Re: Now showing
BUT, the simple truth is that there are threats to our safety and some of those threats require security responses to mitigate. The questions we have to ask are, first: how credible are the threats and, second: what measures are suitable to combat them.
No, those aren't the questions we have to ask.
The questions we have to ask is:
What are the likely deaths per year of these attacks?
What level of cost/inconvenience is justified based on the answer to the above question?
In the US, in 2010, 32k people died in car crashes alone.
That's more US people, in 1 year, than have ever died, total, in all the terror attacks that involve US citizens in the history of the world, combined.
Yet people still drive cars.
There is no such thing as perfect safety. It's a balance between an acceptable level of risk vs an acceptable level of cost/inconvenience.
If 5 terror attacks, using laptops as bombs, occur over the next 5 years killing 500 people, worldwide, I would say that would still not be sufficient reason to enact these measures.
We all accept a measure of risk every day in our lives, driving, taking public transport, hell, more people have probably died on the toilet from defecation syncope as have died in terror attacks (outside war zones/civi unrest countries).
Biting the hand that feeds IT
