Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (276898)	2/27/2006 7:19:30 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572751

I think that owning the operations of a sensitive entry into our country opens the door to people with less than good intentions. They would have access to all sorts of information to analyze our security, find the deficiencies, and exploit them. I'd much rather have port operations run by countries who don't have such a high likelihood of employing people who may harbor ill-will towards the U.S. Analogy: If you were to hand over the maintenance contract of a museum of high value antiquities to a company known to have employed thieves in the past, then you may very well argue that security is a separate apparatus and that I shouldn't be concerned. However, what I would reply is that having a maintenance contract gives that company of dubious intentions alot of access to the crown jewels, as well as visibility into the modus operandi of the security aparatus. I'd be a fool to allow that to happen, even if the security was state of the art. Give a smart human half the chance and they will find ways of exploiting even the most complex and multi-layered security scheme. I'd rather not give our enemies even a 1% chance. How about 0%? That suits me better when the stakes are this high.