Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
From: Dan Hollis <goemon () anime net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 02:46:36 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
To my understanding, the airline didn't charge the marshals and the marshals
didn't charge the airline, quid pro quo. I remember some senator raising a
big stink about airlines getting preferential treatment, at the time. An
aircraft is considered private property. They only did it on domestic
flights, as I recall, due to international jurisdictional issues. There was
also the issue of firearms and aircraft pressure hulls. There was a big push
to find a round that was effective, yet wouldn't create problems there. That
was about the time that the Tazer was invented (a real problem with multiple
assailants, per man).

Israel's El-Al Airlines has plainclothes armed air marshals... they seem
to have figured out how to address those problems...?


[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]