Evading Airport Security • Hacker News Board

Re: Evading Airport Security

#141

Post by wtvanhest » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 10:25 PM UTC

prof_hobart wrote: post #138

wtvanhest wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I'm talking about the time period before security screening started at most airports... when hijackings were common. Look at the 50s-70s.

An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute.

It is currently difficult to execute. It won't be if we had no security.

Search for "Security screening" on this wiki article:

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

You will notice that they were rolled out in the 70s as security screening started at airports. It was proven effective and unless you can make an argument why people wouldn't pose security threats now with no security checkpoints you won't convince any actual decision maker anywhere.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#142

Post by prof_hobart » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 10:59 PM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #141

prof_hobart wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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'…

I'm talking about the time period before security screening started at most airports... when hijackings were common. Look at the 50s-70s. An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute. It is currently difficult to execute. It won't be if we had no security. Search for "Security screening" on this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_detector You will notice…

From that list :-

50s - none involving America. 60s - 5. 70s - 14 (3 of which, as far as I can tell with any fatalities).

However, I'm not really arguing against zero security at airports. What I'm arguing against is the ludicrous increase in security procedures since 9/11.

>It is currently difficult to execute. It won't be if we had no security

It's not difficult to execute bombings on trains, and they are hugely impactful when it happens. Yet they rarely happen. You seem to be ignoring this.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#143

Post by gizmo686 » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 11:14 PM UTC

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 passengers of the fourth plane knew that other planes had been hijacked and crashed that same day. They made the assumption that these multiple hijackings in such a short period of time were all related and concluded that their plane would likely crash.

The probability that a random hijacking would be done with the intent of crashing the plane is far lower in general than on a day where you know another 3 hijackings did result in that. Especially when you consider how unlikely simultaneous hijackings are.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#144

Post by DerpDerpDerp » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 11:20 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…

> 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.

The 9/11 tactic was no longer effect on 9/11, when the passengers of one of the flights heard that such things happened and took down the plane rather than allow it to be used as a weapon.

The only reason the attack worked was because previous hijackings were for ransom, and would be entirely ineffective in the modern climate, where citizens would take it as intent to use the plane as a weapon.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#145

Post by gizmo686 » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 11:26 PM UTC

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.

Is that an actual limitation of the GPS network, or a limitation of the client-side software.

My understanding is that GPS satellites broadcast a timestamp, and the receivers use that information to compute their position. Assuming that this is accurate, devices should still be able to get the signal at higher altitudes. The only way I can think of this not working is if the geometry works out so that at 10K feet you are no longer in ranges of 4 satellites. I suppose this could be done my calibrating how wide to make the signal (which would make the signals stronger on the ground, but require more satellites for full coverage). This would likely also require having been thought of back when the GPS network was planned.

Also, I would imagine that planes use GPS, in which case it would have to be a client-side restriction.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#146

Post by elwell » Wed, Dec 04, 2013, 11:46 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #26

It may be my libertarded paranoia, but I think airport security screening in the last decade has been largely about diverting public money into private hands. Metal detectors are so cheap now that they can be placed in urban public schools, and every airport already has plenty of them. Pass-through x-ray luggage scanners are likewise already nearly ubiquitous. Automated gas chromatographs, microwave passenger scanner…

I believe the term is [0] "libtard" not "libertard".

[0] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UubTrNKYf-8

Re: Evading Airport Security

#147

Post by jrockway » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 12:18 AM UTC

MBlume wrote: post #131

jrockway wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Ah, that was a 9/11 thing?

Re: Evading Airport Security

#148

Post by dandelany » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 12:38 AM UTC

hindsightbias wrote: post #139

aestra wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This article indicates the crashing part of the plan was first mentioned in the media in June 1995:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a060395ciahea...

“Then the ultimate assault on the so-called ‘infidels’: a plane flown by a suicide bomber was to nose-dive and crash into the American headquarters of the CIA, creating carnage.”

In any case, you really believe that the government talking more about Bojinka would have prevented 9/11?

Re: Evading Airport Security

#149

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 3:28 AM UTC

prof_hobart wrote: post #138

wtvanhest wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

The 70s are the decade where there were many hijackings. That's also when air travel became more commonplace and huge jets were more widely in service.

In the 60s if you weren't a military person, foreigner arriving from or headed to home, or white guy with a suit, you'd be picked up on pretty quickly, security checkpoints or no. Also, we weren't exporting trillions of dollars to and fomenting unrest in the Middle East in those days.

In the 90s, I used to fly to Baltimore on Southwest to get drunk for $30 with friends for the weekend. If I couldn't make it, I'd give the ticket to someone else or sell it. Totally different universe and threat model than ye olden times.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#150

Post by rsync » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 4:16 AM UTC

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 them to use the plane as a weapon"

Nobody ... except for Tom Clancy and every single person who read _Debt of Honor_, wherein a plane is used as a suicide weapon flown into the US capital building.