X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham 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 k7ELienw025340 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:44:40 -0400 Received: from galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu (galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.145]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7ELicfR017975; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:44:38 -0400 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 44E0EEBE.739A6.11494 ; 14 Aug 2006 17:44:30 -0400 Received: from kepler.eecs.umich.edu (kepler.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.81]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7ELiSmZ017952 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:44:28 -0400 Received: from kepler.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by kepler.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k7ELiJU2020161; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:44:19 -0400 Received: from localhost (klochner Æ localhost) by kepler.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id k7ELiJwn020158; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:44:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <44E0EBF8.4020505 Æ umich.edu> Message-ID: References: <44DF6DE6.1010203 Æ umich.edu> <3CE327AF-BB1E-466D-95C9-3F9E6E0F3D89 Æ umich.edu>

<44E0EBF8.4020505 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 17:44:19 -0400 (EDT) To: Brian Magerko cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Kevin Lochner Subject: Re: stupid feel-good "no liquids" rule Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 695 i just find the magnitude of the response to be a little absurd, unless they really were making a huge gamble with our lives prior to the announcement. This also awakens my inner cynic with senate elections coming so soon. irregardless isn't a word. On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Brian Magerko wrote: > > I think the reasoning there is to not tip off this organization they were > monitoring, for better or worse. The more general question there is why not > use all reasonable restrictions all the time (like no carry-on) if these > measures are deemed effective (irregardless of whether or not they actually > are, per Dan's points). > > B- > > Kevin Lochner wrote: >> Here's my question: >> >> seeing as the british intelligence knew about this plot well in advance and >> saw no reason to ban liquids on planes leading up to the publicity stunt >> regarding the bust, why was it suddenly soooooo important to make sure that >> no liquids came through after they announced it? >> >> And what about the US? banning liquids on US domestic flights wouldn't >> have jeopardized the british bust, so why all of a sudden do we have to get >> worked up about liquids on flights? >> >> - kevin >> >> >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Brian Magerko wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Why stop with explosives. If you really want to being the Western world >>> to a halt, do the following: >>> - obtain the plague or some other nasty virus >>> - infect yourself with said virus >>> - buy yourself a few international flights going through Ohare, Heathrow, >>> and wherever else >>> - cough a lot >>> >>> If you wanted to target a single country, just use domestic flights. THAT >>> is the kind of attack that is scary as hell. But again, what security >>> measures will we go through to prevent it? Surveillance...I hope they >>> surveil the hell out of terrorist cells to see what they're up to, sure. >>> In terms of dealing with the general public though, we can either start >>> buying gas masks or try to improve the world (tm) and make people consider >>> NOT destroying us. >>> >>> B- >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Robert Felty wrote: >>> >>>> James, >>>> >>>> You are right to point out this inconsistency. However, consider the fact >>>> that there is very little security on passenger train travel in the U.S. >>>> and in most of Europe. In the U.S., not many people actually ride trains, >>>> so blowing up a few would not be that big a setback, but in Europe it >>>> could be. Blowing up a bunch of railroad tracks in the U.S. could really >>>> cripple shipping though (or major highways). I am not trying to give the >>>> terrorists ideas here, but let's say that they start targeting some of >>>> these outlets as well. We will have to build up more and more security >>>> measures. Where does it stop? We will never get one step ahead of the >>>> terrorists. That is the advantage of the attacker. >>>> >>>> I still don't know all the details of the latest attempted attack, but it >>>> sounds like these attackers never even set foot in an airport. Their plan >>>> was foiled long before that. Evidence recovered after the 9/11 attacks >>>> shows that it also probably could have been avoided by similar means, >>>> i.e. by using intelligence agencies, without inconveniencing travelers. >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:53 PM, James W Mickens wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Back to Nate and Danny's ideas. I for one would rather not >>>>>> have security in airports whatsoever. I would be plenty happy >>>>>> to take my chances. I don't think that every plane would >>>>>> suddenly start blowing up. >>>>> >>>>> I strongly disagree. By your own analysis, "there are lots of people who >>>>> hate the U.S." and will do organizations like Hamas "a favor by harming >>>>> the evil U.S." If this is true, it couldn't possibly be the case that >>>>> our airplanes would be reasonably safe with no security at our airports. >>>>> In fact, we can almost be certain that there would be a huge upswing in >>>>> terrorists attacks, if only because Bin Laden is on the record as saying >>>>> that he *wants* to hit us again. Every one of the Bin Laden tapes >>>>> contains ominous warnings about future attacks. He is not being >>>>> sarcastic. In conjunction with addressing the root causes of terrorism, >>>>> we have to protect ourselves against the people who already hate us now. >>>>> We must be realistic about the dangers that face us. The British, >>>>> American, and Pakistani intelligence agencies just broke up a major >>>>> terrorist plot against airliners. This is the context for the entire >>>>> conversation that we're having now. The threat is real. >>>>> >>>>> ~j >>>>> >>>> >>> >