Fear is the #1 growth industry in the world.

This is a giant scam.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:20:02 -0500, clvrmnky
wrote:

On 20/02/2005 9:30 PM, wrote:
I was reading www.cryptome.org just now and way down near the bottom
is a couple of articles about Quebec dams open to terror attack.Are
y'all going to handle that situation or do y'all want us Americans to
handle it?
cuhulin

Does the U.S. have it's house all in order then? No large facilities
storing extremely dangerous material that recently failed multiple
security checks? Any problems with civilians getting secret access to
passenger jets during airport security tests? Do you need Canada to
assist with that?

The point of terrorism is that it attacks so-called soft targets that
most of us (in North America, anyway) have never had to consider before.
Everyone will catch up eventually. The U.S. and Canada have always
worked hard to keep the worlds longest undefended border open for trade
and culture. We have a long, shared history of cooperating on mutually
beneficial cross-border activities, including the sharing of
intelligence information and security duties. Seeing that Canada is
America's largest trading partner (and vice-versa) it makes sense for
this trend to continue.

Dams and research facilities are big chunks of infrastructure that are
incredibly hard to maintain. Changing any kind of process for these
facilities can test the patience of Job (those of you in the military
probably know exactly what I'm talking about!) and it can take a few
revisions to work the kinks out.

However, the first rule of security is to make sure you know what you
really want to accomplish with a new security system. Step one is to
survey the existing process and determine all the weak spots you can.
Then you publish this information amongst a team of security experts and
draw up an implementation. And then you survey the process /again/.
Usually this plan is in stages, so you can test and revise within a
schedule, making sure you reach your milestones. There is nothing more
dangerous than a half-baked security process that a.) may not actually
do what you expect it to do, and b.) makes you think you are safe when
you really aren't.

Case in point: http://www.syslog.com/~jwilson/pics-i-like/kurios119.jpg

In fact, we want to see more reports like this made public. This is
what democracy and free access to information give us. The time to
worry is when our watchdog organizations start reporting that nothing is
wrong at all.

To segue skillfully back onto a relevant topic, I wonder if RCI has
repeated the CBC report that (I think) broke this story originally? Ok,
that was a lame segue, but I did my best to stay on topic.