Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Nov 2010 22:34 UTC
Permalink for comment 450192
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-18
Hmmm...let me see. No. There are already scanners that works without being so invasive. This is what Bruce Schneier would call security theater and as opposed to the companies hawking their overprice products he knows what he's talking about. These technologies are not implemented because they help, they're implemented so somone can say "look, we're really doing something".
You know what helps security? Paying your security staff well, training them and making sure they're skilled and alert but that's not as cool and visible as some overly expensive space age technology that doesn't really help.
On a related note, I think it's f--king hilarious that the U.S are now implementing more invasive measures than what the good-ole USSR ever did.
Edited 2010-11-17 00:33 UTC