Trying to stop a terrorist plot with TSA security checks is like trying to prevent a divorce by hiding your wife's car keys.
It's indicative of a shortsighted, reactionary way of thinking that glosses over the nuances of the problem.
Evading Airport Security
81–90 of 166 posts
Re: Evading Airport Security
#82I typically think Schneier is too cavalier about "security theater", but in this case I agree completely. On the other hand, I don't think that means airport security should be drastically scaled back: There are probably 10x as many dumb potential attackers as smart ones, and it makes sense to be eliminate the easy avenues for the dumb ones while you concentrate other resources on the smart ones. It's also important…
> There are probably 10x as many dumb potential attackers as smart ones, and it makes sense to be eliminate the easy avenues for the dumb ones while you concentrate other resources on the smart ones. It's also important not to ignore both the intelligence value of security checks as well as their potential forensic value in the event of a successful attack. This is the point that is always missed when talking about "…
But there's little if any evidence that there's any real threat of mentally unstable people, or not particularly smart terrorists, wanting to carry out attacks either.
If these people existed, they'd be attacking trains/metros today. The Madrid and London bombings show how devastating these can be - and on a train, you could do it with a pretty high chance of getting away uninjured - just leave your bag on the train and get off before it's due to explode.
Yet despite the ridiculous ease, low risk and effectiveness of such an attack, they still very, very rarely happen.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#83I 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…
Missing the point. TSA is just another jobs program. Another example of how a large bureauocracy has to keep expanding control. The best solution against terrorism is for people to be brave enough to accept it, and brave enough to defend themselves and the people around them. No government will ever encourage this sort of behavior because it gives up too much control in the process.
At any rate, the TSA is not going away. Just step in the scanner, raise your arms like you're already a perp, step out, and be on your way.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#84I 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 only super-substantial potential damage stems from an explosive of some sort, not a box-cutter, knife, or anything of the sort."
Not entirely true. If you can get some Mercury on board, it's party-time. Mercury just loves Aluminium...
Re: Evading Airport Security
#85Earlier 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.
Of course, it's equally insulting to say that people from a white middle-class background can't react effectively to emergencies.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I seem to recall just a couple of months ago the FAA proposed relaxing the rules so that small knives would be legal. Immediately following that, the media reported widespread public condemnation of the proposal by people concerned for their safety. So as much as I despise this nonsense, this seems to be what a significant, vocal portion of the people want.
> this seems to be what a significant, vocal portion of the people want. I wonder how many of them fly, and how many of them are just afraid that once we allow pocket knives on airplanes, they'll start falling out of the sky onto their heads.
Many flight attendants were vocal about their opposition.
https://www.change.org/petitions/tsa-do-not-allow-knives-on-...
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/06/business/la-fi-tsa-a...
Re: Evading Airport Security
#87airport security is not built to prevent evil geniuses to act out a brilliant act of terror macguyver style. airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife - which they failed to prevent at 9/11. it's to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc. the times square bomber types. it relies on underpaid, undereducated personnel. because it exists in reality, which means it…
> it's to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc. the times square bomber types.
Why? They don't seem to be attacking large stadiums or subways.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#88I 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…
Missing the point. TSA is just another jobs program. Another example of how a large bureauocracy has to keep expanding control. The best solution against terrorism is for people to be brave enough to accept it, and brave enough to defend themselves and the people around them. No government will ever encourage this sort of behavior because it gives up too much control in the process. At any rate, the TSA is not going…
> Missing the point. TSA is just another jobs program.
TSA is more a means of moving the liability risk of security from private firms (starting with the airlines, but its creeping out to other areas) to the government (which can simply handwave much of it away with sovereign immunity) as a subsidy (by removing risk) to industry. The jobs were there before nationalization, they were just private jobs where private firms were at risk of liability if the job wasn't done right.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#89Security 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…
> If it can prevent idiots or unstable from carrying a steel knife we should.
Should we spend hundreds of millions and molest millions of passengers to prevent this?
> Is TSA making people waiting? I often get to the airport two hours early so I think the waiting is fine.
What is the cost in lost productivity of this? We are spending money to lost productivity to prevent a knives on planes??
Re: Evading Airport Security
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
> Then there is the problem with medicines.
That right there is a beautiful example of idiocy regarding TSA policies. Remember that that wasn't even a result of 9/11, it was after police foiled a plot to blow up planes using liquids in the UK in 2006 before the terrorists even had a concrete plan. It's always after something happens that TSA reacts, making me believe even more strongly that what passengers get to personally deal with is mostly just security theater rather than anything actually useful.
Bonus points: there was never a limit on the medication you can bring with you (albeit haphazardly enforced with absurd requirements sometimes) even when all liquids were banned, and there has always been a gigantic backlash every time there was a news story about medically necessary liquids being tested or confiscated in unreasonable ways so TSA has never really dared to ban them in the first place. The best thing now is that they don't even bother to check that what you're carrying on is okay most of the time in my experience, nor have they ever cared that I didn't bother to bag things like inhalers separately and declare them to anyone. But they have thrown out a nearly empty toothpaste container for being an ounce too large - that I had gotten past security with a week before - just because.
I'm looking forward to traveling as a "trusted traveler" (aka pay them money!) tomorrow where TSA will even explicitly tell me to leave my baggies of liquids in my bag. :)