Message-ID: <4b6ee9310804140956i90bb852l58bc8609a4e12e68@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:56:20 +0100
From: n3td3v <xploitable@...il.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, n3td3v <n3td3v@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: n3td3v has a fan

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:06 PM, imipak <imipak@...il.com> wrote:
> Schneier coined the phrase, dolt.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theatre

Forwarded conversation
Subject: Security Threater: reader comment from n3td3v
------------------------

From: n3td3v <xploitable@...il.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:35 PM
To: n3td3v <n3td3v@...glegroups.com>
Cc: schneier@...neier.com


Security Threater: reader comment from n3td3v

Posted on: April 10, 2008, 9:17 AM PDT
Story: Bruce Schneier's new view on Security Theater

Security threater is good because it scares potential terrorists from
being caught. It keeps the terrorists on their toes and worrying all
the time. You've got to have security threater in place to deter
terrorists or people thinking about it, or in the middle of plotting
it. Terrorists as a lot of people know don't just wake up one day and
decide to bomb something, you've got to take months and years of
planning and . In UK, we have police at our airport with guns standing
about to scare terrorists, at our major train stations we've got
police standing about as well looking serious. We've got CCTV
everywhere as well, and that deters crime and terrorism planning in
certain areas where they are, and makes people feel less likely to
have their handbag snatched. This has got to be a good thing, not a
bad thing. I think security threater messes with the terrorists heads
and makes wannabes think twice about it. However, your most serious
terrorist will always find a way by these security threaters, but
thats not to say they shouldn't be there, and a security threater is
fine as long as its not your only line of defense against a threat.
Usually airports combine security threater and real security together,
and thats got to be a good thing, not a bad thing. We've got to use
security threater as a deterrent and reassure the public. The
government is playing mind games with the terrorists and thats what
security threater is all about. Its primary focus is not to make the
public feel safe, its to screw with the terrorists heads, making the
public feel better is a secondry effect. If security threater helps to
frustrate the easy planning of terrorism, thats a good thing. Security
threater: 1. screw with terrorists head. 2. make them feel watched and
known about. 3. make them feel they're about to get handcuffed. 4.
frustrate planning and reconnaissance. 5. make public feel better. 6.
Spot suspicious persons or packages. I don't think we need to read
into it any further than that. I read Bruce Schneier's essay on
"Psychology of Security" but it doesn't really tell us anything.
Security Threater is a lot less of a science than he is making it out
to be. Some things need not be as complicated as they're made out to
be by him, especially security threater. I think his essay is looking
at security threater's effect from the humble travellers points of
view/ the general public, not from a terrorist prospective. When you
start looking at the effects of security threater on the humble
terrorist, you start to reap the rewards from it. Its as if Bruce
Schneier has a grudge with the police, the government etc for having
security threater in place and making him feel uncomfortable at
airports etc. I think Bruce Scheier wishes security was in place, but
not visually... to make the public feel uneasy that there is a
possibility of something about to happen. Bruce, a visual deterrent is
needed to make terrorists uneasy, and I know it makes *you* feel
airports etc are under siege all the time, and you probably remember
back to the days when it wasn't like it is today, but some things
cannot be reversed, and we can't go back to the good old days. Slack
up your grudge with security threater, which *i* believe you have and
just think about how many more active terrorists we'd have without it
in place. I believe without a visual deterrent at our airports and
public places where people gather, which inconvenience your eye and
bring pollution to your line of sight, we would be in a far worse
situation than we are. Security threater works, so let's not bash it
through intellectual and sophisticated essays. I know when you goto
the airport and public places, all you want to see is hot chicks and
flowers and children playing and laughing, but in todays world, we've
just got to live with security threater being paramount in countering
the terrorist threat, espeically people who think *I wonder how easy
it is to carry out a terrorist attack anyway* and thats when they see
the police with guns standing about and think twice, and go back to
reading porn mags. The bottom line, Bruce Schneier doesn't like
security threater... too bad, move on... you'll acclimatise to post
9/11 security eventually. I'm all for a visual deterrent, it works in
night clubs to make people scared to start fights, so the same should
work elsewhere. You should be supporting it, not bashing it. I feel
safer in a night club that beefy guys are standing about, and I don't
think as many folks would goto night clubs if there were no beefy guys
standing about. I know the beefy guys in the night clubs help prevent
fights too by just standing about as a visual deterrent. So, Bruce
Schneier, I want to see you supporting Security threater on your blog
and the positives of it, instead of the negitive effects it might be
having on society and the real difference its doing to combat crime
and terrorism.

http://www.news.com/5208-10784_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=36752&messageID=397071
----------
From: Bruce Schneier <schneier@...neier.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:50 PM
To: n3td3v <xploitable@...il.com>


Thanks.

Can you post this as a comment to my blog so that others can see it?

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/04/the_feeling_and_1.html

You can post anonymously if you like.

Bruce
----------
From: n3td3v <xploitable@...il.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:10 PM
To: Bruce Schneier <schneier@...neier.com>


I don't want to go on your website on a comment level.

The comment is on Cnet, n3td3v-list, and i post the news article link
on full-disclosure today, so I guess folks scrolled down and seen it
there.

If you want the comment on your site, you post it yourself.

No rudeness or disrespect ment.

I have a select number of places I feel in my comfort zone to post to,
and your website isn't one of them.

I think *others* have seen it.

Bye for now,

n3td3v
----------
From: Bruce Schneier <schneier@...neier.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:09 PM
To: n3td3v <xploitable@...il.com>


No problem.  Thanks for sending it to me.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists