Additionally, I will be respectfully asking countries, such as Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, to pay more for the tremendous security we provide them.
There is no doubt that terrorism has been a major spur in the public’s yearning for a strong hand to bring order. People see the loss of freedom as a tax that has to be paid for security. And it’s clear that, after the traumas that have occurred, Russians are very willing to pay that price.
Device makers, especially consumer-focused ones, have been the Achilles' heel of IoT security. These vendors have often viewed proper security implementations as extra cost, complexity, and time-to-market burdens with an unclear payoff.
The fundamental driver in computer security, in all of the computer industry, is economics. That requires a lot of re-education for us security geeks.
It's just astonishing to me that the media is so interested in how much it costs to secure our border and has no interest in the cost of refusing to secure our border.
The American people ask, and legitimately so, why should we carry the heavy burden to ensure international peace and stability. You also profit from it, so you should also take your share in the burden. That's Secretary Gates's message. I share that message.
I lived at admiralty house from 2002 until 2006 on advice from special branch on security grounds as defence secretary. The alternative of providing comprehensive security at my personal property would have entailed significant extra costs to the taxpayer.
Such a system would be very, very expensive and laborious to have, given the kinds of border we have. Scientists and engineers aren't even sure they have the technology to make it work
You have to have a multipronged approach and a significant part of that is educating the public and change the culture so that people are less afraid of Arabs or Muslims, more attuned to civil rights and civil liberties issues that are presented, more aware of the security costs of some of the kinds of choices the Bush administration had made, and more committed to the values that America was founded upon.
So people have to decide. Do they want to have the security? Do they want to continue to plug the gap [in border security] that GAO has identified and recognize that there will be some costs to doing that? Or do we want to make sure that business isn't hampered and that people can move back and forth readily, and recognize that, if we don't put some barriers in place, we're going to wind up with dangerous people coming into the country?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
Most museums - with all their burdens to pay for exhibitions, administration, and security - really don't have any money really to acquire art, with few exceptions.
One of the real costs of the war is that our security is actually less than it otherwise would have been - ironic, since enhancing security was one of the reasons for going to war. Our armed forces have been depleted - we have been wearing out equipment and using up munitions faster than we have been replacing them; the armed forces face difficult problems in recruitment -by any objective measures,including those used by the armed forces, quality has deteriorated significantly.
