Evading Airport Security

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/12/evading_airport.html

by Garbage • 13 years ago

185 162 13 years ago

pinaceae• 13 years ago

airport security is not built to prevent evil geniuses to act out a brilliant act of terror macguyver style.

airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife - which they failed to prevent at 9/11.

it's to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc. the times square bomber types.

it relies on underpaid, undereducated personnel. because it exists in reality, which means it is constrained by cost. it also relies on chance and probability. for every post here about sneaking stuff through you have posts of people being held in interrogation or even denied flying triggered by minor details.

and yeah, how many security researchers would post if they got caught? survivorship bias at play.

ceejayoz4• 13 years ago

airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife - which they failed to prevent at 9/11

That's the point of this sort of thing - it won't. As the article demonstrates, the tools to put together a weapon more lethal than a boxcutter are available within the airport terminal.

mikeash5• 13 years ago

Boxcutters are no longer effective tools of terror on airliners. They ceased to be so on the morning of 9/11/2001. Why try to stop them now?

twoodfin4• 13 years ago

I think you're underestimating the havoc that a group of well-trained individuals armed with knives could cause in the middle of a transcontinental flight even with a locked, reinforced cabin door.

I agree it's not as clear cut as a ban on firearms or explosives, but it seems like a sensible restriction to me, worth enforcing as best we can.

puller• 13 years ago

What the press will say if someone gets a boxcutter onto a plane and tries to do something with it.

viraptor3• 13 years ago

airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife

Sorry, but no. Sharpened edge of a credit card, pieces of belt, metal parts of the shoes, pins from the hat - that's just what I can come up with in seconds - these are the things I always get on the plane without issues and would be just as effective as weapons as the boxcutter knife. They may prevent boxcutter knifes, but they don't prevent sharp items in general.

If you want to go for dangerous, cutting items, you don't even have to take them with you. Buy a bottle of wine and smash the bottom off in the toilet - it's both better to hold in hand and more damaging when you wave it around.

twistedpair2• 13 years ago

Flying last week I watched a food delivery man in front of me go through security. He rolled an aluminum dolly loaded with boxes of foot up and put all the boxes on the xray conveyor. He was then scanned by the TSA and they rolled the dolly through to the otherside of the checkpoint after looking under it.

Point: the dolly was a hollow tube framerail construction. They didn't xray it as it was too large. They just rolled it through the screaming metal detector. You could have put whatever you wanted inside those framerails. And that's just the victualler. There are myriad ways to get stuff through. Theater at its best.

darkarmani3• 13 years ago

it's to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc. the times square bomber types.

Why? They don't seem to be attacking large stadiums or subways.

larrys2• 13 years ago

"and yeah, how many security researchers would post if they got caught? survivorship bias at play."

Used to something similar at play with stock picking. You heard about people's successful investments but never their losses which they of course kept quiet. This is of course more old school. Now people are much more open about airing daily laundry. My guess is that Schnier would blog about something that didn't work not that that detracts from your point. A lesser known security researcher would not necessarily act the same. Not to mention separately that "getting caught" means you have an interesting story for the press.

twoodfin4• 13 years ago

I typically think Schneier is too cavalier about "security theater", but in this case I agree completely. On the other hand, I don't think that means airport security should be drastically scaled back: There are probably 10x as many dumb potential attackers as smart ones, and it makes sense to be eliminate the easy avenues for the dumb ones while you concentrate other resources on the smart ones. It's also important not to ignore both the intelligence value of security checks as well as their potential forensic value in the event of a successful attack.

TSA actually seems to be making an effort to get smarter about its screening. Trusted passenger programs are expanding dramatically, and I expect the overall burden on the traveling public to decline over time.

kfk2• 13 years ago

I agree. But I am really tired of having problems because the deodorant I use has 150ml of liquid instead of 100.

eitally2• 13 years ago

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 random checked bag checks in the couple of cases I've had to gate check a carry-on.

For anyone who doesn't already know or wouldn't be willing to spend the $100 for Global Entry + PreCheck, the AMEX Platinum card covers the cost for both (along with free access to most AIrline lounges, and a free membership to Priority Club, which gives you access to even more lounges). Totally worth the annual fee for frequent travelers, especially ones who find themselves on random airlines connecting random airports.

wtvanhest5• 13 years ago

There are probably 10x as many dumb potential attackers as smart ones, and it makes sense to be eliminate the easy avenues for the dumb ones while you concentrate other resources on the smart ones. It's also important not to ignore both the intelligence value of security checks as well as their potential forensic value in the event of a successful attack.

This is the point that is always missed when talking about "security theater".

Smart and practiced people can make anything look easy. An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute. Is it impossible? No, but almost nothing is impossible.

Making an attack difficult on a plane also eliminates the majority of severally mentally unstable from carrying it out. You can kill 300+ people in one instant, it is impossible to stop the truly motivated and capable (ultra tail risk) attacker, but it is crucial to stop the rest of the tail from casually taking down an airliner.

Amadou3• 13 years ago

An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute. Is it impossible? No, but almost nothing is impossible.

I don't think you are making the point you intend to make - the very fact that pulling off a successful attack is inherently difficult is what stops those people, not any security agency.

Same thing with attacks anywhere else. For example: The Times Square bomber couldn't even build a working bomb despite two college degrees and the 2007 London & Glasgow Airport bombers couldn't figure it out either, for their swan song they put propane tanks in their jeep cherokee, lit themselves on fire and drove into a barricade in front of the airport, despite one of them having a doctor's education.

In all of its existence, the TSA has never detained someone who was later convicted on terrorism charges, despite the vast lowering of the standard of evidence for such charges since 9/11. The fact that we've seen so few attacks on "softer" targets (roughly 3 civilians have been killed in islamic-extremist attacks on US soil since 9/11) means that the size of the actual threat is practically zero - including the fools.

prof_hobart3• 13 years ago

But there's little if any evidence that there's any real threat of mentally unstable people, or not particularly smart terrorists, wanting to carry out attacks either.

If these people existed, they'd be attacking trains/metros today. The Madrid and London bombings show how devastating these can be - and on a train, you could do it with a pretty high chance of getting away uninjured - just leave your bag on the train and get off before it's due to explode.

Yet despite the ridiculous ease, low risk and effectiveness of such an attack, they still very, very rarely happen.

glenra• 13 years ago

On the other hand, I don't think that means airport security should be drastically scaled back

It absolutely should be drastically scaled back. Or eliminated entirely. The thing you're ignoring is that the current level of airport security kills a lot of people. It does so largely by making flying more expensive and inconvenient so people drive instead of fly and as a result die in auto accidents. The TSA makes us all poorer and causes a great many deaths for no clear benefit whatsoever. The hypothetical attackers who you are postulating might be deterred are a sufficiently weird edge case that it's unlikely they exist at all. Basically, you're imagining somebody who has all the following attributes at once. He or she:

(a) is highly motivated to do evil things that kill lots of people in a high-profile fashion

(b) has the resources to actually implement a plan to do these evil things.

(c) is SMART enough that the attack WOULD succeed were it not for security. If they made a bomb, they were successful at figuring out how to make one that would work well (unlike the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber)

(d) but is DUMB enough that they just can't figure out any way to get around security.

(e) but is SMART enough to REALIZE they can't get around security, so they don't try to do so anyway (explaining the fact that security has never ever caught even a single person trying to do so)

(f) but is DUMB enough that they can't think of any way to use the same resources to carry out some OTHER attack that kills a similar number of people with similar terrorizing effect, like by attacking the security line or a bridge or a tunnel or a shopping mall.

If you can find anybody with all those characteristics at once, THAT is the person who airport security has saved us from.

dmix2• 13 years ago

Exactly, there is a massive opportunity cost [1] at play here when you exchange very neutral/limited returns in security, for crippling airport efficiency and disrupting the lives of individuals making them not want to fly (invading privacy, long lines, belittling treatment, etc).

Just arguing whether or not TSA is effective at stopping smart vs dumb criminals is too limited of a discussion. It needs to also factor in the trade-offs at risk of being able to even do so.

Especially considering the TSA is reporting tens of thousands of false-positives for every real security threat prevented. That ratio can't be ignored as a counter-weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

willvarfar• 13 years ago

Biological and chemical agents are perhaps the big next threat?

scrrr• 13 years ago

Don't they also use screening by looking at passengers? Don't know about USA but in my country there's usually a few security people just looking at the people who go through the security check. I suppose they are trained to see nervous people behaving oddly and so forth.

AlisdairSH• 13 years ago

The TSA tried this and failed miserably... http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/13/21428350-...

http://www.alamogordonews.com/alamogordo-opinion/ci_24584454...

mikeash5• 13 years ago

Such things require extensive training of smart people, which conflicts with the TSA's technique of hiring large numbers of warm bodies at low pay.

pkfrank4• 13 years ago

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 street or a shopping mall.

Airline personnel and the typical cohort of passengers would simply never let a terrorist take the cockpit, which effectively removes that entire element of danger. The only super-substantial potential damage stems from an explosive of some sort, not a box-cutter, knife, or anything of the sort.

The cost of TSA (direct and indirect through delays, etc.) is immense, and truly does feel like security theater at this point. I'd be all-for doubling down on bomb-sniffing dogs, behavior analysts, and all that; but this apparent focus on "traditional" weapons seems totally asymmetric to the risk it presents.

viraptor3• 13 years ago

I don't think it's about the danger to the passengers as much as forcing your way to the pilot. I.e. someone capturing/torturing passengers until the pilot comes out.

twoodfin4• 13 years ago

I'm also a bit curious just how difficult it would be to take down a modern jetliner if you had the run of the back of the plane and whatever you could legally bring on board.

pkfrank4• 13 years ago

I guess I simply don't buy that any terrorist on board -- even if there were several of them and they were armed with box-cutters and the like -- could ever take the cockpit. The doors are locked, the pilots are sometimes armed; and mostly, the passengers would never let it happen.

Even in the most extreme scenarios imaginable, the passengers would have a 20-1 advantage, and would understand that the cost of failing to neutralize the threat would likely result in their personal demise (not to mention the greater threat of using the plane as a weapon).

dopamean• 13 years ago

I don't think passengers would ever allow this to happen.

ArbitraryLimits3• 13 years ago

I thought the cockpit doors were actually sealed until the plane landed, i.e. the pilots couldn't open them even if they wanted to?

mseebach2• 13 years ago

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 without taking the cockpit. The hijacker can verify that the captain is complying using a smartphone with GPS.

tokenadult2• 13 years ago

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 airplanes, but current procedures for airport security are still a reaction to 9/11 as it happened then. 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.

ArbitraryLimits3• 13 years ago

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.

Right, but the GP's point is that it was only possible to do that _once_, because the success of the 9/11 attacks depended on the passengers cooperating with the hijackers. That was a reasonable assumption because for the previous 30 years, "in the event of a hijacking just cooperate until we can negotiate your release" was the standard advice. Now it isn't.

Even in 9/11, 25% of the passengers figured out on their own that they shouldn't cede the cockpit. Today the figure would be 100%, plus the cockpit is sealed off for the duration of the flight anyway. So I really don't see a scenario where box-cutters would take out the whole plane any more.

k3n• 13 years ago

And that's what reinforced cockpit doors are for; if you can't gain access to the pilots then you can't hijack the plane. If you can't hijack the plane, then you can't turn it into a missile. Everything else is just a waste if you're just concerned with preventing the plane from becoming a missile.

aestra2• 13 years ago

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 demands. Pilots and flight attendants were trained to adopt the "Common Strategy" tactic, which was approved by the FAA. It taught crew members to comply with the hijackers' demands, get the plane to land safely and then let the security forces handle the situation. Crew members advised passengers to sit quietly in order to increase their chances of survival. They were also trained not to make any 'heroic' moves that could endanger themselves or other people. The FAA realized that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it would end peacefully with the hijackers reaching their goal.[12] The September 11 attacks presented an unprecedented threat because it involved suicide hijackers who could fly an aircraft and use it to delibrately crash the airplane into buildings for the sole purpose to cause massive casualties with no warning, no demands or negotiations, and no regard for human life. The "Common Strategy" approach was not designed to handle suicide hijackings, and the hijackers were able to exploit a weakness in the civil aviation security system. Since then, the "Common Strategy" policy in the USA and the rest of the world to deal with airplane hijackings has no longer been used."

There was also a change in protocol after the Columbine High School massacre. In that attack the two were able to shoot victims while the police were outside setting up a perimeter. Now as a direct result of that attack police actively charge an active shooter, this is called Immediate Action Rapid Deployment. This is said to have saved dozens of lives in Virgina Tech alone.

Daniel_Newby2• 13 years ago

Even cockpit doors are going overboard. The 9-11 attacks were about attacking buildings with flammable liquids. A gasoline tanker and a small bomb would have killed 10× more people and been cheaper.

rdtsc• 13 years ago

You have a major flaw in your logic.

There are 3 actors:

S -- the security apparatus, the TSA, airlines, the state, the laws and rules they create, air marshals, NSA etc.).

A -- attackers

E -- everyone else, regular passengers

The flaw is that E is stupid, static, unable to learn form the past, need to be constantly protected by S.

A is smart, flexible, able to adapt and learn from mistakes ("ha we took X planes down, now we learned and we'll take X*5 planes down!").

S is also responsible, smart, it needs to act as a parent protecting and handling E. It also learns from the past, and if necessary it might impose arbitrary restrictions on E (security checks, black lists) in order to protect them from A.

You see the problem? Don't feel bad that is a very common mistake to make. Many people and the official reaction from S also follows the same logic (maybe you just internalized their PR?).

In fact not only did E learn better and was more effective, it has a track record to prove it. It immediately adapted (within hours!) and made sure to bring the plane down in a rural PA area not in NYC. TSA on the other hand, after years, billions of dollars and millions of man hours wasted still has not caught one single terrorist red-handed with a bomb ready to go off. (Granted other agencies from S foiled some plots). E has also been busy, they stopped Reid (the shoe bomber, if I am not mistaken).

Anyway, hopefully you see where I am going with this.

jrockway2• 13 years ago

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. Shoes, belt, and coat stay on.

The future (past?) is here :)

smtddr• 13 years ago

>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.

For the record, I think this is complete rubbish and USgov isn't being truthful about what/how 9/11 happened. I can't believe a plane full of people were too scared to fight people with box-cutters[1].

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLvkftuCFlI&t=1m55s

DerpDerpDerp• 13 years ago

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.

easy_rider• 13 years ago

"The cost of TSA (direct and indirect through delays, etc.) is immense"

I hate debating based on speculative estimates.. That said, El Al seems to put sky marshalls on every single flight. I would throw in a dime that this would be a more (cost)effective and reliable solution compared to current screening implementations.

pkfrank4• 13 years ago

I haven't been able to find any instance of an air marshal actually confronting a "terrorism-related" event. I'm sure there are examples of them subduing an unruly or drunk passenger; but the sheer magnitude of flights, combined with the fact that on-board threats are very few and far-between, makes me doubt the cost-effectiveness of the program.

alexeisadeski3• 13 years ago

Air marshals are superflous at this point, in my estimation. Post 9/11 regular passengers have intervened admirably every time the opportunity has arisen.

CWuestefeld• 13 years ago

I seem to recall just a couple of months ago the FAA proposed relaxing the rules so that small knives would be legal. Immediately following that, the media reported widespread public condemnation of the proposal by people concerned for their safety.

So as much as I despise this nonsense, this seems to be what a significant, vocal portion of the people want.

pavel_lishin2• 13 years ago

this seems to be what a significant, vocal portion of the people want.

I wonder how many of them fly, and how many of them are just afraid that once we allow pocket knives on airplanes, they'll start falling out of the sky onto their heads.

san86• 13 years ago

"it's not terribly different from a random attack in the street or a shopping mall" You are right. However, the one difference is the reaction to an attack. It is fairly straightforward (these days) to get responders on the scene in a mall. A shooting or knife fight in an airplane is much harder to contain or react to.

Overall though, I agree with Schneier about the need for intelligence replacing TSA check points.

justincormack• 13 years ago

Well in Kenya the reaction wasn't great. Perhaps other countries are better prepared.

jksmith• 13 years ago

Missing the point. TSA is just another jobs program. Another example of how a large bureauocracy has to keep expanding control. The best solution against terrorism is for people to be brave enough to accept it, and brave enough to defend themselves and the people around them. No government will ever encourage this sort of behavior because it gives up too much control in the process.

At any rate, the TSA is not going away. Just step in the scanner, raise your arms like you're already a perp, step out, and be on your way.

dragonwriter• 13 years ago

Missing the point. TSA is just another jobs program.

TSA is more a means of moving the liability risk of security from private firms (starting with the airlines, but its creeping out to other areas) to the government (which can simply handwave much of it away with sovereign immunity) as a subsidy (by removing risk) to industry. The jobs were there before nationalization, they were just private jobs where private firms were at risk of liability if the job wasn't done right.

rasur• 13 years ago

"The only super-substantial potential damage stems from an explosive of some sort, not a box-cutter, knife, or anything of the sort."

Not entirely true. If you can get some Mercury on board, it's party-time. Mercury just loves Aluminium...

larrys2• 13 years ago

"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 street or a shopping mall."

Well one way it's different is in the availability of emergency response personnel. In the air you are confined in a small space and much further from help.

iconjack• 13 years ago

While TSA are examining my shoes and scanning my bum, they let through without fanfare my carry-on device: a solid brick of chemicals surrounded by advanced electronics including a radio receiver.

Seriously, I'm no bomb expert but wouldn't laptops still be the most fruitful terrorist attack vector? Mine laptop is 6 lbs and has never been given a second glance.

pkfrank4• 13 years ago

Haven't you always been required to place it into it's own bin to go through the X-Ray machine? That seems like an effective "second glance" to me.

They'll also sometimes swab it and check for explosive residue.

pearjuice3• 13 years ago

Well the truth of the matter is that a bunch of angry guys living in caves in the desert really hated American freedom, so they pooled together some money, flew to America, and sneaked past the notoriously anal TSA.

These were dangerous men armed with the most dangerous weapons known to man - BOX CUTTERS. Using their BOX CUTTERS, they hijacked planes full or several hundred individuals who were to terrified of their BOX CUTTERS that instead of trying to overpower them, they decided to accept a fiery death via crashing into skyscrapers, taking thousands more with them.

That's really the whole truth - there's nothing more to it. If you don't believe it, then you truly underestimate the power of BOX CUTTERS.

yeukhon4• 13 years ago

Security is hard. Physical security is hard too. Just a thought: you can stuff anything you want in your big suitcase. So if someone wants to set an alarm bomb with some destructive chemical it is possible, no? Though I am in favor of airport security - even if false sense is better than zero. If it can prevent idiots or unstable from carrying a steel knife we should. Yes, you can't prevent more major terrorist attack easily - one could just drive a van full of gas and explode in the lobby if one wishes to do so - but we still need that basic security if it is doable.

The truth is we as a civilization tends to blame all the time. When we fear danger we blame the government not doing enough and when we find inconvenience we ask for less protection. I see no one has yet attempt to provide a better solution - only complaint.

Is TSA making people waiting? I often get to the airport two hours early so I think the waiting is fine. Is it embarrasing when someone stops you and scans you? I have been stopped before for carrying a coin in my pocket before going through the scanner. It's okay. Everyone is too busy to get through.

The last point is last time when Schneier talked about the dry ice bomb he was wrong it being harmless. He just won't admit he is wrong.

twoodfin4• 13 years ago

Just a thought: you can stuff anything you want in your big suitcase.

Of course this isn't true. Checked baggage is screened just as carry-on luggage is.

logfromblammo2• 13 years ago

Baggage screening, of course! That's why your laptop, camera, or tablet gets stolen if you check it.

The amount of thefts from luggage during the security process is simply mind-boggling. One would think that anyone unscrupulous enough to boldly steal a $200 item--even under the supposed scrutiny of cameras and co-workers--and get the item home from the airport undetected could likewise do the reverse for an anonymous envelope of cash.

If people can steal from luggage, they can also drop something into it. If you absolutely, positively must do evil in the air, you just apply for a low-wage unskilled job at the airport and do it as an insider.

aestra2• 13 years ago

Throwing many millions of dollars on a non-existent problem is fine?

Checked bags get screened. They sometimes get opened and rooted through by hand. Sometimes they leave notes saying they have rooted through your checked bags just for "peace of mind." I've gotten such notes.

darkarmani3• 13 years ago

If it can prevent idiots or unstable from carrying a steel knife we should.

Should we spend hundreds of millions and molest millions of passengers to prevent this?

Is TSA making people waiting? I often get to the airport two hours early so I think the waiting is fine.

What is the cost in lost productivity of this? We are spending money to lost productivity to prevent a knives on planes??

yeukhon4• 13 years ago

Should we spend hundreds of millions and molest millions of passengers to prevent this?

And talk about job creation too. Maybe. Often we use statistics. Well, we don't have good statistics or can't do experiment on whether or not the chance of surviving is higher or lower with/out the TSA screening. Can you?

What is the cost in lost productivity of this? We are spending money to lost productivity to prevent a knives on planes??

Losing how much time? An extra 10-20 minutes on average? You understand why terrorists like to plot terrorism on airplane right? Because we can't control an airplane once it is flying. On the ground you can run away or hope a rescue unit come to you in 5 minutes. So losing 20 minutes on average (which you should plan ahead for any air travel ANYWAY), versus keeping a sharp knife away from the mentally unstable passenger next to you is probably a good thing.

Maybe the chance is very low, near zero. When that comes, your life might be over and that 20 minutes is negligible.

Some people are happy to trade 20 minutes away but I am not.

swalkergibson• 13 years ago

The irony is that the majority of the terrorist attacks on planes in recent memory have been stopped by vigilant passengers on the plane itself. Since 9/11, using the plane as the weapon is no longer an option. The passengers are going to fight back, without question, a la Flight 93. Additionally, reinforcing and locking the cockpit doors post 9/11 has put a stop to physical takeover of the aircraft, along with an expanded air marshal program. Bag through an x-ray and walk through a metal detector should be more than sufficient. At the airport in Jakarta, Indonesia, that is how it works.

Of course, the problem is that we now live in a fear driven society where the bad people are literally around every corner and each time we step onto an airplane we are taking our own life into our hands.

girvo3• 13 years ago

Well, guess this guy is now on the No Fly list.

cheald• 13 years ago

Bruce Schneier is and has been one of the most outspoken critics of the TSA for years. This article isn't going to change any three-letter agency's opinion of him.

girvo3• 13 years ago

Not Scheiner, should've been more clear. I meant the person he is writing about :)

jheriko4• 13 years ago

"I think the answer is simple: airplane terrorism isn't a big risk. There are very few actual terrorists, and..."

This is very true. Terrorism isn't a very serious problem or threat - it just got disproportionate attention from a combination of 9/11 and ignorance of the American public. I almost hate to say it, but it is sadly true.

I've 'evaded' airport security a few times - and they give me extra hassle for being an arab. I have nothing against profiling - even if it wastes my time it is /sensible/ and not racist at all.

By far the worst case is the one time I turned up at an airport suited and booted and looking especially white. They found the liquids in my hand luggage that I accidentally left there, and let me keep them.

Its all for show, the idea that a government is in control and secure when they make 101 security fuckups like meeting in the same place regularly (!).

If I was in anyway inclined to be a terrorist the result would be devastating - I'm glad the people we are dealing with in that regard are exceptionally rare and stupid (stupid enough to try what they do... as well as stupid enough to not have anything like an organised or well prepared strategy).

logfromblammo2• 13 years ago

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 scanners, and x-ray backscatter passenger scanners--those things are new, big, and shiny, and no one responsible for budgeting knows how much they should cost.

Meanwhile, Schneier repeatedly and convincingly argues that the measures that we are paying through the nose for them to use are worthless to increase the physical security of the airplanes and their passengers. But the TSA already bought them. It doesn't matter if they work. They have them: they use them.

All that remains now is to justify the budget for the labor force. The ID checker, that's a job. The pat-down guy, that's a job. The guys that stand in front of the tablet app that digitally flips a coin to see if you get your hands swabbed and chromatographed, apparently that's three jobs. The guy who stands at the exit to make sure no wrong-way traffic gets through, that's a job for every exit.

Except they're proposing that the exit guard jobs be replaced with expensive machines now, too. Give it another few years and you'll have DNA sequencers and single-use biological test chips involved somehow. Perhaps after the next airborne pathogen scare, they will be introduced to reassure passengers that no one on their plane has ebolaria or influengue or tubercuningitis or whatever.

Conspiracy hypotheses are easy if you just follow the money.

dmix2• 13 years ago

This is neoliberalism 101, you don't even have to bring up "military-industrial complex". The state is increasingly working with industry (pseudo-privatization), in return the industry increasingly influences state policy. The system keeps working as long as contracts keep going to a small group of big companies (the only ones capable of "working the system") and as long as the big companies can keep influencing politics.

It's simple math considering the "state" is just a collection of politicians easily influenced by fear-driven populism, media, money, nepotism, and their old private school friends. And on the other side there are extremely powerful billion-dollar defense contractors.

elwell• 13 years ago

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

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

kunil• 13 years ago

Funnier thing is mall securities, you can't bring a small knife into mall but you can buy a chainsaw

derleth2• 13 years ago

Funnier thing is mall securities, you can't bring a small knife into mall but you can buy a chainsaw

Can you fuel up (or charge up) a chainsaw in a mall? How dangerous is a chainsaw when it can't be turned on?

And that's assuming small knives really are banned from malls. Do they really care if you have a pocketknife on your belt? Maybe things are different where I live (Montana).

Ryoku• 13 years ago

At this point, airport security is there to make people feel safe. That's it.

Do you really think a plane full of people who know they will die unless they do something about it, will let a terrorist get away with it? On the other hand, do you really think so many people would have continued to fly as often as they did before 9/11 without some sort of reassurance that something is being done to prevent highjacks?

Terrorism can be anywhere, and it does not need an airplane to happen. Now, if terrorists are not going to use planes to cause terror then you should be thinking on the next thing that's going to be used. There are many uses for perceived security and not all of them involve keeping people safe.

thisiswrong• 13 years ago

Yup - 9/11 has been used, along with its many other uses, to create fear and sell 'security'.

Follow the money and you will find that the same 'security' profiteers are surprisingly linked to events surrounding 9/11:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/3938-g...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement

Just look at how easy it is to profit from and sell false 'security' in war-torn Iraq: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/02/fake-bomb-detector...

dspeyer• 13 years ago

The videos are short on details, and I'm a little sceptical. A lot of it seems to involve removing Lithium from Lion batteries. I'm told that can be done with wire cutters, but I don't think you can buy those inside the sterile zone.

girvo3• 13 years ago

Read the links Scheiner posted in the OP; apparently Lithium batteries is a really new thing, only the last couple of months.

chimeracoder• 13 years ago

I mentioned this as a comment on the original HN discussion about Booth's article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6742780).

The TSA itself has admitted that terrorist threats to aviation are nonexistent: http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-...

Even if we ignore the independent investigations from third parties, what more evidence could we ask for that the TSA is ineffective and superfluous, if not its own admission?

hawkharris• 13 years ago

Trying to stop a terrorist plot with TSA security checks is like trying to prevent a divorce by hiding your wife's car keys.

It's indicative of a shortsighted, reactionary way of thinking that glosses over the nuances of the problem.

venomsnake2• 13 years ago

If you want to really worry - think about all the Iraqui and Afgani insurgents that for the last 10 years have waged war against US and survived. They have worldclass IED making capabilities and it is not that hard to smuggle them in US to begin ground warfare.

pearjuice3• 13 years ago

the answer is simple: airplane terrorism isn't a big risk

It will be a massive wake up call to America (and the rest of the world, too) when Wikileaks publishes the reports of how 9/11 was a victim simulation[0]. Can't wait.

[0] http://septemberclues.info/vicsims.htm

aaronem2• 13 years ago

Yes, a "victim simulation", of course -- carried out at the ultimate behest of the Reticulans, no doubt.

pearjuice3• 13 years ago

Instead of providing such edgy commentary (what even are Reticulans?), care to explain why they clearly decided to Photoshop pictures of the victims? Why relatives (which have never spoken up) did not supply the media with better pictures other than pixelated 80px by 80px frames? How come if there is more than one picture of a victim, they all look the same? This is are only basic questions you should be able to answer if you think 9/11 is real, I am not even taking into account all the other discrepancies encircling 9/11.

I know, it is very hard to cope with the fact that you got tricked into believing something for years on end and find out that all of it was one big lie - a set up.

executive• 13 years ago

what happens if a terrorist tries to open the door or an emergency exit window in-flight?

BorgHunter• 13 years ago

Absolutely nothing, except maybe panicking some passengers. Planes are pressurized, and the exits all open inward. It's not possible for a human being to overcome that force.

http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/exits/

onemanshow33• 13 years ago

The odds of someone EVER actually opening the door mid flight are ridiculous. Plus how many people would stop that from happening once they knew was occurring - I know I'd be one of the first people up and trying to get on top of that person to prevent that from happening - and I know I'm not alone on that thought.

Evading Airport Security

Related Stories