CNN seems to have the most complete description so far of a refugee story in Canada. A young Asian man disguised himself as an elderly White man when he boarded an international flight.

He removed the disguise during the flight, which hardly made a low profile. Some reports say his young-looking hands were enough to give him away but not until he was on the flight; obviously successful in avoiding anyone who could have prevented him from flying.

“Information was received from Air Canada Corporate Security regarding a possible imposter on a flight originating from Hong Kong,” the alert says. “The passenger in question was observed at the beginning of the flight to be an elderly Caucasian male who appeared to have young looking hands. During the flight the subject attended the washroom and emerged an Asian looking male that appeared to be in his early 20s.”

After landing in Canada, Border Services Officers (BSOs) escorted the man off the plane where he “proceeded to make a claim for refugee protection,” the alert says.

“The subject initially claimed to be in possession of one bag; however, flight crew approached the BSOs with two additional pieces of luggage which were believed to belong to the subject. One bag contained the subject’s personal clothing items while the second contained a pair of gloves. The third contained a ‘disguise kit’ which consisted of a silicone type head and neck mask of an elderly Caucasian male, a brown leather cap, glasses and a thin brown cardigan.”

Did he really speak and answer security questions with this thing over his head?

A big clue to the story is at the end:

“It is believed that the subject and the actual United States Citizen passenger (whose date of birth is 1955) performed a boarding pass swap, with the subject using an Aeroplan [frequent flyer] card as identification to board the flight,” the alert said.

Another clue could be that the flight was October 29th, but it seems this is only a coincidence and there is no connection to Halloween.

Bruce’s blog on November 2 linked to an essay by Dan Geer called “Cybersecurity and National Policy” and he called it “Worth reading”. This was my response:

It is so well written I am tempted to believe some of what he says; unfortunately the gaping philosophical errors pain me to do so.

Take, for example, he says “when you do not know where you are going, any direction will do”.

This is not true. You might also decide no direction is acceptable without knowing where you are going. Resistance is an option. Another option is to define “knowing” as a degree rather than absolute. You don’t know where exactly you will end up (completely secure or insecure) but you can estimate higher and lower increments.

Yes, I just used security as an end and not just a means. I would say Geer does too. Although he writes “First, security is a means, not an end” he also gives us three ends: Freedom, Security and Convenience. Am I missing something? The start and end to the essay are a giant contradiction.

He also cherry-picks five quotes about fear from history and calls them “the worry over fear”. I could pick another five quotes from history that oppose his. Why are his five the only perspective worth citing? He does not say.

Examples of those who say not to worry:

“While F.D.R. once told Americans that we have nothing to fear but fear itself, Mr. Ashcroft is delighted to play the part of Fear Itself, an assignment in which he lets his imagination run riot.” – Frank Rich

“Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear.” – Mark Twain

“Men fear death as children fear to go in the dark; and as that natural fear in children is increased by tales, so is the other.” – Francis Bacon

Geer leaves out the obvious counter-points and takes no time to explain why, although sensible, they do not interfere with his overall hypothesis.

I guess I should write a full and detailed response but let me also just say I see many examples where technology provides freedom, security and convenience together. The automobile. The mobile phone. The fact that we give away something does not mean we have to give it up. It seems to be more about choices than a requirement or an immutable law. Geer’s work thus leaves me with the impression he really is just upset about decisions being made and his essay is a critique of the market and consumers disguised as a study of natural forces.