London incidents

Tue Jul 12 17:50:17 UTC 2005

On Jul 12, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:

>> Billions of dollars, millions of person-hours, and more frustration
>> than I can quantify is not a good price to pay for the infinitesimal
>> increase in security (if any) we have received through decisions like
>> this one.
>>
>
> How can you accurately know this?  I think you are just presuming, but
> you (like I) will never really truly know.  We don't like spending  
> that
> money, but we have no proof that not spending it is better.  We can  
> all
> agree that it could probably be spent wiser, but this is the US  
> Government.

To date, the TSA, the OMB, Congress, the FBI, and the CIA all agree  
that the TSA has not made us any safer.  (Note the first department  
in that list.)

Of course, maybe we averted World War III, but everyone who's been  
asked (including the security people themselves), and real-world  
tests of our security efforts, show that we are not any safer.

IOW: No, it is not a presumption.

>>> I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and
>>> over
>>> to detonate explosive devices.  Why wait for it to be proved again
>>> before doing something?  AFAIK "Emergency Only" mode allows for 911
>>> calls, just not inbound/outbound calls.  Besides, the US (at  
>>> least) is
>>> full of a lot of people who need to hang up the phone and start
>>> driving
>>> good again.
>>>
>>
>> Your logic is ... illogical.  If you cannot see why, I will not be
>> able to explain it to you.  (But you probably feel safer knowing I
>> can't pack a Zippo in my checked in baggage.)
>>
>
> No, your logic is ... illogical.., and I will not show you where. ;-)

Others in the thread have shown fallacies in your argument.  I am  
sorry you did not understand them.

>> As for the "Emergency Only" mode, the original poster said _power was
>> cut_ to the repeaters.  Could you explain to me how this allows for
>> 911 calls please?
>>
>
> The original poster quoted a news report, how may times have you seen
> technically accurate news reports?  I don't know the source of the
> report but I do know that some people think the the whole internet is
> down when only it is their connection.  In this case (someone  
> saying that
> the port authority had shutdown cellphone access) there are so many
> possible interpretations that it is impossible to really know without
> firsthand knowledge.  Speculation as to "how", is just as bad as  
> speculation
> as to "why" (which is why I jumped into this cat fight).

I was not speculating.  From the post:

> Then we have this:
> http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/07/11/tunnels.cell.phones.ap/index.html
>
>   "The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs area
>   transit hubs, bridges and tunnels, decided last Thursday to
>   indefinitely sever power to transmitters providing wireless
>   service in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, spokesman Tony
>   Ciavolella said Monday."

The Port Authority spokesman said they decided to "indefinitely sever  
power to transmitters".  The source seems reliable, knowledgeable,  
and specific.

So you "jumped into this cat fight" by "speculating" on something  
when you had an authoritative source with good, specific information.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick