Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

xs-sniper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 170 posts

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#51

Post by trop »

stevefeinstein wrote: post #8

If this isn't the answer, and I'm not asserting it is or isn't. What is, and how do implement it. Or do you suggest if we scrap it all and go back to 1950's like airport security that the few incidents that are inevitable are an acceptable risk? I don't know the answer, but I'd like to have the conversation.

In Iceland (as of 2006) my recall was no security screening point for the airports besides Keflavik (the airfield for large international flights). Totally liberating and strange to walk right to the gate, then out the door and across the tarmac onto a small airplane. Am curious if this is still so. I took it as a sign of mutual trust in a small nation.

I should also say that I remember even in the 1970s being able to walk to the gate without a ticket (albeit after passing through a metal detector). Both that and the Iceland experience had the romance of air travel which is lost during the humiliation of large airport screening procedures in the U.S.

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#52

Post by tedunangst »

ubernostrum wrote: post #21
idlewords wrote: post #2

I wish there was a transcript to go with these slides, or some context. It looks like an amazing talk. One thing that jumped out at me right away is that the explosives sniffer is also configured to detect narcotics, amphetamine and marijuana. Is this standard procedure at American domestic airports?

TSA has more than a bit of scope creep going on. In theory, all they're supposed to do is a basic administrative search to prevent weapons or explosives from being brought onto a plane. In practice, the perception in the public mind that they are a more general law-enforcement body allows them to easily perform other tasks on behalf of agencies that don't have the same general search powers. The classic example is se…

Is searching for cash the classic example or a one time example involving Ron Paul's cash courier, which then led to a rule change instructing TSA to ignore cash?

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#53

Post by Canada »

stevefeinstein wrote: post #8

If this isn't the answer, and I'm not asserting it is or isn't. What is, and how do implement it. Or do you suggest if we scrap it all and go back to 1950's like airport security that the few incidents that are inevitable are an acceptable risk? I don't know the answer, but I'd like to have the conversation.

Just get rid of it. What currently exists is like something from a police state. It's evil, tyrannical, and will fail stop a future attack against the traveling public inside the United States.

If this gross violation of liberty and due process must continue for legitimate reasons of public safety, because the consequence of projecting power abroad is being targeted for reprisal, then at least grant immunity for offenses unrelated to aviation safety.

But that will not happen, because the people who enable and profit from these checkpoints aren't subjected to them at all.

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#54

Post by Canada »

a_c_s wrote: post #43
glenra wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airport security makes flying much more expensive (both in time and in money) and inconvenient and generally unpleasant than it would otherwise be. So many people who otherwise would take a plane on a short trip choose to drive instead. Some of those people die needlessly in traffic accidents, since driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous than flying. That's the primary mechanism of harm. A common estimate I've…

I seriously doubt that a $5.60 fee has a significant effect on demand for $200-$500 plane tickets. If that were the case, one could argue that the overpriced food at the airport also kills people. As for your sources: The paper linked by Business Week doesn't say anything about the price of airport security deterring people, rather it is about the aggregate group that substituted driving for flying after 9/11, which…

Personally, I don't fly if I don't have to. The cost of flights has nothing to do with it.

The way things are now, I feel threatened in an airport. Especially a US airport, though Canadian ones aren't much better. I feel a heightened possibility that my valuables be stolen from me. That it's done under the color of law makes it even worse than being in a rough neighborhood.

Some may say this is unreasonable, but I know two people who've been stolen from by TSA.

I'd rather drive 8 hours than be subjected to a warrantless search.

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#55

Post by chimeracoder »

Canada wrote: post #53
stevefeinstein wrote: post #8

If this isn't the answer, and I'm not asserting it is or isn't. What is, and how do implement it. Or do you suggest if we scrap it all and go back to 1950's like airport security that the few incidents that are inevitable are an acceptable risk? I don't know the answer, but I'd like to have the conversation.

Just get rid of it. What currently exists is like something from a police state. It's evil, tyrannical, and will fail stop a future attack against the traveling public inside the United States. If this gross violation of liberty and due process must continue for legitimate reasons of public safety, because the consequence of projecting power abroad is being targeted for reprisal, then at least grant immunity for offe…

> But that will not happen, because the people who enable and profit from these checkpoints aren't subjected to them at all.

Don't worry - you can pay ~$100 to have the privilege of being "randomly" selected for "reduced" screening (ie, pre-9/11, with a metal detector).

Of course, this is certainly not random at all. I don't have a random sample, but based on what I can see, it's very unlikely that they actually select people randomly and fairly[0].

The existence of this program means that we're separating travelers into two groups - those who can afford the $100[1] to be exempt from these draconian checkpoints, and those who can't (or who can, but are still forced to go through them anyway).

[0] https://twitter.com/nickgrossman/status/476745477430734848

[1] Not just the fee, but also the time (you have to go for an in-person "interview", which is really just so that they can fingerprint you... I don't remember them asking any real questions)

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#56

Post by PhasmaFelis »

a_c_s wrote: post #50
stevefeinstein wrote: post #8

If this isn't the answer, and I'm not asserting it is or isn't. What is, and how do implement it. Or do you suggest if we scrap it all and go back to 1950's like airport security that the few incidents that are inevitable are an acceptable risk? I don't know the answer, but I'd like to have the conversation.

Yeah, all of this scrap-the-TSA talk makes me wonder how much people have flown internationally: in places I've been, security has been very similar to the TSA with minor variations. It seems like for every policy that had something a little less strict about it there was also something else it was a little more strict about: some care about liquids, some treat iPads as laptops, some make you remove your shoes. I've…

How is that relevant? I don't want to suffer through TSA shenanigans on domestic US flights. What they do in Brussels has nothing to do with that.

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#57

Post by Rapzid »

a_c_s wrote: post #50
stevefeinstein wrote: post #8

If this isn't the answer, and I'm not asserting it is or isn't. What is, and how do implement it. Or do you suggest if we scrap it all and go back to 1950's like airport security that the few incidents that are inevitable are an acceptable risk? I don't know the answer, but I'd like to have the conversation.

Yeah, all of this scrap-the-TSA talk makes me wonder how much people have flown internationally: in places I've been, security has been very similar to the TSA with minor variations. It seems like for every policy that had something a little less strict about it there was also something else it was a little more strict about: some care about liquids, some treat iPads as laptops, some make you remove your shoes. I've…

You're not factoring in just how much of this international security is driven by US interests(US imposed security requirements for airports servicing flights bound for the US). It's significantly driven by US interests. Domestic flights in several countries I've been to have much less security.

Interestingly though, in Australia you can NOT opt out of the screening machines. They will quarantine and deport you if you refuse to go through them. But then, Australia isn't exactly a bastion of personal liberty when compared to the US.

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#58

Post by ben1040 »

glenra wrote: post #44
vacri wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one where people could just walk on openly carrying a rifle if they so desired So you also want airlines to modify cabins to handle oversized carry-on luggage? Nevertheless, the amount of people who would pay more to do this would not be commercially viable - you yourself state that cost is a significant factor for users. Keep in mind also that your security-free airline would have to have its own terminals, as its c…

> So you also want airlines to modify cabins to handle oversized carry-on luggage? No more so than they already do. See, I routinely travel with an acoustic guitar in a gig bag as my "personal item"; it fits in the overhead compartment. And when I don't have the big guitar I often carry a smaller "travel" guitar in a triangular case that is almost exactly the size and shape of a rifle case; they often let me hang tha…

>And somehow nobody has ever used this as an opportunity to kick everyone out, hijack the plane and crash it into a building.

Because how much damage could you really do with one of these, versus a widebody jet fueled up for a long flight?

Here's someone who crashed a smaller aircraft into an office building. It just damaged a corner office and killed the teenager who was at the controls, not exactly the kind of major attack that terrorists go gunning for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_plane_crash

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#59

Post by edwhitesell »

glenra wrote: post #44
vacri wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one where people could just walk on openly carrying a rifle if they so desired So you also want airlines to modify cabins to handle oversized carry-on luggage? Nevertheless, the amount of people who would pay more to do this would not be commercially viable - you yourself state that cost is a significant factor for users. Keep in mind also that your security-free airline would have to have its own terminals, as its c…

> So you also want airlines to modify cabins to handle oversized carry-on luggage? No more so than they already do. See, I routinely travel with an acoustic guitar in a gig bag as my "personal item"; it fits in the overhead compartment. And when I don't have the big guitar I often carry a smaller "travel" guitar in a triangular case that is almost exactly the size and shape of a rifle case; they often let me hang tha…

I like your example about skydiving, but your reasoning is flawed. Hijacking a skydiving plane and crashing it into a building isn't likely to cause a lot of damage. More importantly, it's not likely to cause a lot of terror. The planes are relatively small, passengers are well equipped to simply jump out (therefore, no hostages), or some would happily make a fight of it, knowing they'd probably be safe getting out of the plane anyway.

Nevertheless, your point is important. There are a lot of potential "terrorist tools" that are not protected. How about a terrorist taking over a subway/train and running full speed until it crashes or derails? I can't be the only one who's noticed operators are almost always alone. Even during a shift/operator change, overpowering 2 of them wouldn't be difficult. Same goes for most other type of public transportation (commuter trains, busses, trolley, ferry, etc.)

There are a LOT of terrorist plot/targets that scare me more than a commercial airliner today. Lots of things that keep me awake at night and wonder about the world our kids will inherit. I'll be completely shocked if a commercial airliner type of plot happens again in my lifetime. At least in that environment people would be far more aggressive towards an attack during a flight. The US government is well behind the curve with TSA and it seems clear they are simply attempting to justify the TSA's existence.

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#60

Post by eli »

tptacek wrote: post #29
idlewords wrote: post #2

I wish there was a transcript to go with these slides, or some context. It looks like an amazing talk. One thing that jumped out at me right away is that the explosives sniffer is also configured to detect narcotics, amphetamine and marijuana. Is this standard procedure at American domestic airports?

I wonder how the THC thing could possibly work. I opt out at every checkpoint, and each time, they maximize body contact and then generate an input to those machines. Wouldn't it go off for anyone who had smoked up earlier in the day, or the preceding day? It seems like they'd be spending all their time doing drug searches. (Don't get me wrong: drug searches at TSA checkpoints are extremely alarming, because TSA has…

It's a confusing UI, but I'm pretty sure the "selected" column indicates that drug alerts are not configured to alert.
Post reply on HN