"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

Sigh In you pop up this thread a few messages, you'll see that I wrote:

Yes. They'd also need to identify the marshal amongst the passengers, as
you noted. However, relying upon these "secrets" is relying upon
something
called "security through obscurity". It doesn't work in the long term.


So what? You never did explain how the terrorists identify the marshals.



If nothing else, it's yet another "weak point" against which an "attack"
can
be attempted. It means that the terrorist doesn't need to get a weapon on
board, but just get access to the marshal's identity on a flight.


But how does the terrorist get access to the marshal's identity on a flight?
It's not enough to just state that's all he has to do, you have to explain
how he does it.



That is,
there are now two different ways to acquire a weapon on board, whereas
before there was just one.


How does the terrorist get the gun from the marshal?



So you're depending upon the terrorists not learning a secret.


How would they learn it?



That's fine...until/unless they do learn the secret.


How would they learn it?



In that
case, security is actually *reduced* as they now have access to
a weapon on board (assuming, again, that it's not easier to simply
smuggle something on board than it is to discern this secret).


But if they don't know who the marshal is security is *increased*.