X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS  	autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.0-r372567
Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <improvetheworld-errors &AElig umich.edu>
Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k7EF5gnw005122 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:05:42 -0400
Received: from jeffrey.mr.itd.umich.edu (jeffrey.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.14.71]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7EF5bRw000622; 	Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:05:37 -0400
Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	BY jeffrey.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 44E0913C.AF6FF.24575 ;  	14 Aug 2006 11:05:32 -0400
Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7EF5P4j000588 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); 	Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:05:25 -0400
Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k7EF5Pnw005115 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); 	Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:05:25 -0400
Received: from localhost (dreeves &AElig localhost) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id k7EF5P9U005112; 	Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:05:25 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs
X-X-Sender: dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608140446510.18991 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608141055400.30087 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608131415030.30087 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>   <44DF6DE6.1010203 &AElig umich.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608131725200.20709 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>   <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608132232260.18836 &AElig columbus.eecs.umich.edu>  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608140446510.18991 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r372567 (2006-01-26) on  	newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS
X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:05:25 -0400 (EDT)
To: James W Mickens <jmickens &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: stupid feel-good "no liquids" rule
Status: O
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 678

> The BAA relaxed some of the rules today, allowing small carry-ons. However, 
> liquids are still not permitted.

In other words, back to the honor system.

> If we can spend millions, or even hundred of millions, on security 
> precautions to prevent such attacks, we lessen the risk of incurring ...

But that's the point that Nate and I and others are trying to make:  the 
"no liquids" rule constitutes spending millions on security that does just 
about nothing to prevent attacks.  With the initial draconian measures it 
was at least debatable but once they allow carry-ons again (and really, 
checking your laptop?  that could never fly, so to speak, with passengers) 
then there's just no way to argue that the "no liquids" rule is doing a 
drop of good.

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

Q: How many heterosexual males does it take to screw in a light bulb in
    San Francisco?
A: Both of them.