Evading Airport Security • Hacker News Board

Re: Evading Airport Security

#161

Post by jheriko » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 5:36 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #69

jheriko wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Locked doors and guns are one thing, and a pretty solid argument imo but... 20 american joe publics vs. any small number of arabs, maybe even just one? Fear of death is not such a great motivator as you imagine I think. have you seen people react to threats in the wild? especially from the first-world white middle class background? its just not a part of their life and generally they do really stupid things like free…

> any small number of arabs, maybe even just one? Any small number of people . There is no need to single out certain cultures.

it was an example... and a good one.

i strongly disagree with the sentiment that we can't use races, sexes etc. to discriminate (we shouldn't use it to privilege or under-privilege people for sure, and thats the real issue with racism, sexism etc.) - there is real measurable data there.

p.s. i am an arab. i can understand why arabs in particular would be inclined towards becoming anti-US terrorists too... its not very complicated or deep, and certainly not racist.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#162

Post by gizmo686 » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 9:13 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #156

gizmo686 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Client side (may be in firmware or software): GPS above certain elevations or speeds requires a special export license that your smartphone probably doesn't have. An unlicensed device is required to output no fix (but it has to be able to calculate that the parameters are outside the allowed range). http://ravtrack.com/GPStracking/cocom-gps-tracking-limits/46...

How difficult would it be for someone to work around these restrictions? If I have an unlocked Android phone, would I be able comment out the range check and recompile the gps software?

Re: Evading Airport Security

#163

Post by hindsightbias » Fri, Dec 06, 2013, 12:29 AM UTC

dandelany wrote: post #148

hindsightbias wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Bojink…

The only reference is the Australian Advertiser in 1995. It is followed by this:

"While this first mention may be obscure from a United States point of view, the Bojinka planes as weapons plot will be mentioned in other media outlets in the years to come."

And a claim by the CNN correspondent that "We've done stories on it..."

All without citations to back up those claims. Every other reference to this detail at historycommons and everywhere I looked 11 years ago is post-9/11.

Here's what Bush said: "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."

Notice the "massive" out there. They could envision 10 airliners being blown up over the Pacific, but... Condi couldn't even foresee:

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile..."

So apprently they were as ignorant as I was?

These groups were already well known to return to old methods (Bojinka itself was inspired by a mid-air bomb planted on a Tokyo flight earlier in the 90s, planned by KSM himself). My view, if your not going to do anything to mitigate against these techniques, the least you could do is publically warn us, IMO.

A few black kids beat a few white folks, a blond disappears from a cruise ship, and it's non-stop news coverage. Maybe folks would think a little bit after hearing more about Bojinka and a congressman or the FAA would wonder about cockpit intrusion and hijack policies. At least no one would be able to say "nobody could have foreseen"

Re: Evading Airport Security

#164

Post by dandelany » Fri, Dec 06, 2013, 1:05 AM UTC

hindsightbias wrote: post #163

dandelany wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Bojink…

The only reference is the Australian Advertiser in 1995. It is followed by this: "While this first mention may be obscure from a United States point of view, the Bojinka planes as weapons plot will be mentioned in other media outlets in the years to come." And a claim by the CNN correspondent that "We've done stories on it..." All without citations to back up those claims. Every other reference to this detail at hist…

Good points I guess, I just have a hard time believing publicizing these claims more would have had much of an effect on policy. I'll just point out the irony of your username and leave it at that :)

Re: Evading Airport Security

#165

Post by toast0 » Fri, Dec 06, 2013, 2:56 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #162

toast0 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Client side (may be in firmware or software): GPS above certain elevations or speeds requires a special export license that your smartphone probably doesn't have. An unlicensed device is required to output no fix (but it has to be able to calculate that the parameters are outside the allowed range). http://ravtrack.com/GPStracking/cocom-gps-tracking-limits/46...

How difficult would it be for someone to work around these restrictions? If I have an unlocked Android phone, would I be able comment out the range check and recompile the gps software?

It's probably either in the driver for the gps chip or the gps firmware; neither of which are likely to have source available for you.

Re: Evading Airport Security

#166

Post by eitally » Mon, Dec 09, 2013, 8:57 PM UTC

Amadou wrote: post #51

eitally wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never, ever been stopped due to what I consider reasonable amounts of liquid/gel/aerosol beyond the 100ml limit. Typical culprits: deodorant, shaving cream and sunscreen. I do my best to fit everything in a 1qt baggie, but typically the shaving cream and sunscreen are just jammed into a running shoe or put in a separate pocket in my carry-on. Never, ever been stopped. Also, never been confiscated by the TSA ra…

For anyone who doesn't already know or wouldn't be willing to spend the $100 for Global Entry + PreCheck These programs are the ultimate sign of just how pointless airport security is. There is simply no way that $100 is even remotely enough money to cover an investigation of any effectiveness whatsoever. It's probably just enough to cover the cost of checking the same lists the TSA already checks on every ticket boo…

You're totally right, of course. My in-person security interview was a joke. The officer didn't even try to ask any questions. He validated my contact information and we shot the shit while their computer system logged his approval of my application. Took maybe 15 minutes of waiting my turn with a half dozen other poor saps who had also scheduled the interview 2-3 months in advance, and then 5 minutes for the actual processing.

Interestingly, my airport now has a third(!) category of security line, for airline elevated status holders. They skip the long line for the normal screenings, but then go through the normal "remove shoes, belts, jackets and laptops" part, so it's like getting half a reprieve. I'm convinced that by this time next year there will be have so much dilution of the process that everyone will be treated identically again and it'll probably be based on the Pre-Check standards: x-ray machine, no significant liquids, no removal of shoes/belt/jacket.