[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;482693]Gee, it's great to know one can simply dismiss the alert out of hand!

I like to be able to consider things on their merits, but in this case, I don't know enough about operating systems or writing code to assess whether the stuff in the alert even made sense, or that, assuming the things claimed to have been done were in fact done, they would have the effects described -- let alone whether the activities described had in fact taken place. It just seemed to me that, if they had, then that would be bad.

What a relief to know that one can simply ignore the whole thing![/QUOTE]
Political manipulation:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Advisory_System#Political_manipulation[/url]
[QUOTE]Some critics[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Advisory_System#cite_note-12"][12][/URL] worried that the absence of clearly defined, objective criteria had allowed the baseline threat level to be established as elevated (yellow), thus precluding the system from ever dropping down to low (green) or general (blue). That limited the communicative value and options of the system to the three highest values. As persons become habituated to the threat level being perpetually elevated, they were increasingly likely to pay less attention to warnings issued.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The alert level was raised once in 2004, an [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States"]election[/URL] year, leading some critics to speculate that the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_George_W._Bush"]Bush Administration[/URL] used them for political rather than strictly security reasons.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Advisory_System#cite_note-17"][[/URL][/QUOTE]

Rand Paul opposition includes filibuster
 

[url]https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/18/politics/rand-paul-mike-pompeo-gina-haspel-cnntv/index.html[/url]

I have always had mixed feelings about the Paul clan. However, Rand threatening to filibuster the Pompeo and Haspel nominations is welcome.

[QUOTE=kladner;482901][url]https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/18/politics/rand-paul-mike-pompeo-gina-haspel-cnntv/index.html[/url]

I have always had mixed feelings about the Paul clan. However, Rand threatening to filibuster the Pompeo and Haspel nominations is welcome.[/QUOTE]

Eh. Rand makes a lot of noise and then often ends up going with the majority. About the only time he "sticks to his guns" is when he knows it doesn't matter and he can score some political points by looking like he's bucking his party.

According to 538, he votes with Trump's position 75% of the time: [url]https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/rand-paul/[/url]

To his credit, he did vote against Pompeo the first go-round.

All too true about Rand.

[QUOTE=kladner;482900]Political manipulation:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Advisory_System#Political_manipulation[/url][/QUOTE]

[Quote]
Some critics[12] worried that the absence of clearly defined, objective criteria had allowed the baseline threat level to be established as elevated (yellow), thus precluding the system from ever dropping down to low (green) or general (blue). That limited the communicative value and options of the system to the three highest values. As persons become habituated to the threat level being perpetually elevated, they were increasingly likely to pay less attention to warnings issued.[/Quote]

[Quote]The alert level was raised once in 2004, an election year, leading some critics to speculate that the Bush Administration used them for political rather than strictly security reasons.[/Quote]

I'm not talking about the old Trix [i]raspberry red, lemon yellow, orange orange![/i] "threat level" nonsense. I don't know of [i]anyone[/i] -- even kids -- who took that seriously. I don't even remember whether that came in under DHS head Dick Tracy -- I mean, Tom Ridge.

If you'd read the alert I gave the link to, you'd see that it does in fact give a reasonably specific kind of threat, and actions that those threatened can take to protect themselves.

Unfortunately, experience has shown (the company name Sony Pictures comes to mind) that the folks in a position to deal with this sort of thing often don't take the threat seriously.

My bad.

I really fear Apocalypse Soon. There US has immense force poised in, or aimed at, Syria. I will come back with citations, but I have read of something like 900 air and sea launched missiles likely to be in range. The Russian General Staff warned (without elaboration), on March 17, of an immanent attack on Syria. There is a buildup of USUK ground forces. :sirrobin:

[QUOTE=kladner;482977]My bad.[/QUOTE]
However, that cockamamie farce was what I was talking about. In particular, the blatant profiteer, Chertoff, who made out very well from the sales of the Full Body Scanners he foisted on us.
[url]https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122018593[/url]
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html[/url]

[QUOTE=kladner;483197]However, that cockamamie farce was what I was talking about. In particular, the blatant profiteer, Chertoff, who made out very well from the sales of the Full Body Scanners he foisted on us.
[url]https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122018593[/url]
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah, well, that's an 8-year-old story. The alert I posted about, [url=https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18-074A]Alert TA18-074A[/url], is current.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;483217]Yeah, well, that's an 8-year-old story. The alert I posted about, [URL="https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18-074A"]Alert TA18-074A[/URL], is current.[/QUOTE]
So you changed the subject. I'm entitled to reminisce.

What's wrong with body scanners?

I am not talking about a guy trying to force feed us with them, if up to me, put him to rot in jail for the rest of his days, if you think he worth that (I don't know about the guy, beside of reading the linked articles), but I am talking about the "privacy" issue - is there someone who wants to look to my butt, or what? be my guest, just say the word and I will show it to you anytime... I may even make some money if someone would like an ugly dirty hairy butt... I fly frequently, and I always hear people complaining about check-up points in airports. People don't realize that such controls are for their own safety, and that I feel much better passing through such points, even if I have to stay in line, sometimes remove my belt or shoes, etc, than I would feel if I knew that every idiot is allowed to board the plane without any checkup. I don't know how it is on parts of the big ball where you are living (general you), but here in the Asian south-east, the security people are nice and friendly, they always smile, and they won't bully or abuse you. They are just doing their jobs.