Re:So don't use alarms. : (Score 1)

I think there was a point that I hadn't elucidated on in my post which you noted. I was focusing on securing software from prying eyes rather than worrying about the hardware that contained such information.

The system I suggested is applicable primarily when the value of the software (programs or information) outweighs the value of the hardware. Under these circumstances, the user will be less concerned about the $2000 piece of hardware than the $250,000 worth of information on that hardware.

Much of the operations planning I'm working on for a local company involves the use of laptops while en route to sites. The laptops themselves don't contain any private information, relying upon a central (secured) station to host that data, so the theft of information is less of a concern in these situations than that of the hardware.

When it comes to theft of hardware, there's no level of technology that'll prevent the theft itself once the laptop has been obtained. Your comment on espionage hit the nail on the head, though, which is where the encryption comes into play. (They should still be tossed in jail if they've chosen to ignore their training and be complete doughnuts. ;)

This isn't to say that these students don't have a market; however, they've focused on the wrong segment of the overall IT market. Devices like these should be marketed to top-level execs who can fork over five times the price they're planning on charging.

[Grins.]