Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
From: John Fraizer <nanog () Overkill EnterZone Net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 16:37:31 -0400 (EDT)



Armed Terrorist vs Marine (armed or unarmed), I'm putting my money on the
Marine.  I'm biased of course.

The terrorist is very emotionally attached to the situation at hand.  The
Marine is acting on instinct and training. (Emotions come later when
you're trying to wash the filthy terrorist blood off you hands and
clothes.)

---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc



On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Deepak Jain wrote:


Would you want the Marines armed?

I think a big concern about putting Marshalls on the planes is whether they
should be armed or not.

If you let an enforcement official on a plane with the only [theoretically]
gun on the plane, it could also [theoretically] be taken from them [say by
overpowering them..].

I personally find it comforting that the hijackers weren't able to get guns
on the plane, or at least couldn't count on getting them on the planes. That
says something about the security checkpoints established thus far.

Deepak Jain


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
Dave O'Shea
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 3:44 PM
To: Kevin Day; John Fraizer
Cc: David Howe; Email List: nanog
Subject: RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof



Federal penitentiaries have among the best security in the world, and
use highly invasive searches combined with a very limited access policy
and severe limitations about what may be brought into a prison. Weapons,
edged and blunt, are still quite common.

Any security policy that doesn't put into place measures to deal with
threats as they arise is ineffective by definition. Talking sternly to
the offender is of questionable value when the offender is a crabby
stockbroker annoyed about the inflight meal.

Personally, I have a ticket to fly somewhere next week that I purchased
for the dirt-cheap price of $140 round-trip. I'm beginning to think I'd
be much happier spending twice that to fly on a half-empty plane with a
couple of really short-tempered marines sitting towards the back of the
plane.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Day [mailto:toasty () temphost dragondata com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 1:43 PM
To: John Fraizer
Cc: David Howe; Email List: nanog
Subject: Re: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof





On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, David Howe wrote:


There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of
behavior.  (Prebooking multiple flights for the same
individual.)
Does a domestic flight require a passport or other form
of positive ID?
if not, they could book as many tickets as needed with a
different name per
ticket.




Yes.  Photo identification to get your tickets, period, the end.

Not necessarily. I've boarded planes several times without
showing a piece
of ID. With the new automated check-in kiosks in several
airports, if you
have no luggage to check-in, you don't see a person at all..
(You still do
need a credit card in your name though) Both times I left Houston-Bush
International, I had my tickets printed and checked in by
only telling the
attendant my name. (I thought it was very strange, but didn't
question it)

Many really small regional airports allow you to board
without going through
metal detectors/bag x-rays. Once you get off the plane at the
destination(larger airport) you're behind the "secure" zone,
and can also
board another flight without going through one.

I'm not saying that these kinds of things are what caused yesterday's
events, or that whoever did this didn't use fake ID's, so I'm
not sure that
strictly enforcing this sort of thing would have mattered anyway.


-- Kevin






  By Date           By Thread  

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