-
Mar 10th, 2014, 11:50 AM
#1
All perspective I guess...
One of the headlines in today's USA Today reads:
"Malaysian Flight Mystery Reveals Loophole in Passport Checks"
The story goes on to report that large numbers of countries don't check the databases for stolen passports that are available. So to me that isn't what the headline should read. It should be:
"USA Today Reveals Loophole in Passport Checks and now everyone knows"
If I went around work and told everyone that there is a bug in the payroll system and if you hit a certain sequence of key strokes you can change your payrate I wonder if management would say "Gee - thanks for letting everyone know so we could do something about it" or "why didn't you just tell us".
Point being I guess responsible reporting is just a matter of perspective.
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Mar 10th, 2014, 02:58 PM
#2
Re: All perspective I guess...
Hollywood beat them to the punch. I think this was essentially mentioned in the movie Transsiberian.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Mar 11th, 2014, 09:15 AM
#3
Re: All perspective I guess...
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Point being I guess responsible reporting is just a matter of perspective.
I too notice this all the time. I wouldn't have thought to plant bombs in my shoes before going to the airport.
Stealing purses while some lady is pumping gas sounds pretty easy too.
-
Mar 13th, 2014, 04:45 PM
#4
Re: All perspective I guess...
Here is another example worth considering...
A local news station reported a story on someone getting the Congressional Medal of Honor just the other day. I sent them an email mentioning there is no such thing and provided a source. This is what I sent:
"On the 03/14/2014 4:30 AM broadcast the "Congressional Medal of Honor" was mentioned by the news team. Actually, there is no such thing. There is a "Medal of Honor" though. There are a lot of people that mistakenly call it the "Congressional Medal of Honor" and I know there is no disrespect meant. Here is a link that might aid you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor"
Their response was:
"Thank you for your comment. The Associated Press reported it as the Congressional Medal of Honor, which is why we said that on-air. Here’s a link to the story on our website: http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/apexchange/2014/03/12/medal-of-honor-denied.html"
So what I came away with was AP got it wrong and all they did was repeat it so it is OK. I can appreciate they didn't know it is just the Medal of Honor. The majority of people call it the CMA. It is a common mistake. Blaming someone else for their being wrong doesn't fly with me when you are given the correct information.
I understand not looking up every little detail and trusting major news outlets. Not accepting you are propagating misinformation when it is pointed out is kind of small to me.
I don't know what I really expected from them, probably something like, "I didn't know that - Thanks for the information".
Last edited by TysonLPrice; Mar 13th, 2014 at 04:49 PM.
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Mar 14th, 2014, 09:23 AM
#5
Fanatic Member
Re: All perspective I guess...
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
The story goes on to report that large numbers of countries don't check the databases for stolen passports that are available.
Did that really come as news to you, though? It's something that I assumed everyone was aware of.
Many, many countries don't use computerised systems at immigration control, particularly at smaller regional airports. Given that there are tens of thousands of stolen passports in the world, there's no way an immigration officer could performa a manual check.
-
Mar 14th, 2014, 09:36 AM
#6
Re: All perspective I guess...
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
Did that really come as news to you, though? It's something that I assumed everyone was aware of.
Many, many countries don't use computerised systems at immigration control, particularly at smaller regional airports. Given that there are tens of thousands of stolen passports in the world, there's no way an immigration officer could performa a manual check.
Not really but that wasn't the point. Steve R Jones got it. There is, or should be, a responsibility when reporting the news. If someone found a way to hack into a plane’s controls it wouldn't be wise for USA Today to publish the code on the front page. But then there is the dilemma of who decides what should be reported or not. That itself can be the old "slippery slope".
That is what my sarcasim was about...
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Mar 14th, 2014, 10:31 AM
#7
Re: All perspective I guess...
Yeah, but who was ignorant of that fact? Who was being informed? Any international bad guy would already know about it. The people who don't know are those of us who don't generally try to evade immigration using stolen passports.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Mar 14th, 2014, 10:50 AM
#8
Re: All perspective I guess...
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yeah, but who was ignorant of that fact? Who was being informed? Any international bad guy would already know about it. The people who don't know are those of us who don't generally try to evade immigration using stolen passports.
I don't have any answers...it is more of a sentiment. Like after 9/11 there was report after report about vulnerabilities. Water supplies, nuclear plants, etc. Why give that information out? Than again, I don’t want a group of people deciding what I should know or not. I had really hoped to start this debate with my first post.
I need to work on my disconnect between what I mean and what I write
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Mar 14th, 2014, 12:31 PM
#9
Re: All perspective I guess...
I would say that the information should be given out because the only way anybody is going to change things is if people push for it. People often point out that we only fix things after the disaster happens (such as the levies in New Orleans, if they have actually been fixed). The same is certainly true with water supplies (see West Virginia), bridges (the collapse in Minneapolis), and so on. Nobody wants to spend money on a fix when they get no credit for it, so it takes public concern to get action to happen.
On the other hand, how many disasters have been averted because somebody fixed something before the disaster could happen? Technically, most of these things fall into the same category as statements like, "I always find something the last place I looked for it." Just so that I'm not a total cliche, I always try to look for things in a few more places after I have found the thing.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Mar 14th, 2014, 02:36 PM
#10
Re: All perspective I guess...
So Shaggy - If I find your wallet - complete with SS#, DL# and several credit cards I should get the NY Times to publish all the info so we can teach you a lesson - versus just giving you back the wallet...
Better yet, why don't you post all the info now in this thread and let the games begin.
-
Mar 14th, 2014, 02:49 PM
#11
Re: All perspective I guess...
I'm not sure the two are quite comparable. The security lapses on some public infrastructure piece don't tend to get fixed if everybody ignores them, nor do they tend to be attacked just because they are well known. Meanwhile, the proper approach to personal information is to not give it out so much. The existence of something like an SS# could be considered a security hole, but there are very few things that can be done about it other than keeping it secret as best you can. A known engineering flaw in a structure that will cause catastrophic damage when it fails, but which is being ignored because nobody wants to fix it, is quite a different matter.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Mar 15th, 2014, 03:26 PM
#12
Re: All perspective I guess...
I was glad to just hear this...Richard Quest, an aviation expert for CNN in reference to flight 370, was speaking about an innocuous code a pilot can use speaking to ground control to indicate a hijacking. He said "you can read what it is in half a dozen books but I am not going to repeat it". That's what I'm talking about and that is what I mean by responsible reporting.
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Mar 16th, 2014, 08:11 AM
#13
Re: All perspective I guess...
There's also a transponder code which indicates a hijacking: 7500.
Security 'lapses' are something no one should be surprised at. It would not be inconceivable to convert a laptop battery into an explosive and pass it through x-ray scanners. Or pass a weapon through the new body scanner, since it passes into a computer, which, as we know, are not the most infallible devices. For example, carrying a specific 'ID' card plus a weapon through a scanner designed to detect the ID card, and report no anomalies would be a reasonable attack route.
The reality is that one wouldn't even have to activate a bomb, or use a weapon: simply demonstrating that such devices can get through security could cause havoc with infrastructure - a bomb or non-computer device which looks like a laptop and is completely indistinguishable, could mean that traveling with a laptop almost impossible (or any battery powered device).
However, just as 'mugging an old woman for her purse' is quite easy to do, and everyone 'knows' how easy it is - we don't do it because people, on the whole, are not 'bad' people.
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
"There are two types of people in the world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets." - Unk.
"Before you can 'think outside the box' you need to understand where the box is."
-
Mar 16th, 2014, 09:15 AM
#14
Re: All perspective I guess...
The reality is that one wouldn't even have to activate a bomb, or use a weapon: simply demonstrating that such devices can get through security could cause havoc with infrastructure - a bomb or non-computer device which looks like a laptop and is completely indistinguishable, could mean that traveling with a laptop almost impossible (or any battery powered device).
Look at what a failed bomb in shoes did...
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Mar 16th, 2014, 07:23 PM
#15
Re: All perspective I guess...
There's also a transponder code which indicates a hijacking: 7500.
That's part of the "Aeronautical Information Manual Study Guide For The Private Pilot" and probably other flight manuals. I wouldn't think that is what Richard Quest was referring to but maybe. A lot of this is new to me and I'm just becoming aware of it from this event.
Please remember next time...elections matter!
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|