|
Originally Posted by A Jurai Knight
(Post 16241288)
Its more like Vault 112....
|
Originally Posted by Himeno
(Post 16241324)
A basement somewhere in Pentagon City?
Like I said before, If TSA goes belly up I'm still crashing at your place. |
Originally Posted by A Jurai Knight
(Post 16241350)
How can you post on SB and not get a fallout reference?:p
Like I said before, If TSA goes belly up I'm still crashing at your place. |
Originally Posted by Himeno
(Post 16241377)
You gotta get through customs in SYD first ;P
|
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 16241315)
Wait... so you're telling the truth about lying about the AIT saving images?
Now I'm confused. Seriously, go through the site and read through it sometime. |
Originally Posted by A Jurai Knight
(Post 16241229)
You should also know that every time we're discussing TSA issues that its always from a checked baggage perspective...
|
I'm probably treading on thin ice here, but I wonder from a psychological perspective what makes people post false information on a website. Is it supposed to be funny? Ha. Ha. I was taking this "news" with a grain of salt. It looks like some of you also need to learn some skepticism about this sort of thing. It may very well be that A Jurai Knight is only 10 years old, but that still doesn't fully explain it. I would not have done such a thing when I was 10.
|
Originally Posted by A Jurai Knight
(Post 16241916)
Ask yourself this: Are you really taking something this seriously from a website that's dedicated to scifi and the other crazy antics of fiction and politics?:p
Seriously, go through the site and read through it sometime. Why would you lie about something like this? |
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16235475)
Thieves are terminated from TSA and prosecuted by the law. As for smuggling drugs, please cite specific instances involving TSOs who were not prosecuted by the law. And as for bypassing security while on personal business, again, please cite specific instances. I'll grant you that there have been TSOs who have stolen items from passengers' luggage. Employee theft is a challenge under any enterprise. However, I don't know of any instance when an employee who stole was immune from prosecution and/or termination. Furthermore, federal employees who are terminated for cause forfeit any rights to be rehired by the federal government. These matters are simply the kiss of death for TSOs. So I'm pretty curious how you can insist that TSOs can get away with theft, smuggling drugs and bypassing security without any fear of prosecution or adverse consequence.
Thieves that are caught are terminated from TSA and prosecuted by the law. If your statement was true, then there would be NO theft, but there is. And this statement: However, I don't know of any instance when an employee who stole was immune from prosecution and/or termination. Good to see you back posting in TS&S. |
Originally Posted by A Jurai Knight
(Post 16241916)
Ask yourself this: Are you really taking something this seriously from a website that's dedicated to scifi and the other crazy antics of fiction and politics?:p
Seriously, go through the site and read through it sometime. |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 16234429)
He is talking out of his posterior. THere is no way to save the images.
|
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 16235904)
What makes you think "mysterious wires" would be necessary?
I don't recall seeing the TEMPEST shielding specification listed in the hardware requirements for the scanner contract. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 16245046)
Actually, in the mid-90s, the DCI at the time declared that there was no TEMPEST threat in the CONUS, so federal agencies dropped the requirements for screen room and TEMPEST shielding on IT equipment. This has saved us billions. To be honest, I didn't even try to find any TEMPEST requirements in the specs, because I knoew there wouldn't be any.
The only questions would be who, how much money, and why to do such a thing. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 16245046)
To be honest, I didn't even try to find any TEMPEST requirements in the specs, because I knoew there wouldn't be any.
I also looked because it didn't make any sense to me to claim that the data couldn't be stored or copied despite the demand for USB and Ethernet connectivity. It would have saved a lot more money to get scanners that actually detected the threats they were ostensibly purchased to detect, no? |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 16245148)
It's been some number of years since I had any dealings with TEMPEST shielding but my understanding then and I would think capabilities have improved is that unshielded systems could be compromised without a physical connection.
The only questions would be who, how much money, and why to do such a thing. I always get a chuckle out of computer/ network "security audits" by "security experts", never ceases to provide months of jokes and entertainment. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:30 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.