Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evading Airport Security

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 166 posts

Re: Evading Airport Security

#31

Post by PavlovsCat »

twoodfin wrote: post #14
mikeash wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boxcutters are no longer effective tools of terror on airliners. They ceased to be so on the morning of 9/11/2001. Why try to stop them now?

I think you're underestimating the havoc that a group of well-trained individuals armed with knives could cause in the middle of a transcontinental flight even with a locked, reinforced cabin door. I agree it's not as clear cut as a ban on firearms or explosives, but it seems like a sensible restriction to me, worth enforcing as best we can.

What about extreme physical fitness and martial arts? Or, to quote Carlin, "really big hands" - does a knife or 10 really make the difference?

Re: Evading Airport Security

#32

Post by mikeash »

scrrr wrote: post #9

Don't they also use screening by looking at passengers? Don't know about USA but in my country there's usually a few security people just looking at the people who go through the security check. I suppose they are trained to see nervous people behaving oddly and so forth.

Such things require extensive training of smart people, which conflicts with the TSA's technique of hiring large numbers of warm bodies at low pay.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#33

Post by Ryoku »

At this point, airport security is there to make people feel safe. That's it.

Do you really think a plane full of people who know they will die unless they do something about it, will let a terrorist get away with it? On the other hand, do you really think so many people would have continued to fly as often as they did before 9/11 without some sort of reassurance that something is being done to prevent highjacks?

Terrorism can be anywhere, and it does not need an airplane to happen. Now, if terrorists are not going to use planes to cause terror then you should be thinking on the next thing that's going to be used. There are many uses for perceived security and not all of them involve keeping people safe.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#34

Post by sejje »

pkfrank wrote: post #21
viraptor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's about the danger to the passengers as much as forcing your way to the pilot. I.e. someone capturing/torturing passengers until the pilot comes out.

I guess I simply don't buy that any terrorist on board -- even if there were several of them and they were armed with box-cutters and the like -- could ever take the cockpit. The doors are locked, the pilots are sometimes armed; and mostly, the passengers would never let it happen. Even in the most extreme scenarios imaginable, the passengers would have a 20-1 advantage, and would understand that the cost of failing…

I've been on planes with about 20 passengers, so 2 or 3 terrorists could significantly narrow the odds.

That said, I don't disagree with your point at all.

I'd rather see an armed plainclothes officer on every flight than be harassed at the airport.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#35

Post by viraptor »

pkfrank wrote: post #21
viraptor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's about the danger to the passengers as much as forcing your way to the pilot. I.e. someone capturing/torturing passengers until the pilot comes out.

I guess I simply don't buy that any terrorist on board -- even if there were several of them and they were armed with box-cutters and the like -- could ever take the cockpit. The doors are locked, the pilots are sometimes armed; and mostly, the passengers would never let it happen. Even in the most extreme scenarios imaginable, the passengers would have a 20-1 advantage, and would understand that the cost of failing…

This is of course not really testable, but putting other passengers in a position where their actions would directly result in someone else's death could change that. Would you really expect people to resist if someone started by binding random person and promising to stab them if anyone gets up? (yeah, starts like a bad action movie plot, but it could be relatively effective)

Re: Evading Airport Security

#36

Post by kfk »

eitally wrote: post #22
kfk wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. But I am really tired of having problems because the deodorant I use has 150ml of liquid instead of 100.

I have never, ever been stopped due to what I consider reasonable amounts of liquid/gel/aerosol beyond the 100ml limit. Typical culprits: deodorant, shaving cream and sunscreen. I do my best to fit everything in a 1qt baggie, but typically the shaving cream and sunscreen are just jammed into a running shoe or put in a separate pocket in my carry-on. Never, ever been stopped. Also, never been confiscated by the TSA ra…

They threw my deodorant in Frankfurt because of that. It was very annoying, I could not buy it for one week as I was very busy with work.

Then there is the problem with medicines. I have a light psoriasis. Remember that before the 100ml extension, we could not carry liquid at all...

Re: Evading Airport Security

#37

Post by jheriko »

pkfrank wrote: post #21
viraptor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's about the danger to the passengers as much as forcing your way to the pilot. I.e. someone capturing/torturing passengers until the pilot comes out.

I guess I simply don't buy that any terrorist on board -- even if there were several of them and they were armed with box-cutters and the like -- could ever take the cockpit. The doors are locked, the pilots are sometimes armed; and mostly, the passengers would never let it happen. Even in the most extreme scenarios imaginable, the passengers would have a 20-1 advantage, and would understand that the cost of failing…

Locked doors and guns are one thing, and a pretty solid argument imo but... 20 american joe publics vs. any small number of arabs, maybe even just one?

Fear of death is not such a great motivator as you imagine I think.

have you seen people react to threats in the wild? especially from the first-world white middle class background? its just not a part of their life and generally they do really stupid things like freeze or panic wildly, shoot first and ask questions later...

a lot of these terrorist guys come from very tough environments with aggressive cultures that make the south of USA look tame... if they panic or freeze up when death is imminent they are likely die and leave no offspring - and these situations occur much more frequently so that there is a very strong selection pressure to compete in that regard which is absent from most of western society, modulo wars, for at least three or four generations now...

Re: Evading Airport Security

#38

Post by thisiswrong »

Yup - 9/11 has been used, along with its many other uses, to create fear and sell 'security'.

Follow the money and you will find that the same 'security' profiteers are surprisingly linked to events surrounding 9/11:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/3938-g...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement

Just look at how easy it is to profit from and sell false 'security' in war-torn Iraq: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/02/fake-bomb-detector...

Re: Evading Airport Security

#39

Post by logfromblammo »

twoodfin wrote: post #16
yeukhon wrote: post #11

Security is hard. Physical security is hard too. Just a thought: you can stuff anything you want in your big suitcase. So if someone wants to set an alarm bomb with some destructive chemical it is possible, no? Though I am in favor of airport security - even if false sense is better than zero. If it can prevent idiots or unstable from carrying a steel knife we should. Yes, you can't prevent more major terrorist attac…

Just a thought: you can stuff anything you want in your big suitcase. Of course this isn't true. Checked baggage is screened just as carry-on luggage is.

Baggage screening, of course! That's why your laptop, camera, or tablet gets stolen if you check it.

The amount of thefts from luggage during the security process is simply mind-boggling. One would think that anyone unscrupulous enough to boldly steal a $200 item--even under the supposed scrutiny of cameras and co-workers--and get the item home from the airport undetected could likewise do the reverse for an anonymous envelope of cash.

If people can steal from luggage, they can also drop something into it. If you absolutely, positively must do evil in the air, you just apply for a low-wage unskilled job at the airport and do it as an insider.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#40

Post by ArbitraryLimits »

tokenadult wrote: post #19
pkfrank wrote: post #10

I fundamentally don't understand the danger of "traditional" (box cutters, etc.) weapons getting through airport security. I understand that we need to continue testing for bombs and anything that can actually bring a plane down. It would obviously be tragic and damaging for someone to attack "defenseless" passengers with "traditional" weapons, but -- in my eyes -- it's not terribly different from a random attack in…

The original 9/11 attack showed how simple traditional weapons could be used to leverage using four whole airplanes as nontraditional weapons, three of them with devastating effect, all of them with lethal effect. I think Schneier's point is correct that spending the same amount of money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response would keep us safer than screening what innocent passengers bring on to air…

> The original 9/11 attack showed how simple traditional weapons could be used to leverage using four whole airplanes as nontraditional weapons, three of them with devastating effect, all of them with lethal effect.

Right, but the GP's point is that it was only possible to do that _once_, because the success of the 9/11 attacks depended on the passengers cooperating with the hijackers. That was a reasonable assumption because for the previous 30 years, "in the event of a hijacking just cooperate until we can negotiate your release" was the standard advice. Now it isn't.

Even in 9/11, 25% of the passengers figured out on their own that they shouldn't cede the cockpit. Today the figure would be 100%, plus the cockpit is sealed off for the duration of the flight anyway. So I really don't see a scenario where box-cutters would take out the whole plane any more.

Post reply on HN