[42015] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Lack of Security
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mathias Körber)
Thu Sep 13 02:17:00 2001
From: "Mathias Körber" <mathias@koerber.org>
To: "Joe Shaw" <jshaw@insync.net>
Cc: "Dave Stewart" <dbs@ntrnet.net>, <nanog@merit.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:15:32 +0800
Message-ID: <NFBBLGLCMLMKAABDCGFOAECMCAAA.mathias@koerber.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0109130049030.28034-100000@vellocet.insync.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
| Why is it important that they not? It seems to me that the only
| difference between a person with a ticket and a person without now is =
just
| the ticket. Neither have baggage and all have to go through the same
| checkpoints. The only thing is more time for shaking people down that
| either raise suspicion or set the metal detector off. What does the
| removal of curbside checking provide?
The difference is that those with tickets will get on the plane and thus
pose a higher potential security risk. So they should be screened more
closely, which will require time and resources. Not screening those
who don't want to fly will free up those resources. Why should =
non-passenger
be screened in the first place. They can stay outside the security =
perimeter.
=20
| My wife brought up an interesting point. We travel with small =
children,
| and they tend to need things to keep them occupied while they're in =
small
| confined spaces for hours at a time. They also need things like =
diapers,
| formula, pacifiers, snacks, etc. which will be impossible to transport
| without some sort of carry on bag. Make no mistake, these are =
reactionary
Here I agree. I do think that as a short-term measure this is OK, until
new procedures have been worked out, *tested* and implemented, but in =
the long
term carry-on will have to return.
