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

51–60 of 166 posts

Re: Evading Airport Security

#51

Post by Amadou »

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…

For anyone who doesn't already know or wouldn't be willing to spend the $100 for Global Entry + PreCheck

These programs are the ultimate sign of just how pointless airport security is. There is simply no way that $100 is even remotely enough money to cover an investigation of any effectiveness whatsoever. It's probably just enough to cover the cost of checking the same lists the TSA already checks on every ticket booked and then adding you to the list of people who get to skip security most of the time.

Those programs are just a way for the TSA to co-opt the ire of the kind of rich and powerful people who might have the political influence to reform the agency. 10 to 1 every member of congress has signed up for Pre-Check. If you believe that the TSA is defending against a real threat, these programs, by their very existence, create a giant gaping hole in the TSA's security. The only reason it hasn't been used to perpetrate an attack is because there is effectively no risk in the first place.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#52

Post by Tarrosion »

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…

It's also worth noting that anyone attempting to use a plane as a missile against a particular target is fighting the clock. It would take some time for the hijackers to breach the cockpit (whatever the method), and in that time it is highly probable that military jets have been scrambled and are inbound.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#53

Post by dmix »

logfromblammo wrote: post #26

It may be my libertarded paranoia, but I think airport security screening in the last decade has been largely about diverting public money into private hands. Metal detectors are so cheap now that they can be placed in urban public schools, and every airport already has plenty of them. Pass-through x-ray luggage scanners are likewise already nearly ubiquitous. Automated gas chromatographs, microwave passenger scanner…

This is neoliberalism 101, you don't even have to bring up "military-industrial complex". The state is increasingly working with industry (pseudo-privatization), in return the industry increasingly influences state policy. The system keeps working as long as contracts keep going to a small group of big companies (the only ones capable of "working the system") and as long as the big companies can keep influencing politics.

It's simple math considering the "state" is just a collection of politicians easily influenced by fear-driven populism, media, money, nepotism, and their old private school friends. And on the other side there are extremely powerful billion-dollar defense contractors.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#54

Post by easy_rider »

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 cost of TSA (direct and indirect through delays, etc.) is immense"

I hate debating based on speculative estimates.. That said, El Al seems to put sky marshalls on every single flight. I would throw in a dime that this would be a more (cost)effective and reliable solution compared to current screening implementations.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#55

Post by ArbitraryLimits »

memset wrote: post #50
ArbitraryLimits wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 assumptio…

I have heard many people express this sentiment - our own attitude has changed since the tragedy, and thus we would never let a small group of people muscle their way to the cockpit as they did then. That said, whenever I read accounts of the actual attack [1] they seem well planned - several "muscle men" clearing the way, using pepper sprays, etc. That is, it is not obvious to me that a group of people would be able…

Thanks for pointing that out, I was unaware there was much tactical skill in the attacks. Every news piece I'd seen on the hijackers concentrated mostly on their mistakes leading up to the attacks and how even a marginally competent counter-intelligence effort would have caught them...

More to your point though, I don't think the passengers would have to actually overcome the hijackers, just bottle them up. Whatever they're _not_ good at, surprised scared uncoordinated groups of strangers are pretty good at getting in the way. And there's still the fact that the cockpit door is locked.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#56

Post by aestra »

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…

9/11 was different. People cooperated because that was protocol at the time for a plane hijacking. Nobody expected them to use the plane as a weapon with no regard to their own lives. This was an unprecedented attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking

"Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, most hijackings involved the plane landing at a certain destination, followed by the hijackers making negotiable demands. Pilots and flight attendants were trained to adopt the "Common Strategy" tactic, which was approved by the FAA. It taught crew members to comply with the hijackers' demands, get the plane to land safely and then let the security forces handle the situation. Crew members advised passengers to sit quietly in order to increase their chances of survival. They were also trained not to make any 'heroic' moves that could endanger themselves or other people. The FAA realized that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it would end peacefully with the hijackers reaching their goal.[12] The September 11 attacks presented an unprecedented threat because it involved suicide hijackers who could fly an aircraft and use it to delibrately crash the airplane into buildings for the sole purpose to cause massive casualties with no warning, no demands or negotiations, and no regard for human life. The "Common Strategy" approach was not designed to handle suicide hijackings, and the hijackers were able to exploit a weakness in the civil aviation security system. Since then, the "Common Strategy" policy in the USA and the rest of the world to deal with airplane hijackings has no longer been used."

There was also a change in protocol after the Columbine High School massacre. In that attack the two were able to shoot victims while the police were outside setting up a perimeter. Now as a direct result of that attack police actively charge an active shooter, this is called Immediate Action Rapid Deployment. This is said to have saved dozens of lives in Virgina Tech alone.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#57

Post by ArbitraryLimits »

viraptor wrote: post #15
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…

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 thought the cockpit doors were actually sealed until the plane landed, i.e. the pilots couldn't open them even if they wanted to?

Re: Evading Airport Security

#58

Post by FBT »

memset wrote: post #50
ArbitraryLimits wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 assumptio…

I have heard many people express this sentiment - our own attitude has changed since the tragedy, and thus we would never let a small group of people muscle their way to the cockpit as they did then. That said, whenever I read accounts of the actual attack [1] they seem well planned - several "muscle men" clearing the way, using pepper sprays, etc. That is, it is not obvious to me that a group of people would be able…

Remember, one plane did. After hearing about what happened to the other three planes, the passengers realized what was going on, and (almost) took back the plane. This was all on the spur of the moment, yet they rose to the occasion. If they had known what was going on slightly earlier than they did, they could have stopped the terrorists getting into the cockpit in the first place, and then they would have saved their plane as well.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#59

Post by the_watcher »

memset wrote: post #50
ArbitraryLimits wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 assumptio…

I have heard many people express this sentiment - our own attitude has changed since the tragedy, and thus we would never let a small group of people muscle their way to the cockpit as they did then. That said, whenever I read accounts of the actual attack [1] they seem well planned - several "muscle men" clearing the way, using pepper sprays, etc. That is, it is not obvious to me that a group of people would be able…

Haven't all cockpits now become much more secure? I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that the pilots can seal themselves inside. Anyone trying to get into the cockpit would become a sitting duck, even if they were ruthlessly executing passengers with their simple weapons, 50+ people (likely including an air marshall or at least a strong, fit, high level athlete) should be able to overcome the hijackers. Post-9/11, I doubt many people take the "I hope they don't turn the plane into a missile" route.

Short of getting several automatic weapons on the plane or some kind of chemical weapon that can kill or incapacitate everyone on board, pilots being able to seal themselves off, coupled with internet and cell phone access getting better seems like it would make a repeat 9/11 extraordinarily difficult.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#60

Post by pkfrank »

easy_rider wrote: post #54
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 cost of TSA (direct and indirect through delays, etc.) is immense" I hate debating based on speculative estimates.. That said, El Al seems to put sky marshalls on every single flight. I would throw in a dime that this would be a more (cost)effective and reliable solution compared to current screening implementations.

I haven't been able to find any instance of an air marshal actually confronting a "terrorism-related" event. I'm sure there are examples of them subduing an unruly or drunk passenger; but the sheer magnitude of flights, combined with the fact that on-board threats are very few and far-between, makes me doubt the cost-effectiveness of the program.
Post reply on HN