Evading Airport Security • Hacker News Board

Re: Evading Airport Security

#121

Post by ctdonath » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:18 PM UTC

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.

Getting a gasoline tanker close enough to cause sufficient damage (i.e.: inside) would be hard; not only does it have to get close, it has to get inside. WTC famously had "10,000 pound planters" positioned around the buildings to stop vehicles from getting too close, and IIRC rather aggressive security preventing unwanted vehicles entering; they learned from the garage bombing about a decade before (just didn't extend vertically). Hijacking a just-took-off airliner was the most efficient & surprising way to transport & insert the liquids.

Cockpit doors are a cheap sensible solution. 10,000 pound planters worked until somebody figured out how to go over them.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#122

Post by jrockway » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:24 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…

> I look forward to the day when we dial back airport security procedures to the new reality of reinforced cockpit doors and passengers who will fight would-be hijackers to save their lives.

I think this has already happened. I have TSA Pre✓ now, and the security procedure is as follows: plunk your bag down on the X-ray, walk through a metal detector, reclaim your bag. No taking liquids out. No taking your laptop out. Shoes, belt, and coat stay on.

The future (past?) is here :)

Re: Evading Airport Security

#123

Post by pearjuice » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:27 PM UTC

aaronem wrote: post #119

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.

Instead of providing such edgy commentary (what even are Reticulans?), care to explain why they clearly decided to Photoshop pictures of the victims? Why relatives (which have never spoken up) did not supply the media with better pictures other than pixelated 80px by 80px frames? How come if there is more than one picture of a victim, they all look the same? This is are only basic questions you should be able to answer if you think 9/11 is real, I am not even taking into account all the other discrepancies encircling 9/11.

I know, it is very hard to cope with the fact that you got tricked into believing something for years on end and find out that all of it was one big lie - a set up.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#124

Post by yeukhon » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:29 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #105

yeukhon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I already said the risk is nearly zero. Read it carefully.

Yet, if there is a risk, even if it is at 0.1%, precaution is required. And when this impacts the lives of hundreds of passengers, the risk is more than just me dying on the street tomorrow.

-- edit --

whoever downvote is probably a kid.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#125

Post by yeukhon » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:34 PM UTC

darkarmani wrote: post #110

yeukhon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wer…

I have not shifted from 2 hours to 20 minutes. I was pointing out that even during a busy morning I would only expect 20 minutes to be added to the overall processing time. And since I already plan to arrive at the airport two hours before the time to take off, 20 minutes is nothing. In essence, the impact on productivity is little.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#126

Post by pearjuice » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:56 PM UTC

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…

Well the truth of the matter is that a bunch of angry guys living in caves in the desert really hated American freedom, so they pooled together some money, flew to America, and sneaked past the notoriously anal TSA.

These were dangerous men armed with the most dangerous weapons known to man - BOX CUTTERS. Using their BOX CUTTERS, they hijacked planes full or several hundred individuals who were to terrified of their BOX CUTTERS that instead of trying to overpower them, they decided to accept a fiery death via crashing into skyscrapers, taking thousands more with them.

That's really the whole truth - there's nothing more to it. If you don't believe it, then you truly underestimate the power of BOX CUTTERS.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#127

Post by pavel_lishin » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 8:59 PM UTC

Pinckney wrote: post #86

pavel_lishin wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Nice; the change.org link references the Boston Marathon bombing, as if it had any relevance whatsoever to this issue.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#128

Post by pkfrank » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 9:01 PM UTC

iconjack wrote: post #102

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.

Haven't you always been required to place it into it's own bin to go through the X-Ray machine? That seems like an effective "second glance" to me.

They'll also sometimes swab it and check for explosive residue.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#129

Post by venomsnake » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 9:02 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #103

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The WTC fell from fire weakening the steel frame.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#130

Post by venomsnake » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 9:09 PM UTC

hawkharris wrote: post #81

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.

If you want to really worry - think about all the Iraqui and Afgani insurgents that for the last 10 years have waged war against US and survived. They have worldclass IED making capabilities and it is not that hard to smuggle them in US to begin ground warfare.