Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that half of 9/11/2001 was different. By 10:03AM, the solution was designed/implemented/ successfully tested .
well, 25% really.
I was thinking roughly in terms of hours in the day, but yes.
Evading Airport Security
91–100 of 166 posts
Re: Evading Airport Security
#92Security 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??
> Should we spend hundreds of millions and molest millions of passengers to prevent this?
And talk about job creation too. Maybe. Often we use statistics. Well, we don't have good statistics or can't do experiment on whether or not the chance of surviving is higher or lower with/out the TSA screening. Can you?
> What is the cost in lost productivity of this? We are spending money to lost productivity to prevent a knives on planes??
Losing how much time? An extra 10-20 minutes on average? You understand why terrorists like to plot terrorism on airplane right? Because we can't control an airplane once it is flying. On the ground you can run away or hope a rescue unit come to you in 5 minutes. So losing 20 minutes on average (which you should plan ahead for any air travel ANYWAY), versus keeping a sharp knife away from the mentally unstable passenger next to you is probably a good thing.
Maybe the chance is very low, near zero. When that comes, your life might be over and that 20 minutes is negligible.
Some people are happy to trade 20 minutes away but I am not.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#93>the answer is simple: airplane terrorism isn't a big risk
It will be a massive wake up call to America (and the rest of the world, too) when Wikileaks publishes the reports of how 9/11 was a victim simulation[0]. Can't wait.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#94what happens if a terrorist tries to open the door or an emergency exit window in-flight?
Re: Evading Airport Security
#95Earlier 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…
That plane had the smallest crew of hijackers, perhaps because one member of the hijacking plot was then under arrest in Minnesota.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui#Capture
That the arrest was not followed up by a FISA court order allowing more investigation of the plans of the arrested person was a major screw-up on the part of the FBI.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#96what happens if a terrorist tries to open the door or an emergency exit window in-flight?
Absolutely nothing, except maybe panicking some passengers. Planes are pressurized, and the exits all open inward. It's not possible for a human being to overcome that force.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#97airport 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…
"and yeah, how many security researchers would post if they got caught? survivorship bias at play."
Used to something similar at play with stock picking. You heard about people's successful investments but never their losses which they of course kept quiet. This is of course more old school. Now people are much more open about airing daily laundry. My guess is that Schnier would blog about something that didn't work not that that detracts from your point. A lesser known security researcher would not necessarily act the same. Not to mention separately that "getting caught" means you have an interesting story for the press.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#98I 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 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 street or a shopping mall."
Well one way it's different is in the availability of emergency response personnel. In the air you are confined in a small space and much further from help.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 "…
An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute. Is it impossible? No, but almost nothing is impossible. I don't think you are making the point you intend to make - the very fact that pulling off a successful attack is inherently difficult is what stops those people, not any security agency. Same thing with attacks anywhere else. For example: The Times Square bomber could…
There was a shooting at LA just weeks ago. Lots of less than spectacular events have occurred on soft targets over the past 10 years. Each of those may have easily converted in to a more spectacular attack.
The marathon bombers were targeting the marathon for the message. They may have choosen to use an airliner to make that message had it not been for TSA. We don't know. There just isn't quality enough data on either side to remove airport security.
Re: Evading Airport Security
#100Earlier 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.
The pilots knows the same as the passengers: That if the hijackers take the cockpit, odds are nobody lives, so in a crisis, his best strategy for both personal survival and for saving the most passengers is to get the plane on the ground as soon as possible. If a hijacker "just" wants to perform an old-school hijack, ie. not use the plane as a 9/11-style missile, his best odds are convincing the captain of that fact…
Fun fact: Smartphone GPS doesn't work above 10K feet, such that it can't be used to terrorize airplanes.