Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA • Hacker News Board

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#91

Post by tikhonj » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 9:44 AM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #80

And yeah... the next wave of 'terrorist' attacks won't be airports, but probably consumer-level areas or something that directly affects a large number of every day people (or, just, threatens to): malls, restaurant chains, etc. I posited this idea to friends/family back in 2002: have a large number of geographically distributed attacks on salt/pepper/condiments at chain and independent restaurants around the country…

I remember something about injecting toxins into off-the-shelf medicine (maybe Aspirin?). Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

Apparently this was longer ago than I thought: 1986. Here's a link: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/19/us/batch-of-rite-aid-aspir...

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#92

Post by JonnieCache » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 11:20 AM UTC

cgs1019 wrote: post #58

DanBC wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attempting to get a weapon on board a plane carries a risk of being shot. In the head. I'm not that surprised that people don't try it.

I've always been amazed that with all the effort to keep "dangerous" objects off the plane, they still hand out aluminum soda cans which can easily be crushed/bent/torn into quite dangerously sharp forms. Why bother carrying a weapon on board when they're provided free of charge in flight?

Last time I was on a plane I'm fairly sure they still said "When putting bottles of wine in the overhead compartment, please be careful because if they fall out onto people it can be dangerous."

They're giving you hints and tips.

(Also chlorine-based cleaning products are readily available from the cleaner's cupboard in the departure lounge.)

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#93

Post by dalke » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 12:08 PM UTC

maaku wrote: post #90

apaprocki wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have references that the list is only checked at purchase time? As for the security hole.. you have a credit card under the assumed name as well? If they were smart they could simply flag first time fliers and anyone who flies under a ticket purchased by someone else for extra checks. Cash ticket purchases require real ID at the ticket counter or Western Union and presumably you'd get checked there as well.

It's possible that when the pass is scanned at the gate by the airline employee, the original name might be displayed on their monitor (just guessing--I have no idea if it is), and an astute employee might notice the name change. However I can't remember the last time an airline employee at that stage has paid any attention to anything at all.

If that's a concern, print one pass for the TSA check (with a name which matches the id) and another pass for the gate check (with a name which matches the ticket).

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#94

Post by GuiA » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 12:19 PM UTC

apaprocki wrote: post #63

philwelch wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a story about someone doing exactly that, not to buy airline tickets, but to wreak other havoc with "Michael Jackson"'s credit card: http://www.zug.com/pranks/mj/

I've recently ordered two additional family member credit cards (two different card processors / companies) and both of them required a SSN# for the additional member. Can anyone claim first-hand knowledge of their credit card company not requiring a SSN# for an additional cardholder?

I'm in the US with a visa. When I opened my bank account (Capital One), I told them I didn't have a SSN yet and they opened it anyway.

The clerk told me I would have to give them my SSN when I got it, which I never did (half because I forget and half because the less information I give about myself, the better off I am)- that was about 2 years ago.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#95

Post by dalke » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 12:22 PM UTC

ims wrote: post #27

This article makes some big leaps. It says in the fourth paragraph: "Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent more than $1.1 trillion on homeland security." It seems to imply that this is mostly because of wasteful TSA-like spending. The Department of Homeland Security's FY11 budget authority was around $56 bil. The TSA only accounted for 14% of that money. [1] Just for perspective -- top 5 slices of DHS's FY11 pie: U.S. Custo…

I presume it includes homeland security grants as well as TSA. The LA Times reports http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-911-hom... that "Attacks, Federal And State Governments Are Doling Out About $75 Billion A Year On Domestic Security".

That presumes that "the U.S." means federal and state spending, and even over 10 years that plus the TSA budget is still only $850 billion, so I don't know how they tally the rest.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#96

Post by halter73 » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 1:24 PM UTC

mortenjorck wrote: post #65

akira2501 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? The attackers had an easier time because hijackings didn't usually involve flying into a building / killing everyone on board. Prior to 9/11 most hijackings were about taking hostages, flying to a friendly country, then awaiting your ransom. As a passenger, your job was just to sit tight, don't do anything stupid, and wait for the resolution. The hijackers didn't have to socially engineer anything, they just re…

Let's not forget that the hijackers' greatest asset was a unique, tragic coincidence, covered five years ago by the very same magazine: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200... Were it not for a scheduled drill that happened to bear just enough similarity to what was actually going on to confuse first-responders, the terrible events of that day might have been limited to the air. The chances of…

The Vanity Fair article (which is great by the way) makes it very clear that, given policies in place on 9/11, there was very little chance of the military being able stop the hijackers even if the drill hadn't been scheduled for that day.

One major issue was the terrible communication between the FAA and the military. Not only did the FAA feed the military a lot of incorrect information (One example being the report that AA Flight 11 was heading towards DC after it had already hit the north tower), but they were extremely late in reporting the actual hijackings to the military.

It was only because an ID tech at NEADS (The Northeast Air Defense Sector which was in control of all the scrambled jets on the eastern seaboard) called the FAA's Washington Center trying to ascertain the whereabouts of the already crashed Flight 11 that the military even got wind of the AA 77 hijacking. NEADS also didn't receive any reports about the United 93 hijacking until 35 minutes after the FAA first suspected the hijacking was taking place and 4 minutes after the plane had already crashed into a Pennsylvanian field. Reports of the hijackings shot quickly up the FAA's chain of command, but they were not reported to the military in a timely manner.

Even when the military did get word of the hijackings in time to theoretically do something about it, they were unable to track the planes on their woefully antiquated radar. With so many planes in the air and the transponders on each of the hijacked planes disabled, NEADS old radar systems didn't stand a chance. The commanders at NEADS were unable to give their fighter pilots instructions any more specific than to head to Manhattan or to the White House. And even then, in the case of the White House, NEADS was unable to supply their fighter pilots accurate coordinates (which is amazing to me).

Lastly, even if the fighter pilots had been able to intercept any of the hijacked planes, they wouldn't have been allowed to shoot them down in the first place. It wasn't until 10:18, 15 minutes after the last hijacked plane crashed into a field, that President Bush gave the military authorization to fire on hijacked planes.

While having a drill scheduled for the same day certainly didn't help, I don't think there was any chance that "the terrible events of that day might have been limited to the air."

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#97

Post by quanticle » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 3:15 PM UTC

maaku wrote: post #90

apaprocki wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have references that the list is only checked at purchase time? As for the security hole.. you have a credit card under the assumed name as well? If they were smart they could simply flag first time fliers and anyone who flies under a ticket purchased by someone else for extra checks. Cash ticket purchases require real ID at the ticket counter or Western Union and presumably you'd get checked there as well.

It's possible that when the pass is scanned at the gate by the airline employee, the original name might be displayed on their monitor (just guessing--I have no idea if it is), and an astute employee might notice the name change. However I can't remember the last time an airline employee at that stage has paid any attention to anything at all.

What original name? The only name the airline gets is the fake name that the terrorist provides. The only name the TSA gets is the real name from the ID and the boarding pass. The airline and the TSA don't communicate with each other. All the TSA checks is that you have a boarding pass and an ID. They don't verify that the boarding pass is valid (i.e. that you're an actual passenger on a flight scheduled to depart that day).

EDIT: In case it's not clear, the terrorists prints a fake boarding pass to get past TSA, and keep the "real" boarding pass in their pocket for the airline.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#98

Post by raldi » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 3:41 PM UTC

robfig wrote: post #84

sliverstorm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we all feel a little silly as grownups waiting around in a security line in our socks I was a kid the last time I flew before 9/11, but didn't they still use metal detectors back then?

You didn't have to take off your shoes or take anything out of your bags. And they wouldn't randomly force you through a scanner that takes nude pictures of you.

...or take your jacket off, or take your belt off.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#99

Post by mgkimsal » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 3:54 PM UTC

tikhonj wrote: post #91

mgkimsal wrote: post #80

And yeah... the next wave of 'terrorist' attacks won't be airports, but probably consumer-level areas or something that directly affects a large number of every day people (or, just, threatens to): malls, restaurant chains, etc. I posited this idea to friends/family back in 2002: have a large number of geographically distributed attacks on salt/pepper/condiments at chain and independent restaurants around the country…

I remember something about injecting toxins into off-the-shelf medicine (maybe Aspirin?). Perhaps that's what you're thinking of? Apparently this was longer ago than I thought: 1986. Here's a link: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/19/us/batch-of-rite-aid-aspir...

No, that was way long ago, and may have been inspired by the tylenol stuff before it in some way.

No... I just can't find the story I'm thinking about now. All references to restaurant food poisoning are now coming up with that dec 2010 incident. :/

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#100

Post by caseysoftware » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 5:45 PM UTC

cgs1019 wrote: post #58

DanBC wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attempting to get a weapon on board a plane carries a risk of being shot. In the head. I'm not that surprised that people don't try it.

I've always been amazed that with all the effort to keep "dangerous" objects off the plane, they still hand out aluminum soda cans which can easily be crushed/bent/torn into quite dangerously sharp forms. Why bother carrying a weapon on board when they're provided free of charge in flight?

I have a Founders Card. It's just a little credit card sized membership card... made of aluminium. The edge is sharp. I've flown over 40 times this year and haven't been stopped even once.

I've tested TSA quite a few times and documented it all. I don't post most of it online though.. I'd hate to get it misinterpreted. ;)

I share my antics on Twitter via the #fuTSA tag.