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

131–140 of 166 posts

Re: Evading Airport Security

#131

Post by MBlume »

jrockway wrote: post #122
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…

> 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…

Your friends still can't wait with you at the gate

Re: Evading Airport Security

#132

Post by Daniel_Newby »

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.

A small leak on the side of a highway is different than the entire tank being ripped open in the lobby.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#133

Post by PeterisP »

yeukhon wrote: post #124
Xylakant wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"a risk exists" does not really imply "precaution is required" - there is a risk that you'll be fatally struck by a lightning tomorrow, but it doesn't imply that you need to stay indoors as a precaution.

"Nearly zero" does not equal other "nearly zero" - most "nearly zero" effects are with very, very different nearness to zero. Me dying in a traffic accident tomorrow is a near-zero chance, and me dying of a lightning strike tomorrow is a near-zero chance, but they are very different chances.

The sole fact of you mentioning 0.1% indicates a problem with such comparisons - risk of dying in any terrorist attack is orders of magnitude different than 0.1% and thus deserves uncomparably smaller attention than a real 0.1% risk.

Your short trip from home to airport deserves more precautions than terrorists on the planes. Even taking into account 'hundreds or passengers', the risk is uncomparably much smaller than you simply dying on the street tomorrow - that's how the numbers work out in reality, even if it may feel otherwise emotionally.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#134

Post by mcv »

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.

> 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.

Of course they can do a lot of damage. But they don't have to be on a plane for that. They can do a lot of damage on the street. The big question is: can they take control of the plane and use it as a weapon?

Nowadays, passengers know that hijacking means likely death. That knife won't stop everybody.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#135

Post by smtddr »

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…

>>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.

For the record, I think this is complete rubbish and USgov isn't being truthful about what/how 9/11 happened. I can't believe a plane full of people were too scared to fight people with box-cutters[1].

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLvkftuCFlI&t=1m55s

Re: Evading Airport Security

#136

Post by WalterBright »

ArbitraryLimits wrote: post #40
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…

> 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…

Also, the pilots have at least a fire axe on hand, and possibly also a gun, which they can easily use on anyone who forces the cockpit door.

And, they will be highly motivated to so defend themselves and the cockpit.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#137

Post by qq66 »

smtddr wrote: post #135
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…

>>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. For the record, I think this is complete rubbish and USgov isn't being truthful about what/how 9/11 happened. I can't believe a plane full of people were too scared to fight people with box-cutters[1]. 1.…

People weren't scared to fight people with box cutters, they just had no idea what was happening. The traditional model of airplane hijackings until that date was a hijacking followed by a safe landing and hostage exchange. The smart thing to do, given previous patterns, was to sit quietly and obey instructions.

If you've noticed, people are now much more wary of potential hijacking, to the point where a person who charged the cockpit door was beaten to death by passengers.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#138

Post by prof_hobart »

wtvanhest wrote: post #108
prof_hobart wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"this list of American Hijackings"?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. From that list, there were 2 involving the US in the 90s and 4 in the 80s. Is the huge increase in disruption, inconvenience and intrusion for every traveller really necessary to cut that level of threat down?

And how many of the attempted hijackings since 2001 had anywhere near the impact of Madrid or London's train/bus bombs? If there's really terrorists trying to cause havoc, why aren't they taking this easy option?

Re: Evading Airport Security

#139

Post by hindsightbias »

aestra wrote: post #56
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…

9/11 was different. People cooperated because that was protocol at the time for a plane hijacking. Nobody expected them to use the plane as a weapon with no regard to their own lives. This was an unprecedented attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking "Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, most hijackings involved the plane landing at a certain destination, followed by the hijackers making negotiable d…

> Nobody expected

But the gov't did.

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

I followed the Yousef trial and only heard about the blowing up airliners over the ocean part. I've never found a reference pre-9/11 about crashing them and believe these details were filled-in only afterwards.

No doubt keeping everyone else in the dark helped keep us safer. /s

Re: Evading Airport Security

#140

Post by [deleted] »

Amadou wrote: post #118
wtvanhest wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN