>From: Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sep 30, 2004 5:06 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: "ID Rules Exist, But Can't Be Seen"
.. >For instance, is it indeed possible that revealing this rule would pose an >additional security risk? If such a rule exists (and it does) then hijackers >obviously already know about it. Could this rule also reveal some deeper >secrets about how hijackers can be detected? I seriously doubt it. One possibility raised by Dan Simon (I think) on Eric Rescorla's excellent blog is that the rule is part of some monthly briefing that is sent out, which might include some kind of information they'd rather not have published, e.g., "be especially careful about anyone carrying a guitar case; we've heard rumors about using one to bring a Tommy gun onboard." >Then of course, the argument may be that the government wanted to hide the >rule for the very reason of making it more unassailable. In other words, if >the rule were known, then it might be more easily contested in court. Hiding >the rule protects the law which in turn protects national security. Maybe. I guess the thing that's confusing about any of these answers is that the rules as they're applied must be propogated to thousands of people. It's not like they could easily hide guidance like "no more than 10 Arabs per flight" or "double-screen anyone with brown skin and a Koran"--someone would leak it. Perhaps the written rules include things like this that they don't want to subject to court scrutiny, but then how do they get that down to the people doing the screening at the gate? The whole idea of laws that the citizens aren't allowed to see just sounds like something you'd expect in some godawful third-world dictatorship, not in the US. >-TD --John Kelsey
