>>SNIP
>>>They are very tight here, especially after 9/11.
>>
>>I've gotta believe that changed a WHOLE LOT of attitudes about security. Hopefully, backsliding will be minimal.
>
>Yeah, it sure did. You once could get through metal detectors and xray machines pretty easily, especially if you knew the guards already. Now if I a darn PENNY in my pocket I get challenged, guard-known or not. We have to empty everything into trays when we go in, and the xrays are scrutinized and anything the least bit odd is hand-checked. Non-employees like family used to be able to visit easily, but not any more.
>
>A lot of this thread has focused on computer security, but that misses the mark, for the most part. We have very tight firewalls and even if someone COULD penetrate, we have sniffers and tracers so they'd have agents on them in about zero time, and be looking at prison time, if they're within the US scope.
>
>The real threat is from PHYSICAL access for everything from bombs to theft to hacking (as I said, I don't doubt Victor's assertion, or my own, that if someone can get TO an electric box, they can get in and get anything they want, including passwords). So that's where all the post 9/11 security focus has been, and where it should be (despite the hassles from it).
>
>The other thing we've had to do is formulate "dispersal plans" - that is, in case DC gets nuked, we need to have the ability to setup shop quickly elsewhere. Also a good idea, despite the unpleasant efforts we have had to make. Corporations are thinking the same way, of course, after 9/11.

Bruce,

I'd take Ed Rauh at his word. Password? No way.