Boston - It's no Portlanddiscreet_chaosFebruary 2 2007, 16:38:51 UTC
I'm glad to see this Schneier fellow agrees with everyone else and that the timestamp on the post says it may not have taken him much, if any longer than the rest of the world. (Though, I could point to a conservative blogsite or two that didn't get the joke, but they are few and far between)
As for his legality addendum, the judge himself made the same point, which CNN summarized as... Judge Paul K. Leary told Grossman that, according to law, the suspects must intend to create a panic to be charged with placing hoax devices. It appears the suspects had no such intent, the judge said, but the question should be discussed in a later hearing. (The timestamp on the CNN piece says that the article was edited or amended this morning, but I linked to it at 1:27 (our time), which according to my records was about two hours after it was first published
( ... )
Re: Boston - It's no PortlanddexanderFebruary 2 2007, 16:59:17 UTC
Having read Schneier for a long time I am fairly certain he took this stance from the moment he learned about it. A large part of Schneier's time lately has been devoted to debunking security theater, a term I believe he coined.
Re: Boston - It's no Portlanddiscreet_chaosFebruary 2 2007, 17:12:43 UTC
As I said, I'm glad to see that he's doing his part. Late yesterday afternoon, the conversation started including more comments about the ridiculous level of fear that we've reached as a society and how we don't want Boston's over-reaction to somehow do away with guerrilla marketing, or require such acts to get permission from the state.
It's also sort of our duty to help protect those art school graduates, but it looks like the legal system will most likely keep them covered. So, I've been hoping that somebody invites them out to do their hair thing on the Emmy awards or one of the late night shows because it deserves a wider audience
( ... )
+1 This subject has really been pissing be off. About the worst I can imagine the two who placed the signs could be reasonably found guilty of is littering.
Comments 6
As for his legality addendum, the judge himself made the same point, which CNN summarized as...
Judge Paul K. Leary told Grossman that, according to law, the suspects must intend to create a panic to be charged with placing hoax devices. It appears the suspects had no such intent, the judge said, but the question should be discussed in a later hearing.
(The timestamp on the CNN piece says that the article was edited or amended this morning, but I linked to it at 1:27 (our time), which according to my records was about two hours after it was first published ( ... )
Reply
Reply
It's also sort of our duty to help protect those art school graduates, but it looks like the legal system will most likely keep them covered. So, I've been hoping that somebody invites them out to do their hair thing on the Emmy awards or one of the late night shows because it deserves a wider audience ( ... )
Reply
This subject has really been pissing be off.
About the worst I can imagine the two who placed the signs could be reasonably found guilty of is littering.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment