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

151–160 of 170 posts

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#151

Post by ceejayoz »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #99
cookiecaper wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have the same publicity quality, though. The groups that carry out these attacks do it for attention, and they're going to do whatever they can to maximize their press time. That results in worldwide publication of their message, often requiring their opposition to acknowledge and respond, and gives them outlet to advertise to potential new recruits. Airplane attacks and crashes get a lot more coverage tha…

I agree that an airplane crash is more newsworthy than an attack on a bus. I'm not so sure about a campaign that takes out five buses. I'd expect that to get heavy coverage.

Precisely. Think of the paralysis the DC snipers caused a few years back with just a rifle over a few weeks.

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#152

Post by knowaveragejoe »

corford wrote: post #125

Lots of people are posting highlighting how pointless airport security is given the ease with which a terrorist can bypass it by e.g. blowing himself up in the security line, targeting buses or shopping malls, making weapons from stuff bought "air side" etc. As this hasn't been happening (despite how easy it would be for a terrorist to do), the only logical conclusion I draw is that the entire terrorist threat is so…

Schneier makes some good points with regards to why there aren't more terrorist attacks:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/why_arent_the...

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#153

Post by mikestew »

shamwao wrote: post #33
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.

This is a ridiculous idea I've always wondered about, but... why not just drop everything, and allow open carry? Maybe keep the cockpit doors. I find it impossible to imagine any security threat to a flight where the passengers are packing and willing to defend themselves. Doesn't this make flying exactly as dangerous as being in a crowd? For zero dollars?

> I find it impossible to imagine any security threat to a flight where the passengers are packing and willing to defend themselves.

I suspect the number of people who would carry is smaller than you imagine. I own some handguns, have had a CCW in the past, and I wouldn't carry on an airplane. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't see a reason to do so. Same as I don't see a reason to carry in my eastside Seattle suburb neighborhood when walking the dogs: it's probably the smallest risk I'll face all day. (Granted, I walk two pit bulls so a hand gun seems kind of redundant. )

My second, and largest objection is having a bunch of amateurs of varying abilities shooting in an environment where people are packed in like cattle. The singular time I have ever even considered drawing a handgun for defense, there were people in the area behind the potential target, with a non-zero chance of hitting them were I to miss. Too risky, found another way to resolve the issue. On an airplane? The background behind the target is almost guaranteed to have innocents. I might trust combat-experienced military personnel to take the shot, no way would I trust someone who has only put holes in paper at a shooting range with no adrenaline coursing through their veins (a group which would include myself).

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#154

Post by BorisMelnik »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #92
BorisMelnik wrote: post #62

"TSA has not audited these devices for even the most basic security issues" This to me is the most troublesome aspect of this an entire ordeal. Any security pen-testing firm with their wits about them could have discovered these backdoors in a few simple audits. The fact that he was able to find all of these is very worrisome to me. I can only imagine what other bugs/backdoors are built in to these systems. Does any…

The weapons in the video are not powerful enough to take down an airliner. They'd likely harm a handful of people nearby or blow a small hole in the side of the plane but not much more than that. A small hole in the side of the plane would likely not cause it to crash. Of course, I don't mean to be flippant with regards to the lives of people close by but it's not a larger threat than someone doing this on the ground…

arguing for arguments sake: 9/11 happened with a box cutter

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#155

Post by endersshadow »

JoblessWonder wrote: post #150
MeinCrapf wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sure you didn't make that change around August, 2007? http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/lighters-and-matches

Is that an example of confirmation bias? "I finally moved it around and tweaked it enough and that is what caused the success" instead of "the TSA changed the rules?"

No; it's post hoc ergo propter hoc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#156

Post by lallysingh »

corford wrote: post #125

Lots of people are posting highlighting how pointless airport security is given the ease with which a terrorist can bypass it by e.g. blowing himself up in the security line, targeting buses or shopping malls, making weapons from stuff bought "air side" etc. As this hasn't been happening (despite how easy it would be for a terrorist to do), the only logical conclusion I draw is that the entire terrorist threat is so…

If you're anyone in the US, be more worried about heart disease and driving defensively.

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#157

Post by grecy »

someone234 wrote: post #114
chimeracoder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sele…

> you have to go for an in-person "interview", which is really just so that they can fingerprint you... Well, in Finland, we have to submit to fingerprinting to get a new passport these days.. Oh, and Japan started fingerprinting all foreigners a few years ago. You just can't get into the country without it.

As an Australian, I'm fingerprinted and photographed every time I enter the US.

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#158

Post by ufmace »

BorisMelnik wrote: post #154
MichaelApproved wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weapons in the video are not powerful enough to take down an airliner. They'd likely harm a handful of people nearby or blow a small hole in the side of the plane but not much more than that. A small hole in the side of the plane would likely not cause it to crash. Of course, I don't mean to be flippant with regards to the lives of people close by but it's not a larger threat than someone doing this on the ground…

arguing for arguments sake: 9/11 happened with a box cutter

Because passengers believed that the result of a hijacking was to land in a third-world country and eventually be released after negotiation mostly regarding things that have nothing to do with them.

Once the passengers believe that the result of a hijacking is to be flown into the side of a national monument, you're gonna need a lot more than box cutters to hold them back. As we saw before the 9/11 attacks were even completed.

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#159

Post by ufmace »

mcdougle wrote: post #127
msandford wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is nonsense for a customer to walk openly onto an aircraft carrying a rifle. I'm not sure that I agree. Prior to metal detectors and airport security here in the US plenty of guns were carried on planes and very few bad outcomes were the result. I've heard of planes getting hijacked and going to Cuba but nothing in the way of mass murders on airplanes. I wish that instead of just stating this as a fact that you…

A pretty common argument around the pro-gun community is that removing guns from a specific area (schools, movie theaters, airlines) makes those places a prime target for mass shootings/terrorism -- the attacker knows that the area is gun-free and that, if he can get his own weapons into the area, he can't be (easily) challenged. I'm not entirely sure if this is true or not, but it seems accurate -- have there been m…

As a frequent pro-gunner, the argument as I see it is more that if you want a gun-free zone that might actually be safer, then you need the whole airport-style rigmarole - metal detectors and armed security at every entrance, everybody entering gets their bodies and bags scanned or searched until you can positively verify that there aren't any guns, carefully designed walls, fences, and doors to make sure that nobody ever gets through anywhere but the official entrances with security, etc.

Putting up a sign saying gun-free zone at a place with no security makes things less safe, since it can only deter people who would never commit a crime anyways.

Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

#160

Post by glenra »

JackFr wrote: post #147
glenra wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do suggest we scrap it all and go back to the 1950s. Let people walk right out to the gate to meet arrivals. Let people run through the airport right to the gate without having to stand in a line at all. Even the level of security we had before 9/11 was misguided and caused more deaths than it saved. Here's all we should do: leave security policy up to the airlines themselves. Then there won't be the sort of single…

> Even the level of security we had before 9/11 was misguided and caused more deaths than it saved. Even if I grant that it saved no lives, it's not obvious to me how it caused any. > Here's all we should do: leave security policy up to the airlines themselves. Airplanes filled filled with thousands of pounds of jet fuel hurtling overhead create externalities, with costs borne by the community. While customers certai…

> > Even the level of security we had before 9/11 was misguided and caused more deaths than it saved.

> Even if I grant that it saved no lives, it's not obvious to me how it caused any.

This is discussed elsewhere in the thread, mainly here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8220129

When you make flying less attractive, people are more likely to drive. Driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous, so people die in car crashes who wouldn't have if they had flown.

Security makes flying less attractive because:

- higher monetary cost for the flight (some of this is reflected in explicit "security fees", some not)

- bigger time commitment due to having to arrive early to allow for security

- bigger chance of missing the flight (if you're the sort of person who tends to cut it close on time)

- less flexibility. For instance, before the modern security era you could just buy a ticket and then if it turns out you couldn't use it you could sell it on craigslist. Or if the flight was overbooked you could directly sell your ticket to somebody on standby - the airlines didn't care.

- greater chance of being stolen from because you are forcibly separated from your valuables which are accessed out of your sight.

- greater stress due to the fear of losing one's valuables.

- more stress due to fears related to dealing with security personnel, long lines, being treated like sheep, having one's personal space invaded and more.

The most DIRECT way all this translates into extra deaths is that fewer people fly so more die on the road. One INDIRECT way it translates into extra deaths is that fewer people travel at all (or do so more expensively) which damages economic growth; economic growth tends to promote health.

Post reply on HN