.png)
Curious • May 31, 2016 6:37 PM
I can't help but think that "security" might be a word being shoe-horned into an expressed rationale, for ultimately justifying some other non-expressed concerns (wanting more power) or needs, or rather for simply achieving a desired effect for some reason (to effectively detain and prosecute people, or who knows, to even shoot people unprovoked.)
As for the notion of someone possibly exposing weaknesses in security, I think such a basic problem simply lack substance to be deemed a rational. Sounds like bs to me, akin to the notion of there being "unknown unknowns", as if being justifiable paranoid, as if simply knowing you are right to be paranoid, as if having magical foresight, or, as if pretending that knowledge about threats somehow shows itself to US authorities alone.
I think if someone were to guess, gamble or try randomly find the opportunity to pass through security one time with some dangerous item, calling such an activity, or such a hypothetical problem, "the exposing of a weakness", would seem like bs imo, and more like ironic distancing, in which the idea of someone getting past security is more about the fear of some place's security having a weakness, which ofc could have *nothing* to do with anyone actually trying to pass through security with a dangerous object.
An other idea, that someone would seek to try to pass through security with a dangerous object, and then to pass though, have nothing to do with exposing anything, as if the act of exposing something could even be a hypothetical motivation. With this concrete example, the idea of anyone "exposing a lack of security" becomes pure fiction and something irrational I think.
I am tempted to conclude that the only weakness that can exposed by walking away from airport security, is when there would be no security AND more importantly, if the absence of security was to be a secret.
Another problem: Simply imagining an example of someone wanting to maybe pass through airport security with a bomb AND while also carrying a device that detects bomb-detection-devices from a distance, if that person detects bomb-detection-devices and walks away from it all, I'd claim that the very idea of someone detecting someone else's security is hardly a weakness that pertains to security as such. At the very least, one must not confuse the idea of someone being able to *detect* bad security at some location, with someone *gaining knowledge* (i.e *all* knowledge) about some location's real security, else the notion of "exposing" anything (being a convenient metaphor in language) really ends up being an exaggeration that in turn should merit no truth in retrospect.
I think the idea of someone being able to learn everything there is to know about the location of real security by walking away from airport security, becomes such a fantasy of an idea, that it in turn makes the idea of "security being exposed" (as an act or even the mere theoretical possibility) a philosophical impossibility when trying to combine that basic idea with logic, language and rhetoric.
I looked for the word "exposed" and "exposing" in the article and found none, though one sentence apparently show how they think someone will want to be "probing for weaknesses".
According to the article, the man was quoted as saying "We just want to be able to stop them,", which in itself seems very much like wanting to have more power for the sake of it.
It seems unclear to me, if they actually want to improve security by having lawful means to detain anyone walking away (or perhaps being accused of trying to) from airport security, or simply wanting a 'superpower' to be used without having to be held accountable in any way for such use.
It seems to me, that the only "weakness" they would want to prevent by implementing such a law and if wittingly having bad or non existing security: is being reprimanded or being punished if ever over reacting or somehow end up doing something "wrong", or possibly if ever being accused of being criminal, cruel, unfair, disrespectful, annoying, or unreasonable.
This now reminds me of the game Eve online, in which non playing characters in spaceships police the space in the center area of the universe. The police can't prevent crime between players, but the security npc's always punish a player as good as they can. So there would be this idea of sorts: more punishment to cover bad security.
from Schneier on Security http://ift.tt/1qZNOAy
0 comments:
Post a Comment