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

101–110 of 166 posts

Re: Evading Airport Security

#101

Post by wtvanhest »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #76
FBT wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only thing the 4th plane proved was that the murder of an entire airliner is possible with ordinary weapons.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#102

Post by iconjack »

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…

While TSA are examining my shoes and scanning my bum, they let through without fanfare my carry-on device: a solid brick of chemicals surrounded by advanced electronics including a radio receiver.

Seriously, I'm no bomb expert but wouldn't laptops still be the most fruitful terrorist attack vector? Mine laptop is 6 lbs and has never been given a second glance.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#103

Post by ceejayoz »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #72
tokenadult wrote: post #19

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. 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.

A gasoline tanker and bomb would make a fire. As with any other vehicles on the road, they crash and catch fire on a regular basis without taking down sky scrapers.

Hollywood representations of what gas tanks do when ruptured are inaccurate.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#104

Post by mseebach »

tsaoutourpants wrote: post #100
mseebach wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't you see, you're only helping the TERRORISTS by pointing that out. :)

Anyway, in that case, they'd have to remember to buy one of these first, then: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Elf-1000-30-Pin-Receiver/dp/B0035Y...

Re: Evading Airport Security

#105

Post by Xylakant »

yeukhon wrote: post #92
darkarmani wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 kni…

> Some people are happy to trade 20 minutes away but I am not.

Do you step out of your flat each day, take a cab, bus, walk short distances? Cross the road?

The death risk in all of theses activities is many times higher than dying on an airplane because a mentally unstable passenger manages to stabs you with a knife he deliberately brought on board.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#106

Post by cheald »

girvo wrote: post #17

Well, guess this guy is now on the No Fly list.

Bruce Schneier is and has been one of the most outspoken critics of the TSA for years. This article isn't going to change any three-letter agency's opinion of him.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#107

Post by dmix »

glenra wrote: post #66
twoodfin wrote: post #3

I 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…

> On the other hand, I don't think that means airport security should be drastically scaled back It absolutely should be drastically scaled back. Or eliminated entirely. The thing you're ignoring is that the current level of airport security kills a lot of people. It does so largely by making flying more expensive and inconvenient so people drive instead of fly and as a result die in auto accidents. The TSA makes us…

Exactly, there is a massive opportunity cost [1] at play here when you exchange very neutral/limited returns in security, for crippling airport efficiency and disrupting the lives of individuals making them not want to fly (invading privacy, long lines, belittling treatment, etc).

Just arguing whether or not TSA is effective at stopping smart vs dumb criminals is too limited of a discussion. It needs to also factor in the trade-offs at risk of being able to even do so.

Especially considering the TSA is reporting tens of thousands of false-positives for every real security threat prevented. That ratio can't be ignored as a counter-weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Re: Evading Airport Security

#108

Post by wtvanhest »

prof_hobart wrote: post #82
wtvanhest wrote: post #7

Earlier 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 "…

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…

Please take a look at the list of airline hijakings which prompted the creation of airport security.

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

Without security, you can bet that this list of American Hijackings would continue to present day. Not everyone needs to blow up a plane to cause mass havoc.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#109

Post by pyrocat »

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…

Cockpit doors are basically impossible to brute force / open / unlock now without the cooperation of the pilots.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#110

Post by darkarmani »

yeukhon wrote: post #92
darkarmani wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 kni…

> 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? Unless you are suggesting that the TSA screening increases attacks, we can easily assume that the TSA screening does add some small amount of security (perhaps tiny). We can look at survival rates before and after TSA screenings to see how many people were killed by mentally unstable people. Surely there were mentally unstable people prior to the existence of the TSA?

> 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.

What terrorists? Terrorists as we defined them post 9/11 liked airplanes because they could use them as a weapon to cause much more damage. Why would 5 minutes away from help on the ground matter if they are detonating bombs?

You've shifted the goal posts from "getting to the airport 2 hours early" to "losing 20 minutes."

Post reply on HN