Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Transportation

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).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Object Lessons: Evan Booth's Post-Checkpoint Airport Weapons

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16, 2013 @05:16AM (#45441765)

    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).

  • by Dialecticus ( 1433989 ) on Saturday November 16, 2013 @06:09AM (#45441903)
    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. As a result, the inconvenience to travelers was less, the cost was less, and it was only paid for by people who were actually traveling by plane. Now, with the TSA, you've got airport nudity scanners and inefficient security theater all on the taxpayer dime, so you have to pay for it whether you travel by plane or not. It's worse now by every measure I can think of.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16, 2013 @06:16AM (#45441917)

    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.

  • by Mr. Freeman ( 933986 ) on Saturday November 16, 2013 @07:44AM (#45442107)
    >You can bet that terrorists would find it an easy attack vector if there were no checks anymore.

    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.
  • by myowntrueself ( 607117 ) on Saturday November 16, 2013 @08:11AM (#45442167)

    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:Crap (Score:4, Insightful)

    by myowntrueself ( 607117 ) on Saturday November 16, 2013 @08:14AM (#45442173)

    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.

  • by penix1 ( 722987 ) on Saturday November 16, 2013 @09:16AM (#45442307) Homepage

    its always worth trying to understand why and how and what it would take to prevent it or reduce the risk.

    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.

  • by penix1 ( 722987 ) on Saturday November 16, 2013 @01:17PM (#45443399) Homepage

    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.

"Can you program?" "Well, I'm literate, if that's what you mean!"

Working...