe to get in and a swipe to get OUT. Fire marshal visits every month with nary a mention. He has made us swap out some power strips and UPSs for ones with a different UL listing, and he's always making us remove flammable boxes from within 18" of ceilings so he is paying attention.

    But when you want to LEAVE our birthing center, you better have a key.

    Of course, the fire alarm disables the lock so you can imaging a kidnapper pulling the alarm then exiting. I think if you want to escape unnoticed this wouldn't work, and if you tried to use the 'confusion' of an alarm to your advantage, we have many fire drills so there is little confusion--everyone knows what to do.

    And unless you are already out at the street when they call a code pink (kidnapping), you are not getting away. We practice code pinks and believe me, no one can 'sneak' out of our building once the announcement is broadcast. We do not rely on technology (beyond the PA) to pull this off, it is 200 human observers with assigned strategic positions all looking for anyone entering, leaving, or even driving in the parking lot.

  212. Airport Fences by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    The Feds in the US are paying for chain-link fences around aiports. There can be several miles of bob-wire topped, 10ft high chain-link,which is all but transparent to a set of $20 bolt cutters, but in many places it is just a 4ft high barrier. These come with electronic gates, that stay broken and hence propped open most of the time.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  213. Someone forgot his thinking cap by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    Even if the chance of child abduction is very low, I don't see a system like this as "security theater", but as both necessary and useful. (It's the type of system that you hope never has to be used, but you're happy that it is in place when it is needed.) Then you are not thinking very hard.

    The hospital where my kids were born at had one of those fancy RFID tag systems where a tag is attached to the umbilical stump. During the mandatory hospital tour, when they made a big deal about this state-of-the-art security, how they do kidnapping drills all the time, etc, I wondered to myself, "It's a little plastic tag. Why couldn't the baby-napper just snip it off?"

    Fast forward a few months to when my first child was born. Part of the discharge procedure is, of course, to remove the RFID tag, which the nurse unceremoniously did with a small wire cutter. When I made light of how easily the security system might be defeated, the nurse assured me that a kidnapper would never have a wire cutter. I would have asked how she could be so sure, but I really just wanted to go home at that point.

    It wasn't until after having my second child that I realized the true security measure: "Newborns are a royal pain in the ass." I'd have 12 kids if there were some way to just pick 'em up after 9 months or so.
    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  214. Strong Password Requirements by Teh+MegaHurtz · · Score: 1

    Secure password policies. My workplace introduced this policy not long ago and it's clearly a bit of security theater. Sure, done properly it will work. But the reality is that when you are requiring a high level of complexity... high number of characters, capitals or special characters, people will start to write them down when they previously wouldn't have. In these cases, we now have effectively LESS security, as that password is potentially more available to intruders. It is an even easier method of breaking into a system than it is using a dictionary or brute force attacks, especially when a typical scenario would only allow an attacker a short period of opportunity to try and crack a password. This isn't to say that all strong password requirements are a bad idea, requiring just a single capital letter or a single number in the password would probably work just fine, but the notion that deploying a complex set of password rules will increase security is flat out wrong.

    The same goes for applications requiring seperate credentials from those used to initially log on to the system. When you start to introduce even MORE usernames and passwords into the mix, it is going to greatly increase people's tendency to write them down.

    Using a single set of credentials for everything and requiring only a minimally complex password, locking out the account after a set number of attempts would be the best solution, but of course in a large corporation the voice of the front line staff is rarely heard.

  215. A doorstop to avoid using the access card. by stm2 · · Score: 1

    I saw in INTA building (the Argentina version of USDA) some door that have a card reader to get it, but the traffic is to intense in the morning that is always left with a stone working as a doorstop.
    Like the password written in the keyboard.

    --
    DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
  216. Why bother faxing? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    My kids' doctor doesn't mess with any of this faxing BS. He just calls their prescriptions into the pharmacy.

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  217. Re:WOD == price support ? by pbhj · · Score: 1

    The purpose of the War on Drugs is to support the price of illegal drugs. Rehab center workers are part of the "war on drugs". Perhaps a little more moderation.

    As for "working .. in Iraq", I was referring to domestic policy, which appeared to be your domain of discussion. If Iraqi people start pushing wraps on the street corner then yes line 'em up and shoot 'em would eliminate the problem of people selling drugs on the street corner.

    It's a cost benefit analysis a couple of thousand GBP is worth a few nights in jail, it's not worth the risk of summary execution.
  218. backwards? by beefubermensch · · Score: 1

    I'm trying to think of when I've encountered security that wasn't theater.

    * mechanical locks of all kinds
    * car alarms
    * antivirus software

    All of these are not only ineffective (theater), they're usually at least as bad as the disease they attempt to prevent (lost keys, carrying keys, false alarms, automatic download and execution of useless resource-hogging insecure code...).

  219. Re:MIT ITS passwords, and Microsoft File Servers by real+gumby · · Score: 1

    Yes, I can verify that your story is close to correct.

    The command interpreter ("shell") for ITS was the debugger(!). You could give it commands either as shortcuts (control characters) or in long form, with a colon and the command name. So you could log in as GUMBYU (altmode was a special character -- if you only had an ASCII terminal you could use escape) or via :LOGIN GUMBY. Mainly it just set your homedir since there wasn't much difference between being logged in and not being logged in. You could type the command :PASS (or was it :PASSWORD -- I no longer remember) and send a password, but some wag added that command and the response "You're sending a password HERE?" That was probably Guy Steele). So that was ITS. Oh yea you could read anybody's mail by doing :PRMAIL GUMBY (or :PRMAIL RMS), or I think it was GUMBY^R.

    Now if you came in from a remote machine not in the lab you did have to log in, but that was only because the server you talked to implemented that. It looked a lot like DDT, the "shell" but really wasn't -- it only implemented a few commands, one of which was a login command that required a password. If you authenticated then you were given a DDT with the homedir already set. By the time I started using the system in late 1979/early 1980 that authenticating server already existed.

    Note this is all before the arpanet switched over to TCP in 1984. We used an older protocol called NCP.

  220. Filming by hdon · · Score: 1

    Too many people don't understand they have a legal right to take photographs and record video in public places, and that it's protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

    The practice of street photography has a long tradition in New York City and its purpose varies from hobby and artistic expression to memory making and journalistic documentation. But the freedom to photograph and film has long been taken for granted and challenged in the wake of 9/11.

    Know your rights and what to do when approached by law enforcement.

    My name is Kim Lengle and I pitched this story to several College Current producer during a pitch session of Jon Alpert's Documentary class at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. I was told that you had a similar story that couldn't be aired.

    My story has first hand accounts and shows myself and my partner being kicked out of public places for trying to record video.


    Watch the video.

    As this guy clearly escapes with video footage, and I've seen countless others do the same, it's pretty clear that this isn't any real form of security at all.

  221. locked doors on campus by xenoterracide · · Score: 0

    my school (baker college) has decided to implement a 'all classrooms must be locked' policy. Many classrooms have plaster walls and windows into the halls. Students can't get back in once they leave. For the most part we prop the doors open, or put things in the doors. I don't for a second thing this would stop a shooter from killing enough. And it would preven emergency services from easily entering the rooms to aid wounded.