OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


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

You're assuming secrets staying secret, again.


You're assuming they don't.

Yes. Welcome to the world of security.

[...]


Well, if nobody can explain how the secret can be compromised, and nobody
has, then the secret appears to be pretty safe.

That is a silly assertion. It assumes because nobody has done something
before, or has described how it can be done, that it will never be done.

It's akin to someone having said "man has never flown, and nobody can
describe how many will fly, so man will never fly." (just to stay on topic
{8^).

[...]
Well, if all programs fail, there's nothing we can do.

That is true. But each time you add a layer - and assuming that the layers
have independent failure modes, which is a simplification - you decrease
the likelyhood of *all* layers failing concurrently.

That's precisely the point: we make the case were "all programs fail" less
likely by increasing the universe of programs.


But you're not saying the marshal program MIGHT fail, you're saying the
,arshal program WILL fail.

Correct. If I'm wrong, then there's no problem. If I'm right, then we'd
better have something else ready to handle that case.

It's clear you're against armed marshals on
airplanes,

That reflects your reading skills; not my beliefs. As I wrote, it is a
balancing act. If we assume that it is less than P likely that someone can
smuggle a weapon on board, then putting an armed marshal on the aircraft
increases risk. If we assume that it is more than P likely, then putting
an armed marshal on board decreases risk.

The choice of P reflects the chances of the identity of the marshal(s)
getting out.

Personally, I believe that the chances of smuggling a weapon on board are
high, but that the chances of the identity of the marshal being released
are also high. This reflects not the nature of the problem, but my low
opinion of the people working to solve these problems...or perhaps their
paymasters.

In other words, I'd have more faith if the TSA weren't cutting budgets for
security staff and wasting time on ineffective ideas like flight
restrictions which effect only GA.

but it appears to be just an emotional issue with you. You
have not presented a cogent argument against them.

That's not true, but it is apparent I've not presented an argument that you
can follow. I'd be sorry for that were it not apparent that you've no
interest in following any argument which disagrees with your opinion.

- Andrew