Object Lessons: Evan Booth's Post-Checkpoint Airport Weapons 208
Jah-Wren Ryel writes "In early-2013, independent security researcher, Evan 'treefort' Booth, began working to answer one simple question: Can common items sold in airports after the security screening be used to build lethal weapons? As it turns out, even a marginally 'MacGyver-esque' attacker can breeze through terminal gift shops, restaurants, magazine stands and duty-free shops to find everything needed to wage war on an airplane."
We mentioned Evan's work several months back; now his not-just-a-thought-experiment exploration of improvised weapons has been cleaned up and organized, so you don't have to watch his (fascinating) talks to experience the wonders of the Chucks of Liberty (video) or the Fragguccino (video).
Wondering (Score:3, Interesting)
After watching the videos... did I just put myself on a list somewhere?
Re: (Score:3)
Buying Firewall used to put you on the federal watch list.
http://www.amazon.com/Firewall-The-Iran-Contra-Conspiracy-Cover-up/dp/0393318605 [amazon.com]
Re:Wondering (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure if you noticed, but at this point I think it's safe to say that we're ALL on the list.
Re: (Score:3)
After watching the axe body spray + coffee tumbler grenade, all I could think is, "this man badly needs a windsock for his camcorder mic."
Crap (Score:2)
All the weapons would be notices and the shooter disarmed before they went off. Even if they could get one shot off reload time would allow other passengers to take the hijacker down before he re-loaded. After 911 passengers are more proactive in dealing with hijackers. These things are toys at best. Sure one may be able to start a fire in a luggage compartment but even they have fire suppression equipment. Even if the aerosol cans went off it would not bring down an aircraft. The ones that explode are a lo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's going to frighten the people on the plane for about 5 minutes. Everyone else will be amused by it, especially when they see what's left of the attacker's face on the news.
Pretty poor terrorism, that.
Re: (Score:2)
So some people on the aircraft are frightened and then beat the crap out of the terrorist. The aircraft does not go down. No one dies and everyone laughs at the stupid terrorist.
This is all about terror, you just need to frighten people, not kill them.
For terrorism to be effective one needs to make everyone who flies on aircraft afraid that they could die. Reports of a few people injured and the terrorist in jail just won't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when the shoe bomber [wikipedia.org] got arrested - it was the other passengers that first apprehended him on the plan. By the looks of his face I don't think they were particularly pleased with his botched attempt.
Re:Crap (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember when the shoe bomber [wikipedia.org] got arrested - it was the other passengers that first apprehended him on the plan. By the looks of his face I don't think they were particularly pleased with his botched attempt.
That wasn't just a botched attempt; the guy was totally set up to fail from the very beginning and his 'bomb' was virtually fake. He was fucked by his muslim pals.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have references for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have references for that?
Do I look like Google? I remember reading that the 'bomb' was plastic explosive and he tried to detonate it by lighting a fuse with a match. So far as I'm aware thats not how plastic explosives work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ceramic gun. Liquid binary explosive, carbon fiber or reinforced plastic knife, explosives in general if the blasting cap is aluminum.
Re: (Score:2)
All the weapons would be notices and the shooter disarmed before they went off.
Bullshit. You take them to the bathroom with you. Tell anyone who asks about the bag that you shit yourself. You're about to exit polite society anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Discharging the weapons alone in the bathroom would just make some smoke/noise and injure the terrorist but would not bring the aircraft down. The worst that would happen would be the aircraft would make a quick landing but everyone would survive.
good news, bad news (Score:4, Interesting)
the good news is that he's made and excellent point. the bad news is that a shortsighted authority figure is going to loose his shit over this and evan is going to need a lawyer.
welcome to the dystopian present.
Re: (Score:2)
just fyi, the improper use of words and the lack of an [edit post] button is part of the dystopian present.
It's not about security itself (Score:2)
It's the same principle with police patrols. They spend a huge amount of time doing nothing, but it's useful. You see the policeman, you know you can get caught, you abide law.
Lest we forget (Score:3)
Who needs "chux'o'liberty" when the Security Theater is lax enough to permit 12" steel razor blades [youtube.com] on a flight?
Re: (Score:2)
That is old. Try this again, and I may be impressed.
i just hope (Score:2)
does he work for valve? (Score:2)
'chucks of liberty', 'fragguccino'? :)
what is this, team fortress 2?
This Is All Quite Silly, You Know (Score:2)
So you make a dart-shaped mold. You get some pewter from the store. And then "apply heat." Right .. like you're going to have a blowtorch in the airport terminal. Hell, you might as well build a forge, find an anvil and hammer, some charcoal, an urchin to work the bellows .. and make yourself a bloody Samurai sword!
These ideas are all quite silly really. Chucks of Liberty? And how far are they going to get you, exactly, in your fiendish terrorist plot? You swing, I duck, you miss, and then I shove th
Re: (Score:2)
So, airport security checks are useless and no more than a waste of taxpayers' money.
Your logic does not apply. Let me demonstrate why.
Say, you need perfume A, toothpaste B, and battery C to make an explosive.
Now, it is known that the TSA builds a profile of you even before you enter the plane.
This profile, combined with the information about stuff you bought post-checkin, can set off some alarm bells.
Even if you buy stuff with several people.
Hence, while you can build an explosive with post-checkin materials, it is NOT CERTAIN you can buy them AND enter a plane.
There is just one step missi
Re: (Score:2)
That is naive. They do not have information on what you bought and they do not know how things are combined. They just are not smart enough by far and do not nearly have the resources.
Incidentally, what Booth shows is the kid stuff. You can do far more dangerous things.
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:5, Insightful)
There are so few terrorists its irrelevant.
When hundreds of people are dying daily from terrorist attacks involving airplanes there might be some argument. There aren't and there isn't any evidence to suggest that the TSA has ever even prevented an attack.
What there is evidence of is economic harm as the result of our decisions to scrutinize every passenger boarding a flight.
Terrorism has an insignificant impact compared to the costs of fighting it. Compare it to any other risk and we're much better spending our money on curing cancer, reducing vehicular accidents, etc.
Flying is the safest method of travel with or without the TSA. That's the truth of the matter and man kind just can't see beyond the emotional aspects of threats. As a result we do the most illogical thing possible passing bad rules/polices/laws and accept the most illogical thing in accepting the legislation (society).
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorism has an insignificant impact compared to the costs of fighting it. Compare it to any other risk and we're much better spending our money on curing cancer, reducing vehicular accidents, etc.
Flying is the safest method of travel with or without the TSA. That's the truth of the matter and man kind just can't see beyond the emotional aspects of threats. As a result we do the most illogical thing possible passing bad rules/polices/laws and accept the most illogical thing in accepting the legislation (society).
You are being totally static in your assumptions, as though terrorism were the weather or something.
As well say something like "our town has such low crime that we should disband the police department. Much better to spend that money on pig feed inspections."
That certainly doesn't mean that the TSA is the best approach ... something like Israel's methodology would make more sense.
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:4, Interesting)
That certainly doesn't mean that the TSA is the best approach ... something like Israel's methodology would make more sense.
Bulldozing the houses of anyone committing anything that could remotely be interpreted as an act of terror, with their elderly relatives still inside, would surely strike sufficient fear into other 'terrorists' that they wouldn't dare do anything!
(yeah I'm aware you are talking about the Israeli airport screening, which is demonstrably effective, just pointing out that the Israeli 'follow through' is nowhere near effective as a deterrent, just makes their opponents angrier).
Re: (Score:2)
Further, as has been pointed out numerous times here, the Israeli experience doesn't scale. They have exactly one significant International airport. They do explicit racial profiling. Horses for courses.
Re: (Score:2)
There are so few terrorists its irrelevant.
When hundreds of people are dying daily from terrorist attacks involving airplanes there might be some argument. There aren't and there isn't any evidence to suggest that the TSA has ever even prevented an attack.
To add a little perspective. 3000 people died in the attacks on 9-11-01. A tragedy to be sure. Almost that many people died every month in car accidents in 2011. By the way, 2011 is the lowest number of traffic deaths since 1949. If you go back to 2001, 3000 people died in traffic deaths every 26 days.
I'm of the opinion that very few, if any, terrorist groups want to pull off an attack like Sept. 11 again. That kind of destruction and death toll did nothing good for them. The US attacked several countrie
Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:4, Insightful)
High jacking was much easier then. The door to the cockpit was not locked and secured.
Apples. Oranges.
And don't forget the different politic climate and the different goals of the high jackers.
In a nutshell you can't derive potential high jacking cases from the past.
Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:5, Funny)
High jacking was much easier then. The door to the cockpit was not locked and secured.
Apples. Oranges.
And don't forget the different politic climate and the different goals of the high jackers.
In a nutshell you can't derive potential high jacking cases from the past.
Really it was the crackdown on drugs on airplanes that put paid to the high jackers. Now the best they can manage are drunk jackers.
Re: (Score:2)
Hijacking airplanes was much easier back then, because it was much easier to smuggle guns and explosives on board. Often there were little, if any, security checks, making it relatively easy to smuggle guns on board. In turn, guns make crowd control a lot easier. Today, it is extremely difficult to smuggle anything but very primitive weapons on board. And even that requires careful planning and preparation. These primitive weapons makes it comparatively easy for passengers to rush the would-be hijackers. My
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:5, Informative)
Actually some credit should go to the x-ray scanners and walk-through metal detectors as well. With those two in place it is basically impossible to sneak a viable bomb aboard an aircraft now. Sure, you can get explosives through, but not the types that are easy to detonate. The shoe bomber and pants bomber both managed to get explosives on board but were unable to detonate them because the process was so involved other passengers noticed and stopped them.
Even without locked cockpit doors hijacking would be almost impossible now anyway, since passengers don't assume they will be safe if they co-operate any more. They assume the hijacker might be planning to crash the aircraft into a building and kill them anyway, so will keep fighting them no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
They assume the hijacker might be planning to crash the aircraft into a building and kill them anyway, so will keep fighting them no matter what.
I know this is the popular opinion, but I really have a hard time buying into this notion.
Yes, we have the example of Flight 93 but I think that's an exception to the rule as a direct result of the passengers learning of the three other attacks. In this case, there was direct evidence that the terrorists were very likely to destroy the airplane and this prodded the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But flying a plane into a building to use it as a suicide bomb isn't something that is going to be done frequently anyway. It was only as effective as it was because it was novel, and because four attacks were staged at once. A truck filled with explosives is much easier to get and as destructive.
The people who are really interested in this level of destruction are more likely to go with the more cost-effective method of garnering attention for their cause. I don't see suicide-hijackings becoming so commo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people who are really interested in this level of destruction are more likely to go with the more cost-effective method of garnering attention for their cause. I don't see suicide-hijackings becoming so common that passengers will automatically distrust an armed man enough that they will rush towards certain death in an attempt to forestall it.
Certain death?? Even assuming that a large proportion of passengers are incapable of fighting, even a group of hijackers is likely to be outnumbered three to one. They will not get into the cockpit before the crew can use the address system.
The passengers will communicate using their cell phones, just like last time. The hijackers won't fool anyone again. And, as another poster said, they will never get to the point of telling anyone anything.
The rules have changed, and you're also failing to account for wh
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, we have the example of Flight 93 but I think that's an exception to the rule
No so much:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/world/asia/china-plane-hijack-foiled/ [cnn.com]
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=man-attempts-to-hijack-thy-plane-in-istanbul-reports-say-2011-01-05 [hurriyetdailynews.com]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-149289/Italian-plane-hijack-foiled.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Has any hijacking been attempted since? I can't really recall any. Besides, aircraft high jackings have been out of fashion since the late 1980s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None in the US, it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually some credit should go to the x-ray scanners and walk-through metal detectors as well. With those two in place it is basically impossible to sneak a viable bomb aboard an aircraft now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If the shoe and underpants bombers had been intending to actually succeed, they would have gone to a lavatory to set their bombs off, they would not have done what they did in plain sight of other passengers. It's not really reasonable to think that the intent of either of those incidents was to actually take a plane down, since if it was, they would have been instructed to go to a toilet to do it.
The idea behind those "attacks" was to get us to enact even more incredibly stupid security tactics, and they s
Re: (Score:2)
I think the singular rule that stopped hijackings of substantial significance was enacted [cbsnews.com] far later than the other provisions that represent a significant step backwards for freedom.
What stopped hijackings is the fact that the 9/11 hijackers crashed their planes.
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:5, Informative)
"In 1973, the Nixon Administration ordered the discontinuance by the CIA of the use of hijacking as a covert action weapon against the Castro regime. Cuban intelligence followed suit. "
You oh so conveniently missed that bit out.
Re: (Score:2)
However, the situation has not returned to the pre-1968 level and the number of successful hijackings continues to be high - an average of 18 per annum during the 10-year period between 1988 and 1997, as against the pre-1968 average of five.[2]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Now, how many aircrafts have you heard being hijacked over the last decade?
That's awful logic, because you're ignoring all the other things that changed as well. Secured cockpit doors. The willingness of passengers to fight back. Etcetera.
Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How do passengers fight back against explosives again?
You're more likely to die in a car accident than to someone blowing up a plane. Someone could blow up a bus. Someone could blow up a train. Someone could blow up any number of things, including the airport, as someone else noted.
The problem is almost nonexistent.
Re: (Score:2)
how many U.S. planes in last 50 years have blown up in mid air due to bombs again?
why don't you also worry about pink elephants flying over your head and taking a 50 lbs. dump on you?
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you think that the heightened security level has ...
Nope, it doesn't. Hardened locked cockpits and passengers will to aprehend and beat the shit of of scoflaws will do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
people already were going through metal detectors without the TSA for decades
Re: (Score:3)
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without.
You much prefer having people's rights violated? The land of the free and the home of the brave indeed.
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:4, Interesting)
Again, a popular opinion but again, naive.
What's naive is your blind trust in the government. I find it so naive that it disgusts me throughly.
What 'rights' are you violating making a search.
Your privacy, and it also violates the fourth amendment; those are the obvious violations. Where in the US constitution does it give the government the power to molest people who want to get on a plane? Nowhere.
I don't want to be harassed by worthless government (or private) thugs just because I want to get on a plane.
There are ways to make a proper search
You can't violate everyone's rights just because some people may be terrorists. I don't even think you can selectively violate people's rights. Just leave people alone.
people have been doing it for years, it's an accepted method of protection.
I don't care how long it has been around or how accepted it is; I think it's absolutely immoral and disgusting. If you cared about freedom at all, I dare say you'd feel the same way.
Go and do even a modicum of international air travel then imagine what it would be like if there were no checks.
I think freedom is more important than security to anyone with a brain. With that said, the terrorist bogeymen are largely nonexistent; you've been duped.
While I abhor the reports for TSA (I won't fly to the USA because of this nonsense) and I agree that most of the way the checks are done by them is 'theatre', having professionally trained, and accountable 'agents' (or whatever you want to call them) making appropriate searches at borders of countries is sensible.
I disagree that randomly searching people can ever be appropriate or sensible. Freedom is simply more important to me than your or my ability to feel safe.
We do not have such shrill protestations (at least as far as I can tell) in Europe
That sounds like a problem to me.
where frankly many of those countries have had a far more thorough search regimen than the USA
Yeah, definitely sounds like a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You and people like you have done far more damage to this country than any terrorist could ever hope to achieve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the rational thing is not to overreact. Doing nothing though is not always the answer either. When something bad happens its always worth trying to understand why and how and what it would take to prevent it or reduce the risk. Then you way your options.
Re-enforced cockpit doors locked during flight are a good response. They don't infringe on freedoms in a way much of anyone would find objectionable. Little Timmy can't get his cockpit tour anymore on a long flight but that is about it. The cos
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:5, Insightful)
Dealing with risk and mitigating against it is my primary job. So lets examine your comments from a mitigation point of view and see where it leads us...
To mitigate the risk you have to go to the root cause. Namely our foreign policy. The US has been building its empire trying to think of itself as the world's police. We meddle in other countries affairs both political and economic whether they asked for our help or not. We have supported dictatorial regimes as well as provide blind support for allies, especially Israel, whether they were right or wrong. We have invaded countries for natural resources and have economically sanctioned countries that refused to cooperate with the corporate interests of the US. Our belief in American Exceptionalism (the belief that we are somehow superior to everyone else) leads to an attitude that other countries see as arrogance. Our largest export isn't food or energy, it is weapons both advanced and deadly accurate.
So far, all our mitigation efforts have been reactionary to the incident as your comment points out without addressing the root causes. Our reaction to a terrorist with explosives in his shoes? Require everyone to take off their shoes for deep inspection. Our reaction to another terrorist with explosives in his drawers? Invasive pat downs and explicit x-ray machines that display everything under the clothing. Our reaction to the possibility of liquid explosives? Ban liquids on flights.
To truly mitigate this, we need to change our foreign policy to leave other countries alone to fight their own battles. We need to scale back our consumption of resources dramatically and ditch the attitude that we are the best thing since sliced bread. We need to stop the empire building and support of dictators that we use as proxies for that empire building. We need to stifle our corporate overlords in their quest for world domination and exploitation in the "global economy".
Lastly, we need to stop exporting weapons to everyone especially to those same regimes that are committing the worst atrocities whether they are allies or not.
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:5, Interesting)
My job is also mostly about risk identification and mitigation as well. I am not a believer in root cause analysis. Proximate cause analysis is more interesting and more useful, which is why its what the legal system usually aims for. Your root cause analysis may be correct. We might indeed prevent a considerable portion of future international terrorism by dealing with the military industrial complex and putting in some cooler heads to run the CIA.
That would not do anything to address all the other crazy reasons someone might decide to use an airliner as guided missile. Root cause analysis fallaciously assumes there is some single point up a decision tree that lead to branch where the event was possible. In the real world there is often more than one way to get somewhere.
The proximate cause of the towers getting hit on the other hand was "passengers were able to gain the ability to alter the flight path of the aircraft" A secured cockpit door addresses that. It addresses it no matter if the would be perp does it because the CIA install an oppressive regime that denies him his freedom in east whocaresisatan or because the voices in my head tell me to smash things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:4, Insightful)
However, your solution, although practical still relies on the first strike which is bad news for those in that strike. It is reactionary and quite active mitigation. No matter how many holes you plug it is impossible to plug them all. A weakness will be found. All you have done is reacted irrationally to a threat that has succeeded and thrown billions of dollars at a ghost. All of our disaster related mitigation programs require a benefit cost analysis which is something lacking in the homeland security grants. Even a cursory glance at the TSA shows it is security theater unlikely to catch real threats.
Since you are in mitigation as well, you should know that the goal of it is to lessen the impacts of risk. It doesn't necessarily eliminate it. In the short term, proximate cause analysis works but the root causes still need to be addressed or you simply wind up chasing that ghost.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't need the whole TSA to screen for guns or bombs. The airlines were doing mostly OK before, except for the locked re-inforced cockpit doors. I don't know when air marshals stopped being used; in any case, their selection and training could likely use improvement; I'm not sure they're needful anyway.
Detectors ought to be at terminal entrances, not each airlines' booth. Check your guns at the door, pick 'em up on the way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Logan airport was infamous for poor security. It's why they the 9/11 attackers selected that airport.
And if you think surrendering your weapons at a door to a public area is safety enhancing, you've perhaps not thought out how those weapons will be stored and released only to the original owner. They _will_ be stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
May I recommend not bringing your weapons with you?
If you cannot trust handing them off to a sworn officer when you enter a secured area, maybe you should keep them at home.
As a matter of fact, should your weapon indeed get stolen, you can be pretty sure that it's unlikely to be by a foreign terrorist threatening a plane (since the personnel gets background checks), therefore the goal of protecting planes has been accomplished.
It will just, like most weapons stolen from homes and cars, be used for some ille
Re: (Score:2)
> May I recommend not bringing your weapons with you?
You may suggest this. But the metal tools I normally carry are considered weapons by most security checkpoints, and I do want them everywhere. It's amazing what a small folding knife or a multitool can do to help in an emergency. Many Americans have taken to discarding personal knives, and my tools have been very helpful to them in numerous public instances.
> If you cannot trust handing them off to a sworn officer when you enter a secured area, may
Re: (Score:2)
I would prefer one without checks. It would make absolutely no difference to security. The bus to the airport would still be by far the most dangerous part of the journey, and it would take about 2 hours off the journey time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, there are other reasons to arrive early at an airport. So I don't believe that two hours would be saved, even if there was no security checks.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the extra time (it's only two hours for international flights) is mainly because those flights have more people on them than (most) domestic flights, and on top of that, people are much more likely to bring checked luggage, so they need more time to properly screen all of it, not to mention that you'll spend extra time waiting in line at the counter to check in the bags.
Except for some international flights at airports with a separate international terminal, planes don't usually arrive a
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:5, Interesting)
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without. Honestly, what would be your preference?
Honestly, I'd prefer that to travel without being subject to a warrantless search with no probable cause. I'd rather take a statistically insignificant risk and retain my Constitutional and human rights, as opposed to existing as an insignificantly-safer coward. I can't see the bogeymen in the shadows that the ruling class want me to fear; I only fear for our liberty.
If there were an airline that allowed passengers to board after passing through an old-style, cursory weapons check — the type of security that's still used at small municipal courts — or even no security, other than a reinforced cockpit door, I would have kept flying during the past seven years. The feelings I experience when my rights are violated are such that it isn't worth it for me to fly anywhere, for any reason. Until the Fourth Amendment and all-around sanity returns to US airports, I'll have no part in that degrading and unconstitutional display of cowardice.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously don't make any long distance trips.
If you ever consider crossing the Atlantic, you will find out that there are no ships available that take you. Planes are the only option.
Or if you occasionally want to travel between say Europe and the Far East, you can choose either a plane, or a 14-day train trip (plus a lot of hassle for the various transit visa).
A Textbook False Dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: A Textbook False Dichotomy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: A Textbook False Dichotomy (Score:4, Insightful)
I am flying from Australia to South America for a holiday. Because of all this TSA nonsense, I paid extra to fly via Chile rather than USA. This also means I flew using LAN rather than a USA airline (which is money lost for the USA economy).
A lot of people are doing this as well. I for one would do whatever it took to avoid travelling to or even OVER the USA now. They may as well build a big fucking wall, with razor wire on top of it, all around their country, around all their museums, monuments and anything a tourist might be interested in.
Travel to the USA? Just no way. Travel VIA the USA? FUCK NO.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please. Don't pretend that that only options are TSA or no security at all. Back in the day, before the TSA, the airlines were handling security on their own and doing a fine job. It was a measured response, where the level of security suited the contemporary threat level.
It suited what the airlines thought they could get away with using the smallest possible expenditure.
We can't even expect corporations to implement best practices with regards to their password databases. Why should we believe in your tales of a Golden Age of Corporate Vigilance?
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not naive the TSA is naive. If you want security you can have it by doing real security screening and not "security theater." Ask the Israelis about it some time. I flew out of Amsterdam the day after a scare, it was the first security screening I have ever had. Someone looked me dead in the eye and asked my why half of my passport was in Arabic. He looked at me, listened to me, and made a real judgment. It is all bullshit anyway post 9/11 everyone knows that even if the terrorists are able to kill 90% of the people of the plane they are still not going to be able to kill all the passengers plus the external target. By making the risk=damage*likelihood equation infinite they have closed that door for ever. Someone tries to hijack the plane I am on and I am reciting "we few, we happy few" and the then going to stomp those fuckers to death with evey other top level predator on the plane. I will feel bad if they cut the stewardess' throat but that is not going to stop me wrapping my coat around my forearm and pulling the handle out of my luggage and reminding him has he dies that I will bury him in pigskin with his feet pointing to Mecca.
Re: (Score:2)
Thier approach to security screening seems to work despite a highly and continuously motivated opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without.
Because the only two choices are TSA and nothing?
Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:2)
It is not about terrorists, but population control. If they were serious about terrorism they would put the control just before boarding, as this shows.
A control is better than no control, but an abusive and intrusive control like TSA's one provides little extra protection, a lot of false positives, and keeping population scared and so in control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:5, Interesting)
It is true that they may now start to resort to tactics that were not imaginable just a few years ago, ...
The sooner you realise that your attitude to a minuscule terrorist threat is actually the problem here, the better.
I would suggest you are suffering from a form of mental illness similar to that of obsessive compulsives who refuse to touch door handles for fear of picking up "germs". You cannot see the obvious facts for what they are: there is no significant threat from terrorism, and there never was one. The fact that you are willing to drive around in cars, or ride on the subway when a) there is a far higher risk of you dying from non-terrorist causes doing that (and pretty preventable causes too, given TSA-like funding) and b) terrorists could just as easily attack those as well, is plainly deluded when the price you pay in return for "safety" on a plane is so utterly disproportionate.
The sheer Owellian nature of what is going on in the minds of Americans like you is amazing. Land of the free? Don't make me laugh.
Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:2)
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:5, Insightful)
False dichotomy. We can go back to the old security measures (i.e. metal detector). It's not an all or nothing situation.
>Honestly, what would be your preference?
I'd prefer to do away with the new "security" measures. I'll gladly take the risk of a terrorist slipping through. I live in this country, I fly semi-regularly. I'm agreeing to assume as much risk as anyone else under my preference. There are two, and only two, things that have made air travel safer since 9/11":
1. Reinforced cockpit doors. If the hijackers can't get to the cockpit then they cannot take the plane by force. Even if they kill all the passengers, they cannot gain control of the airplane and use it as a weapon.
2. Passengers now know to resist hijackers. The old logic used to be that you should obey the hijackers, don't be a hero, and keep your head down. The hijackers wanted money, political stuff (e.g. prisoners released), or free travel to $country_without_extradition_treaty. If you shut up and did what they said then no one would get hurt. The plane would land, SWAT (or equivalent) would negotiate with them. The hijackers would either surrender or SWAT would storm the plane with minimal innocent casualties. But now we know that the hijackers might want to use the plane with a weapon. Thus, passengers now know to dogpile anyone who tries to take over the plane. Even with a fully-loaded, fully-automatic rifle, no hijacker could possibly take over an aircraft. Have you seen pictures of recent would-be terrorists? The passengers beat those fuckers to within an inch of their lives!
TL;DR: We're safer now, but not thanks to the TSA.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree; I also am not completely opposed to a security check prior to boarding airplanes. I am, however, opposed to the excessive and pointless checks we are now forced to endure.
A pre-9/11 walk through a metal detector looking for recognizably metallic items - guns, large knives - is fine. It's quick and non-intrusive. It gets rid of all the low-hanging fruit; the idiots who haven't given much thought before giving in to their violent tendencies. Sure it won't catch the "professionals" but - as TFA indica
Re: (Score:2)
A popular opinion on slashdot. But naive.
A popular rebuttal on slashdot. But based on a logical fallacy.
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without. Honestly, what would be your preference?
You can bet that terrorists would find it an easy attack vector if there were no checks anymore.
Your logical fallacy is attacking a straw man. Nobody is calling for the elimination of security checks. We are calling for the elimination of the TSA, and the placement of security checks back in the hands of airlines and airports. The TSA has been shown to be more effective at being criminal than at catching them, and as such should be abolished as a cure worse than the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without. Honestly, what would be your preference?
Checkpoints that actually work. If they were serious about stopping acts of terror, they'd go back to metal detectors (which had a *much* higher catch rate than the current backscatter x-ray machines, Google for the number of times people have gotten stuff past the backscatter x-rays, it's kinda scary), and make everybody in line have a once-over from bomb sniffing dogs. Much cheaper, much less of an invasion of privacy, and much more effective.
You can bet that terrorists would find it an easy attack vector if there were no checks anymore.
Actually, the checkpoint itself is probably going to be the nex
Re: (Score:2)
Every TSA payday, the terrorists have won. While some level of screening makes sense, the cost of the TSA security theater does not.
The USA needs to grow a pair, and remember its roots: the cost of freedom is an acceptance of risk.
Re: (Score:2)
you are confused. You think having no TSA is equal to having no security screens? Instead, lets give the job so someone who has higher IQ and higher stakes in the safety of their aircraft.
Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score:4, Funny)
They are usually quite inflated on their own, I don't think they are that expandable.
Re: (Score:2)
and we'll have assholes like Evan to thank for it.
The people who are actually violating your rights? They have absolutely nothing to do with any of that!
Re:Thanks a lot (Score:4, Interesting)
What he *should* have tested is whether or not the TSA's security rules are more effective than the old security rules. That is to say, could you construct a better weapon, one that's actually effective, under the old rules but not the new rules? I don't think so, but that isn't what he tested.
Re: (Score:2)
How about chaining lithium batteries together to make a tazer or device to overload the planes circuits?
Tasers have an open-circuit voltage of 50kV IIRC. Combining seventeen thousand CR123 cells seems like it might result in a slightly unwieldy weapon.
As for overloading the plane's circuits... which circuits? As a passenger, you have access to the inflight entertainment system, maybe some power outlets (28VDC or 110VAC), and that's about it. This isn't Star Trek, where an overload in holodeck 5 causes an explosion of sparks from the navigation console -- if you plug 90V or so into the headphone jack, you migh
Re: (Score:2)
if you plug 90V or so into the headphone jack, you might fry your seat's electronics only, or you might take out the whole entertainment system (and get your ass whupped shoebomber-style),
I see a whole lot of ego on slashdot. This post is a great example. How the fuck would you even know if someone plugged 90V into the headphone jack, to get up and kick their ass like the supreme badass you believe yourself to be?
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not both sides, how do you explain Dianne Feinstein? or Barack Obama's continuing of W Bush's policies?