Bruce Schneier: that's not what I meant!
Source: Computer World - Posted by Alex   
Latest News In a soberly worded response to Friday's edition of The Long View, Bruce Schneier clarifies that he didn't expect anyone to think he believes that 9/11 made us safer. I'm indebted to Bruce for clearing that up.

In his response, he comments:

Terrorist attacks have a secondary purpose of impressing supporters back home, and 9/11 has upped the stakes. ... From there to 9/11 making us safer is quite a leap. ... I suppose by extension we might be safer because of it. But you'd also have to factor in the risks associated with increased police powers, the NSA spying on all of us without warrants, and the increased disregard for the law we've seen out of the U.S. government since 9/11.

Or, as Daniel Staal interpreted it:

He's saying ... terrorism has become an all-or-nothing proposition: Either you pull of something spectacular, or you fail. And the more spectacular you try to be, the more likely you are to fail.

Thanks, Bruce; apologies for misunderstanding your post. And thanks for being a good sport about it.

While I'm talking about Friday's post, the subject of using NoSQL for the No Fly List bubbled up in one of the Slashdot threads. Thinking about this some more, I didn't really mean 'NoSQL' so much as a replicated database. As many commentators pointed out, the No Fly List is hardly likely to be a massive data set. Replicating it quickly and reliably should be a well-understood problem. Alternatively, real-time access to a centralized list might be an option.

Read this full article at Computer World

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment!