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

71–80 of 166 posts

Re: Evading Airport Security

#71

Post by khuey »

sejje wrote: post #34
pkfrank wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That size of a plane is too small to worry about. Commercial aviation is usually at least 50 seats. The TSA isn't preventing terrorists from chartering a private jet and flying it into something either.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#72

Post by Daniel_Newby »

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…

Even cockpit doors are going overboard. The 9-11 attacks were about attacking buildings with flammable liquids. A gasoline tanker and a small bomb would have killed 10× more people and been cheaper.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#73

Post by khuey »

ArbitraryLimits wrote: post #57
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 thought the cockpit doors were actually sealed until the plane landed, i.e. the pilots couldn't open them even if they wanted to?

Pilots can definitely exit to cockpit (they do this routinely to use the restroom, and flight attendants sometimes barricade the forward galley with one of the service carts)

Re: Evading Airport Security

#74

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

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.

Air marshals are superflous at this point, in my estimation. Post 9/11 regular passengers have intervened admirably every time the opportunity has arisen.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#75

Post by aestra »

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…

Throwing many millions of dollars on a non-existent problem is fine?

Checked bags get screened. They sometimes get opened and rooted through by hand. Sometimes they leave notes saying they have rooted through your checked bags just for "peace of mind." I've gotten such notes.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#76

Post by SkyMarshal »

FBT wrote: post #58
memset wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Exactly, that fourth plane already proved the case, no idea why we're even having this debate. No plane will ever be successfully hijacked in the US again (or at least not for many generations), even if the hijackers have guns, because everyone now knows the plan is to crash it into something. The entire passenger compartment will bum rush the hijackers. Plus, armed Air Marshals.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#77

Post by lostlogin »

grecy wrote: post #69
jheriko wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 free…

> any small number of arabs, maybe even just one? Any small number of people . There is no need to single out certain cultures.

Thank you. Equally could have called them American allies (Saudi). I can distinctly remember the feeling in late 2001 that people would look back at the reaction to events in a similar way to how we look at the McCarthy era or other such witch hunt and demonization type events. I don't think we have reached that place yet, but it's closer than it was.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#78

Post by san86 »

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…

"it's not terribly different from a random attack in the street or a shopping mall" You are right. However, the one difference is the reaction to an attack. It is fairly straightforward (these days) to get responders on the scene in a mall. A shooting or knife fight in an airplane is much harder to contain or react to.

Overall though, I agree with Schneier about the need for intelligence replacing TSA check points.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#79

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Evading Airport Security

#80

Post by moocowduckquack »

jheriko wrote: post #37
pkfrank wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 free…

20 american joe publics vs. any small number of arabs, maybe even just one?

I didn't know having an arabian background turned you into some kind of superhuman ninja. Or are you just slightly confused and a bit bigoted?

Post reply on HN