With tongue in cheek,
Angry Padiwan Learner"

Thanks, APL! I include this because too little security can make things just as inconvenient as too much security. Like every profession (or group of professions) that serves the public, we owe it to ourselves, our employers, and the public to do the right thing. Offhand, it would seem that insecured hospital data ought to be secured -- at least a little!

( Read More... | 3 comments )

Wow! Suppose he'd just stood there and.... uh... let nature take its course? What would the charge have been then?

( Read More... | 2 comments )

Thanks, AC!

( Read More... | 2 comments )

See http://tinyurl.com/dmuy3s ."

Thanks, AC! Good for the young man! He kept his head!

( Read More... | 11 comments )

Now, can you really blame cops if a minister (their boss?) wants access somewhere else? Can the CEO have access to a data center room even if the CEO does not have a keycard to enter?"

Thanks, Martin! Of course, the stupidity here is the apparent attempt to focus on anything but airport security. I agree with the minister -- it's his job to find shortcomings and fix them. Normally, this is done with bureaucracy and proxies, but....

( Read More... )

http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/2009/03/elephant-disappears.html

"He looked at me, annoyed and said, "Luggage can't be left unattended."

"I AM attending it," I said incredulous.

"You don't understand, SOME BODY needs to be in possession of the luggage," he said and I didn't get his implication, not yet, I was still too startled.

"I am in possession of this luggage, it is MINE," my voice is rising.

He looks at me with exaggerated patience, "SOME BODY (long pause) needs to be attending the luggage."

I got it then, I wasn't SOME BODY, "Are you suggesting that I can't supervise my own luggage because I'm in a wheelchair?"

Thanks, AC! That's choice!

( Read More... | 1 comment )

It looks likes you can take any thing through security, but just don't exceed 3g of a known substance!"

Thanks, Charles!

( Read More... )

"I said, 'This is really stupid. What are you going to find here with rubber gloves that you didn't find in primary security with the X-ray machine?'" He also "said he offered up that he was 'kind of an expert on airport security,' telling the TSA screeners: 'I helped create the TSA. I'm in Congress.'" according to the article.

Thank you, representative. You, of course, have less call to complain than most of us as you "helped create the agency that makes those rules."

The article doesn't detail exactly what the rubber-gloved searchers did with their rubber-gloved fingers. It also doesn't reveal whether the representative got any special treatment at the time of the incident, although it mentions that he did manage to talk to some TSA officials about classified reasons for the "stupid" extra search. The result? "DeFazio says the TSA gate screening measures 'make a little more sense' after his meeting, but he argues if additional random screening truly is necessary, 'they need to do it with sophisticated, state-of-the-art bomb-detection equipment' rather than with rubber gloves."

I love politicians: if it only makes "a little more sense", then why not end the practice? Or if that little additional sense is enough to push things over into "making sense", why not say so? As it is, the statement is deeply ambiguous.

( Read More... )

After all we all know that only telephone people on official business have butt sets. ;-)"

Thanks, CS -- To me, this just goes to show that the real security needs aren't the ones trumpeted to ordinary folk.

( Read More... )

Thanks, Permutor. The system was broken, but it (for once) reached the proper conclusion!

( Read More... )