Don't worry. Wearing one [or more] of these won't attract attention ...
While running FBI Firearms Instructor schools to certify instructors for other agencies, I’d always included several target identification courses. The targets would either consist of typical geometric shapes and colors or would be a series of life-size face photographs of diverse individuals. Each target board would contain six to eight of the different, smaller targets. I would ensure the compilation and placement of the smaller targets on each target board were unique. Targets would be faced away from the shooters. Once in position, I would call out a description of the “shoot” target and face the targets for a few seconds. The Firearms Instructors were to shoot only the called target before it faced away. On command, they would then step to the right to a new target stand, and continue the drill for several rotations. Consistently, in every class, officers would shoot at their target upon hearing others shoot, even when their particular target board did not contain the called target. When asked why they shot at a no-shoot target, the typical response was either, “I don’t know” or “Everyone else was shooting, so I thought I was supposed to be shooting too.” Remember, this is a class of Firearms Instructors in a low-stress atmosphere (other than they wanted to get their certificates) - not a bunch of new recruits. I would also occasionally call out a non-existent target, and again, inevitably some in the class would fire. The number of instructors shooting at “no-shoot” targets was even greater when we did the night-firing exercises and they were required to use flashlights to see the targets. This indicates they trusted their partner’s judgment (or eyesight) better than their own.

2010-01-29

This got me to thinking about what would happen in a similar situation if, for example, hackers used an insurance customer’s password to compromise an insurer’s systems, then stole valuable personal or financial information that was later sold or used in a criminal manner. Who is to blame then? Is it the insurer for not having adequate security safeguards on its networks; or is it the customer for not having enough security on his home or business computer? Where is King Solomon when we need him? One would think that insurance companies would be in no hurry to sue their valued business customers, but on the other hand if the business loss were significant enough, maybe they would take a shot at blaming the victim. Such a case would be widely publicized, however, and I find it difficult to believe that an insurer would want to be seen as trying to foist blame on its own customers. If I were one of that insurer’s other customers, I would certainly be calling my broker or agent in a heartbeat to change carriers. And what about insurers who include cyber-theft as part of their business interruption coverage? Might they be tempted to preemptively sue their customers who file claims, alleging that the theft took place because the customer didn’t have the latest security measures in place? It could happen, and that’s why the resolution of the Texas case could have repercussions far beyond the Lone Star State. For the first time, it seems, courts are being asked to define exactly what constitutes adequate systems security. Yet I wonder whether most courts are equipped with the knowledge and expertise to make such a judgment—and how such judgments would hold up over time given the rapid advances in security technology.
It'll be interesting to see how this suit goes ...
The threat hasn't really evolved all that much. A few righteous hometown Americans are more than a match for those whose plan involves blowing their weasels off. Yeah, we might not be ready for Jack Bauer-esque pocket-nukes, but considering most of these guys seem to be low-level, rock-throwers, I'm not convinced that we need to do anything more than offer a standing reward to any citizen or group of citizens (or their heirs) that take down a tango op ...
Although getting the info straight from PGP is probably reliable, I strongly recommend practicing on a USB stick or an outboard hard-drive with non-essential data on it for awhile until you are absolutely certain you are ready to encrypt the stuff you still need access to ...
This is one of the modern Tai Chi Chuan forms, but she is very, very good at demonstrating it ...
I don't think this is a good argument against using the back-scatter scanners. There are probably far fewer Muslims that want to 'meet Allah' having just jammed a boomer up their whatchacallit than there are willing to do it otherwise. Knowing that they'll have to put their bomb where the sun never shines in order to blow up a plane will make planes invisible as targets to most bombers ...