I appreciate Valdis's point and agree with it. I'll posit that there is an optimal balance that can be achieved vis-a-vis security. I'll use airport security as my example. In this case, security theater becomes a political necessity (fed gov't needs to look responsive after 9/11 to re-assure people that something is being done). If people are being assured that something is being done, that can (potentially) lower the "level" at which people feel terrorized, as they believe that they are protected. However, if security theater becomes too restraining or inordinately conspicuous, the perception of safety could back-fire, as people feel one or both of the following: a) the authorities are desperate; and b) authorities inconvenience (at best) and detain (worse) innocent parties. That second point could lead to a backlash against the very security that is (ideally) protecting the populace from terrorism-by-plane.
Security theater by itself is disadvantageous by definition. Further, security theater might provide a "good show" where people think they are secure, creating an environment that reduces pressure to enact more meaningful but less visible security measures. Bottom line: security theater isn't universally "bad." But it is incontrovertibly insufficient. - G ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "G. D. Fuego" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Fwd: n3td3v has a fan > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
