[TML] [Merchant Shipping] Some ideas I came up with to make merchant shipping more interesing

[Jerry W Barrington]

On 4/16/08 5:16 PM, "Tom B" <kaladorn at gmail.com> wrote:

> The end result of all of those
> weak points and some very sharp bad guys was some bad news. Have we
> seen more effectual use of these mechanisms against commercial
> shipping or planes? Not to my knowledge. Why not, since it worked?
> Increased security of who we train and certify, increased penetration
> of hostile cells by intelligence agencies, perhaps air marshals and
> airport screening have increased the risk of failure enough to
> convince enemy planners this isn't a good bid anymore... all of which
> could exist in the Imperium.

Realistically, the "changes" made to flight in America have done
approximately nothing to making airliners more secure.  The bad guys simply
know that is where we *claim* to be watching hard.  The next major hit will
be in some way that is totally unprepared, just as 9/11 was.

> Getting someone trained, motivated, duly licensed (at least enough to slip
> past security screens), etc....a big challenge.

Nope.  In OTU, training to fly a ship and accompanying licensing is *easy*
to get.  What you want to do is find a trained person you can "turn".
There's no believer like a convert.

> I wouldn't be surprised if part of your earliest interface
> with SysCon in a system is sending them your crew manifest, passenger
> manifest, and cargo manifest as well as record of vaccinations and
> innoculations. Part of the check dirtside may well be to verify your
> credentials. I wouldn't be surprised if their was a Spacer's Guild or
> Pilot's Guild or similar sort of thing where these quals could be
> confirmed or else an Imperial registry of certified crew with
> individual digital signatures.

Nice idea, but it requires that info to be spread to all systems, and done
so faster than spacers travel around.  And any digital signature assigned
could be duplicated, especially if it is on record at every spaceport.

> Sure, you can imagine your way around a lot of these sorts of
> processes, but security is not about stopping everyone, it's about
> making it hard enough to act as a deterrent. Most suicide bombers and
> crooks are just not that competent.

They only have to be a little more competent than their opposition.  Guards,
by their nature get bored and lax.  Attackers stay alert.

(Yes, I'm cynical.  I had a Top Secret clearance in the US Army, in Berlin's
comm center.  I know what happens even in "secure" facilities.)