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: 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 k7EMiNnw028898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:44:24 -0400 Received: from dave.mr.itd.umich.edu (dave.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.14.70]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7EMiMF4026746; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:44:22 -0400 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY dave.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 44E0FCC3.5187E.27601 ; 14 Aug 2006 18:44:19 -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 k7EMiHlh026727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:44:17 -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 k7EMiGnw028893 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:44:17 -0400 Received: from localhost (dreeves Æ localhost) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id k7EMiGKG028890; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:44:16 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs X-X-Sender: dreeves Æ boston.eecs.umich.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <44DF6DE6.1010203 Æ umich.edu> <3CE327AF-BB1E-466D-95C9-3F9E6E0F3D89 Æ 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 18:44:15 -0400 (EDT) To: James W Mickens cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Daniel Reeves Subject: Re: stupid feel-good "no liquids" rule Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 698 > I'm glad that our airports are at least trying to ensure that I live to > see that rosy future. It's like Yoda said. Measures that do increase security good are. Measures that "try" to increase security merely theatrical are. I support screening for guns and bombs. Behavioral profiling doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Screening for knives and liquids (for god's sake, our bodies are half liquid), no. Thanks to both Nates for pointing us to Bruce Schneier. He's really excellent. Nate Clark's email included Schneier's short response to the current situation. By the way, I'm willing to concede that the initial security response may have been justified (though even that's a little fishy, as Kevin points out). But no reasonable person can walk through the current security checks and say that it's anything but a charade. -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" "...While we must recognize that computers are machines that have improved our lives in countless ways, we must also, by the same token, recognize that they are the evil demon spawn of hell." -- Dave Barry