It was definitely SSI if not classified. So what? I can say I know the, say, total numbers of FAMs, which is classified. Does that mean anything? Nope, not unless you say it.

I see your point! And thank you for not being on the offensive.

Nothing, in my experience, is possible to enforce. You will always have those who can, through ingenuity or whatever, can circumvent the wire. But you still keep those others out there out.

A good example is the club. When it came out for cars it was pretty good at keeping a lot of thieves away. Yet the pros would still get your car. So was it useless? Not at all. Was it a panacea? Also not at all.

Sometimes it's hard to find that middle ground, I guess.

Only it's a lot easier to circumvent the liquids ban.


What is the "balance" when you're travelling by tram, and why is the life of tram pax worth more compromise than that of plane pax?
I'll tell you why:

When was the last time you saw a major politician outside Scandinavia using a non-aerial form of public transport to get to work?
Personally, I'm happy with virtually zero security on a tram, and would be equally happy on a plane...

When was the last time you saw the effects to the nation by an exploding tram like you did on 9/11?

Airspace is different than trams or roadways.

Well, here goes...

Economic loss to New York in month following the attacks: $105 billion

Estimated cost of cleanup: $600 million

Total FEMA money spent on the emergency: $970 million

Estimated amount donated to 9/11 charities: $1.4 billion

Estimated amount of insurance paid worldwide related to 9/11: $40.2 billion

*Above data reported 2002

Economic estimates of another such scale attack range from 150-200 billion. I can't seem to recall any tram incidents that even come close in scale of loss of lives, economic cost, and psychological impact. Oh, it's somewhat difficult to target financial centers, seats of government, and other such infrastructure with a train.

TB

I dunno - several coordinated bridge/subway/tunnel explosions could cause chaos and longterm cost (for as long as it takes to fix or replace the broken infrastructure)

similarly for damaging the water supply for a few major cities

All of the above assumes multiple simultaneously hijacked planes.
Liquid rules are about exploding planes, not hijacked ones.

"Straw man argument" is the expression that comes to mind.


Incidentally, there was no shortage of carnage in Madrid as a result of the 11/03 attacks.

It was amazing the speed they repaired the damage after the 7/7 London tube bombings. The tube bombings could have caused severe financial damage to London too. The city would not be able to cope if the public transport network had been crippled.

Most Londoners have experienced terrorism before with the IRA and take the attitude that the best reaction to a terrorist attack is to carry on as normal, despite what the government says we're almost certainly under less risk now. For me 7/7 was my first time in London in the event of a terrorist attack and I was impressed with the way most people managed to carry on as normal.

The US (and UK to an extent) government seems to want to make people afraid, once people are afraid you just need to set a few bombs off in public places and people will be afraid to leave the house, no need for something as drastic as an aircraft to cause widespread panic.

If if was legal for your friend to tell you, why can't you tell us? How does it being "SSI" have any bearing on you revealing your knowledge of it?

Unless you were given info called SSI as part of your job, what law would you be violating by revealing it?

A good example is the liquid ban. When it came out for passengers, it was pretty good at keeping a lot of innocent people separated from their drinks. Yet the pros would still get it through security. So was it useless? Yes. Was it a panacea? Yes, but more of a pain in the butt.

I don't mean that disrespectfully. Just pointing out that the liquid ban never has nor will it ever prevent what it is supposed to prevent. So why even bother?

Hm, maybe because I'm a FLEO?

Which I am.

It prevents the amateur types from doing something tragic. It might not stop the pros but it might the wanna-bes.

So, I have all of my clearances, and under the SSI rules you can send that information in an unencrypted email. Send it to me by private message. I bet you've talked to others about it that didn't necessarily need the information.

SSI has become an excuse to keep the public uninformed. Avoids the hassles of classification, FOIA, et al. Just like LE Sensitive, it eventually gets out...

No I haven't.

And sorry, I don't know you. I don't know your clearances. I've not seen any evidence that they exist.

Maybe, but not from me.