[41786] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Hollis)
Wed Sep 12 05:48:19 2001
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 02:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net>
To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: "'Jim Dixon'" <jdd@vbc.net>, Vadim Antonov <avg@exigengroup.com>,
<nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <EA9368A5B1010140ADBF534E4D32C728069EA3@condor.mhsc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0109120238400.22372-100000@anime.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> To my understanding, the airline didn't charge the marshals and the marshals
> didn't charge the airline, quid pro quo. I remember some senator raising a
> big stink about airlines getting preferential treatment, at the time. An
> aircraft is considered private property. They only did it on domestic
> flights, as I recall, due to international jurisdictional issues. There was
> also the issue of firearms and aircraft pressure hulls. There was a big push
> to find a round that was effective, yet wouldn't create problems there. That
> was about the time that the Tazer was invented (a real problem with multiple
> assailants, per man).
Israel's El-Al Airlines has plainclothes armed air marshals... they seem
to have figured out how to address those problems...?
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
