InfoWorld published the 10 most common security land mines that experts say you need to avoid.

Many companies spend a small fortune and deploy a small army to secure themselves from the many security threats lurking these days. But all those efforts can come to naught when making any of these common mistakes. The results can range from embarrassing to devastating, but security experts say that all are easily avoidable.

And almost all can be done without spending one more dime.

1. A slip of the finger reveals the company secret

2. People give away passwords and other secrets without thinking

3. A trusted partner ends up not being so trustworthy with your data

4. Web-based apps can be portals to leaks and thieves

5. Hoping the worse doesn’t happen only makes it worse

6. Avoiding or diluting response leadership makes breaches worse

7. Handling breach details sloppily tips off the perp

8. Trusting "silver bullet" technology hides real threats

9. Spending unthinkingly wastes resources you might need for important threats

10. Don't save the wrong data

In short, weakest point in ICT technologies is always the same one… guess who ?

The full article is available here on InfoWorld

London police launched on 25th of February a new advertising campaign. Posters and TV ads are urging Londoners to turn in people who might be taking pictures of CCTV cameras.

"Thousands of people take photos every day.

What if one of them seems odd ?

Terrorists use surveillance to help plan attacks, taking photos and making notes about security measures like the location of CCTV cameras.If you see someone doing that, we need to know.

Let experienced officers decide what action to take." 

Other posters target households:

"you see hundreds of houses every day. What if one has unusual activities and seems suspicious"

as well as mobile phone users :

"Thousands of people have mobiles. What if someone with several seems suspicious?"

What's going on in London ? Is the Metropolitan police not busy enough ? did they become completely paranoiac ? or do they need some budget increase ?

Where is this so famous British phlegm ?

As a response, many people have already redesigned the posters to point out the absurdity of them. Some samples are available on BoingBoing.

Just after posting the article about new safety measures on US aircraft I found an interesting post on New York Times "Jet Lagged" blog titled "Airport Security Folies"

Here after a short excerpt of Patrick Smith article

" Six years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, airport security remains a theater of the absurd. The changes put in place following the September 11th catastrophe have been drastic, and largely of two kinds: those practical and effective, and those irrational, wasteful and pointless.

The first variety have taken place almost entirely behind the scenes. Explosives scanning for checked luggage, for instance, was long overdue and is perhaps the most welcome addition. Unfortunately, at concourse checkpoints all across America, the madness of passenger screening continues in plain view. It began with pat-downs and the senseless confiscation of pointy objects. Then came the mandatory shoe removal, followed in the summer of 2006 by the prohibition of liquids and gels. We can only imagine what is next…."

Continue reading it on NYT website 

On my own opinion, Airport security today is a mix between relevant and must have security measures on a side but also theatrical, annoying and ridiculous measures. Some of these measures are time consuming, put passengers and crew on their nerves for no safety added value. What does really justify them?

• Government "zero  political risk" (if something happens they will be able to tell that all possible protection measures were already taken) ?
• Fear factor = better military/law enforcement budget ?
• Security private experts / companies have highly increase their financial income since September 2001. They certainly not ready to give this golden egg away.
• Did I speak about million dollars detectors and scanners manipulated by low trained personnel ?    

but do you think air travels are safer to face well prepared, organized and motivated enemies ?