Re: Pr0n na aerodromima...Ivan je fingerprint naveo kao jedan od primera trosenja para na hi-profile tehnologiju za "bezbednost", a koja u stvarnosti nema nikakvu vrednost (ili u najboljem slucaju, veoma ogranicenu, a sa druge strane kosta). A takvi programi i "resenja" se guraju od strane politicara i birokratije, da bi pare i poslovi mogli da se dodele odredjenim interesnim "security" grupama koje valjaju oruzje i tu "naprednu" tehnologiju.
Postoji izraz za takvo ponasanje: security theater
Citat:
security theater consists of security countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually improve security.[1] The term was coined by Bruce Schneier for his book Beyond Fear,[2] but has gained currency in security circles, particularly for describing airport security measures. It is also used by some experts such as Edward Felten[3] to describe the security measures imposed after the September 11 attacks. Security theater gains importance both by satisfying and exploiting the gap between perceived risk and actual risk.
....
Security theater has real monetary costs but does not necessarily provide tangible security benefits. Security theater typically involves restricting certain aspects of people's behaviour in very visible ways, that could involve potential restrictions of personal liberty and privacy, ranging from negligible (where bottled water can be purchased) to significant (prolonged screening of individuals to the point of harassment).
The direct costs of security theater may be lower than that of more elaborate security measures. However, it may divert portions of the budget for effective security measures without resulting in adequate, measurable gain in security.[4] In many cases, intrusive security theater measures also create secondary negative effects whose real cost is hard to quantify and likely to dwarf the direct expenses.[citation needed]
Such ripple effects are often connected to fear; visible measures such as armed guards and highly intrusive security measures may lead people to believe that there must be a real risk associated with their activity. Other reasons for ripple effects may be that people are simply unwilling to undergo such intrusions as would be required for some activity by the security measures imposed on it.
An example for both issues is that after a recent increase in restrictions in air travel, many frequent air travellers have expressed that they will try to avoid flying in the future. Incongruously, car travel, which is often considered as the alternative, is in fact riskier than air travel.[5]
Security theater encourages people to make uninformed, counterproductive political decisions.[citation needed] The feeling of (and wish for) safety can actually increase the real risk.
The disruption, cost, and fear caused by security theater acts as positive feedback for those who wish to exploit it: even if they fail to take lives, they can cause large economic costs.
Security theater is a component of the culture of fear.[citation needed]
Critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union have pointed out that the benefits of security theater are temporary and illusory since after such security measures inevitably fail, not only is the feeling of insecurity increased, but there is also loss of belief in the competence of those responsible for security.
....
Security theater has real monetary costs but does not necessarily provide tangible security benefits. Security theater typically involves restricting certain aspects of people's behaviour in very visible ways, that could involve potential restrictions of personal liberty and privacy, ranging from negligible (where bottled water can be purchased) to significant (prolonged screening of individuals to the point of harassment).
The direct costs of security theater may be lower than that of more elaborate security measures. However, it may divert portions of the budget for effective security measures without resulting in adequate, measurable gain in security.[4] In many cases, intrusive security theater measures also create secondary negative effects whose real cost is hard to quantify and likely to dwarf the direct expenses.[citation needed]
Such ripple effects are often connected to fear; visible measures such as armed guards and highly intrusive security measures may lead people to believe that there must be a real risk associated with their activity. Other reasons for ripple effects may be that people are simply unwilling to undergo such intrusions as would be required for some activity by the security measures imposed on it.
An example for both issues is that after a recent increase in restrictions in air travel, many frequent air travellers have expressed that they will try to avoid flying in the future. Incongruously, car travel, which is often considered as the alternative, is in fact riskier than air travel.[5]
Security theater encourages people to make uninformed, counterproductive political decisions.[citation needed] The feeling of (and wish for) safety can actually increase the real risk.
The disruption, cost, and fear caused by security theater acts as positive feedback for those who wish to exploit it: even if they fail to take lives, they can cause large economic costs.
Security theater is a component of the culture of fear.[citation needed]
Critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union have pointed out that the benefits of security theater are temporary and illusory since after such security measures inevitably fail, not only is the feeling of insecurity increased, but there is also loss of belief in the competence of those responsible for security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
...
Btw. mnogo vishe ljudi ce izginuti u recimo metrou ili autobusu, a tu ti ne treba nikakva specijalna priprema... nema skenera, teroristi mogu cak i da odsetaju i ponove napad na drugoj lokaciji. Pa se tome ne pridaje ni 1/10 vaznosti kao recimo avionima... a sansa da se ponovo otmu avioni je ravna nuli, jer je kokpit zakljucan. Sto znaci da se plase obaranja aviona, a to opet nema smisla jer da neko zeli da napravi teroristicku akciju, pravio bi je tamo gde je broj zrtava veliki a obezbedjenje slabo - tj. sansa za uspeh velika - a to nisu avioni. Celo to "bezbedonosno pozoriste" je cista taktika zastrasivanja, jer pare moraju da se trose...
[Ovu poruku je menjao a1200 dana 14.10.2009. u 02:14 GMT+1]
