Schneier Analyzes Palladium

bcrowell writes "This month's CryptoGram from Bruce Schneier has an analysis of what little information people have been able to glean (without signing an NDA) about Microsoft's Palladium initiative." We might as well throw in a direct link to Schneier's look at the MPAA License to Hack bill as well.

Comments

Also in the crypto-gram

[wiredog]

Down in the news section, he has a link to an article which shows that profiling airline passengers is "provably less secure" than random searches at the gates.

He has issues with arming airline pilots as well.

The real dangers, though, involve the complex systems that must be put in place before the first gun can ride along in the cockpit. There are major areas of risk.

No, it's neither a problem nor idiotic

[d2002xx]

If everybody can install Windows XP successfully in first time, who wants to buy M$'s next upgrade version?

You can't but admit it's the most intelligent method to earn money in the world, and that's the M$'s "patent".

Offtopic- he's getting overly complex

[dfenstrate]

The real dangers, though, involve the complex systems that must be put in place before the first gun can ride along in the cockpit. There are major areas of risk.
Yes, this was such a danger, that we all remember the stories about problems with armed pilots that happened before the FAA banned the practice in 1987 for political reasons.

Actually, come to think of it, I cant' seem to recall a single one. Can you?

Pilots carrying handguns on their planes used to be routine, and in fact, when carrying US mail, required by the federal government.
When this person speaks of complex systems, he's obviously forgetting one over-riding principle: KISS. Keep it simple, stupid.
When you give pilots guns, do what other federal agencies and the majority of police departments do- each pilot is responsible for their own firearm, and must have it in their possesion at all times. So yes, they carry it through the gates, and security checkpoints. They certainly don't hand them over at any time to the high school dropouts who clean the plane or run the security checkpoints. They would carry the gun on them, on their hips, or maybe some quick draw holster at their controls (only while their seated.) They should be required to take lessons in weapons retention, so that terrorists would have a harder time getting the weapons from them.
Think about it carefully- when terrorists bust through the cockpit doors, they're going to be close, and their going to be nicely framed targets in a little doorway. Assuming the pilots are vaguely aware of whats happening in the cabin behind them, they're going to be prepared to annihlate one or multiple attackers.

Stun guns and other non-lethal methods often don't work well for single attackers, and are useless for multiple attackers.

Picture this scenario: Terrorists, armed with whatever, try to take over the plane. They are highly trained in improvised weapons and hand to hand combat and there are four of them (a la 9-11. Dealing with the single air marshall that mightbe there would be easy- have one guy start everything, and when the Air Marshall jumps up to take care of the first, the others get out of their seats and take care of him. Presumably, this would be alot of commotion, and the pilots would hear it from the flight attendants, through the doors, our through a cabin monitor of some sort.

Now once they have the cabin under control, they go for the cockpit. They bust through the cockpit door (even if it is reinforced, it won't take long) Here's where the scenario splits.

A. The first guy gets hit with a taser the pilots might have (or blocks it completely with a seat cushion shield.)The others then use whatever they have to kill or subdue the pilots, and take control of the plane. The air force sends up an F-15 and drops the airliner like a bad habit, Hopefully over a rural area. All onboard are lost, maybe some on the ground. National treasures are safe.
B. The terrorists bust through the door. The pilots have the plane locked into autopilot so they can deal with the issue at hand. The shoot the first terrorist. The second. The third. Whats left of the fourth after the air marshall, whom the terrorists already killed, dealt with him. Maybe they're such poor shots they accidentally shoot one person on board, maybe two. The plane lands ASAP (this takes at least 15 minutes from cruising altitude.) Innocent Casualties: 1 or 2, tops. Terrorist casualties: 100% & mission failure. The air force saves a $70,000 Air to Air missle for a target drone.

The crypto-gram article discounts the fears of airliner integrity, so I'll be brief. Suffice it to say, if this airplane can land safely from 24 000 feet, a few bullet holes don't mean shit.
Other concerns:
We can't trust pilots with guns
Most pilots are ex-military that carried guns all the time when flying for the Air Force. Besides, we trust them with a $40 Million dollar aircraft and 100-400 passangers; why not a gun?
Someone innocent might die
Better than losing the entire plane. Even if they try and fail, I sure as hell prefer a fighting chance with a solid advantage.
The pilots should focus on landing the plane, or engaging in manuvers to through the terrorists off balance
How can the pilots land the craft if they're dead? How can they land it if they're doing crazy manuvers? How can an air marshall do his/her job under crazy manuvers. Answer to all: They can't.

Pilots should be armed, end of story. The prospects look reasonably good for this becoming a reality through legislation, though the feds are bound to fuck it up by making it too complex and cumbersome. I think the same legislation also limits liabilities to airlines in case of accidental shootings in a crisis situation.

We've know they're out to kill us, and if they come here to do it, let's send them to Allah without us.