Evading Airport Security • Hacker News Board

Re: Evading Airport Security

#111

Post by owenmarshall » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 7:27 PM UTC

pyrocat wrote: post #109

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…

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

I recall hearing about an airplane crash post-9/11. The airport fire department attempted to breach the door to reach a seriously injured pilot.

It took them forty minutes to reach the pilot. They first tried to breach the door and ended up forced to cut through the roof to get to him.

If the pilot doesn't want the door open, the door won't be opened. And I'd imagine that pilots are well-trained to never open the door in a hijacking. That said, if the hijacking gets nasty... maybe...

E: found it - it was the Turkish 1951 crash.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#112

Post by rdtsc » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 7:36 PM UTC

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…

You have a major flaw in your logic.

There are 3 actors:

S -- the security apparatus, the TSA, airlines, the state, the laws and rules they create, air marshals, NSA etc.).

A -- attackers

E -- everyone else, regular passengers

The flaw is that E is stupid, static, unable to learn form the past, need to be constantly protected by S.

A is smart, flexible, able to adapt and learn from mistakes ("ha we took X planes down, now we learned and we'll take X*5 planes down!").

S is also responsible, smart, it needs to act as a parent protecting and handling E. It also learns from the past, and if necessary it might impose arbitrary restrictions on E (security checks, black lists) in order to protect them from A.

You see the problem? Don't feel bad that is a very common mistake to make. Many people and the official reaction from S also follows the same logic (maybe you just internalized their PR?).

In fact not only did E learn better and was more effective, it has a track record to prove it. It immediately adapted (within hours!) and made sure to bring the plane down in a rural PA area not in NYC. TSA on the other hand, after years, billions of dollars and millions of man hours wasted still has not caught one single terrorist red-handed with a bomb ready to go off. (Granted other agencies from S foiled some plots). E has also been busy, they stopped Reid (the shoe bomber, if I am not mistaken).

Anyway, hopefully you see where I am going with this.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#113

Post by jeffasinger » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 7:37 PM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #101

SkyMarshal wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except, with reinforced cockpit doors, I'm not sure that a hijacking with those types of weapons would result in a crash now.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#114

Post by ars_technician » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 7:40 PM UTC

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…

It's a good thing evolution doesn't work that quickly. Selection has less of an effect than you portray in this case. If it were true, it would be all middle-eastern countries winning the olympic events.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#115

Post by aaronem » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 7:44 PM UTC

khuey wrote: post #71

sejje wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been on 737s with about 20 passengers. It's rare, but given the right combination of flight, time of day, and season, it can happen.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#116

Post by ars_technician » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 7:45 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #14

mikeash wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boxcutters are no longer effective tools of terror on airliners. They ceased to be so on the morning of 9/11/2001. Why try to stop them now?

I think you're underestimating the havoc that a group of well-trained individuals armed with knives could cause in the middle of a transcontinental flight even with a locked, reinforced cabin door. I agree it's not as clear cut as a ban on firearms or explosives, but it seems like a sensible restriction to me, worth enforcing as best we can.

All the pilots have to do in that case is start maneuvering the plane in a manner that makes standing up impossible.

It's really very easy to stop this type of thing.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#117

Post by SkyMarshal » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 7:50 PM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #101

SkyMarshal wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The plane only went down b/c the terrorists had taken the cockpit. They crashed it intentionally when they realized the passengers were about to retake it. With barricaded, reinforced cockpits that won't happen again, and passengers will also fight back instantly, won't give hijackers time to get control and get organized.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#118

Post by Amadou » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 7:51 PM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #99

Amadou wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eithe…

There was a shooting at LA just weeks ago.

You mean Paul Anthony Ciancia who was pissed off about all the excessive security and deliberately targeted TSA agents hoping to commit suicide-by-cop?

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.

Citing all attacks anywhere as justification for the TSA is a recipe for the unlimited ratcheting up of security. It is an enormous leap in logic to assume somebody with a semi-auto rifle or a crock-pot bomb is capable of getting them past pre-911 airport security and also doing something effective with it once they have. An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#119

Post by aaronem » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 7:52 PM UTC

pearjuice wrote: post #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. [0] http://septemberclues.info/vicsims.htm

Yes, a "victim simulation", of course -- carried out at the ultimate behest of the Reticulans, no doubt.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#120

Post by justincormack » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:13 PM UTC

san86 wrote: post #78

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.

Well in Kenya the reaction wasn't great. Perhaps other countries are better prepared.