LA Airport Uses Random Numbers To Catch Terrorists

An anonymous reader writes "Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is using randomization software to determine the location and timing of security checkpoints and patrols. The theory is that random security will make it impossible for terrorists to predict the actions of security forces. The ARMOR software, written by computer scientists at the University of Southern California, was initially developed to solve a problem in game theory. Doctoral student Praveen Paruchuri wrote algorithms on how an agent should react to an opponent who has perfect information about the agent's choices."

Comments

Security Through Obscurity!

[he1icine]

Sorry it had to be said.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[Entrope]

Quite the opposite. The bit about strategies given "perfect knowledge" by the opponent assumes that any information about practices or techniques could leak out. Given that, it seems obvious that the proper response is to determine an appropriate level of coverage, and then implement a randomized search pattern that conforms to those constraints. The security is not through obscurity but through a smaller window for discovering and exploiting the search pattern.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[brusk]

Actually it didn't. In some ways this sounds like the opposite of security through obscurity. I'd feel more secure with a system whose entire workings was public knowledge, but that was still effective enough to be difficult to penetrate. Randomness is a great way of doing that. You may know, as a potential attacker, how the system is set up, but if you don't know where the people and equipment will be the best you can do is take an informed risk. It also makes it harder to do things like purchase information about the system: it's little use to bribe a guard for the schedule if he doesn't know it until he starts his shift (and then may only know his first task, not the remainder of his schedule).

To my mind, security through obscurity would be setting up a very complicated schedule, then overconfidently assuming that an attacker won't figure it out. There are lots of cases where randomness increases security (e.g. random strings as passwords).

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[Hangtime]

There is a difference between Security Through Obscurity and disguising the strength, numbers, and routines of your forces by trying to nullify patterns in your behavior. People pick up on patterns very quickly. Patterns makes it easy to train, equip and ultimately be successful when addressing fluid, complex situations. If I know that once I see people streaming from one platform I have 30 seconds before the next train arrives I have an advantage.

By truly randomizing protocols, I can no longer plan for one or two specific scenarios but must be ready for hundreds. This increases the time, energy, and manpower it takes me to prep and execute a mission. In fact, if I can't bank on the fact that there will NOT be a canine unit to take my plastic through security I may change my approach and try to work from a stand-off position rather then a close-end. This makes it easier for security because I can fortify and create choke points in and around my perimeter.

Security Through Obscurity relies on your ability to hide something alone (hiding a key) versus what this is (moving the key every 4 hours and randomizing the patrols in and around the key). There is quite a bit of difference between the two.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, to be exact, the security staff is going to play DnD?

Staff sergeant: "Ok, Ralph" *rolls dice* "you are going to move 4 feet to the left."

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[Sczi]

Lol, interesting twist. Maybe "Security through obscurity, done right!" would have prevented the sarcasm-impaired responses.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[rthille]

(I haven't read the article, typically I find the comments more interesting :-)

Well, the seed for the random number generator should probably be kept secret. Or there should be no seed, there should be hardware randomness so without that data stream, there's no way to predict. Not sure how you distribute the schedule in real time from the hardware random generator to the actual officers and keep it from being eavsdropped on, but I guess encrypted communications can be assumed...

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that there was funny! Mods, get 'er done!

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know!!!

You number the place by sectors, then get a piece of cardboard and draw squares on it. Then you get another piece of cardboard with times on it!!! Then you get the captain blindfolded with some darts!!! If he gets a little too predictable...then we get him drunk!!!

Open source, Random, Algorithmically sound, AND absolutely intoxicating!

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[deepvoid]

Randomized patrols have been around along time. There are several problems with this guy's approach. First, there are inner and outer bounds to patrol initiation and duration, as well as the human tendency to repeat the familiar, thus while the schedule may get changed, the actual patrols will follow a non-random, pattern. In addition, consigning the schedule to a computer also adds a level of security failure potential that shouldn't exist. If the guards, examiners, and cameras, are on a purely random schedule, and are following the direct orders of a machine, eventually, a social engineering exploit would open the door for the opponent to get a complete schedule from the computer itself. Just like lost page encryption can be circumvented by compromising the message sender, random patrols can be brought down by compromising the computer, and unlike computers in Hollywood movies, no computer on Earth, is secure, and connected at the same time.

The thing about having "Perfect Knowledge" of a patrol or observation pattern, is that you have to expect certain variations anyways, and plan accordingly, but the polar bear under the ice is that you also have to expect certain regularities, certain things that repeat, regardless of schedule. Most unit commanders and security bosses have had to learn this the hard way, and after they loose a certain amount of confidence in human nature, they learn how to manipulate it to make their facility more secure.

A low level security guard is going to look at the schedule, and try to make it conform to his own sense of order, rounding up or down patrol times, falsifying patrols, or just plain blowing off the whole schedule entirely. After going through more than a few guards, the commander is going to have to admit, that going against human nature is not only counter productive, but dangerous. The radio messages, audio stimulus, and other auditory or visual stimulus that is used to keep the pattern random, can always be intercepted and used to an opponent's advantage, and with the high turnover rate already present in security jobs, it is a simple matter to place somebody on location that can compromise everything.

What the commander has to do is assume that his bottom line guards are going to be compromised, individually. For instance, he can safely assume, that at even if all of his guards are compromised that very few of them are going to entrust that fact with another guard. By identifying the loners on guard staff, he can group them in pairs, or triplets that are socially incompatible, and thus untrusting of one another. Since self preservation is a stronger human reaction than loyalty, the commander has to rely on this to prevent an actual incursion.

In military units, officers do not mix much with enlisted, and doing so can mean punishment or even jail time for the offenders. The reason for this, is that if two groups are not socially compatible, and they have a common stated goal, then the change of a conspiracy amongst the two is greatly reduced. If The officers decided as a group to betray, then military code would force the enlist, or non-commissioned officers to act against it, and visa versa.

The military relies on routine, because, unlike the scientist with his computer driven, game theory approach, they know it works. If patrols become regular, then is easier for those patrols to spot anything out of order. The only way to have consistent security, is to have reliable, consistent, and above all, complete coverage of the facility.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[644bd346996]

You make some good points about getting humans to actually follow the random search patterns, but I don't think we need to worry too much about terrorists being able to steal the schedules. Because they are random, they don't need to be generated very far in advance, leaving would-be infiltrators at most a few hours to steal the information, plan the timing of an attack, and execute it. Even though the actual window of opportunity for slipping through security won't be reduced, it becomes much much harder to take advantage of a temporary gap.

Using random patrol patterns gets rid of the biggest known weakness of routine patrols. Only time will tell if the problems introduced by random patrolling are worse. In the meantime, I have no qualms with using the method that has fewer obvious exploits.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[mstahl]

Just need to find the seed and algorithm for the randomness... unless they've got particle emissions from a nuclear isotope driving it. The other option is to just randomize terrorism strategies and hope for the best. They have enough people and money, if I'm to believe the powers that be, that they could just flood whatever target they wanted. Not such a great strategy if you're looking to retain your troops though.

Also, what if the security breach you find is not covered by any of the randomized routines?

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[bhebing]

If they use your comma placement as a random seed, the system will be absolutely secure.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[functor0]

I think the GP meant what if the program generating the schedules was compromised? Then it could generate a "random" schedule that the attacker knows.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[SerpentMage]

> If the guards, examiners, and cameras, are on a purely random schedule, and are following the direct orders of a machine, eventually, a social engineering exploit would open the door for the opponent to get a complete schedule from the computer itself.

If you read the article it said the following: Now all airport security officials have to do is press a button labeled "Randomize," and they can throw a sort of digital cloak of invisibility over where they place the cops' antiterror checkpoints on any given day.

This means that the schedule is not known ahead of time. Yes you can raise the argument about whether or not a machine is random, but with Mersenne Twister and random.org the reality is that random, is well, random. So this argument is wrong.

>The radio messages, audio stimulus, and other auditory or visual stimulus that is used to keep the pattern random, can always be intercepted and used to an opponent's advantage, and with the high turnover rate already present in security jobs, it is a simple matter to place somebody on location that can compromise everything.

Ok so you place somebody on watch to watch the random patterns. Well bingo, LA with its cameras has a constant, namely somebody looking for the random patterns. Thus the watcher of the patterns is picked out and removed, attack stopped. Even if the watcher moves about they are a constant in the system.

>The only way to have consistent security, is to have reliable, consistent, and above all, complete coverage of the facility.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Have you actually ever followed the math of random? People think that random, cant catch because it is random and thus will miss situations. But the reality is that when you use true random you are using the law of probabilities and you will catch the terrorist in a more effective manner than what we have done currently. With random you use statistics with a certain confidence factor and it truly works. Of course it does mean you need a minimum number of patrols (sampling) to be effective.

This theory is the same theory that makes the manufacturing techniques of the Japanese so effective.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[QMalcolm]

How about a mix of random and semi- or non-random patrols? That seems like it could work out well too. The high security areas could get patrolled regularly and normally with random sweeps to catch whatever baddies are on the outskirts.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[deepvoid]

Randomness in passwords is one thing, but when you do it with human beings it rapidly becomes less random over time. Actually the perfect guard is two guards who hate each other and fear their boss. This is why crime organization do security very well. It takes a certain healthy dose of jealousy and mistrust to keep a guard detail functioning effectively. If everyone gets along, and the computer gets to decide when the patrol details goes out, then it is fairly easy to subvert a single guard and affect the entire detail, but if they loath or fear each other, and patrol in a group, then they will all be watching out for themselves and doing their best not to slip up.

Random patrols just stir the pot, since nearly every penetration into security systems are a result of inside jobs. If nobody but the computer knows where the patrol is supposed to be, and the computer can be tampered with, then there is no way to say a person is in the wrong place at the wrong time, add to that the tendency for people to share information, and you lose the benefit of chaos in the patrol plan.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[deepvoid]

Not only that, but with the most common case, the "inside job", the program can be altered or corrupted to produce non random sequences, or worse, the programmer who designs the system could use a pseudo random number generator, which *can* always be predicted.

As an example, if I wanted to compromise the security of a company, I would get on the cleaning staff, get chummy with the rest of the staff, do my job well, and have complete access to the facility after only a few months. After installing passive sniffers (ones with modified drivers which don't send beacon packets when in promiscuous mode), key loggers, tempest scoops, and A/V cameras, I could capture enough information to do plenty of damage, or make a bundle. No amount of patrols, random or otherwise, are going to catch me at it, because I would be by then a *recognized* and *trusted* entity: e.g insider.

Security systems are only as secure as the people that operate them. If the cleaners are required to stay within sight of each other, at all times, or if a guard is to accompany them through all areas, then the level of mistrust can reduce penetration. Just like innovation is fueled by cooperation and ideas, security is powered by fear and mistrust. I was once at a company meeting where the president invited a security expert to give a presentation regarding recent thefts of personal items during the previous week. During the meeting, security was searching the offices, and found many of the items of non other than a leading VP, who had a gambling problem. The woman was not a shifty eyed, back stabbing, low life with coke in the nose, but rather a mother of two, who got too deep into online poker, and was liked by everyone there.

As a practical matter, you want people in your trusted organization to get along and behave respectfully, but you want the people in your security organization to hate their guts. When you have a company picnic, make the security team work overtime at the office. Do things that put the two organizations at a suspicious distance. Do not allow fraternization between the two, and give the security team an unforgiving rule set that keeps order and mistrust at an enhanced level. Monitor everything that enters or leaves the facility, and above all, have security review all cleaning staff appointments, especially during the probationary period, which should be no less than a year, since that is the most common window of time for socially engineered inside operations.

I'm not saying to treat your security staff like trash though, but rather, make them think that the trusted members of the facility are getting a much better deal. Above all: Security is the *least* trusted organization of any facility, and the most easily comprimised. Night watchmen are a dime a dozen, paid poorly, disrespected, and generally treated poorly. With the appropriate financial and social pressures, there are very few security organization that cannot be subverted given time and patience.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[niktemadur]

A low level security guard is going to look at the schedule, and try to make it conform to his own sense of order, rounding up or down patrol times, falsifying patrols, or just plain blowing off the whole schedule entirely.

Damn right. A few years back, my hometown was in the midst of a crime wave, and at the business where I worked, a guy was hired to go and deposit money in the bank. The first thing management told him was to never, ever repeat the same route nor schedule twice in a row. At first, the guy followed this advice, but after a couple of weeks, probably without even realizing it, he fell into a mindless, hurried routine that you could set your watch by. Within a month, he was ambushed - his car was crashed into at an intersection, then when he got off to inspect the damage, a gun was pointed at his temple.

A few days later, the guy resigned and I was given bank duty for a while, and I dare you to try and discern a pattern in the way I handled this baby. Once out of the office, I had six options to choose from within a half block in either direction (east, then straight, left or right - west, then left or right). Sometimes I stalled for up to three hours before dashing off, sometimes I repeated the same route three times at different hours, just to confound whoever might be watching.

To take it up a notch from the PP, here's the twist: Management itself, for all their initial concerns, began dropping hints about other needs I wasn't taking into consideration, such as needing the money deposited within a certain hour. After the assault and robbery shake-up, the organization became open to flexibility, then soon after went back to rigid, routine expectations, downgrading safety for convenience. As an example, the financial department was screaming for regularity, to sort out money movements by X hour.

Within a few months, an armored car service opened in town, which my company hired immediately, and things went back to normal.

Now here's my point: it's not just the grunts, it's also the supervisors and management. On paper, somebody's gonna have to wrack their brain and work harder to schedule activities that follow no pattern, probably for the same amount of pay. Supervisors will constantly have to change their schedules accordingly. There will be initial grudging compliance on all levels, then resistance will manifest itself through groaning, then procrastination turning into inaction. To change organizational habits, an initial push towards implementation is not enough, somebody has to really exert pressure for a long, long time, and who's going to do it, old employees? Unlikely. New employees? A big possibility they'll be sucked into the organizational culture within a couple of unhappy months. You have to find and hire the right outside person, and that'll take a bit of luck, never mind Game Theory, an old and iffy construction that's always caused more harm than good when applied in "real life".

Going offtopic here, and as crazy as it may sound, I do miss the bank deposits, as they turned weekdays into an adventure. First of all, it was a daily shot of adrenaline. And then, there was the deposit itself, not through regular bank tellers, but within a backdoor bank vault, a security-clearance (automated door, long hallway, automated door), CC-monitored bizarro world where the same hungover guys from other companies deposited every day, and the bank employees always kept ice-cold beer for us... in the morning. To get the beer to us on the other side of the 8-inch glass, it had to go through the same time-delay security mechanisms that we placed the ingoing deposits into. It was a small space with no chairs, so we sat on the floor, drinking beer out of paper cones, a thick cloud of cigarette smoke hanging in the air, crushed butts and cones strewn on the floor. After a while, you find yourself regarding this as normal. Talk about organizational culture.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[Pollardito]

A few days later, the guy resigned and I was given bank duty for a while, and I dare you to try and discern a pattern in the way I handled this baby. Once out of the office... boom! right there! you always left the office to get to the bank!

seriously though, you're describing the methods yourself, so it's doubtful you would mention something non-random that you hadn't thought of at the time. depending on the size of the cashbox, why wouldn't someone just be willing to wait out the entire 3 hour window and/or pick one or more of the 6 routes and take a couple tries for you to finally choose that same route they picked?

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[Torvaun]

LAX has cameras, doesn't it? Use a pseudorandom number generator to pick a specific pixel on a specific security display, and check the least significant bit. Repeat until you have enough data. Even if you tell everyone exactly how it works, by the time a terrorist organization has the ability to affect it in any meaningful way, they might as well just use all that manpower to invade.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[Adm.Wiggin]

After reading your account of this experience, my only thoughts were, "Holy shit dude, that's awesome."

Too bad you got ousted by that armored car service...

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[mlush]

Sorry it had to be said. Actually its exactly the opposite, there encrypting their schedule

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[niktemadur]

Back in the day, the wave of robberies in my hometown were precise, quick and bloodless (for the most part). These people were not desperate robbers with an itchy trigger finger, they were professionals. Because they were professionals, surely they calculated cost (time, effort and risk) and return of investment. If you're a robber and think like this, it's inevitable that you also think of "opportunity cost", which is basically "How much am I losing elsewhere by staking out this particular person?" I wasn't the only fish in the sea, you know. Not that I know if I was being watched or not, but I bet I probably was, for a while.

If I was being watched, by making their homework extremely difficult, I was probably branded as "high-effort, high-risk, not worth it", then they moved on to other candidates - clockwork, unlucky souls who made their "job" quicker and easier.

As for the "lone nut" that stalks all day, I've never even thought about it. But no professional acts alone, so it sounds as if somebody like that would be a meth or heroin addict on the comedown, and that person has no time to waste, he'll march right into the company and pull a gun on the receptionist.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[Metasquares]

Or if they have cameras in the room with the computers, which they probably would. Being a member of the cleaning staff wouldn't qualify you to install software on the system under any pretense.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[taricha]

Additionally, even a randomly generated security approach will be pointless if people get lazy and make up the randomized schedule a week in advance.

Re:Security Through Obscurity!

[tehcyder]

In military units, officers do not mix much with enlisted, and doing so can mean punishment or even jail time for the offenders. The reason for this, is that if two groups are not socially compatible, and they have a common stated goal, then the change of a conspiracy amongst the two is greatly reduced.

I thought the main reason was simply that it's easier for an officer to order his troops into danger (as is bound to happen sometimes) if they're not close mates.

Government vs Commercial

[mulhollandj]

I read a fascinating article in the Freeman comparing train security, mostly privately done, with airports security, done by the government. The key difference was that when it was done commercially the inconvenience to customers was quite minimal. On the other hand when the government runs it, it is very inconvenient for customers. Why do you think this is?

Re:Government vs Commercial

[speaker of the truth]

I don't know. However first we must look at the sampling done by the article and determine if it was a valid sample that would produce non-biased results. Then we need to look at the numbers themselves and see if they were interpreted correctly (involving both layman and well known mathematicians who are either known to offer non-biased results or enough mathematicians that represent both biases towards the government and towards commercial companies). Only then can we know if the results are correct and even begin to ascertain the reason behind them.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[JackMeyhoff]

Airport security done by the government? It's all private companies here.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[mspohr]

Train security??? Where do they have train security? I've traveled on trains in France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Czech republic and never had any kind of security inspection.

I live is Switzerland and we don't have any noticeable train security. They may be some security cameras but the only 'security' I see are the conductors and they are usually friendly and just want to see your ticket. BTW, the trains are very safe, too. No terrorists and very few accidents.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

"BTW, the trains are very safe, too. No terrorists and very few accidents."

Apparently you didn't read the news in 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

Or the news in 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_train_disaster

Re:Government vs Commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, I read an article in the "I Love Big Government" monthly which stated exactly the opposite. Ever think that the libertarian viewpoint of that publication might have something to do with the article.

And as others have noted, "security" on trains in the U.S. seems to amount to nothing more than presenting a photo ID when buying your ticket.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[enrevanche]

This has nothing to do with government vs private industry. This is because the "provider" of security is not related to the provider of the actual product. Besides, there are just too many differences, including the perceived threat, to even consider a simple comparison.

This is also used by the government to keep you in fear of a terrorist attack.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[Teun]

Or the news in 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_train_disaster
I fail to see what bad maintenance practice has to do with terrorism.

There have been several incidents in Germany where terrorists were picked up just in time to prevent them blowing up a train, here is one of them:
Suit case bombs(Print version)
(Sorry when you didn't pay attention in your German classes)

Re:Government vs Commercial

[SavvyPlayer]

Generally speaking, people rely on trains as they do automobiles as a means of daily or weekly transportation. Planes are generally perceived as elective modes of transport to elective destinations. The public are not only obliged to accept the risks of routine transport as a cost of doing business, but also feel safer on the ground than they do on the sea or in the sky. New risks to elective transport might influence a decision to, say, travel to SF to attend a convention, meet a prospective client face-to-face, or visit remote family. This at once threatens one's freedom to elective travel and brings new sensation to the risks of air travel. Sensation merits attention, and attention requires time. As they say, time is money, and money, power.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

You get modded informative for not understanding a reply?
The Eschede link was in reply to "very few accidents."
I leave it up to you to find more incidents of derailed trains, albeit less fatal.
How come you have no idiotic answer for the Madrid link?
After all, you should fail to see what terrorism has to do with accidents.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[jargon82]

It is difficult to hijack a train and drive it into a large building.
Suprised no one has pointed this out :)

Re:Government vs Commercial

[Chab1549]

i got a train , well several , in and out of madrid recently and it was almost exactly like airline screening , xrays + wands , i suppose it to be expected.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[hey!]

I read a fascinating article in the Freeman comparing train security, mostly privately done, with airports security, done by the government. The key difference was that when it was done commercially the inconvenience to customers was quite minimal. On the other hand when the government runs it, it is very inconvenient for customers. Why do you think this is?

Because trains (a) don't fly, (b) can't go anywhere their rails don't reach and (c) don't carry as many inter-city passengers. Introduce metal detectors, baggage inspection and rules regarding what can be carried onto trains, and I think the passengers might notice.

Your point might be true, that governments can't do anything efficiently. But this particular argument is not convincing.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they have no reply because Madrid isn't in France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland or the Czech Republic?

Re:Government vs Commercial

[Teun]

There are indeed very few accidents with passenger rail transport.
These things are measured in fatalities per X-thousand/million of passenger kilometer/miles and in Europe the train is by that measurement one of the safest way to cover a distance.
Rare catastrophes do not greatly change this fact.

But the original post was and is about terrorism and security issues around rail travel, it has nothing to do with industrial safety like the Enschede accident.
In the light of this discussion the Madrid link was On Topic
Therefore I still consider my remarks and added link valid.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[RobertinXinyang]

I travel frequently in China. The train stations all have baggage scanners and the trains have police stationed on them.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[jasonditz]

You can't even get on a bus anymore without some guy in a silly uniform demanding to rummage through your personal papers.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

madrid train bombing was done by the british MI6 and espanian royal security service, not by some "arabs"

Re:Government vs Commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently in the UK, my girlfriend was travelling on a long distance train. She had a first-class ticket for most her journey, but only a normal class ticket for the first few stops (it's much, much cheaper that way).

When she got on the train, she put her luggage in first class, as that's where she'd be when she got to her destination, then she went to normal class. Before the first stop, the on-board staff announced that they'd found unattended luggage in first class and would be putting it off the train at the next stop if somebody didn't claim it.

When she went to claim it, they said one of the train passengers had noticed her stowing her luggage and then leaving the carriage. What with it being 2007-Sep-11, they were worried it might be a bomb.

I realise the plural of anecdote isn't data, but that's impressive levels of observation and paranoia from the train passengers. Do you think terrorists would fare any better against them?

Re:Government vs Commercial

[havana9]

Not quite: there are 5000 policeman controlling trains and train stations: http://www.poliziadistato.it/pds/chisiamo/territorio/reparti/ferroviaria/index.htm
By the way, in the 1970 in Italy, terrorist were putting bobmbs on trains and stations:

• http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strage_dell'Italicus
• http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strage_di_Gioia_Tauro
• http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strage_della_stazione_di_Bologna
• http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strage_del_Rapido_904

Re:Government vs Commercial

[isorox]

i got a train , well several , in and out of madrid recently and it was almost exactly like airline screening , xrays + wands , i suppose it to be expected.

Really? How strange, I've never seen anyone checking in central London, and the UK has

I've read about police doing metal-detecting wands looking for knives in some of the dodgy areas outside zone 1, and have seen poice with sniffer dogs looking for drugs in dodgy areas, but the only check I've had in the last 4 years are ticket checks.

Re:Government vs Commercial

[tehcyder]

BTW, the trains are very safe, too. No terrorists and very few accidents."

Apparently you didn't read the news in 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings [wikipedia.org]

Apparently you didn't read a map ever, Madrid's not in Switzerland.

Behind the scenes in Homeland Security...

[StandardCell]

[Tour of Accounting] Accounting Troll: "Over here we have our random number generator" Number Generator Troll: "Nine Nine Nine Nine Nine Nine" Dilbert: "Are you sure that's random?" Accounting Troll: "That's the problem with randomness: you can never be sure"

Re:Behind the scenes in Homeland Security...

[smallfries]

On a similar vein:

int numCheckpointsToday()
{
          return 0; // This is a random number chosen by a fair method
}

(With apologies to xkcd).

Re:Behind the scenes in Homeland Security...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or more likely, the random parrengers picked up: Arab, Arab, Arab, Arab, Arab, Arab, Arab, Arab, Arab! Random! I Swear!

Re:Behind the scenes in Homeland Security...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh but it IS random. They choose random Arab people, see?

Re:Behind the scenes in Homeland Security...

[laejoh]

int numCheckpointsToday()
{
return 11; // This is a random number chosen by a fair method
}

Mine goes up to eleven!

Doesn't Microsoft hold patents on that?

[jkrise]

They've been using that technique to identify and fix bugs in Windows... even incorporated that into Excel 2007 multiplication recently.

Re:Doesn't Microsoft hold patents on that?

[JackMeyhoff]

actually the Excel bug was a rendering bug, the actual calculated value was correct, to prove this, take the output that is visually wrong in the cell and use in a further calculation. You will the result is correct.

Re:Doesn't Microsoft hold patents on that?

[jkrise]

actually the Excel bug was a rendering bug, the actual calculated value was correct, to prove this, take the output that is visually wrong in the cell and use in a further calculation. You will the result is correct....

Wrong! It is random, actually. It's right there in the summary of the /. artice:

"Suppose the formula is in A1. =A1+1 returns 100,001, which appears to show the formula is in fact 100,000... =A1*2 returns 131,070, as if A1 had 65,535 (which it should have been). =A1*1 keeps it at 100,000. =A1-1 returns 65,534. =A1/1 is still 100,000. =A1/2 returns 32767.5." So it's just not a simple rendering bug... on random ocassions, it calculates further using the faulty value.

Re:Doesn't Microsoft hold patents on that?

[JackMeyhoff]

Somebody ban him for actually reading an article

Re:Doesn't Microsoft hold patents on that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be banned for not even reading the post you are replying to. He quoted the summary, not even the article itself. Shame on you.

Re:Doesn't Microsoft hold patents on that?

[JackMeyhoff]

Isn't that normal around here?

Re:Doesn't Microsoft hold patents on that?

[ptbarnett]

So it's just not a simple rendering bug... on random ocassions, it calculates further using the faulty value.

No, it's still a rendering bug. The occasions that it appears to calculate further using the faulty value is actually when it still triggers the rendering bug.

From http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/:

Of the 9.214*10^18 different floating point numbers that Excel 2007 can store, there are 6 floating point numbers (using binary representation) between 65534.99999999995 and 65535, and 6 between 65535.99999999995 and 65536 that cause this problem. You can't actually enter these numbers into Excel directly (since Excel will round to 15 digits on entry), but any calculation returning one of those results will display this issue if the results of the calculation are displayed in a cell.

Re:Doesn't Microsoft hold patents on that?

[644bd346996]

No, it doesn't calculate using the faulty value. It just looks like it does because (in the examples you quoted) the result is also within the range of values that triggers the rendering bug.

Re:Doesn't Microsoft hold patents on that?

[75th Trombone]

"Random occasions?" Have you ever been to a math class on any grade level?

Two of your three "random occasions" don't change the number. Numbers don't change when you multiply or divide by one, remember? So there's no reason to expect the rendering to change when the underlying number doesn't change.

Your first "random occasion" still obviously yields a number in the "close to 65,535" range, which is what triggers the bug in the first place.

The grandparent post may not have been strictly correct in all circumstances, but you knew (or should have known) what he meant, and your statement that the bug presents "randomly" shows a complete lack of understanding of the bug and possibly of basic math (or else you just didn't read what you pasted).

Re:Doesn't Microsoft hold patents on that?

[YoungHack]

Wrong! It is random, actually. It's right there in the summary of the /. artice:

"Suppose the formula is in A1. =A1+1 returns 100,001, which appears to show the formula is in fact 100,000... =A1*2 returns 131,070, as if A1 had 65,535 (which it should have been). =A1*1 keeps it at 100,000. =A1-1 returns 65,534. =A1/1 is still 100,000. =A1/2 returns 32767.5."

So it's just not a simple rendering bug... on random ocassions, it calculates further using the faulty value.

Actually, you know not what you speak of. I tested the bug in front of my Statistics class this week. If the formula is in A1, and you put =A1+1 into A2 it does indeed display 100,000. But if you put =A2+1 into another cell, it display 65,537.

So indeed, A1, A2, A3 internally appear to have the correct representation. Unfortunately, A1 and A2 display incorrectly.

Re:Doesn't Microsoft hold patents on that?

[jkrise]

No, it's still a rendering bug. The occasions that it appears to calculate further using the faulty value is actually when it still triggers the rendering bug.

Is that so? If you actually took the trouble of reading the responses to the conjectures in the blog (yes, conjectures and speculation.. not an official Microsoft statement) you will come across this bit:

David,

You said "Any calculations based off that cell will be accurate too. Hope that helps."

But that's not entirely correct. At least not from what I have seen. If you happen to be rounding your calculations (=ROUND(850*77.1,2)*2), it also rounds it to 100K making that permanent.

So, while it is true that most cases Excel treats the value as correct except for the visual side of it, in others it actually DOES treat it as 100K.

Rob So it appears that this is just not a simple rendering bug. Also, it is unclear why floating point operations in this zone must result in this peculiar bug.. and again, only in Excel 2007, but not earlier versions. Until the whole truth emerges (which is impossible in a closed-source product) this can only be treated as 'random' behaviour in simple arithmetic operations.

wily terrorists

[sentientbeing]

wily terrorists can easily defeat this lame attempt at security.
 
All they have to do is predict these random numbers ahead of time... Using a dice.

Re:wily terrorists

[Nibbler999]

Let's hope they roll 3 doubles.

Re:wily terrorists

[Technician]

All they have to do is predict these random numbers ahead of time... Using a dice.

I had trouble at the local casino. 1 They noticed my random number generator. 2 I had trouble getting my random number generator in sync with their seed and key. I didn't have enough data to brute force the key.

Re:wily terrorists

[Nomen Publicus]

It's even simpler than that. All you need is sufficient terrorists to ensure that the chance of getting one through security exceeds some limit. For example, if there is a 33% chance of getting caught, all you need is three or four terrorists to almost guarentee that one will get through the security checks.

Re:wily terrorists

[RobertLTux]

sorry about this but the singular of dice is die (but then i have a d20 roller program on my pda)

Re:wily terrorists

[Anomalyst]

The proposition bets in the middle, where you bet the hardways (doubles), have a 12% or more house advantage. Stay with the come/pass line bets and always place the odds to trim the house to less than 1.5% even if they have a hotel.

Re:wily terrorists

[adrianmonk]

It's even simpler than that. All you need is sufficient terrorists to ensure that the chance of getting one through security exceeds some limit. For example, if there is a 33% chance of getting caught, all you need is three or four terrorists to almost guarentee that one will get through the security checks.

Presumably you detect brute force attacks like that by shutting down flights or reacting in some other fairly extreme way after several terrorists get caught in a short span of time.

And of course you scrutinize the guys who do get caught and look for links between them and other possible terrorists so that if they try to do it over a longer time span, you have a decent shot at finding the other terrorists before they do anything.

Re:wily terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you're dumber or smarter than me. Do you always play Craps during Monopoly?

Discovery Institute is mad.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

They are going to create a huge grassroots information and education campaign against this. They believe the security should intelligently designed and should not depend on random chance of security people and the bad guys coming together.

Re:Discovery Institute is mad.

[Tuoqui]

I think this is just for the patrols not for the important things like checkpoints and such. Could you imagine... 'X-Ray Machine: Nobody manning it between 2pm and 2:15pm' NOW's our chance!

Elementary

[RAMMS EIN]

Randomize checking so that an attacker can't predict the next check and avoid it? That's what I would do, too. Can I be a high-paid security consultant now?

Probably not. It probably takes more nerve and marketing skills than I have to stand up and demand the world for what is essentially an elementary idea that anybody who thinks about the issue should come up with.

What happens if...

[XxtraLarGe]

The terrorists start using a random number generator too?!?

Re:What happens if...

[phorwich]

Next thing you know, the terrorists will be using printf();

Re:What happens if...

[drgonzo59]

That's a good point actually. If they read the same game theory papers, they should randomize their protocols. Or at least make it such that their protocols seem random to the law enforcement agencies. Remember the board games (yes when I was growing up there were such things around...). There are two different types of such games -- random, where you not matter your skill level, it is all dictated by the dice (Yahtzee) and non random that are dependent on skill alone (chess). The point is that in a random game, the opponent cannot get an advantage and cannot become better by practicing.

Re:What happens if...

[Dr. Spork]

Yeah, I don't wanna be standing there when the terrorist rolls a natural 20! Ouch.

Re:What happens if...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

This afternoon terrorist blew up a trash container near a shopping mall, a trafic light, a chinese restaurant, a fence, an abandoned warehouse and an empty shipping container...

Re:What happens if...

[WilliamSChips]

Have you never heard of Backgammon?

Re:What happens if...

[steveo777]

int main();
{
    printf("Hello World. Boom...);
    return(sqrt(0));
}

set of locations?

[nathan.fulton]

"Part of it is to look for patterns in the deployment of assets. We're trying to block the surveillance cycle by making the security patrols appear in unpredictable places at unpredictable times."

If you figure this is a sizable force, and that all of them use the randomization software, four years worth of recon (TFA gave that as a time period for pre-strike operations) ought to give the terrorist enough information to know where these "random points" are. I mean, there has to be a defined set of locations somewhere in the program, they can't just be using coordinates. Imagine, a security guard climbing into an oven at the pizza place at the airport because "a computer told him to" (and the following lawsuits.)

How do they account for the fact that there will always be an area that these security forces don't patrol because no one told the computer that the place exists.

Anyone know how they manage telling the computer which places exist?

Re:set of locations?

[Entrope]

If the security patrols teleport instantly from one checkpoint to the next, your complaint might be significant. Most patrols I have seen move smoothly (in a mathematical sense) between points, which means that they will be at intermediate points in space at intermediate points in time. It's not hard to set checkpoints so that viable attack paths must cross one or more patrol paths -- the randomized patrol path and timing can be easily constrained to do that.

(In more detail: Enumerate building corners, junctions, important infrastructure, and other places that you can see a wide area, potential weaknesses or hiding spots. Record the expected time to travel between any pair of those points that you want to use in the randomized patrols. Stitch together several random walks through the graph. Use your favorite optimizer to ensure the collection of patrols meets whatever constraints you have for coverage. For bonus points, analyze a number of outputs to identify bias or weakness, and remove those problems.)

Re:set of locations?

[Hangtime]

If you have done it right you may give your security a general location and each patrol has an area within the airport so that they are all covered. Individuals have different patterns for searching. So if I have to watch 12 different teams that are all different in terms of who makes up those teams its going to make my job a lot tougher in pentrating. Maybe one person looks at this area, but another doesn't. If I can't bank on that person who does a crappy job being there when I want them to be there well I have to use a different approach or take a risk...oops canine unit came today, Abort.

To use your analogy but maybe a little more likely scenario, send security into the area behind the Starbucks kiosk. Why you ask? The problem is your trying to defend an infinite number of points while your enemy only needs one approach to win. Creating additional scenarios for them to plan for makes their job much more risky and much more complex. Randomness is your enemy when you're trying to plan and your friend when your trying to protect.

Re:set of locations?

[tomhudson]

"..oops canine unit came today, Abort."

And there's your weakness exposed. To penetrate, just keep trying until conditions are right, because you know eventually you'll "get lucky."

Re:set of locations?

[Ambitwistor]

If you figure this is a sizable force, and that all of them use the randomization software, four years worth of recon (TFA gave that as a time period for pre-strike operations) ought to give the terrorist enough information to know where these "random points" are. You're missing the point. The analysis assumes that the terrorist already knows that information anyway. The adversary is assumed to have perfect information about the randomization strategy, where the checkpoints are, etc. Then a randomization strategy is designed to minimize failures even in light of this information.

How do they account for the fact that there will always be an area that these security forces don't patrol because no one told the computer that the place exists. That is a better point, but we don't know whether there have been lapses in specifying the layout of the airport. (Of course, there will always be security holes that nobody has thought of at all, but obviously it is hard to guard against those with ANY security method.)

Re:set of locations?

[FLEB]

Still, though, you have to throw more resources at it, and/or risk getting found out when an attempt fails or when the guards get suspicious about the same people showing up at the same places a number of times.

Re:set of locations?

[timeOday]

four years worth of recon (TFA gave that as a time period for pre-strike operations) ought to give the terrorist enough information to know where these "random points" are.

If you haven't identified your vulnerabilities, randomization will not solve that problem for you, and nobody is saying it will. If that were true, randomization would be the silver bullet, which it is not. Does setting a strong password on your computer mean you're safe from all attacks? Of course not. Does that mean weak (non-random) passwords are fine? Of course not.

Re:set of locations?

[tomhudson]

... or make the guards the targets ...

Look at the tactical advantages from a outsider's point of view:

1. since they're being deployed randomly, they're LESS likely to notice "the same people" every day, not more ..
2. since the guards are being deployed randomly, its a lot harder to protect them, or have a working plan to respond to attacks on them that isn't overly complicated
3. breaking their morale will make them even less vigilant
4. nobody will want to be near a rent-a-cop; thus everyone, even "those with nothing to hide" will act extremely uneasy around the "walking targets"

The solution isn't more guards - there will never be enough guards - the solution is to find a way to end the stupid "war on terror". Pulling out of Iraq would be a start.

Re:set of locations?

[Hangtime]

Because anytime your doing it "for real" you risk being exposed. Unlike AI in video games people learn and again if your probing your creating a trail and pattern to be followed. If your constantly probing then you run the risk of being found yourself. Its better as an enemy to be do it once maybe twice as a dry-run and then do it for real. If you are doing it all the time you not only risk exposure, your putting additional pressure on your people.

Re:set of locations?

[Hangtime]

... or make the guards the targets ...
That would be nice considering they should be better equiped and trained to handle the situation.

since they're being deployed randomly, they're LESS likely to notice "the same people" every day, not more ..
Law enforcement are trained to look for people different from the rest of the crowd. Look at the Secret Service and how their protection details. They are trained to look for people that don't belong. Same goes for other agencies. Do it sometime when you are at a public event. Scan and look at where people's eyes are and their expressions. Are they looking at others, at the main event, down at the ground, do they look nervous, confused, steadfast.

since the guards are being deployed randomly, its a lot harder to protect them, or have a working plan to respond to attacks on them that isn't overly complicated
Just because they're being deployed randomly doesn't mean protection is random as well.

breaking their morale will make them even less vigilant
People that believe in what they are doing generally become more resolute after a crisis and all the problems that creates.

nobody will want to be near a rent-a-cop; thus everyone, even "those with nothing to hide" will act extremely uneasy around the "walking targets"
This way of thinking generally pervades countries with a history of violence and corruption. However it doesn't seem to effect those where there is a rule of law.

Agreed that there is a better solution. Building schools in Afghanistan for the cost of a couple of Tomahawks so children don't have to go to Madrasah where the only thing that they learn is how to hate the US and recite the Quran is probably a better fit. However, we do have to deal with the mistakes made today and hope and plan for a better tomorrow.

Re:set of locations?

[Dun Malg]

How do they account for the fact that there will always be an area that these security forces don't patrol because no one told the computer that the place exists. The above "fact" is not actually true. Basic security strategy calls for multiple overlapping patrols. This technique is as old as the freakin' Romans.

Anyone know how they manage telling the computer which places exist? A list?

Re:set of locations?

[Agripa]

The adversary is assumed to have perfect information about the randomization strategy, where the checkpoints are, etc.

It is like preparing to meet a Protector. You take lasers because they are so useful and one other weapon determined by die roll. If your adversary can predict all of your decisions, then decide to do something unpredictable.

Re:set of locations?

[RobertLTux]

the problem with that is "sunk cost" and what happens if your roll goes very bad ie roll 2d6 if you roll a 9 you win but what happens if you roll 2 (aka Snakeyes or a critical fail)
besides to pull this kind of thing off your best bet is to have multiple teams working together that cause everything to come together on a certain day.

Re:set of locations?

[Ambitwistor]

Bring high power rifles with steel jacketed bullets.

Re:set of locations?

[gnasher719]

English tabloids like to send some reporter with a bit of plastic with "bomb" written on it through security checks and claim how insecure things are when the reporter gets through.

Clearly the reporter, being completely innocent and up to no harm except embarrassing the security guards, behaves in a way that _doesn't_ trigger whatever law enforcement people are lucking for. The same person with _real_ explosives and _real_ intent to hurt would behave differently and would be much more likely to be caught.

Re:set of locations?

[tomhudson]

If the patrols are at random, that includes randomizing the people assigned to the patrols ... which means you have many more opportunities to probe before being seen as suspicious.

Re:set of locations?

[tomhudson]

"Look at the Secret Service and how their protection details. They are trained to look for people that don't belong. Same goes for other agencies."

That worked really well with Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme when tried to shoot Reagan ... oops, it didn't. Of course, that will pinpoint people like McVeigh ... except it won't. Gee, it worked wonders for the UniBomber ... except it didn't. You probably don't remember the Jack Ruby jokes ...

Prevention, in the form of not repeating the pasts' mistakes, is the only solution.

Not a bad idea over all

[Sycraft-fu]

While you certainly want to have some things that are purely consistent (for example all bags being X-rayed, all passengers having to pass through a checkpoint) randomness to additional security can work quite well. There are some things that are either too expensive (like additional patrols) or too time consuming (like manual bag searches) to conduct all the time, every where. Well, if you make it truly random when and where they happen, it makes it the kind of thing that is impossible to get around. While there's no guarantee it catches something, it just generally increases the risk to those who want to do mischief. They can't wait and watch and figure out how to beat your system as there just isn't any way. All they can do is hope that they aren't in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As it is DHS involved, I fully expect them to fuck it up and apply it wrong, but having some truly random security is a good way to make things generally more difficult, even to an adversary with a lot of resources to try and find a weakness.

Re:Not a bad idea over all

[PaddyM]

Yeah, hopefully the terrorists haven't been planning to attack something other than planes like they did in 1993. The only way this would work is if the TSA showed up anywhere. As in one day they were in my neighborhood. The next day they were watching a football game.

Re:Not a bad idea over all

[Deadstick]

As it is DHS involved, I fully expect them to fuck it up and apply it wrong,

...as they did at Las Vegas when my wife and I were in line for a flight out.They selected her, not me, for extra screening, and just asked her to move over one line for it. We were within arm's reach of each other for minutes after that...wouldn't have been the slightest trouble to make a handoff.

rj

Re:Not a bad idea over all

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize any attempt at a handoff would be met with further suspicion, right? And consequences.

Get over yourself already. All of you. Myself included. I was pulled and patted and introduced to the wand stick myself one time, even with my big blue and bold white neck band Police Department paraphenelia I wear when I travel. So, do the rest of us frequent travelers a favor, and stop and think for a second why it's important YOU were singled out. It won't take but a few minutes of your reason, if you so choose to apply it.

Re:Not a bad idea over all

[Inoen]

Parent post made me think...

I travel by plane fairly frequently and have a pretty good idea how long it takes to get through the airports i use the most. So can arrive at a good time - not so late that i'll miss the plane, but not overly early, wasting a lot of my time.

With randomized security, i have to assume worst-case every time i go to the airport. I have no idea how many and which kinds of security checks i will be put through.

The security theatre makes air travel painful enough as it is. Please don't introduce any further (possible) delays.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[speaker of the truth]

Hey, I've got an idea! What if the US government just stops meddling in the affairs of other nations? Its amusing to hear people spout this line and then hear them decry America's inaction in Dafur. Which is it people? Do we meddle or not? Because at the moment we're going to be lambasted no matter what we do.

but I thought terrorists can only be caught with

[Anonymous Coward]

racial profiling?!?

America whew! PATRIOTS!!!!

THESE COLORS DON'T RUN! never forget!

Randomization of security

[Z00L00K]

is only one component that can be used. A perfectly regular timing is never good when doing security checks. But then - it may be even better if the security checks appears to be regular done by uniformed personnel and then random by plain clothed personnel.

However - security checks are still only one component. For example today's airport buildings are largely a huge open place which means that maximum effect may be obtained outside any security checkpoints today. By reducing the queues to check-ins and building compartments the effective radius of an attack will be contained to a much smaller area.

A theoretical method would be to do image analysis and pattern analysis of behavior, but since the behavior pattern varies much from person to person it will create a large number of false alarms.

Re:Randomization of security

[ChronosWS]

But then - it may be even better if the security checks appears to be regular done by uniformed personnel and then random by plain clothed personnel.

This is only the case if you are laying a trap instead of trying to protect assets. The theory behind your statement is that the enemy will be emboldened to attack through false knowledge and then you will catch them in the act. In an airport situation, this obviously exposes civilians to a great deal of danger, so it would not apply there. In a police sting operation or an FBI terrorist cell investigation it would much more likely apply.

It would surprise me...

[Anonymous Coward]

If this software was NOT using rand()

Re:It would surprise me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. There have been successful hacks of sites that have relied on poorly designed RNGs.

The C runtime library does not mandate a particular RNG implementation, but at one time there was a "suggested" or sample implementation that was widely adopted by compiler vendors, but is now considered lame.

Re:It would surprise me...

[tomhudson]

Speaking or random number generators - the Keno machines at the Montreal Casino were originally defective (bad clock batteries) so that every day, when they were started, they would generate the same sequence of numbers. At least one guy made out like a bandit over that "bug". The Quebec government sued to try to get "their" money back.

If they want a REALLY random generator, they should attach an EEG to Bush's head (or would that just give a flat line ...?)

Re:It would surprise me...

[adrianmonk]

Speaking or random number generators - the Keno machines at the Montreal Casino were originally defective (bad clock batteries) so that every day, when they were started, they would generate the same sequence of numbers. At least one guy made out like a bandit over that "bug". The Quebec government sued to try to get "their" money back.

Sounds kinda like the story of Michael Larson on the game show Press Your Luck. However, it appears that after they realized what he had done, the TV network was decent enough to let him keep the money since it was their fault for using "random" sequences that were really not random at all.

Protect game targets instead of real ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah, the 4th floor bathroom checked out okay 27 times before breakfast, but a group of heavily-armed guys went unchallenged as they climbed the perimeter fence and boarded a transatlantic flight. Oops, our bad."

Maybe they should use the same AI games use? The enemies in those always seem able to find me.

Re:Protect game targets instead of real ones?

[speaker of the truth]

That's because there are dozens of guards just for you. In reality there are hundreds of you for every guard.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[Anonymous Coward]

What's going on in Darfur is not America's business. Thus there is no question about America's involvement there, as we already know the answer: none.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[speaker of the truth]

Aaah, well at least you're consistent. Good to see you think genocide isn't the business of the just and free.

So..

[madsheep]

Yea, hate to say it, but does this randomize button.. randomly put these checkpoints near a group of middle eastern people? :D

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[thegnu]

Its amusing to hear people spout this line and then hear them decry America's inaction in Dafur. Which is it people? Do we meddle or not? Because at the moment we're going to be lambasted no matter what we do.

Well, I'll bet that oftentimes it's different people saying the two different things. And in cases where it's the SAME person, we have inaction in Rwanda during a genocide, inaction in Congo during a Genocide, and action in Iraq so that there would be an easy cover for laundering money.

Does anyone have any real number on what percentage of the cost of the war is contracts with private companies? Because we saved lots of money on body armor, armored vehicles, and training for the troops. We can certainly expect to see the same frugality in the area of private contracts, I'm sure.

The government paying private contractors does not constitute privatization.

Can't they just throw a dice?

[Joce640k]

Why does this need special (and I'm guessing incredibly expensive) software?

They could even throw them publicly so the naughty people can see them doing it. It'd be fun to watch.

Re:Can't they just throw a dice?

[afabbro]

Exactly. The U.S. border patrol has been using this method to determine which cars to inspect since the 40s, long before there were big expensive software packages to roll dice. You don't need "game theory" when "common sense" and "obvious approach" suffice.

Re:Can't they just throw a dice?

[Ambitwistor]

I know that port security has been looking into these same game theory approaches for inspecting shipping containers. "Common sense" may get some results, but with some actual analysis, you can do even better in a mathematically demonstrable way.

Re:Can't they just throw a dice?

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably want to maximize the efficiency of their strategy. For example, if they always throw dice to determine their next place to check, they will be spending too much time moving from point A to point B, along routes that will most often take them through the central areas of the airport. In order to maximize effectiveness against an intelligent attacker, you need a more refined strategy of randomness.

My $2 opinion. (Weak dollar)

[iknownuttin]

I think it's because there is very little, if any, accountability that the Government employees have to worry about. They can be as rude and obnoxious as they like becuase they know that even if you navigated the bureaucracy to complain, it would just be recorded somewhere and nothing would be done about it. Just look at what the folks who are mistakenly put on the "no-fly" or "extra screening" lists go through. Even a powerful Senator (Kennedy D-MA) had a problem getting off of the list. Or the nun who had to call in a favor with Carl Rove to get off of the list.

The only time I've heard of a Gov. employee getting fired was because they let someone go through with a weapon.

Then there are the stewardesses. Since 9/11 you'd think someone anointed them in Flight Goddesses. Complain about something and the next thing you know, you're being taken away in hand cuffs.

Because of a few jerks in the world, flying has become just one big bullshit hassle. Which, for my own sanity, I refuse all jobs that require travel - bills be damned! Of course now with all the screening software, a bad credit rating will get you a second look by the TSA.

I may have to move to Vermont.

Re:My $2 opinion. (Weak dollar)

[b0s0z0ku]

Of course now with all the screening software, a bad credit rating will get you a second look by the TSA.

I thought that NO credit data would be more worrisome to them -- evidence of a manufactured identity. I suppose bad credit would make you more likely to help terrorists for money, but in the case of suicide attackers, it's pretty doubtful any sane person would.

-b.

Re:My $2 opinion. (Weak dollar)

[Dun Malg]

I think it's because there is very little, if any, accountability that the Government employees have to worry about. That may be part of it, but I think the amount of hassle increased not because it went from private to government, but because it went from slack and haphazard to tight and paranoid. I used to be able to walk into LAX to meet people at the gate. I used to be able to set off the metal detector with the steel plates in my shoes and the fat lazy security guy would just wave a metal detector over me and send me on my way. The security didn't become harsh and intrusive simply because the screeners became government employees.

Re:My $2 opinion. (Weak dollar)

[aflag]

Because of a few jerks in the world, flying has become just one big bullshit hassle. Which, for my own sanity, I refuse all jobs that require travel - bills be damned! Of course now with all the screening software, a bad credit rating will get you a second look by the TSA. I feel like that kind of action does much more damage for the society than the actual terrorist acts. Just think about it, you're much more likely to die in a car accident or from some cardio disease than being killed by some terrorist, whether you wear your shoes before entering the boarding room or not. Meanwhile, all this fuss around terrorism makes people really scared, as if it was one of the greatest dangers in the world. And that fear more than once have led to discrimination, xenophobia and a worriesome life. What I'm trying to say is that McDonalds and Marlboro have killed much more people than Bin Laden. If you want to live a better and healthier life you're better off changing your lifestyle to not consume cigarettes and high fat meals, rather than being suspicious of anyone wearing a turban.

Re:My $2 opinion. (Weak dollar)

[mysqlrocks]

I may have to move to Vermont.

I live in Vermont, you insensitive clod!

Contratulations!! You're number 3225

[Max Littlemore]

And seeing as you're not wearing a tea towel-you're allowed to enter1

You, number 3226, are wearing a tea towel with menace! you are an enemy of the united states of Amiracle and will die in gitmo!

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's happening in America, then it's America's business. If it's happening in Africa, it's not America's business, and thus America should not be involved.

Pretty Useless ...

[butlerdi]

You can not fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I would think that airplanes probably no longer matter. If you get through fine, if not blow yourself up in a crowded terminal. Probably get more folks that was as well.Especially when so many virgins and good shit is at stake.

The chance of getting blown up (even if you believe the shit ol w and the ol boys say about all the foiled plots) is still less than traveling by car.

Re:Pretty Useless ...

[Anonymous Coward]

My god..... I travel by car daily

Re:Pretty Useless ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially when so many virgins and good shit is at stake.

I don't know why so many jihadists commit suicide. Is this what they're after?

Re:Pretty Useless ...

[kwerle]

How the hell did this get modded insightful? Oh, yeah, people are idiots.

You can not fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I would think that airplanes probably no longer matter. If you get through fine, if not blow yourself up in a crowded terminal. Probably get more folks that was as well.Especially when so many virgins and good shit is at stake.

First the straw man: of course you can fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I don't believe 90% of the crap that the feds spew, but dontcha think that if there were no security measures in place that we'd have had just a few more planes flying into biuldings? Seriously: no security at all. More planes. So it seems we have won the war on air-terror for the past 6ish years.

Next up: planes don't matter? OK, how's your math? 30ish terrorist fly a few planes into a few buildings and kill how many folks and do how much damage? Several thousand (what was it? 3300+) and billions in damage and fallout. On a really good day in Iraq, how many people get killed by car bombs or bomb suits? I'm thinking that I don't remember many 100 person kills from any one bomber. And of course if they'd been aiming for death in addition to/instead of dollars they would have hit 2 hours later and the number of deaths would be 5-10x higher. So it looks like planes DO matter, doesn't it?

The chance of getting blown up (even if you believe the shit ol w and the ol boys say about all the foiled plots) is still less than traveling by car.

Yeah, that must be the insightful part.

Re:Pretty Useless ...

[RealGrouchy]

My god..... I travel by car daily And for comparison, how often do you get blown up? Is it, as GP suggests, less often than daily?

- RG>

Re:Pretty Useless ...

[MikeBabcock]

First the straw man: of course you can fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I don't believe 90% of the crap that the feds spew, but dontcha think that if there were no security measures in place that we'd have had just a few more planes flying into biuldings? Seriously: no security at all. More planes. So it seems we have won the war on air-terror for the past 6ish years.

Prove to me that there were plains to be flown into buildings that failed. Were there plains flown into buildings in the USA in 2000? or 1999? or 1998? Who says there would have been in 2002, or 2003? Terrorism didn't start in 2001, its been going on a long time, against americans and others in the world. They used plains in 2001, they've used truck bombs before that. Watching parking garages for the last 10 years wouldn't have stopped more than 1 terrorist bombing, watching planes probably hasn't done much better.

Here's an idea -- get the FBI, CIA and others communicating properly and let them do investigations, don't terrorize your own citizens out of fear of an attack that will /probably/ not happen again.

Re:Pretty Useless ...

[butlerdi]

I suppose that my point is that where bombs are concerned where do you put your security checks. All points will require amassing large groups of people so that the bomb goes off in a different location but is still effective. Look at Iraq and Afganistan this weeend. I think they have pretty good measures in place.Planes not mattering is my guess with trespect to the various groups seeking to instill fear. An airport terminal is probably just fine. They are not trying too kill you dumb ass, they are trying to fuck up your life. And listening to you they have succeeded.

I did not say do away with the checks, but remember the original plot that you are thinking of (planes/towers) had no bombs, and the use of other pointy objects (plastic could well have been employed). They got away with it because everyone thought they were going to spend a day or so on a runway somewhere.

With respect to flying planes into buildings, wont probably happen again. Was just bizaar enough to get away once. People went along and all. Next time not so good for hijackers. Not to mention that access to flight deck is a bit more difficulct these days.

But go ahead, scare the shit out of yourself and waste your life living in a security blanket. You will be no safer and have a hell of a lot less fun. Having lived through much worse than this shit in the past (Rhodesia,Kinshasa 70's / 80's ) where bombs were frequent as well as the slaughter, mutilation and burning of entire villages, your fears sound and look a bit strange. We just went about our business, armed and aware and purposeful, but with the understanding that we would not let the bastards beat us.

Just remember, it's all about fear (terror), that is why they are called terrorists.

Re:Pretty Useless ...

[kwerle]

Prove to me that there were plains to be flown into buildings that failed. Were there plains flown into buildings in the USA in 2000? or 1999? or 1998? Who says there would have been in 2002, or 2003? Terrorism didn't start in 2001, its been going on a long time, against americans and others in the world. They used plains in 2001, they've used truck bombs before that. Watching parking garages for the last 10 years wouldn't have stopped more than 1 terrorist bombing, watching planes probably hasn't done much better.

Note that I didn't say our new measures are any more effective than our old (though I suspect they are). I have no evidence, records, or anything like that, but I think the number of plain old hijackings of planes has fallen off an aweful lot since 9/11. Yeah, more than one reason for that. Etc etc. But here's my simple premise:

No security => more planes into buildings.

If you're doubting that, then we disagree and that's it. Otherwise, it's hard to argue that there have been any more terrorist plane crashes since 9/11. So, effective or not. Useful or not. We've won the war on air terror for the last 6 years.

As for stopping truck bombs only stopping 1 event in the last decade.. There was the one in the towers a while back that didn't work so good, and there was the fed building, too. I don't know the timeframes, but that's at least 2 that I can think of.

Re:Pretty Useless ...

[kwerle]

I suppose that my point is that where bombs are concerned where do you put your security checks. All points will require amassing large groups of people so that the bomb goes off in a different location but is still effective. Look at Iraq and Afganistan this weeend. I think they have pretty good measures in place.Planes not mattering is my guess with trespect to the various groups seeking to instill fear. An airport terminal is probably just fine. They are not trying too kill you dumb ass, they are trying to fuck up your life. And listening to you they have succeeded.

Weird. How do you come to that conclusion?

Dunno where you live, so here's a somewhat local perspective form the SW of the US: not long after 9/11 a truck loaded with Cyanide went missing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52908,00.html
THAT is the only time after 9/11 that I worried. The notion was that terrorists could drop it into one of the few big rivers in the southwest and wreck ecological damage on a massive scale. Yeah, that had me worried. But the truck was just stolen, and eventually it was found abandoned - too hot.

I did not say do away with the checks, but remember the original plot that you are thinking of (planes/towers) had no bombs, and the use of other pointy objects (plastic could well have been employed).

No, you said:

You can not fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I would think that airplanes probably no longer matter. If you get through fine, if not blow yourself up in a crowded terminal. Probably get more folks that was as well.Especially when so many virgins and good shit is at stake.

I think you can fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I don't know that we're doing a particularly good job, but I think we could be doing worse.

Re:Pretty Useless ...

[arbarbonif]

The single biggest reason for there not being more plane hijackings is that the passengers won't let it happen any more. 9/11's success is the limiting factor; now that we know that we will not survive the hijacking, we have no incentive to go along. You cannot control 150 people with 10 if the 150 refuse to be controlled.

Using the "There hasn't been another attack, so it is working" argument really falls down when there hadn't been an attack like that before either. During the time there was NO security at all, there had never been a hijacked plane flown into a building so evidence suggests that no security is actually more effective.

Terrorism was the number one cause of death in the US for less than a week (closer to 3 days really). It was passed by Americans killing themselves by a month and a half (murder took about 2.5) and was out of the top 20 causes of death in about 3 months. If you are supporting spending huge money (both in direct cost and delays/inconvenience) to stop terrorism, how much are you wanting to spend to stop Nephritis or Septicemia, which each individually kill about 10 times as many (and I had never heard of before I started researching this)? (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html)

Re:Pretty Useless ...

[kwerle]

The single biggest reason for there not being more plane hijackings is that the passengers won't let it happen any more. 9/11's success is the limiting factor; now that we know that we will not survive the hijacking, we have no incentive to go along.

There have been several hijackings since 9/11. None in the US.

You cannot control 150 people with 10 if the 150 refuse to be controlled.

Of course you can. Especially if you have the weapons to do so.

Using the "There hasn't been another attack, so it is working" argument really falls down when there hadn't been an attack like that before either. During the time there was NO security at all, there had never been a hijacked plane flown into a building so evidence suggests that no security is actually more effective.

There has always (for decades) been security. Just not enough to keep a few guys with razors from taking a plane for a joy ride. I'm pretty sure there still isn't enough - but nobody thinks that a few guys are just going to go for a joy ride anymore.

Note, however:
Air security in Israel has always been very tight. They have certainly considered that someone might use a flying bomb for just the kind of thing that happened on 9/11 for a long time. Nobody there has flown a plane into a building, either - though they do blow up busses fairly often - and have for quite a while.
There are plenty of folks who have said that we had enough information to know something was going on and that the Feds should have stopped 9/11 before it happened - even without our new "improved security" measures. I don't know.
There is no reasonable winning a war on terror. There is only not losing at various levels. We have been not losing in a big way in this country for the past 6 years. I don't give the Feds a whole lot of credit for that, though. Certainly we've been losing it in a big way in our 2 big, recent "mission accomplished" countries.

Re:Pretty Useless ...

[MikeBabcock]

You are in fact remembering the same bombings I'm referring to -- if the feds had increased parking lot security to prevent truck bombings after the first one (like after 9/11 they increased airport security), then they may have prevented that second truck bombing -- the one I referred to as being potentially preventable.

Increasing security does not always in fact detract from events -- if its done in a non-random manner (the point of this article), a determined attacker actually has a good probability of figuring out where you've made a mistake in security and accomplishing their goals nonetheless.

All security is a trade-off, and I believe Americans should be asking themselves how many plane bombings they've prevented and at what cost. I would hazard a guess that at most one or maybe two plane bombings or hijackings may have been prevented by the new security measures, if that, and at what cost to people, to finances, to trust of authority? I'd say its not worth it, and the only way to begin prove it is worth it would be to show those people being caught or prevented from doing their bombings.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than that, they should not lie about it. This smokescreen bullshit of "jealous of our freedom" is trotted out all the time and I am sick of it, cheifly by the biggest tyrant of all: Bush and his cronies. America should face facts, you helped arm Saddam, the Tabliban and countless other authoritarian regimes. Could it not be like the OP suggested you just pissed off a few too many people??

Post AC because this will get modded down to hell.....the truth hurts

You don't understand fanatical jihadis, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor do you understand the concepts of dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb.

Your only options as a kaffir are (1) convert to Islam, (2) submit to Islam by becoming a dhimmi, or (3) death, preferably in a Quranic manner by a sword through the neck. (Yes, there is a reason why all those hostages get beheaded - it's in the Quran...)

After Islam conquers the entire world, there will be peace throughout the ummah.

And there won't be any gays like there are in the US...

Re:You don't understand fanatical jihadis, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor do you understand the concepts of catholic church

Your only options as unbeliever are (1) convert to catholicism, (2) submit to catholic church by giving them your oil, or (3) death, preferably by being 'smart' bombed

After catholic church conquers the entire world, there will be peace throughout the world.

And there won't be any gays like there are in the Iraq...

Re:You don't understand fanatical jihadis, do you?

[El Torico]

I don't recall seeing oil storage yards or weapons platforms the times I visited Vatican City. That must be one big underground bunker beneath St. Peter's.

Re:You don't understand fanatical jihadis, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there won't be any gays like there are in the Iraq...

I thought that the proper term for US "war fighters" was "queer"?

Re:You don't understand fanatical jihadis, do you?

[Technician]

I thought that the proper term for US "war fighters" was "queer"?

Try keeping up with the news. Over there in the perfect state of Iran where nothing is out of place, they are having a couple problems. Drugs from Afghanistan and gay sex and AIDS.

http://www.losangeleschronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=37725

Re:You don't understand fanatical jihadis, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've successfully opened your mouth and let everyone know how much of a giant turd you are.
Congrats! now gtfo.

Sounds trivial

[Hurga]

Is it patended already?

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not America's business

Unless theres oil or some way to profit from death.

Star Trek episode about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek: The Next Generation, episode 47 (2.21)

Data could not beat a humanoid expert in a particular
strategy game, so he ultimately played randomly, just
to frustrate him.

Re:Star Trek episode about this

[KokorHekkus]

No that's wrong. He changed his strategy from trying to win to just playing for a draw.

Re:Star Trek episode about this

[Anonymous Coward]

actually he played to draw and not to win. he didnt play randomly.

Re:Star Trek episode about this

[Blublu]

Actually, he simply changed his objective, so instead of trying to win, he would try to prolong the game as long as possible. This enabled him to give up strategic expansion opportunities in favor of strengthening his position. Or something like that.

Why, I think you are wrong!

[rolfwind]

Only GOVERNMENT run security gives me free colonoscopies while I fly. Not only do I save a trip to the doctor, I ensure I stay in good health.

Re:Why, I think you are wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have one hell of a RFID chip collection up there.

Smart, really smart

[sumnerp]

So, in order to improve airport security you give "vast amounts" of classified data about airport security to a collection of grad students to input into a program that produces allegedly randomized output. Yes, I see nothing wrong with that; I'd never have thought to do it that way, smart really smart

Re:Smart, really smart

[Ambitwistor]

So, in order to improve airport security you give "vast amounts" of classified data about airport security to a collection of grad students to input into a program that produces allegedly randomized output. Uh, there are plenty of grad students with security clearances: they work on classified research projects, like this one. You think you can't have a clearance if you are a student or something?

Or do you think there's something wrong with giving classified data to people with security clearances, just because they're also grad students?

Re:Smart, really smart

[RobertLTux]

besides any grad student that would stand this kind of project is cheap to buy/secure

80% of the job is just having an account with #pizza_place the students can use (proper debug media and coding fluid works wonders)

Makes sense

[pilsner.urquell]

Randomness is often used in statistical process control along with probability theory in the manufacturing industry to determine when a produce is going out of tolerance. Random sampling is just one of a half dozen or so methods currently in use in SPC.

However, only time will tell is this will work or if the TSA has the discipline to use it correctly or if it is even suited for the task.

Re:Makes sense

[Slugster]

I heard the Israeli method of "targeting Arabs trying to get on planes" works pretty well.

It's a sad shame the US goverment is a fucking buch of pussies.
For once the A.C.L.U. needs to be told to go eat shit.
~

Re:Makes sense

[Creepy Crawler]

You'd really want to target all Muslims.

Not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs.

Would your plan work when you have Mr. Businessman and his associates going for a lecture and they are a sleeper cell?

They're white and they're professional. They most certainly cant be terrorists. (look at the recent England stuff. something like that scenario happened).

Just like cards

[phorwich]

Anyone who is successful at Texas Hold 'em intuits this.

Kinda scary...

[atamyrat]

So computers started to give commands to the security forces?

Robotic Nation, by Marshall Brain, if you haven't read it yet.

clearly..

[middlemen]

clearly the security is lax at LAX.

Re:Contratulations!! You're number 3225

[foobsr]

Anyone with a towel will be arrested at gunpoint by default; we all can imagine how deadly a weapon a wet towel can be in hand-to-hand-combat.

CC.

I know which game

[Swampash]

initially developed to solve a problem in game theory

Yeah, I played "Paranoia" back in the pen-and-paper RPG days too.

Help Homeland Security! Homeland Security is your friend!

So, why am I the one that is always...

[JackMeyhoff]

.. RANDOMLY chosen for an extra security check?

Re:So, why am I the one that is always...

[Anomalyst]

Perhaps the "BUSH SUCKS" T-shirt you wear is homeopathically influencing the weighting of the probabilities?

I remember it differently

[davidwr]

I remember he played for a draw.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Exactly ... if a muslim government chooses to make it policy to kill blacks, we should all remain silent. After all defending blacks is racist ... or was it attacking muslims ?

We should simply attack islam. After all it is against human rights, against democracy and against just about everything else we stand for.

Solve the wrong problem, with maths

[xmedar]

It doesnt address the biggest threats -

1. MANPAD attack on a plane from outside the airport.

2. Suicide bomber in a nice big truck full of explosives running into the terminal.

3. Suicide bomber with implanted bomb blowing up a plane.

So it is solving the wrong problem, it's like solving the occupation of Iraq by escalating the troop numbers.

Re:Solve the wrong problem, with maths

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we should totally abandon airport internal security. It's definitely not a problem at all.

Re:Solve the wrong problem, with maths

[Archon-X]

WTF is the obsession with planes and airports? That's old hat, it won't happen again.

Re:Solve the wrong problem, with maths

[enrevanche]

It's not intended to solve any problems, just make you more aware of security, keep you afraid.

Re:Solve the wrong problem, with maths

[Anonymous Coward]

"2. Suicide bomber in a nice big truck full of explosives running into the terminal.

Well, it's obvious you've never tried to navigate the perpetual traffic jam that is LAX's World Way. They'd have about half an hour's warning from the time the truck crossed Sepulveda Blvd. until it reached the terminal.

Re:Solve the wrong problem, with maths

[xmedar]

Isnt that what the planners made sidewalks are for?

Re:Solve the wrong problem, with maths

[DerekLyons]

You are absolutely correct. You are also an idiot for implying that while it does protect some from some threats, not protecting against others means that it is useless/pointless. No one security measure will protect against all threats, thus you deploy an array of them.

Re:Solve the wrong problem, with maths

[xmedar]

Who's the idiot here, the one pointing out that all the real threats are ignored while someone works out new ways to defend against threats that havent ever happened? This is the biggest problem with America, it's Enronisation, create wonderful sounding ideas while ignoring and hiding the real problems that eventually blow up, metaphorically in Enrons case, or literally in this one. To summerise, building a better mousetrap is not much use when dealing with stampeding elephants.

Re:Solve the wrong problem, with maths

[DerekLyons]

The idiot here is the one who mistakenly (drug addled pherhaps?) claims he pointed out that 'real threats' are being ignored. When he sobers up and reads his own message, maybe he'll note he said no such thing.

Sucks when reality invades your fantasyland, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you go outside, look up, come back in, and tell us what color the sky is on the planet you're on? Because it sure as shit ain't blue wherever you're posting from.

I must have really touched a nerve there, for you to start posting made-up crap like that. Because you know what I posted wasn't made up at all, hence your over-the-top emotional response.

Because what I posted isn't made up.

Islam murders homosexuals.

Islam prohibits women from getting an education.

Islam promotes honor killings of women who have been raped.

Islam encourages genital mutilation of women.

All that's on top of jihadis going out to get their 72 virgins for murdering as many kaffirs as they can.

So, despite your facile claims regarding the Catholic Church, "72 virgins" is not the ethical equal of "turn the other cheek". Your lame attempt at moral equivalence is ridiculous, you fucking sheltered idiot.

Why not?

[mmell]

They apparently already use a random number generator to determine when flights will leave.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and where luggage will end up.

Re:Why not?

[Guido von Guido]

This is completely untrue. Chicago's O'Hare airport has an entire team of people devoted to maximizing lost luggage, average layover times, missed flights and the distance travellers have to runn between gates to catch planes. They have a difficult job to do, but they do it damn well.

Ya, the truth does hurt

[nurb432]

Now, try telling some truth.

Game theory

[koutkeu]

I hope he didnt use some algorytm from FPS shooter AI. Path finding and AI in game is probably the most lacking domain of games. I would rather see human security behavior in my game instead for better gaming experience.

Not elementary!

[Ambitwistor]

Randomize checking so that an attacker can't predict the next check and avoid it? That's what I would do, too. Can I be a high-paid security consultant now? The point is not that the strategy is random, but that the randomization is optimized to be robust against an adversary who knows what your randomization scheme is. That's what the game theory is for: it's a classic mixed strategy.

Remember, there are many ways to be random: check area X Y% of the time; perform check W Z% of the time, etc. What should Y and Z be? How do you balance the occurrence of Type I and Type II errors? Some strategies are better than others: there's a reason why game theory was invented.

Try reading the study; the results are not trivial.

Re:Not elementary!

[epine]

It's worse than that. The Nash equilibrium poker strategy is one that can be beaten, but in order to play this strategy, you must never take advantage of your opponent's mistakes. As soon as you adapt to your opponent's mistakes, your strategy is no longer certain to be unbeatable.

Secondly, any use of random numbers creates the possibility of an insider using cooked randomness to establish a covert channel. You want to absolutely certain that your randomness is provably random, and not cooked by anyone involved. It's almost impossible to distinguish cooked randomness from true randomness without advance knowledge of the procedure that uncooks the randomness.

Re:Not elementary!

[Ambitwistor]

It's worse than that. The Nash equilibrium poker strategy is one that can be beaten, but in order to play this strategy, you must never take advantage of your opponent's mistakes. As soon as you adapt to your opponent's mistakes, your strategy is no longer certain to be unbeatable. Yes, all it does is guarantee you the best possible worst-case outcome, not the best possible outcome. You're not even guaranteed to "win".

Secondly, any use of random numbers creates the possibility of an insider using cooked randomness to establish a covert channel. If there is an insider in airport security, there are far, far easier ways to communicate with an accomplice than mucking about with covert channels embedded in random number generators!

It makes no difference.

[Eevee]

It's up to the security forces to determine which points need to be visited, not the computer. The computer only schedules the time to visit the predefined points. The patrols either go to their patrol points on a regular schedule or they go on this new random schedule. In both cases, the places covered are the same--the new method is neither better nor worse than the current method.

Re:It makes no difference.

[Threni]

Also, you're relying on terrorists - or people who have been told what to do by terrorists - not to be part of the process of dispatching agents to search. When the IRA was at work in the UK/Ireland, they'd often go to the homes of the families of police/prison officers and get them to phone their loved ones and warn them that they should do whatever was required of them.

Re:It makes no difference.

[ChronosWS]

This is incorrect. There are a finite number of viable attack vectors, thus there need only be a finite number of places to check. The enemy KNOWS there are only a finite number of viable attack vectors - for instance, it is NOT viable to attack directly through the side of a building if you are using non-mechanized personnel, the perimeter is not reasonably accessible to ground troops and the walls are made of thick concrete.

Once you and the enemy have identified the viable attack vectors, the question then becomes - for the enemy - to determine when those vectors will be the most weakly defended. The randomization ensures that the enemy cannot know beyond a certain percentage when a particular vector will be weak. On a regular schedule the enemy knows the defense of any particular vector with much greater - possibly perfect - certainty.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[pokerdad]

Its amusing to hear people spout this line and then hear them decry America's inaction in Dafur. Which is it people? Do we meddle or not? Because at the moment we're going to be lambasted no matter what we do.

Try Googling these two phrases lifted from your comment "America's inaction in Darfur" and "US government just stops meddling in the affairs of other nations". The first page of each I think is very telling. One is full of American websites, the other is full of foreign websites.

I think this is representative of who you are hearing - two different groups, one composed of Americans and the other composed of the peoples you are meddling with.

(before someone rips into me, I am not expressing any opinion about Darfur, just pointing out that probably the people screaming the loudest for American action in Darfur are Americans. I know that here in Canada I have never heard anyone suggest it is an American problem; every person who brings it up wants the Canadian government to take action)

Read the analysis here

[Ambitwistor]

I believe this (PDF file) is a draft of the study being discussed in TFA, or at least is closely related research.

Stupid and ineffective.

[Lumpy]

They treat terrorists as if they were highly skilled and intent for one target only. They are not. They go in with a desired target but will take any target they can get. Cant get on your plane to blow up? fine blow the hell out of the low end security rent a cops that stopped you, you'll take them out as well as a good chunk of the win and cause as much panic as the plane exploding.

want to make it more effective? instead of being cheap bastards hire 30X the forced you need, if you see tons of patrols in the airport openly carrying machine guns you wont try anything, but almost all Americans would flip out. slamming random travellers against the walls and searching them without warning will also be even more effective. if you ask the terrorist can pull the trigger and blow you to hell.

Re:Stupid and ineffective.

[butlerdi]

A goog article pointing out the stupidity of this whole security culture. http://www.epsusa.org/publications/newsletter/sep2006/colt.htm

Re:Stupid and ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

instead of being cheap bastards hire 30X the forced you need, if you see tons of patrols in the airport openly carrying machine guns you wont try anything

You won't? The most popular method of terrorism these days is suicide bombers. Guys with guns do basically nothing to deter suicide bombers. The best they can hope for is to detect him early and force him to blow himself up in an uncrowded area.

NOBODY expects...

[313373_bot]

...the Spanish Inquisition^W^W Homeland Security!

(with apologies to the Pythons)

*yawn*

[hack slash]

The idea is a good one - how many hollywood films have you seen where the secret agent/bad guy has managed circumvent security guards & systems because work like clockwork.

But really, using the "catch terrorists!!!" bandwagon? how many terrorists do airports catch a day anyway?

Re:*yawn*

[meringuoid]

The idea is a good one - how many hollywood films have you seen where the secret agent/bad guy has managed circumvent security guards & systems because work like clockwork.

Bad guy? It's normally the hero exploiting this kind of weakness. Half of the Evil Overlord List consists of dire warnings about what happens if your guards patrol preset, predictable routes at preset, predictable times. Not to mention deadly flame jets firing exactly every 2.74 seconds, and laser alarms that can be bypassed by a sufficiently athletic ninja girl in a catsuit.

Rock Scissors Paper

[Arthur B.]

You can play that game randomly. If you do that, then you cannot be beaten but on average you won't beat your opponent either. If you don't, then if your strategy is known you can be beaten, if its not you may have an edge. It seems they went with the first strategy. I think overall it is wise but theoretically they could have a superior secret deterministic strategy.

Government vs Commercial, or Train vs. Airplane?

[Ambitwistor]

I read a fascinating article in the Freeman comparing train security, mostly privately done, with airports security, done by the government. The key difference was that when it was done commercially the inconvenience to customers was quite minimal. On the other hand when the government runs it, it is very inconvenient for customers. Why do you think this? You mean this article?

It's comparing apples and oranges, as far as I can tell. It describes private security companies and "posses" pursuing known perpetrators in the 19th century. This is essentially police work, and is a quite different issue from preventing unknown threats from boarding in the first place. It claims that going after criminals is better than screening large numbers of non-criminals. Well duh, the problem is to find out who the criminals are, in a way that safely prevents them from carrying out whatever acts they're trying to carry out.

The article also says the private companies also sent guards on trains to foil robberies and such. Well, that's what federal air marshals are for. We've already got those. The article appears to be arguing that we just need the air marshals, and don't need any airport screening. Well, that's debatable, but as far as I am concerned, it doesn't have much to do with private vs. government security.

I think the situation with train robbers vs., say, suicide bombers is quite different. The article gives an example of train robbers who threatened to blow up the train if they weren't allowed to escape. Well, that's quite different from a guy who intends to die with everyone else: he's got no reason to negotiate. If you let him on with a bomb, you've already lost, unless you're really, really counting on those air marshals or helpful passengers (a la Richard Reid). It's a harder security problem.

Finally, the article says that the railroads booted troublemakers off the premises instead of letting them board the trains. It also says that federal law prohibits airlines from doing the same. I don't understand this; I've certainly read news stories about suspicious passengers being removed from planes, and of course TSA can prevent them from boarding in the first place.

Now, I am not trying to argue in favor of draconian airport screening, but I think the differences between security against train robbers and security against airline terrorists have more to do with the completely different settings and goals, rather than private vs. government administration of the security measures.

Re:Protect obscure targets instead of real ones?

[Ambitwistor]

So now, instead of only annoying us, these checks will annoy us and leave other areas vulnerable... Other areas are already vulnerable. The point is to maximize security with limited resources: how do you organize spot checks with a finite number of guards, cameras and people to watch them, etc.

Obviously, if was feasible to guard everywhere at all times, there would be no need for such a scheme.

"Yeah, the 4th floor bathroom checked out okay 27 times before breakfast, but a group of heavily-armed guys went unchallenged as they climbed the perimiter fence and boarded a transatlantic flight. Oops, our bad." That's a nice strawman, but no reasonable security strategy is going to put a heavy emphasis on checking a particular bathroom while totally ignoring perimeter security. If you want to attack this scheme, you have to show that there's a better strategy which operates using the same resources. You don't even know what their strategy is. Making up some stupid strategy and suggesting it's similar to what they're really using is not very honest.

A solution looking for a problem?

[AtariDatacenter]

Great! They've got an all too clever way to catch terrorists!

Now... if only there were some terrorists around.
(Hey you! What are those wires? Stop now or I'll blow your brains out!)

Re:A solution looking for a problem?

[aminorex]

Terrorists will be identified by random numbers as well. A random selection of these terrorists will then be executed.

It was first used by the terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

The success of 9/11 was mainly due to the element of surprise, nobody expected that.

Re:It was first used by the terrorists

[gujo-odori]

Actually, security experts both in and out of government agents had warned against just that sort of attack, and had done so well before 9/11. The problem wasn't that nobody expected it; the problem was that nobody listened to and acted upon the advice of those who expected it.

Obligatory reference: it's just good they didn't try the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Re:It was first used by the terrorists

[gujo-odori]

That'll teach me to not hit preview first :p

Of course, it should read "Inside and outside of government agencies"

Are they saying

[Ian Alexander]

That the application of security in airports wasn't already completely random?

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[speaker of the truth]

One is full of American websites, the other is full of foreign websites. Actually for Dafur I get:
* International organization website with members from all around the world.
* American websites

For meddling I get:
* Quebecois website
* American websites

So no, you are in fact wrong.

They do?

[leifb]

How many terrorists have they caught?

Re:but I thought terrorists can only be caught wit

[Technician]

THESE COLORS DON'T RUN!

Unless a Democrat is in charge. How fast can we withdrawal our troops?

Hats off to our troops! We are finally taking the war back to their turf. The war started years before 9/11. After 9/11 we decided to no longer ignore them as insignificant. My only question is why are we waiting for IRAQ to finish building a nuke? Are we going to do anything when they nuke Israel? We didn't get involved in the second world war until Japan bombed Pear Harbor. Just how bad do you want it to get before we take serious action? Are we waiting for the nuke?

Bag checks prevent wheel failures on trains?

[fantomas]

Bag checks would have prevented the Eschede train disaster?

Train accidents thankfully happen much less than auto accidents as they can involve a much greater loss of life. However I believe number of fatalities per mile (or kilometre) travelled is much less than via automobile, e.g. http://www.etsc.be/oldsite/rep_all6.htm - 97% of all recent EU transport deaths in 2003 were on roads according to an 2003 EU report ("Transport crashes in the EU killed about 39,200 EU citizens in 2001"). I'd expect the USA to be similar.

Improvement

[kharchenko]

It used to be that they would tell you at the ticket counter that you've been selected for extra screening at the security checkpoint.

First time they told me that I couldn't believe it. I told the lady that she just turned potential security measure into a total waste of my time, because any potential bad guys would be warned well in advanced. She honestly looked surprised - she never thought about that. So I say even the mere fact that they're thinking about making their actions less predictable is already a huge step forward.

Re:Improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be that they would tell you at the ticket counter that you've been selected for extra screening at the security checkpoint.

They still do. They don't tell you verbally, but it's printed on your boarding pass. In some cases I believe you can even substitute a "clean" boarding pass to avoid the screening. Very smart indeed.

Re:Improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

If the check's are random so are the opportunities, it seems to me. If you ask me, and you didn't, it doesn't improve a thing. It merely compounds the problem of seeing something out of place or slightly different, and does nothing about the problem of an inside job. Doesn't sound like familiarity will be a barrier to the bad guys now, only confusion.

Re:but I thought terrorists can only be caught wit

[Johan Veenstra]

I guess we can be fairly sure that IRAQ currently is not building a
nuke, or any other weapon of mass destruction.

I think you meant IRAN. Don't worry Bush made the same mistake.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[Artifakt]

There is a third possibility there, and a fourth, a fifth, and more.
1. We could at least try for a consensus with at least some other countries about what to do before we meddle. (We helped build NATO once, we used to be able to achieve a consensus there pretty regularly even when other nations knew that NATO didn't get them out of playing point man if any war had eventuated.)
2. We could refuse to meddle for now even in cases like Darfur, but start redeveloping the competencies we once had as a nation, so that if we start meddling again, we get it right. (We helped post WW2 Japan, Italy, and Germany rebuild and modernize, not a lot of lambasting for that).
3. We could support the same standard of justice we once supported, at home first and then abroad (Again Post various wars, the US led the way by example - we were heavy supporters of the Geneva convention and its now accepted amendments, we pushed our allies post WW2 to use objective standards to try the Nazis (and agreed that we would use the same standards in dealing with Japanese war crimes claims, where our European allies didn't really have a right to demand that, except if they had a right to demand common decency trump political expedience). We got some lambasting for that, true, as the Russians and the French (and to some smaller extent even the English), wanted to execute a lot of captured Nazis without real trials, and to execute a lot who ended up serving time instead, but it only took a few years for the consensus to develop that this was right.
      We mostly got 'lambasted' for being political babes in the woods in all those cases, for not being cynical and not knowing Realpolitik. Within a few years, the critics mostly came around to our way of thinking. Where we've joined the cynics and flat out bastards since then, we still get lambasted for it twenty years later, as the whole eye for an eye approach never resolves.

Besides this, the Darfur issue is a red herring - because we can't! We have so many resources committed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and a potential involvement in Iran, we couldn't possibly afford to 'meddle' in a conflict such as Darfur, Burma, or any other. Why debate over whether it would be politically or ethically right or wrong, when we have made it logistically impossible? Plus if we did somehow meddle, there's a dozen nations who would use this as an excuse not to take up the job themselves, claiming there was the same sort of tainted intelligence and such behind it. This way, at least the inactivity of the various European powers is on their own heads.

Security Airport Nowadays...

[morari]

Just makes me not want to travel. Fear mongering may be fine for the sheeple, but it's just a huge inconvenience for everyone else.

Re:Security Airport Nowadays...

[slothman32]

That's already true for me, at least via air.
I don't mind much of it but I don't like the security so I will abstain from non-ground movement.
Plus a benefit is that you get to see things not visible from Google Earth.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[enrevanche]

The government paying private contractors does not constitute privatization., true

But, the government paying private contractors often does constitute nepotism and cronyism.

By the way privatization is not usually about making things more efficient, but transferring the waste to a private interest as opposed to a government interest.

The Art of war

[Anonymous Coward]

"The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it."

--Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"

Re:The Art of war

[Ster]

So *that's* why Ender went with half-toons and Bean's spec-ops group rather than the standard breakdown!

;-)

-Ster

Re:The Art of war

[Anonymous Coward]

--Sun Tzu, "The Art of War" --Datalinks

(Yes, I've played Alpha Centauri too.)

Re:The Art of war

[Anonymous Coward]

Datalinks

Catch This Losers:

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Bush

Randomizing responses to break a protocol...

[drgonzo59]

The randomness can be used as far as behavior is concerned in social encounters. For example you are being robbed, it is expected that you will be scared and pull out your wallet. Instead try acting like a mental case or pretend you don't understand the language, or say, offer to them a cigarette instead. For a couple of seconds, the robber will be confused as they lose control of the situation because something unexpected happened. Then it's up to you to either keep it up or if you feel brave strike back.

    The same strategy goes for when you don't want to interact with certain individuals, solicitors, pan-handlers and so on -- when they ask for you attention, reply with something completely unrelated, for example "Can you spare some change? -No thanks, I'm good. -Huh?...that don't make no sense..." by the time they processes the confusing statement you already walked too far and they'll focus on the next person.

    Another example, say you are having a heated debate with someone. When the argument is the most intense immediately switch and start arguing against your position. Ok, that's more for fun...The actual strategy is to use non-sequiturs. Statements that at first sound normal but when you think about them they just don't make any sense. Stuff like "How do you know that's what you mean?" That statement has to be immediately followed by whatever real point you are trying to make. The brain is trying to process the non-sequitur and it keeps getting segfaulting-ing, but because you keep talking it is also forced to keep up with the argument. Eventually they just remain quiet. If they ask you to repeat the non-sequitur pretend you said something else or make fun of them for being slow.

  Randomizing your response is a good way to throw off an opponent. They expect a certain response or reaction but they are getting something else. That gives you a short window of opportunity while the opponent tries to process or guess your next move. Of course your moves have a degree of randomness (that you control) and it is pointless for them to spend resources (mental, computational) to look for patterns in randomness.

2 rings, one man, 200,000 gold = WMD

[sethstorm]

Then he moves into a pair of teleportation rings and unwittingly destroys the world by making that random move.

Where's the news?

[Opportunist]

They've been using randomization at identifying terrorists for a while now.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[thegnu]

But, the government paying private contractors often does constitute nepotism and cronyism.
Not inherently, but this is not a direct analogy to my statement in that my statement is A!=B, and your statement is A does not imply B. I think nepotism is evident in the GHWB-GWB-Jeb collaboration. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt it. Cronyism is evident in who they awarded contracts to.

By the way privatization is not usually about making things more efficient, but transferring the waste to a private interest as opposed to a government interest.
I'm not saying that privatization is a silver bullet. I was just stating an obvious fact that often gets glossed over in the interest of making a point. People argue against privatization with examples of the government paying people to do their work for them, which is not what privatization is.

random != arbitrary

[xPsi]

One has to be careful not to mistake "arbitrary" for "random." What they are doing is randomizing elements of systematic security, not promoting arbitrary security. That is, they are still sending trained patrols, K9 units, inspectors, etc. but randomizing the time, location, and duration. This seems quite smart to me. The irony is that a huge fraction of airport security today IS arbitrary, but NOT random: everyone must stand in line, take off shoes, pack liquids a certain way, scan their laptops, scan luggage, etc. This creates a dangerous situation: a reliable pattern of huge localized gluts of irritable people in a state of chaos while security is focusing on all the wrong sorts of details. It is a reactionary security method of questionable effectiveness (one guy six years ago attempts to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb so now everyone must take off their shoes). Indeed, the current method may be creating a larger security threat while trying to generate a "perception of security." For example, what if someone did have a bomb or gun in their carry-on? Do your really want to have them surrounded by 500+ edgy people (with no shoes on) being pushed through one-way security gates? Perhaps this randomizing element discussed in the article will be a first step toward leading the system to smarter, more effective, and streamlined airport security methods.

Re:random != arbitrary

[NormalVisual]

For example, what if someone did have a bomb or gun in their carry-on? Do your really want to have them surrounded by 500+ edgy people (with no shoes on) being pushed through one-way security gates?

That's something I've never understood but have often wondered - the passengers are having their safety endangered an awful lot by having so many herded together into such a small space. On average, it's been my experience that there are often at least 2-3 flights' worth of people queued up waiting for the latest showing of "Security Theater". It'd really suck if someone decided to bring a bomb and set it off *there*, particularly if it was organized across a number of airports at once.

But, I guess it's okay so long as the DHS/TSA *looks* like it's doing something.

Re:random != arbitrary

[fishbowl]

I'm still expecting one of the bins where everyone has to dump their liquids, to catch fire.

Re:random != arbitrary

[fishbowl]

>It'd really suck if someone decided to bring a bomb and set it off *there*, particularly if it was organized across a number of airports at once.

It actually surprises me a whole lot that it hasn't happened.

Re:random != arbitrary

[iamacat]

I am more worried about that bin getting pregnant.

Joel Spolsky thinks it's a rendering bug.

[RealityThreek]

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/09/26b.html

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[The Man]

I'm happy to declare. Fuck Darfur. Ask yourself what interests we have there. What's it buy us? Nations aren't global charities; their purpose is to protect, defend, and enhance opportunity for their own citizens. No one in Darfur is any threat to American or global security, so the risk associated with NOT going is zero. Sending an expeditionary force abroad to keep the peace has to be looked at as an investment, just like building a dam or endowing a public university. The opportunity is usually to build a good relationship with people who are suffering - that yields cultural and economic benefits as those people rebuild their nation after the peacekeepers leave. Unfortunately, that opportunity doesn't exist in Darfur - this is not a region likely to govern itself successfully at any time in the forseeable future, it has no economy to speak of, no infrastructure, no quality institutions. When the peacekeepers leave, chaos of some kind will return; any relationships we've built will be with people who are promptly killed or repressed by the next tribal militia/warlord/dictator. Even if they're not, by the time they're in any position to offer us value they'll have forgotten us or revised us into imperialist monsters. Winning in Darfur requires a 50-year nation-building commitment to get any kind of payout, and we all know what that's called: colonialism. No thanks.

Glorified dice rolling ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, can anyone explain in layman terms how is this better than rolling a dice ?

No, it was Intel

[wdr1]

True to form, Microsoft just stole the idea.

Intel introduce the idea with the Pentium FDIV bug.

-Bill

Drawbacks

[roguegramma]

IMHO, the drawback of randomized patrols is that the agents are acting like blind while they are rushing from one random checkpoint to the other random checkpoint. Otherwise a good idea.

Why not bait them?

[MrSteveSD]

Surely they can just use the same technique being applied in Iraq by US forces. It emerged last week that US snipers were baiting Iraqis by planting explosives and ammunition, then shooting anyone who picks them up. So just plant the same things around the airport, and anyone who picks them up can be shot as a terrorist. I'm sure no ordinary citizen would ever pick up a mysterious package so you are absolutely guaranteed never to shoot any innocent people.

Re:Why not bait them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just don't do it with drugs. They're now so common that nobody will touch them - it's a little side effect of dedicating so many resources against a fictitious enemy.

random number

[Anonymous Coward]

int getRandomNumber()
{
    return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll.
// guaranteed to be random.
}

Re:Randomizing responses to break a protocol...

[Cowclops]

Or when you're in court, you could start talking about Chewbacca and how he was born on Kashyyyk but lives on Endor.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[KudyardRipling]

Packets have been traced. Person has been identified. Same has been renditioned, tortured, and dispatched.
This must have been one of those students from overseas studying to steal a job from some native-born honorably- discharged home-owning family man.

Quick Question...

[st_george]

How many terrorists has this method been used to catch?

None? Thought so.

Re:Sucks when reality invades your fantasyland, eh

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about fundamentalists, who even muslims are ashamed of. Christianity is no better than islam... The problem is that you were indoctrinated (by media, government, school, ...) to believe that only islam is 'bad'.
You should really be more objective.

This is truely rediculous and dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me soo much of the problems we ran into using computers to optimize supply chains. Too much emphasis on goals while ignoring human reality is a loose-loose for all concerned.

Using computers to give orders rather than simple agreements between security staff (coin toss) adds several branches to such a systems threat matrix. Can the allocation system be flawed? Can it be compromised by an advsary? Are there countermeasures for an advasary using knowledge of the system to plan an attack?

Keep It Simple ***Stupid***... with all due emphasis on the last word.

Complete Baffling Randomness

[multiplexo]

FTFA:

Sept. 28, 2007 - Security officials at Los Angeles International Airport now have a new weapon in their fight against terrorism: complete, baffling randomness.

Well it's about time that the complete, baffling randomness of security and screening procedures was used against the terrorists instead of against the air-travellers.

Objectivity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try here for the aspect of Islam you're not seeing.

No other religion in the history of humanity has a record like that:

9/30/2007 ( FATA, Pakistan ) - A young woman is beheaded for 'immoral activities'.
9/29/2007 ( Gonada, Dagestan ) - Islamic gunmen shoot nine people to death, including a cleric who opposed Wahhabism.
9/29/2007 ( Male, Maldives ) - Twelve Western tourists are injured when Islamists bomb a resort.
9/29/2007 ( Mangam, India ) - The Mujahideen abduct a police officer from a home and brutally execute him. Hell, that's just in the past day or so.

Here are some images of Islam in action. Care to try and match that record with any other religion of your choosing?

Re:Objectivity...

[WilliamSChips]

When the Catholic Church had its power over Europe, it did that seven times as bad every day. Only difference is that now we have news, and the Catholic Church doesn't have power anymore.

Re:Randomizing responses to break a protocol...

[CastrTroy]

I run into this all the time when arguing with my wife. She comes up with some non-sensical argument, and my brain goes into shutdown. It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't used proper logic. Explains why she always wins the arguments.

In other news RIAA curbs piracy via random lawsuit

[Pozican]

RIAA has been curbing piracy for years through random lawsuits.

Empirically proven idea!

It's a trojan horse!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "Over the summer grad students fed vast amounts of classified data about the airport's facilities into the program, and ARMOR started running in August.."

Let me just configure this randomizer software for you, and by the way, all your base belong to us.

Re:Randomizing responses to break a protocol...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or when you're in court, you could start talking about Chewbacca and how he was born on Kashyyyk but lives on Endor.

But that makes no sense! Oh, wait...

Security to follow a schedule?

[bitRAKE]

Since when has a lonely night job induced regularity in workers, lol?

Re:Randomizing responses to break a protocol...

[Anonymous Coward]

That sort of rhetoric is easy to catch. You must be an idiot.

Re:Randomizing responses to break a protocol...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone on slashdot is married?

Re: Random Generator

[odpad]

It's not realy random number generator. So may be they try only catch the startup sequence. Nice day. So not really random :))) Maeby :)))

reminds me really old science-fiction story.

[porky_pig_jr]

A gang tries to rob the bank. Police tries to prevent them from doing so. Both have a powerful computer with roughly the same software. Both are aware the other side has a computer. Both are working to develop the winning strategy. Computer are runing with seemingly no end. While both sides are waiting for some kind of outcome, a phone rings at policy station. Some low key robber with no computer and no gang affiliation just robbed that bank. End of the story.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Googling 'Darfur' instead. Fucking moron.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[Ant P.]

And who did he steal the land for his home from?

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[KudyardRipling]

Sounds like someone on the losing end of Elk v. Wilkins..

"The mirror refuses to recognize my naturalized status."

This approach gives new meaning

[whovian]

to taking comfort in pi.

I have a better idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you fucking diaper-heads quit blaming the failed domestic policies of your dictators on America and quit giving us excuses to come over there and fuck you goat-herders up?

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's happening in America, then it becomes America's business. If it's happening in Africa, it is not America's business, and thus America is best not getting involved.

You've already been attacking Islam for some time now. And you know what? It doesn't do any good. In fact, as we can plainly see in a place like Iraq or Afghanistan, your attacks against Islam have made the situation far worse. Your killing of innocent civilians, without any sign or form of remorse, further enrages the Islamic world against you.

Being from a place like Oklahoma or Arkansas, you're not mentally capable of seeing the bigger picture. But there are people who can. And when they tell you that you're wrong, you should listen to them, because you are wrong.

"why it's important YOU were singled out"

[Anomalyst]

Because security theater gives sheeple the impression that something is being done? Nothing positive is actually accomplished with these antics. I really did not even FEEL safer after they confiscated that toothpaste. A shame the asininity can't reduce the far greater likelihood of being struck by lightning. Every security station should be required to post a tally board with the last 7 days total of idiotic confiscations versus the number of notsoscaryists apprehended versus the number of fatal traffic accidents with the number of tax dollars spent to achieve this breathtaking accomplishment of Homeland "Security".

"when a produce is going out of tolerance"

[Anomalyst]

So, THAT is why the grapes are so similar in size, another mystery solved.

No such thing as random numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as a random number. Any "random" function actually draws from a massive list of near-random numbers, but this list is still made available before or as the function is executed. A very bright swindler won a bunch of jackpots in Vegas (before being nabbed) by taking advantage of this, and putting the massive random string of numbers through some process that enabled him to be certain of when a jackpot would come up.

In short, a compromised "random" determiner could be even more dangerous than a pre-determined plan. If a security plan is compromised, than both sides know the plan. If the random number is compromised, only the terrorist (in this case) knows the plan.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[adrianmonk]

(before someone rips into me, I am not expressing any opinion about Darfur, just pointing out that probably the people screaming the loudest for American action in Darfur are Americans. I know that here in Canada I have never heard anyone suggest it is an American problem; every person who brings it up wants the Canadian government to take action)

Here in the United States I've never heard the suggestion that it's an American problem either. It's just that we tend to discuss whether our government should get involved because our government is the one we have some (small) chance of influencing, and it is our country whose actions and choices we feel we should be responsible for.

I guess we could spend our time debating whether Greece or Korea or Bolivia should get involved, but since we're not any of those countries, we can't control what they do, so it would be mostly a waste of time.

a phone rings at policy station

[Anomalyst]

They should have had a stronger policy against bank robbery.

Anti-terrorist patrol is great...

[aflag]

And this rock protect you against tigers. How does it work? It doesn't, but you don't see any tigers around, do you?

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Actually, if you actually LOOK at the facts on the ground you will see that the vast majority of the killing is comitted ... by muslims against muslims.

This occured before, and during the iraq wars. Only now we KNOW. Your solution of "just close your eyes" will (obviously) simply lead to disaster, and more killing. But you "won't" know, and thus it's all dandy.

Are you really so dumb that you think I bear any responsability for this ? If anyone does bear responsability for these killings, it's the people aiding muslims, like you, that know full well their support will only lead to more violence and more killing.

I've been "raving" against islam because it's the right thing to do. So why don't you tell me what's your pick
(a) islam
(b) human rights

You can, obviously, pick only one. Note that article 30 of the human rights charter specifically states that nothing in the document protects anyone who is against human rights, so not only is islam incompatible with human rights, but also human rights is incompatible with islam.

So let's see your choice.

Orthogonal codes

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, if the terrs can get the software and develop an orthogonal code, then they can move around unobserved...

Just send more operatives

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Sure you can't predict random screening, but still the residual number of operatives will get through. If you're screening half the people (randomly) then:

If you send one operative you have a 50% chance of one getting through.

Send two and you have a 75% chance of at least one getting through.

Send ten and you have a 99.9% chance of at least one getting through.

The handy thing about many organisations is that they are willing to play the numbers.

Re:Just send more operatives

[NMerriam]

Sure you can't predict random screening, but still the residual number of operatives will get through. If you're screening half the people (randomly) then:
If you send one operative you have a 50% chance of one getting through.
Send two and you have a 75% chance of at least one getting through.
Send ten and you have a 99.9% chance of at least one getting through.
The handy thing about many organisations is that they are willing to play the numbers.

But that's only if you assume that security doesn't react in any way to the discovery of an operative, which is of course false. Once any operative is found, security will then force ALL passengers to be rescreened at that location, and increase security at other locations temporarily as well.

So sending in one operative gives you a 50/50 chance of being successful.
Send two and you have only a 25% chance of successfully penetrating security.
Send ten and you're virtually guaranteed to initiate a complete lockdown of all air traffic in the country.

Re:Just send more operatives

[fishbowl]

>Send ten and you're virtually guaranteed to initiate a complete lockdown of all air traffic in the country.

What if that's your goal?

Re:Just send more operatives

[NMerriam]

What if that's your goal?

If your goal is to be detected, then the effectiveness of security procedures is moot. You could just walk people into airports with bombs strapped to their chests and bring along a camera crew.

Re:Just send more operatives

[Anonymous Coward]

That wouldn't generate the same kind of terror, though, would it?

Please tell me you're not one of those 'all terrorists want to do is kill the lot of us' nut jobs.

Re:Just send more operatives

[vuffi_raa]

new reality show?

Re:Just send more operatives

[harp2812]

Now THAT'S terrifying.

Re:Just send more operatives

[LandGator]

However, screening is also a tripwire. If Abdul gets caught, everyone shifts from Condition Eggshell to Condition Off-White, and EVERYONE gets searched. If nothing else, the US has learned the terrs have so few suicidals which can pass and have enough backbone to stay focused for the several days it takes to get here, that they have to use them carefully, so the terrs save up their nutjobs for wide open targets with maximum exposure.

Security Through Obesity

[infonography]

So thats why Cops eat donuts. Helps make them a more visible presence.

hmmm donuts......

Old news!

[dustpuppy_de]

Governments all over the world are doing random security legislation since six years now.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[turing_m]

"After all it is against human rights, against democracy and against just about everything else we stand for."

What does the US stand for, exactly? From where I'm sitting it seems to stand mainly for whatever someone with a wad of cash, a printing press or a television network wants it to stand for.

Jack Thompson...

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

...I can just imagine his next lawsuit blah-blah-blah, trains terrorists to defeat game theory based random inspection security, blah-blah-blah, Homosexuals.

Randomize the tickets!

[guruevi]

That is one sure way to do it. I usually buy my tickets electronically and then pick up the boarding passes while checking in my luggage. That usually get's you through the first layer of security pretty easy (the once that are randomly checking before you check in) and fast too (since they don't have any way to verify your information).

Then there is the check-in of luggage. I got my ticket, they tell me gate number and boarding time, so I head over to the security checkpoint where you go through the X-Ray (this was in JFK, 2004) and they verify your ticket and passport (I am not a US citizen) I went on the plane through the 3rd checkpoint, the one that is right at the gate, went to find my place in the plane and somebody was sitting in my seat. Argued, I looked over the ticket... it wasn't mine.

I'm serious, there was a different name on it. I went to the stewardess who escorted me off the plane and off course another security check because THAT was suspicious, got a new set of tickets within the terminal and away I went on another plane, no extra security checks were done. It was actually the only good experience I had with the security guards. They let me through quite easily (I usually get '5 security stars' printed on my ticket so short from an anal probe, I have to go through every single security measure including checking for gun residu and taking off belt, shoes, some guy looking down my pants, unpacking all laptops and electronics...

That all depends.

[raehl]

What is success for a terrorist?

If you have 10 operatives, send an operative a month every 30 days +/- 10 days. Even if they all get caught, you'll have instilled a much higher level of terror. Either one of the operatives will certainly get through, or the level of security will be so high that the costs of air travel will increase substantially.

Re:That all depends.

[Josef Meixner]

No, you haven't instilled a much higher level of terror. Where have you been the last 6 years, elevated security is the norm now, so if it is raised again without reason, who will be surprised. Perhaps there is some vote somewhere or some legislation needs to pass somewhere. Yes, I think we slowly grow used to new measures without much asking why they are enacted.

For terrorism to be successful it needs to be known, that there was an attack and even better a successful one. If all of your plans are found out, it will have the opposite effect. Terrorism by definition isn't about the target but about attention. If you can't get any more attention you will have to change your tactic.

Re:That all depends.

[tumbleweedsi]

Woo, another American who does not understand how to deal with terrorists. Maybe that's because the greatest terrorist of the modern age is the US government. We lived through decades of terror threats and won over by getting on with our lives. Terrorists are having their job done for them by the US government because it is instilling paranoia and uncertainty.
Sure, everyone needs to take some basic precautions but the main way to beat terrorists is to not grant them endless media exposure. Just get on with your lives and refuse to be terrorised.

Re:That all depends.

[E 99]

Both you and the parent poster are clueless as to the actual goals of the Jihadists. They couldn't care less about instilling paranoia and uncertainty in the U.S. or Europe. They couldn't care less if the average Westerner feels some minuscule degree more "terrorized." They couldn't care less if there are longer airport waits, more time-consuming screening, or unquantifiable detrimental effects to the U.S. economy. They often claim that they care about causing as many deaths to Westerners as possible, but that's not what they really care about either.

What they care about is perpetrating large and visually satisfying acts of violence against their perceived enemy. That's why they will not go after things that would REALLY affect us, like going after our water supplies -- there is no visual impact. It's a matter of performance art. It's a matter of creating a spectacle of carnage to prove to your coreligionists that you are a great warrior and powerful taker of life from the infidels.

So, no, causing delays and uncertainty is not a success to them. To them success absolutely requires loss of life, and in generally requires large explosions as well.

what is trivial

[Anonymous Coward]

is that poorly designed procedures --not patrol and selection-- are the problems with any system in the long run. Admin procedures are standardized across the airports and are much less prone to change--time is better spent looking for loopholes than social engineering or trying to outwit patrols at any one airport. box cutters, liquid explosives, exploding shoes. All of these attack standard procedures. And can be defeated only by procedural changes. Stats may be fun and these guys may have a sweet contract deal, but they aren't remotely important in the situation.

After all, other countries (i.e. Israel) have done this before without nearly as much expense and massive hiring. We could develop based on their effective procedures, but their procedures don't promote nearly as much fear as when you see SUVs being stopped for search a half-mile from the airport...and they don't create a security contractor complex that provides positive feedback loops to bureaucrats and politicians to fund more security expenditures that are difficult to evaluate--except by comparing them to other countries.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[speaker of the truth]

I did google it. Although thankyou for insulting me anyway for a typo.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is it people? Do we meddle or not?

I say we meddle. Let's start by invading England. I've heard some bad things about how oppressive that government has gotten.

But, seriously, it depends. Sometimes it's good to meddle and sometimes it's not. The threshold for meddling should be extremely high though: not just that their government has done some bad things and won't play nice with the USA. It needs to be obvious to the vast majority of people on the planet that the situation is so bad that the invasion and occupation will make things dramatically better immediately.

LA Airport Uses Random Numbers To Catch Terrorist

[arbitraryaardvark]

LA Airport Uses Random Numbers To ^not^ Catch Terrorists.
Fixed.
Lemme guess: number of terrorists, other than John Gilmore, caught, zero?
This either means that it works perfectly or doesn't work at all.
Number of sharks with lasers on their heads caught? Also zero?
LA Airport Uses Random Numbers To Catch ^sharks^.

Re:Randomizing responses to break a protocol...

[drgonzo59]

The point wasn't to use the rhetoric to logically win an argument, but rather to throw off the opponent for a short while. The brain hears something and it tries to make sense of it. During the time it's trying to do it, it is open for suggestions. This is also called "the confusion technique", the CIA uses it, Scientology uses it and it's quite popular with psychologists who use hypnosis.

and how many actual terririst have they caught?

[hoyeru]

Zero i bet. Case closed. No need to discuss this further.

Appretnly

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know much about how the military works. There is no set schedule for anything to happen. Everything we do is random, from patrols to coming into work everything is random and there is a good reason for that. Your logic fails.

Re:Randomizing responses to break a protocol...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also known as a "Pattern Interupt" in Hypnosis/linguistics.
This is used to do instant inductions; while interrupted your subject will uncritically accept much communication (some conditions apply) then complete the pattern of behaviour, often without recall to what just occurred.
Derren Brown uses it as the basis of his "handshake induction", putting someone to sleep within 2 seconds of shaking their hand (and stopping the handshake midway through the first pump).
please dont research these dangerous techniques though, I need the general populous pliant and uninformed as I plan to one day become lord of the world.

Re:What if the US just doesn't piss other people o

[Anonymous Coward]

The US stands for freedom,
freedom as in you let people do what they want, as long as you don't get hurt by them

99% of other ideologies stand for utter and complete control
control as in they literally arrest people for wiping their ass using toilet paper (a certain prophet used stones, you see), for doing their hair in a slightly different way (we're not talking punk, we're talking having a non-military cut if you're male).

Oh come on

[Ambitwistor]

I find it fascinating that a post with no actual supporting facts managed to get modded all the way to 5, on the basis of nothing but libertarian cheerleading. Come on, where is the evidence that private companies can manage airport security with less hassle than TSA? All we have here is a naked assertion.

Re:Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

in my country the competition between security companies is so hard, that they offer very little money to their workers. Recently my collegue saw the guard looking for anything valuable (to him) in the trashcans of community he was "guarding".

How 'Bout Less Politically Correct Software...

[flyneye]

How about some "profiling" software so you can bust the most likely terrorists? Instead we just turn a blind eye and let Muslims fly in from anywhere unmolested and unconsidered.
Who do we stop and search?Old women on outbound flights.Thats like going deerhunting and shooting at bottles in case a deer walks behind one when you shoot.
Yeah random software for mixing bingo tiles might be O.K. but lets focus and set it up to include Muslims,Koreans,Chinese,Liberal Democrats and others who hate the U.S.for being a way of life that works better than theirs.

So send a bunch, and break it all?

[znerk]

So send a bunch of people, who *should* act suspiciously, and may be told that they have dangerous (plans|items|thoughts), so they react appropriately, and...

Shut down all air traffic in that locality.

If you go a step further, and don't have any incriminating evidence in possession of your "terrorists", then they may actually get to walk away at the end of the day.

Send a dozen people to each of 3 or 4 airports in major cities, timed to get "caught" within minutes of each other, (read: trigger the airport security system), and shut down all air traffic in the country. ("Oh noes! It's an evil plot! We've caught (3|5|9|15) people from (insert nation of origin of choice) with our screens in the past 30 minutes! Shut it all down while we 'investigate' them! Bob, get the rubber hoses and meet me in the back room!")

The joy of this plan is that not only do you get to shut down air travel, but if you play your cards right, you get to not only keep your "terrorists", but you also get to file a couple dozen civil suits for racial profiling, false imprisonment, etc. ...especially if they all have minicams with transmitters, so that when they get tasered, beaten, or whatever, it's all on tape with "Jim" out in the parking lot.

And for those of you who think I'm being far-fetched, think of all the money it would bring in to win just *one* (heavily publicised) lawsuit against a major airline for these and other poor treatments of a passenger. Not just to the person bringing the charges, but to the airline. Now figure out how much, per person, the airline might be willing to spend to settle out of court. Sounds like a new source of terrorist funding to me...

--
Remember... Terrorism is only a good plan while the targets are fearful.
Own guns! Obtain carry permits!
An armed society is a polite society.

Re:Randomizing responses to break a protocol...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're describing is more commonly known as a Neuro-Linguistic Programming technique called 'Pattern Interrupt'. I've found that www.socialec.com is a pretty good source of information and discussion about topics like this.

Intentionaly sending operatives to get caught?

[teknotus]

If having operatives get caught causes security to shut down all air traffic isn't that like a Denial Of Service attack?

Hit at parties...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be an absolute joy to interact with.

Airport Security Plan v2.0

[sjdude]

Here's my Security Plan: Every law abiding person should boycott commercial airlines for one year. This means only terrorists will fly, so just arrest them all!!

Even if this doesn't catch any terrorists, when the airlines get tired of 5 people being considered a "full load" on a 737, maybe they will talk some sense into the stupid TSA and DHS, if that is possible. Certainly, reason and humility have failed to do anything to improve the situation.

Because

[volpe]

Regarding the reason for greater inconvenience when the government runs security:

Why do you think this is?

Because the entity you complain to and the entity you pay your money to have no common ancestor in their chains of command.

Re:Randomizing responses to break a protocol...

[E 99]

While that might be a perfectly logical technique in say, interrogations. Using it in a robbery would be pretty stupid. Robbery victims do not exactly show predictable behavior, so the robber works very hard to maintain control. As soon as he feels that he has lost control of the situation, he may very well pull the trigger to get it back.

just watch South Koreans play Starcraft and you'll

[insomnyuk]

see what he means. Or watch a top tier Super Street Fighter II Turbo battle.

I mean, I had a friend playing Starcraft online back in the day. His opponent (from SK) kept building siege tanks outside of the sight range of his Protoss base. So my friend responded by building a bunch of turrets and going for some airborne tech.

Then the SK kid pulled a fast one, flying his Engineering Bay into the protoss base, revealing targets for the Siege tanks for quite awhile before it was destroyed. The turrets were decimated.

A bunch of other crazy shit happened and it was over in less than two minutes. But for a while it looked like literally nothing was happening.

Confusing responses

[KlfJoat]

You've actually just described how hypnotic "instant inductions" or "rapid inductions" work. By forcing the "mental segfault", that puts the subject into a suggestible state. Take advantage of it before their mind latches on to the change and adjusts, and you can put someone under in seconds. ... Or, if you don't believe in that "mumbo-jumbo", it's a really cool way to fuck with people. :-)

You've missed it entirely.

[raehl]

The goal isn't the FEELINGS of the Americans. The goal is the COST to the Americans. The more and more security you have, the greater burden that security has on your society. Hiring more security guards, spending more time waiting in line, that all has a cost.

As good as random secondary searches

[mrFur]

Hope the random patrol software works better than the supposedly random secondary searches put on your boarding pass by the airlines. I seem to get it every time I enter the US in transit - about 6 times in a row now.