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: <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 k7ELpgnw025593 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:51:43 -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 k7ELpfvp019154; 	Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:51:41 -0400
Received: FROM smtp.eecs.umich.edu (smtp.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.43]) 	BY dave.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 44E0F067.A05A6.24257 ;  	14 Aug 2006 17:51:35 -0400
Received: from smtp.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) 	by smtp.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7ELpX1l009427 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); 	Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:51:33 -0400
Received: from localhost (binkertn &AElig localhost) 	by smtp.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id k7ELpX6G009424; 	Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:51:33 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: smtp.eecs.umich.edu: binkertn owned process doing -bs
X-X-Sender: binkertn &AElig smtp.eecs.umich.edu
In-Reply-To: <2ff07e720608141036r3fe1af31pb178e5c0ec5764aa &AElig mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608141743460.29724 &AElig smtp.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608131415030.30087 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>   <20060814165517.45149.qmail &AElig web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>  <2ff07e720608141036r3fe1af31pb178e5c0ec5764aa &AElig mail.gmail.com>
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 17:51:33 -0400 (EDT)
To: Clare Dibble <clare.dibble &AElig gmail.com>
cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Nathan Binkert <binkertn &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: stupid feel-good "no liquids" rule
Status: O
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 696

> I think it is sort of interesting that the security measures were stepped up
> in light of a foiled plot attempt... a sign that current measures were
> _effective_.

I'm probably behind in this conversation, but it's worth pointing out that 
the latest foiled attempt was a result of old fashioned detective work. 
People sitting in cars, following suspects around and figuring out who 
they are talking to and what they're planning to do.  It had little to do 
with new security measures.  If any of you do read what Schneier writes, 
he talks a lot about spending money on prevention (by real intelligence 
work) and limiting the impact of a successful attack (by having well 
trained emergency responders).  He writes a about how stupid it is to try 
to think of all of the things that the terrorists might do because of the 
huge cost of guessing wrong.  Even dumb people (terrorists) can have good 
imaginations.  (If not better since it might be easier for them to think 
outside the box.)

I think everyone who cares about a subject like this should read some of 
his work.

   Nate