I'm a big Guy Kewney fan. He knows what he's talking about, and he writes really, really well. (The picture is from his old eWeek column.)

His latest discovery is snarfing. Specifically he's talking about "bluesnarfing," abusing bad Bluetooth stacks to get inside peoples' cell phones.

As Guy notes, this is a problem with a few Bluetooth stacks. Easy to fix with updating, or by using something better. But Guy, naturally, has found an ignorant someone shouting about this as though the sky is falling. And, to make it more fun, it's an authority figure, this time the wondrously-named Sir Archy Kirkwood, president of the House of Commons Commission.

Sir Archy's "solution" to the problem is classic. "No services using wireless technologies will be offered until security concerns have been addressed."

In other words, Sir Archy is saying, do nothing.

Guy then takes Sir Archy's fears apart one-by-one, noting that we're talking here of only a few Bluetooth stacks, that the vulnerability is mainly limited to address books, that the phones in question can't really be programmed to do much more damage, and that new Class 1 Bluetooth products are very, very unlikely to have the same problem.

Here's how Guy concludes his piece:

Meanwhile, the security system which so zealously protects Westminster from this devastating scourge of wireless intrusion, allowed me to walk into the Parliamentary building two weeks ago. On my back was a rucksack with a computer (with wireless!) two bluetooth phones, and two cameras. The bag was searched, and I proceeded to my appointment. Nobody knew what I might be able to do, because they don't know anything about wireless. But the laptop is a Centrino ThinkPad...

And quite rightly, too; whatever damage I might have been able to do with this "dangerous hacking equipment" is trivial compared to what anybody can do with Internet virus tools.

Of course, Parliament is quite safe from those. Nobody in Westminster has broadband; it's a security risk, I dare say. Result: MPs in the buildings have to use dialup, which restricts their protection to a software firewall - if they know that it's a good idea to turn one on, and if they know how to do this.

But at least, if there is a breach, nobody can point the finger at Sir Archy. He did nothing, and so it can't be his fault. Right? Or is it, rather, the case that unless the security boss knows how to deal with wireless risks, he's merely ignorant of a whole area of technology where the only security lies in expertise?

Note to the Queen. The wrong Brits still have titles.