Bruce Schneier On Airport Security

the4thdimension writes "Bruce Schneier has an opinion piece on CNN this morning that illustrates his view on airport security. Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight. In the article, Bruce discusses the rarity of terrorism, the pitfalls of security theater, and the actual difficulty surrounding improving security. What are your thoughts? Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?"

Comments

no

[Anonymous Coward]

no

Re:no

[jra]

Glad to hear it. :-)

I was hoping *someone* would pick Bruce up on this; I'm well pleased it's CNN.

Re:no

[digitalunity]

Yes. Despite the theatrics, our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons. This is a good thing, but doesn't prevent people from using other dangerous materials like ceramics are high density plastics which are equally dangerous as clubs or knives.

Beyond that, there aren't a lot of other security measures that will have mass appeal.

Re:no

[sttlmark]

Yeah, it's nice that mainstream media is giving Bruce some attention, but ugh, did you see the comments from CNN readers below his piece? Avoid them if possible, it'll just make you sad. A long, well-argued opinion piece won't make a dent in that forum.

Re:no

[JWSmythe]

    When I was a kid, my friend bought two "Delta Darts" knives and gave me one. They are 3 sided blades, and were made out of very plastic. They'd make it right through the metal detectors, and probably even the carry on xray.

    I've long since lost mine. It's probably sitting in a landfill somewhere. If an underage kid can mail order one without his parents knowing, why would we think that a "terrorist" couldn't do the same?

    I'm happy to know that I'm allowed to board flights with a weapon. I have an 8 pound laptop, and should the need arise, I'd be more than happy to use it. I'd also hope that the airline would reimburse me afterwards, but that's less questionable.

    He was really correct about our security theater. There's always another way for them to do things. What would a chartered ocean going freighter full of explosives do at any major port? How about a chartered business jet?

    The freighter would pack more punch, but the jet would get closer to the target. According to the wikipedia page on cargo ships, the smallest ocean going ship would be categorized as "Small Handy Size", with a capacity of over 44,800,000 pounds. Consider what happened in Oklahoma City bombing. That was only 7,000 pounds of explosives (roughly equivalent to 5,000 pounds of TNT). It virtually destroyed the Murrah Federal Building, and damaged buildings for a 16 block radius. If my math is right, and assuming the same configuration, that would make for the equivalent of 32,000,000 pound (16k tons) of TNT (think just a shade larger than Hiroshima).

    Bringing that close to dock in New York, that would be catastrophic. Well, assuming it could be detonated properly. I don't know enough about such things, and I don't suspect anyone's intentionally blown up a freighter full to it's load capacity with only explosives. It's usually too difficult to move that much mass in for anything strategic. That's why we like nukes now. At least we like to have them. The biggest bomb that we drop now is the MOAB, with a yield of 11 tons. So, like 1454 MOAB's being dropped simultaneously.

    Not that I'm suggesting this to anyone. It's simply an example of what could be done. There are lots and lots of ways that "bad things" could happen, beyond our control.

    So, we defend against what we've seen, so those won't be repeated, and pray we catch the rest. But yes, good detective work and good intelligence would get us a lot farther than any number of TSA agents you can have cupping your nuts, and feeling up your wife's boobs. Not that it's not always good. Sometimes it's been a long lonely trip, and that warm hand in my crotch is a welcome change. :)

    (I think I just invited myself off the list for people to do pat-down searches on.)

Re:no

[jcr]

our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons.

No, it's not. I've taken my umbrella on flights since 9/11, and if I had to choose between that and a knife, I'd give the other guy the knife every time.

-jcr

Re:no

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Who fucking cares?

It's safer to fly without screening than to drive across town.

But, you'll pay for your own handcuffs - and the privilege to wear them. Now, where's my embedded microchip?

Re:no

[MooUK]

People's hand and feet can make pretty good weapons. I don't think you're going to succeed in banning them.

Re:no

[digitig]

Yes. Despite the theatrics, our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons.

"Fairly good", but of course not perfect. "Truly secure" is as much a myth as "Truly safe". Security and safety have to be traded against utility whether we like it or not. After all, as somebody pointed out on BBC radio yesterday (so this idea is already well publicised), if the suicide bomber can't get the stuff on board then they can cause plenty of devastation setting off an explosive in a crowded security screening area at a major airport.

Re:no

[johnek]

Actually the answer is Yes. We can. Just not in it's current form. Today travel is considered a right. It isn't. Instead of deciding who to keep off of an airplane. Decide who to let ON an airplane. Problem solved. I for one would sacrifice some privacy to know the person sitting next to me has done the same. Since I know this will never happen, although it should, I'll probably never fly again. I used to travel by air 5-6 times a year. It's sad that so few can endanger and inconvenience so many. sig = null;

Re:no

[digitalunity]

Funny you mention that. About a year and a half ago I was sitting in the security line in St. Paul International and someone had left a rather large piece of luggage sitting on the ground. As all things go in MSP, I was sitting in line for probably 20 minutes and hadn't moved very far. The luggage started making me nervous, because nobody was standing next to it.

I saw a security guy walking by and I mentioned to him that there was a piece of abandoned luggage in line and he shrugged, said "okay i guess we'll take it to lost and found." I was nervous until I stepped off the plane at my destination.

Re:no

[plalonde2]

The munitions ship Mont Blanc blew up in Halifax harbour during WWI - the event is recalled as the Halifax Explosion. It was about 3 kilotons of explosives. It razed 2 square kilometers of the town. So we do know what such a ship might do.

Re:no

[Sparr0]

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

If we can do things like that by accident, with century-old technology, imagine what it would be like today, on purpose.

Re:no

[AigariusDebian]

The funny thing is cost. In human lives.

One 747 exploding over Boston would take 200+ lives and cost (including compensations to families) around 200-300 million USD.

The extra security theatre all around the world is costing every single passenger 2 extra hours of their live and all those extra costs for the extra screenings and detections. Only in the USA more than 2.5 million people travel by air every day. There are 650 000 hours in a human life of 75 years. So the security theatre that this terrorist act caused kills 4-5 people every day in the USA alone. Or around 40 people in the world.

Therefore, if the extra security stays on for a week, it will kill more people and cost more than if this plane would have crashed.

In fact, if we remove almost all security theatre from all airports and the terrorists start crashing one airplane every month, we all as a society would be winners in that.

But now - the terrorists have won: the created terror and caused great self-incured expenses on the Western World. That was their exact goal. And they have fully realised their goals with this attack.

Re:no

[Sets_Chaos]

Security at the expense of liberty is not worth it, in my opinion. I'd rather the be free and risk the chance of being blown up, than be subject to more rules and regulations so that I can live forever.

Re:no

[dgatwood]

Beyond that, there aren't a lot of other security measures that will have mass appeal.

I think that you hit the nail on the head there. It's easy to stop terrorism if you have no moral or ethical limitations, but as soon as you limit yourself to what is acceptable, it is almost impossible. For example, you could put a hundred million in a bank account and announce that it will be used to put a price on the heads of the family and friends of anyone who commits an act of terror against the U.S. Then carry out the threat. It won't take long to dry up their supply of volunteers. Or go one step further and nuke their entire village or city. Highly effective, but not at all palatable.

Re:no

[CohibaVancouver]

our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons. This is a good thing

No, it's not a 'good thing' it's a bloody waste of time and energy that could be spent elsewhere. Ban guns and explosives? Definitely. But sharps? Who cares?

Any hijacking today would promptly fail if hijackers attempted to take a plane armed only with sharps.

The success of a hijacking very much depends on the weapon used. If a hijacker or hijackers have guns on board, well then I think people would remain in their seats. It's very difficult to storm an enemy armed with a gun.

Ditto if they claimed there was a bomb on board and they had a remote trigger 'somewhere' - People would likely keep their seats.

So should security screen for guns and bombs? Absolutely - X-ray laptops blah blah blah.

But anything less than a gun or bomb? I think people on board would react and beat the hijackers to death with the drinks cart, their laptops, duty free rum bottles, whatever. Even if a handful of hijackers had knives to the necks of the FAs, people would react and attack the hijackers, and even if they did have knives to the necks of the FAs and no one reacted, what would happen? The crew wouldn't open the locked flightdeck door - They'd just land at the nearest airport and it's game over for the hijackers. Flight crews don't give in to hijackers any more - The modis operandi has changed.

So with a trained crew and a locked reinforced cockpit door they wouldn't be taking control of the plane anyway, so the knives would be useless.

So should security screen for sharps? Waste of time. There's nothing a hijacker can do with a sharp other than injure or maybe kill some of the people on board. Where's the terrorist value in that?

Re:no

[The Archon V2.0]

Actually the answer is Yes. We can. Just not in it's current form. Today travel is considered a right. It isn't. Instead of deciding who to keep off of an airplane. Decide who to let ON an airplane. Problem solved.

Until someone spends enough years looking like an upstanding citizen that he can get on a plane and do whatever he wants. Want there to be no terrorism on planes? Ground all the planes. As soon as you let a human being onto a plane, there's a risk that human wants do so something other than see the plane reach its listed destination.

I for one would sacrifice some privacy to know the person sitting next to me has done the same.

The problem with that idea isn't that you've sacrificed the same rights as the next guy, it's that you've both sacrificed them to someone else. Someone who's not going to give them back, even if you find out he's been abusing his power.

Re:no

[icebike]

Why were you hoping that?

He actually had very little new to say, and nothing we haven't seen before. No new ideas, just the same old regurgitation of leftist dogma. Act like sheep and pray no one will slaughter you.

Yeah, there are things that are done to excess, and other things not done well.

But waiting till a single incident almost happens to scream "failure" while ignoring the fact that no additional airplanes have hit buildings since 2001, and then claiming simultaneously that the lull was do to nobody wanting to attack, and that our protection efforts are useless, seems hardly convincing. Especially when followed up with suggestions that we change our foreign policy to appease those who "don't want to attack".

Re:no

[icebike]

Yes, yes, yes.

By all means lets fill post after post with hair brained schemes that no one has tried and insist our systems are useless because you might be able to sneak a toy onboard an airplane.

If you had an ounce of understanding you would realize that no one is looking for the toy. They are watching the boy worrying about someone detecting the toy.

The real TSA screeners are not the highschoold dropout instructing you to remove your shoes.

Re:no

[Bertie]

Meanwhile, last week I was in a queue at Gatwick Airport. A passing airport employee happened across a bag in the middle of the concourse which appeared to be unattended. He shouted to everybody around asking whose it was. "It's mine", said a guy who was bidding farewell to his friend in the queue ten metres or so from his bag. "Well come and stand by it, then, or you'll end up causing a security alert and getting the place shut down." The guy rightly pointed out that since he'd just claimed the bag as his own, it wasn't unattended, just at a slight distance from its owner, but he may as well have been talking to the wall for all the notice Mr. Jobsworth took. He had to come away from his friend, who was clearly in tears at having to leave, and stand by his bag, for no good reason that I could discern.

Needless.

Re:no

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

no additional airplanes have hit buildings since 2001...

How many were there prior to 2001?

Re:no

[dgatwood]

That said, there is one technology that could have easily prevented this particular class of attack: an NQR (nuclear quadrupole resonance) machine. It's basically like an MRI but it is designed to pick up the specific resonant frequencies of nitrate-based compounds. Expect these systems to be deployed in the not-too-distant future, and unlike the millimeter wave and backscatter X-Ray systems, NQR doesn't cause cancer and doesn't show your naughty bits in high resolution detail....

Re:no

[mjwx]

No, it's not. I've taken my umbrella on flights since 9/11

Don't they have Jetways where you live?

Re:no

[shadowbearer]

Is it a "battered black umbrella, with a couple of bullet holes in it"? ;)

SB
  (a recommendation to read Robert Frezza and his Small Colonial War series of SF books is in order here)

  (an old fashioned long umbrella has a lot more reach and potential lethality, at least if one can make modifications to it...)

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ham-fisted approach creates more terrorists, not less. How do you think this hatred of the west was created - that's right, we were killing their friends and family.

Re:no

[amRadioHed]

He was also featured on Rachael Maddows show on MSNBC last night.

Re:no

[jcr]

an old fashioned long umbrella has a lot more reach and potential lethality, at least if one can make modifications to it..

No modifications necessary. It doesn't even need to be sharp. An umbrella works great for yari-waza. One solid poke in the face, and nine out of ten opponents will drop the knife.

-jcr

Re:no

[dgatwood]

You're assuming that their hatred of the West has any basis in reality. It doesn't. Their hatred for the U.S. is entirely about power. The West has helped keep favorable regimes in power, and those regimes have tended to not be the people that the terrorists want in power. Thus, they hate the U.S. for aiding those regimes (some of whom may well have killed their friends and families, mind you, but the U.S. didn't do it directly). They hate the U.S. for protecting Israel. They hate the U.S. for... basically meddling in their affairs.

The fact of the matter is that if we were the monsters they think we are, the U.S. would have turned Yemen into glass already. It would take just a few minutes for a nuclear sub to launch a missile strike that would evaporate every human being in that entire country. We didn't do that. Why? Because it's wrong.

And that was my whole point. They're monsters because they massacre the innocent. They accuse us of being monsters, and yet despite having ample opportunity to wipe them off the map, we do not because we don't want to massacre the innocent. That's why they are evil and we are not. I'm not advocating such a response; I'm merely pointing out that it's disingenuous to say that we can't stop it. We simply don't have a good way of stopping terrorism without sinking to their level.

Finally, I would note that the vast majority of those folks' friends and families who have been killed by U.S. forces were killed because terrorists illegally used hospitals, schools, mosques, etc. as human shields. The terrorists put those people's friends and families deliberately in harm's way so that the U.S. would be forced to kill them to get the bad guys. I would argue that the terrorists are responsible for every one of those deaths, not the U.S. military.

Re:no

[Bigjeff5]

The real TSA screeners are not the highschoold dropout instructing you to remove your shoes.

In most airports, there is nobody filling that role except the highschool dropout telling you to remove your shoes. If you think there is some hidden screener out there who is REALLY keeping you safe, you are sadly mistaken. There might be a very small number of airports that do this, but even so most people would be able to slip by anyway. Act bored and you win. They won't spot a thing.

It is pretty trivial to get knives past TSA, unless you are being honest about it. A friend of mine accidentally brought a boxcutter (the kind that can extend out to a 4-5" blade) through at least six TSA screenings, and he had simply put it in a pocket and forgotten about it. How's that for security?

You can get explosive rope these days, if you're clever you could probably sneak a half pound of the rope and another four or five pounds of standard plastics on board in a suitcase and nobody would be the wiser. You could do some major damage with that combo. The guy who got caught recently was just dumb as shit, and didn't know what the hell he was doing, and he STILL got explosives past security. They make you stay seated for the last hour and a half of an international flight now, but so what? The guy lit the bomb off in his chair anyway, what's the "remain seated" bullshit supposed to stop?

If you look at what happened on 9/11, the main problem was our attitude about hijackings at the time. Hijackings were supposed to be about ransoming for cash, not blowing up a target, so the standard procedure was do whatever the hijackers say and wait till it is over. Now, standard procedure is subdue the hijacker as soon as possible. Had that been done on 9/11 the news would have been about how 19 hijackers were thwarted in an attempt to hijack four airplanes, and a few passengers were injured in the process. That new policy is what protects us in the sky now, not any of the bullshit security theater which is absolutely worthless at catching all but the most basic and obvious weapons. People see someone with a weapon now, they won't hesitate any more - that guy is going down in a hurry. 9/11 would not happen again today and the TSA has nothing to with that at all.

It's all designed to make us feel safer, since the folks in the know realize they can't actually make us any safer. What we were doing before is as good as what we are doing now as far as airport screenings, the only real changes that can be made are in the background, with inteligence agencings tracking suspected terrorists and such. TSA is just the government saying "Look! aren't you glad we're making you so safe?"

Re:no

[shadowbearer]

  Indeed!

  But with all respect, honored sir, I'll submit that a long, old fashioned umbrella might also benefit from sharpening the tip of it, especially if said tip is the usual four inches long, which is long enough to pierce some of the major arteries of the body, if they are not armored against such weapons.

  Otherwise, it is mostly a weapon to bluff with - not without merit, as the honored sir points out; but I would respectfully submit that a device which is not potentially lethal cannot truly be considered a weapon.

SB

Re:no

[Bigjeff5]

Except for the fact that the US was behind the Taliban's installment in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's in Iraq, you're absolutely correct...

Oops.

The truth is they hate everybody, the US is just the biggest target, and not a difficult one either because of all our freedoms.

Re:no

[Bigjeff5]

The success of a hijacking very much depends on the weapon used. If a hijacker or hijackers have guns on board, well then I think people would remain in their seats. It's very difficult to storm an enemy armed with a gun.

Actually knives beat guns inside of 20 feet or so, and for a crowded airplane I'd imagine things go up in the kife's favor significantly. A bullet hole in the cabin will do nothing more than make it uncomfortable, it isn't going to prevent it from flying. Add to that the fact that the hijacker probably had to sneak on a very small gun, with low caliber and low capacity, and I doubt you'd end up with more than four or five people being hurt by a gunman, at the most, whereas a knife wielder can do much more damage over and over again.

The point is moot though, because if the passengers recognize that the hijacker intends to kill them all anyway then the passengers are far more likely to act. In the end, a couple people get hurt and the crisis is averted. Whether or not TSA exists has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Re:no

[shadowbearer]

which is not potentially lethal

  Addendum ;)

  "to more than one target on the body"

SB

Re:no

[Bigjeff5]

Add to that the fact that the way we react to hijackers is completely different now. Before it was "Do what the hijacker says, wait it out, it will just take you a while longer to get home." Now, it is "Take that bastard down before he hurts us or anybody else!" With the new attitude, it is virtually impossible for 9/11 to happen again. It would take someone extremely clever to come up with a scenario that would keep everyone in their seats, because it is no longer just about the hijacker.

If the passengers are going to die anyway, and if in dying they can prevent others from being hurt, that natural mysterious altruism in human nature kicks in and the hijackers don't stand a chance. The most likely result of a hijacking these days is a few passengers get hurt and the hijackers are completely nullified.

And that has nothing at all to do with the security theater on the ground, which in reality does jack-all.

For a playful little thought excersize, imagine TSA only screened for guns, bombs, and suspicious looking individuals, that they had an almost perfect success rate, and that they then handed a knife to every single passenger as they boarded the airplane. How far do you think a hijacker would get? I'd wager about 15 steps in 20 seconds or less, myself. Now that introduces a whole host of new problems (crazy angry drunks with knives are not cool), but it really screws things up for the relevance of the TSA in keeping us safe from terrorists.

Re:no

[icebike]

>That new policy is what protects us in the sky now, not any of the bullshit security theater

There is no such policy.

Its just the common man, tired of being sheep, taking action.

When all it was about was money, nobody really cared. Now since your only expected outcome is death there is no reason to sit there with your hands folded.

Returning to pre 9/11 screening where you could have walked on board with a bag full of hand grenades is not an option.

Hand grenades always work. Trying to surreptitiously inject liquid A into liquid B under a blanket, or light your shoe on with a lighter is still a lot harder to pull off than rolling one down the isle.

Call it theater if you will. Point out every single lapse, real or imagined. Doesn't matter. Its not any one thing. Its the totality of all the parts, and the last part is that guy sitting behind you who just happens to notice you sweating.

Forgetting what is in your pocket is not the same as knowing what is in your pocket, and knowing that you expect to be meeting your 27 virgins.

Re:no

[unholy1]

But waiting till a single incident almost happens to scream "failure" while ignoring the fact that no additional airplanes have hit buildings since 2001, and then claiming simultaneously that the lull was do to nobody wanting to attack, and that our protection efforts are useless, seems hardly convincing.

The reason no airplanes have hit buildings since 2001 is because of the magic rock I bought on ebay back in 2001. It also prevents me from being eaten by lions, tigers, and gruffalo. I'll sell it to you, if you like.

Re:no

[JWSmythe]

    I'm sure any explosives that could be loaded up today would be far superior to the explosives used in WWi. Besides that (without researching it), I'd be pretty sure a military craft would be loaded with use ready munitions. That would be ammunition, both the cartridge and projectile, and a terrorist craft would be loaded for yield, not spread for access to aisles between the crates.

Re:no

[JWSmythe]

    The "toy" I referenced was not anything to laugh at. We could throw it at plywood, and it would stick. Anything less dense, it would penetrate. Would you be willing to take on an attacker with a 6+" knife of this sort?

    While armed people lose in knife fights all the time, the also win. It's the skill of those fighting.

Re:no

[secondhand_Buddah]

I could kill you with a tightly rolled newspaper. This would also not generally be considered a potentially lethal weapon - although it might be fairly difficult to hijack an airliner with one......

Re:no

[IndustrialComplex]

Yes, yes, yes.

By all means lets fill post after post with hair brained schemes that no one has tried and insist our systems are useless because you might be able to sneak a toy onboard an airplane.

If you had an ounce of understanding you would realize that no one is looking for the toy. They are watching the boy worrying about someone detecting the toy.

The real TSA screeners are not the highschoold dropout instructing you to remove your shoes.

Then they won't see the person who kills everyone waiting in line AT the security checkpoint. You know, that area in the airport where no one has yet been screened, contains a large amount of people and obstacles to movement with no clear exits...

By the way, ever wonder what the security guards (if any) at a school are capable of preventing or slowing down? Hint, that security isn't there to stop anyone with the intention of causing real harm.

Physical security at the point of the event is a myth. I'm with Bruce on this one, you have to catch them long before they arrive at the point of the event.

Re:no

[mcgrew]

If it's "truly secure" that's "true security". What, exactly, is "true" security? By one definition we already have it -- for instance, since more airplanes crash because of human error and equipment failure than from terrorism, I'd say we DO have "true security". After all, it doesn't matter if your tail falls off because of poor maintenance, or because a terrorist put a bomb on it. Either way, you're dead.

More importantly in his essay, he has it exactly right -- we should not give in to fear. Our gutless politicians have turned "the land of the free and the home of the brave" into the land of the surveiled with a police car on every corner and the home of the yellow bellied coward. It sickens me what the politicians have done to my country since 9-11.

Re:no

[dgatwood]

Like I said, "some of whom may well have killed their friends and families, mind you, but the U.S. didn't do it directly".

Re:no

[mcgrew]

At least one.

Re:no

[mcgrew]

When I was a kid, my friend bought two "Delta Darts" knives and gave me one. They are 3 sided blades, and were made out of very plastic. They'd make it right through the metal detectors, and probably even the carry on xray.

Violent prisoners have been fashioning sharp weapons out of plastic objects (combs, toothbrushes, etc) ever since there was such a thing as plastic.

Re:no

[V for Vendetta]

It's basically like an MRI but it is designed to pick up the specific resonant frequencies of nitrate-based compounds. Expect these systems to be deployed in the not-too-distant future,

And as soon as these systems are deployed, the wanna-be-terrorists will switch to carbon-based explosives. And if someone invents a "catch-all-explosives" device, they will resort to biological weapons.

It's pretty much like with the DRM stuff: the only people suffering from that are the innocent travellers.

Re:no

[icebike]

>Would you be willing to take on an attacker with a 6+" knife of this sort?

Let me turn the question around:

If the choice was between possibly being stabbed and absolutely being vaporized in a crash, would YOU still choose to sit on your hands and die?

Re:no

[icebike]

>Then they won't see the person who kills everyone waiting in line AT the security checkpoint.

Exactly.

Its not about protecting the passengers on the plane.

Its about preventing the plane from being used as a weapon.

Re:no

[JWSmythe]

    If for some strange (and statistically improbable) reason, I was in a situation like that, it wouldn't matter what they had for a weapon. Get shot and save the lives of everyone (but likely not me), or everyone including me dies? I'd opt for the good of the many.

    But, that's just me. There are a lot of people who always worry about themselves first, and don't consider future consequences. Then again, I don't have 70 virgins waiting for me in heaven. I'm pretty sure I'm not headed that way anyways. :)

Re:no

[quanticle]

Returning to pre 9/11 screening where you could have walked on board with a bag full of hand grenades is not an option.

Can you substantiate that? Can you point to an example of any single person walking onto an aircraft with a bag full of grenades? In case you haven't noticed, grenades are very much metallic. They would set off metal detectors, and their distinct shape would be easily marked on X-Ray machines, regardless of whether the time is before or after Sept. 11 2001. In case you don't remember, we still had airline security before 9/11. What we didn't have was a ridiculous, bureaucratic centralized security infrastructure that does nothing but suck down tax dollars and give us nothing in return (at least nothing we didn't already have before 9/11).

Forgetting what is in your pocket is not the same as knowing what is in your pocket, and knowing that you expect to be meeting your 27 virgins.

First, its 72 virgins, not 27. Second, the point the parent was making wasn't that knife was somehow "safe". No, the point being made was that the TSA is no better (on average) than the system we had before 9/11. The people doing the screening are all the same - its only their paychecks that have changed. As pointed out above, the real improvement in security has resulted from the flying public feeling empowered enough to take down potential hijackers, even at the cost of potential injury to themselves. If the parent poster's friend had pulled out that knife, he would have been tackled the moment someone saw it. Before 9/11, he probably wouldn't have elicited much comment. Its that difference that makes us safer today, not any security theater put into place by desperate politicians.

Uh No

[spribyl]

Terrorists are like fools, they will always build a better one.
How about we treat the problem instead of the symptom. Give them something to loose or care about. When you have nothing you have nothing to loose.

Re:Uh No

[Rei]

We do all of these stupid things to pretend to have security that even the most brain-dead terrorist could work around.

Can't bring liquids on board? Sure, but you can bring freeze-dried watermelon that you've reconstituted with a liquid of your choice onboard. Any sort of saturated porous or fibrous solid is fine. You can bring any sort of solid hydrate with you, too. Heck, on my way back from Christmas, I realized that I had reusable heat packs in my pockets, and that those were liquid. To keep them? I simply activated them so that they crystalized (releasing heat). Bam -- they're no longer liquids. But they're the exact same stuff.

Can't bring knives on board? Heck, I had a freaking dull garden spade confiscated from me, as though I was going to hijack a plane with a dull spade. But you can sure as heck bring a glass or ceramic plate or other such object and break it into long, heavy, surgically-sharp shards in a cloth towel. You can also bring any sort of electronics or other devices with you whose internal frame components are made of long, sharp pieces of metal. Even if you personally sharpened them.

Do they think terrorists are retarded? Do they think that they can't figure this sort of stuff out? No, they'd rather just put on this "Security Theatre" and inconvenience millions upon millions of travelers for no damned reason.

If they actually cared about security, it would be obvious: the approach to dealing with threats would be proactive, not reactive. It wouldn't be a case of, "someone tried to blow up a plane with shoes? Everyone has to take their shoes off". Taking shoes off would come before someone tried it. Same with liquids and all of these other ridiculous regulations. They're just trying to pretend that they're on top of it, when what they're doing isn't helping anyone. It's just making flying a pain in the arse.

One of these days, when I have enough time before a plane flight, I'm going to follow the letter of the rules while showing off (in a non-threatening manner) how easily they can be worked around: by attempting to cook a full four-course meal onboard a plane during the flight from my coach seat ;) Electric or allowed-chemical heat (no flames), minimal cook times, liquids pre-stored in dehydrated food or reconstituted from powders and water-fountain water past the security checkpoint, etc.

Re:Uh No

[homey of my owney]

I disagree. And Napolitano's "It's working" would be right if the "It's" she's referring to is the traveling public. Tim Lister put it better than I've ever heard. He said "The problem is that there was a fundamental flaw in our thinking. On September 10th, 2001, we assumed that everyone who got on an airplane, wanted to get off alive. Now we know better."

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have nothing you have nothing to loose.

So what does this mean? If you have nothing you run around naked?

Re:Uh No

[datapharmer]

I can tell you care because you've got a screw too "loose".

Re:Uh No

[Red Flayer]

If they actually cared about security, it would be obvious: the approach to dealing with threats would be proactive, not reactive. It wouldn't be a case of, "someone tried to blow up a plane with shoes? Everyone has to take their shoes off". Taking shoes off would come before someone tried it. Same with liquids and all of these other ridiculous regulations. They're just trying to pretend that they're on top of it, when what they're doing isn't helping anyone. It's just making flying a pain in the arse.

I think you missed Schneier's point, if you RTFA.

The approach to dealing with threats should be intelligence gathering, our criminal justice system, and resilience in response to successful attacks.

A proactive approach that you suggest would require listing possible attack vectors, then taking action to prevent each of them. Carried to its logical conclusion, we'd all have to board planes naked (you could strangle someone with the elastic band from your underwear!), or even restrained (hands are weapons too!) in order to prevent terrorist actions on planes.

It's simply unreasonable to take that kind of preventative action.

In truth, (and one of Schneier's points), we cannot realistically defend against all attack vectors. To try to do so is pointless, except that it gives people a feeling of security. True defense against terrorism isn't served by reactive restrictions, nor by proactive restrictions -- unless they absolutely limit our ability to conduct regular tasks.

You're right, though, what they're doing isn't helping and is a royal pain in the ass. But the solution is not to become proactive in travel restrictions. It's most of what Schneier wrote in the piece.

Re:Uh No

[nodwick]

When you have nothing you have nothing to loose.

Except your extra vowels?

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they think terrorists are retarded? Do they think that they can't figure this sort of stuff out? No, they'd rather just put on this "Security Theatre" and inconvenience millions upon millions of travelers for no damned reason.

On the contrary, lots of people working for the TSA and DHS have made tons of money off this scheme.

One of these days, when I have enough time before a plane flight, I'm going to follow the letter of the rules while showing off (in a non-threatening manner) how easily they can be worked around: by attempting to cook a full four-course meal onboard a plane during the flight from my coach seat ;) Electric or allowed-chemical heat (no flames), minimal cook times, liquids pre-stored in dehydrated food or reconstituted from powders and water-fountain water past the security checkpoint, etc.

Just make sure there are no Dutchmen on the plane with you :)

Re:Uh No

[Minwee]

One of these days, when I have enough time before a plane flight, I'm going to follow the letter of the rules while showing off how easily they can be worked around

In your case, "enough time before a plane flight" would be in the neighbourhood of five to ten years. Good luck with that, though, and enjoy your vacation in Cuba.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they think terrorists are retarded?

Actually, they know for a fact that some terrorists are retarded, as does anybody who has paid attention to the news ;-)

Re:Uh No

[Rei]

There is nothing wrong with listing possible attack vectors -- that should be the goal. Each should be weighed in terms of order of likelyhood, and any that are justified to merit preventive action should be handled.

Now, the author is arguing that that bar on what merits action should be low. I agree. But if it's going to be high, as it currently is, it should not simply be based on "what they did last time".

Re:Uh No

[betterunixthanunix]

On September 10, 2001, the intelligence agencies knew that Osama bin Laden's men were in the country, that they were going to participate in a major attack, and that they were planning to use airplanes in the attack. The people who could have done something about it were not assuming that everyone who got on an airplane wanted to get off of it alive; after decades of dealing with suicide bombers in the middle east, why would anyone assume that bin Laden's men were hoping to survive their own attack?

The only difference between then and now is that these days, the government pretends to be working to keep us safe, and the people expect that fantasy to be maintained for them. People who remain calm and think for a few moments see right through most of it, but most of the population does not bother to think and just go on assuming that when their government says "this will keep you safe" it will really keep them safe.

Re:Uh No

[nodwick]

One of these days, when I have enough time before a plane flight, I'm going to follow the letter of the rules while showing off (in a non-threatening manner) how easily they can be worked around

You don't even have to work around the list of things you can't carry on board; items on the list get missed all the time. Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic had an article from last year detailing all the things he's managed to sneak onto planes, including pocketknives, matches from hotels in Beirut and Peshawar, cigarette lighters, nail clippers, bottles of Fiji Water, and box cutters. He's even brought two cans' worth of beer through security by wearing a Beerbelly under his clothes and walking it through the metal detector. And this in spite of the fact that he was selected for secondary inspection at the time he was wearing it.

He's also tried forging and printing out his own boarding pass (with help from Bruce Schneier) and getting through security with it, with similar results:

I would try to pass through security with no ID, a fake boarding pass, and an Osama bin Laden T-shirt under my coat. I splashed water on my face to mimic sweat, put on a coat (it was a summer day), hid my driver's license, and approached security with a bogus boarding pass that Schneier had made for me. I told the document checker at security that I had lost my identification but was hoping I would still be able to make my flight. He said I'd have to speak to a supervisor. The supervisor arrived; he looked smart, unfortunately. I was starting to get genuinely nervous, which I hoped would generate incriminating micro-expressions. "I can't find my driver's license," I said. I showed him my fake boarding pass. "I need to get to Washington quickly," I added. He asked me if I had any other identification. I showed him a credit card with my name on it, a library card, and a health-insurance card. "Nothing else?" he asked.

"No," I said.

"You should really travel with a second picture ID, you know."

"Yes, sir," I said.

"All right, you can go," he said, pointing me to the X-ray line. "But let this be a lesson for you."

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't defend against all vectors, but there are some minor changes that would have significant impact. Other than bringing a machine gun on a plane, we know that the passengers will defeat all hijacking threats. So the only significant threat is explosives. Instead of searching people for every liquid and pocketknife and nailclipper they have, we simply need dogs and puffer machines. Either of these would have detected PETN and wouldn't have involved security theater.

Re:Uh No

[greenbird]

When you have nothing you have nothing to loose.

Ummm...especially given where he was from, the crotch bomber had pretty much everything.

Re:Uh No

[Compuser]

We should not travel naked. The main attack vector is always due to some activity (implements can always be found if some activity is permitted). Rather, people should be led into a waiting hall and put under with a sleeping gas, then loaded into explosion proof containers and loaded onto cargo planes for delivery.

Re:Uh No

[Red Flayer]

There is nothing wrong with listing possible attack vectors -- that should be the goal. Each should be weighed in terms of order of likelyhood, and any that are justified to merit preventive action should be handled.

Except, as soon as you put measures in place to prevent one vector, the other vectors have an increased likelihood, because terrorists are not necessarily stupid. If YOU know you can;t bring liquids on planes, THEY know it too. So then they use a different vector. It's like a game of whack-a-mole... defend all holes or they'll come through the one you didn't defend.

Now, the author is arguing that that bar on what merits action should be low. I agree. But if it's going to be high, as it currently is, it should not simply be based on "what they did last time".

That's not what Schneier is arguing at all, please go back and actually RTFA. I'm not sure how you can so completely misread what he wrote. Schneier is arguing that it's useless to defend specific attack vectors on specific targets (like airplanes), since the very specificity of the defense precludes the use of that vector by terrorists.

Re:Uh No

[kevinNCSU]

Then how do you explain all the terrorists that come from wealthy affluent families and are well educated? This is not a "Well i don't have anything so I might as well go blow a bunch of people up" problem we're fighting. If that was the heart of the matter you'd see a lot more home grown American Terrorists from the Appalachian Mountains. It's an influential and drawing (distorted) religious ideology that causes people to do this. Usually due to spending time with friends of like mindedness and then radicalizing in a sort of feedback loop until they reach the point where they decide they want to act and they all think it's a good idea. These are not dumb people. We've been fighting this war for 8 years, most of the dumb ones are dead.

Re:Uh No

[Red Flayer]

We should not travel naked. The main attack vector is always due to some activity (implements can always be found if some activity is permitted). Rather, people should be led into a waiting hall and put under with a sleeping gas, then loaded into explosion proof containers and loaded onto cargo planes for delivery.

That's just overkill, and environmentally irresponsible -- just think of the fuel required to lift those blast chambers to cruising altitude!

Straightjackets and leg restraints would work just fine, while maintaining a sense of modesty. Plus, with no ability to move around, passengers need less space -- so it would be more profitable for the airlines. As long as each passenger is fitted with a breathing tube, you could stack them four or five deep in coach class, maybe just two or three deep in business class.

Re:Uh No

[runyonave]

Breaking News: Terrorist hijacks plane using only cooking utilities - Passengers relieved the terrorists was apprehended. When interviewed, one passenger stated, "I am glad he was caught, I don't know what he would have done, but it probably wouldn't have been as bad as his cooking".

Re:Uh No

[calzones]

brilliant!

Re:Uh No

[Dunbal]

On September 10, 2001, the intelligence agencies knew that Osama bin Laden's men were in the country,

[citation needed]

Re:Uh No

[Red Flayer]

On September 10, 2001, the intelligence agencies knew that Osama bin Laden's men were in the country, that they were going to participate in a major attack, and that they were planning to use airplanes in the attack. The people who could have done something about it were not assuming that everyone who got on an airplane wanted to get off of it alive; after decades of dealing with suicide bombers in the middle east, why would anyone assume that bin Laden's men were hoping to survive their own attack?

On the contrary... airplane hijackings, to that date, were primarily used as a negotiating tool.

My guess? The planes were hijacked, demands were made, and the hijackers were told to go to hell (I don't think GWB would have EVER negotiated with terrorists). So the hijackers did what they were told, and took thousands with them. Now, I'm no truther, but I also believe that a decision was made* to not shoot down the planes, and that the potential for the planes to hit the WTC (or other structure)and collapse it was either disregarded, discounted, or overlooked.

*Also possible that the decision was made via inaction, i.e., not escalating to the right people in time. But I believe it was a conscious decision at a high level.

Re:Uh No

[jra]

I especially liked the comment on Bruce's blog where someone notes that they don't mind having to fly wearing only a hospital johnny as long as they get the seat next to the cute redhead.

Re:Uh No

[jra]

Yup, it's a lesson: they're profiling... in reverse.

Re:Uh No

[Hatta]

Rather, people should be led into a waiting hall and put under with a sleeping gas, then loaded into explosion proof containers and loaded onto cargo planes for delivery

That's just about the only way I would fly at all, with or without the TSA. Flying is fucking hell.

Re:Uh No

[Znork]

we'd all have to board planes naked ... or even restrained

Ah, sorry, don't think that will get you far. Most people can probably carry an amount of explosives rectally, and I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility that they could learn to trigger it with sphincter muscles. Better sedate them and flood them with muscle relaxants... which, of course, could work as a dead (relaxed) man's switch for a trigger as well.

except that it gives people a feeling of security.

Sometimes it's hard to tell the feeling of 'security' apart from the feeling of an ass-probe.

Personally I've quit travelling by air since a long time ago. Not because I care about the infinitesimal change of getting blown up by some terrorist ass (which is less than dying in a freak bathtub accident), but because security has made a not entirely pleasant experience utterly intolerable.

So I certainly agree with Schneier. Junk the whole worthless security apparatus and live with the fact that shit very, very, very rarely and unavoidably does happen. Generate enough incentive for blow-back and you'll get it. But even the most spectacular show any terrorist can accomplish is simply dwarfed by the sheer inertia of civilized society. Without society handing them the leverage, they can't accomplish anything large enough to be more than noise in the sea of random death and destruction that happens all around us every day. Deal with them like any other such happening; police and emergency services. And, perhaps, require agencies and corporations engaging in operations that tend to generate very angry people to set aside a certain amount of budget to pay the eventual victims of the blow-back.

Re:Uh No

[Rei]

Except, as soon as you put measures in place to prevent one vector, the other vectors have an increased likelihood, because terrorists are not necessarily stupid.

That argument is fallacious. It argues for no action against any type of threat whatsoever in any circumstance in any field of discussion. Forcing people off easy vectors onto harder vectors is not an illogical course of action. What matters is that the vectors are properly prioritized and the bar on what to defend against set appropriately. We're currently not doing this; the telltale sign of that would be that security would be proactive rather than reactive. And once again, I argue for a lower bar on what we defend against, not a higher one.

That's not what Schneier is arguing at all, please go back and actually RTFA

I did RTFA, and I recommend you do the same. He opposes targeting very specific "movie plot threats", but supports broadly-applicable investigative resources. Not once does he argue against prioritizing threats (he even does so himself, talking about how some circumstances are more dangerous than others). He simply sets a very low bar, only supporting actions that cover a wide range of possible threats.

Re:Uh No

[Red Flayer]

Other than bringing a machine gun on a plane, we know that the passengers will defeat all hijacking threats.

With a walled-off cockpit, hijacking isn't a threat anyway -- as long as the hijackers do not have the ability to surpass the cockpit doors. A gun doesn't help the hijackers much, unless their goal is just to kill people in a high-profile manner (in which case, bringing that gun elsewhere could be nearly as effective, but with a much higher chance of success).

So, as you point out, explosives are the real threat. But it's impossible to fool dogs and/or a puffer machine. You'd just need to properly seal and decontaminate the explosive package, so physical search is still necessary if you want to prevent explosive attacks.

Never mind the fact the puffer machines and dogs would contribute to the security theater.

Re:Uh No

[digitalunity]

Lose. Not loose, lose.

LOSE. A hooker is loose. LOSE is when you have lost something.

Re:Uh No

[anexkahn]

this is recycling a very old idea....ever see the movie roots?

Re:Uh No

[D Ninja]

we'd all have to board planes naked (you could strangle someone with the elastic band from your underwear!)

They still wouldn't let me board the plane as security would quickly realize I could still strangle people...

Re:Uh No

[maxume]

If you reject the commission report and make up your own explanation, you are a truther.

Re:Uh No

[oldspewey]

United Airlines is way ahead of you.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

A most interesting article, but one thing that it didn't mention is the fact that governments actually LIKE terrorists. They use the fear of an attack to control their population. If you have noticed, after every attack it gets much harder to do everyday things (like take a leak on an airplane, or take a family photograph at a Federal monument). If we continue to allow civil liberties to be removed "for the good of all", then the terrorists have already won.

Re:Uh No

[Red Flayer]

That argument is fallacious. It argues for no action against any type of threat whatsoever in any circumstance in any field of discussion.

It doesn't quite argue that... but even if it did, the argument is not fallacious (please point to the specific thing that falsifies the argument -- is it the assumptions? One of the logical deductions?). It seems to me that the conclusion, not the argument, is what you don't like.

Targeting specific vectors on specific targets is practically useless. That's my point. Setting the bar lower (which you may be confused about -- setting the bar lower means to lower the threshold for something to qualify for a subset; this means a lower threshold for inclusion in the list of threats to defend against, which means increasing the list of specific threats to target). Schneier argues that we raise the bar on qualifying threats, thus defending with general measures most of the time. Or maybe I'm completely misreading what you're applying the "raise/lower the bar" metaphor to, in which case I'd appreciate a clarification :)

I did RTFA, and I recommend you do the same.

I have a hard time believing the first part of that (maybe you read it after your initial post?), since your OP and first follow-up not only blatantly contradict Schneier's points, but also attribute a conclusion to him that he did not make. Maybe you skimmed the first few paragraphs, then came back to comment early in the thread? As for me, I read it thoroughly before even looking at the comments to the article... still not sure how, up until this last post, you missed his major points.

At any rate, the point of this discussion is the claim of yours that the problem is one of reactive measures, rather than proactive measures. Can we agree, now that we've both read the piece, that it doesn't matter if it's proactive or reactive, it's the specificity that's the basis of Schneier's argument? Because that was my main gripe with your OP.

Re:Uh No

[HiThere]

Saying it's "for not damn reason" means that you haven't understood George Orwell and Heinrich Himmler (sp?) (See gestapo). It's for no reason that any decent person would use ... but it's a proof that there are a lot of people who lack all decency.

It's proof that our government is run by subtle thugs, not just thugs. The purpose is to keep the populace afraid, and to remind them that they should be afraid. Also to direct their fears against an external enemy. If it happens to stop a terrorist or two, that's an extra benefit, but it's not the main purpose. In fact, it's important that it not stop all of them. An occasional successful attack is necessary to maintain the fear level, even if you need to launch the attack yourself. (Just make quite certain that it can't be successfully traced back to you IN THE POPULAR MIND. You do this by controlling what the news media print. The easiest way to do this is to own them, but there are other ways that are nearly as effective (but also require either lots of political power or lots of money.)

See also "agent provocateur".

Re:Uh No

[Red Flayer]

That's a hard line to take.

I don't think the commission got all the data they needed. I think, based on the data they got, the report is the closest thing we have to the truth. So maybe I am a truther... I believe we have reasonable ground for suspecting that not all the pertinent information was released. God, now I loathe myself. Thanks for pointing it out, Maxume!

Re:Uh No

[oldspewey]

For some reason I read that as "We have nothing to loose but our bowels."

Re:Uh No

[aynoknman]

Give them something to loose or care about. When you have nothing you have nothing to loose.

Loose ... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

loose/tight lose/win

Re:Uh No

[Attila Dimedici]

Terrorists are like fools, they will always build a better one. How about we treat the problem instead of the symptom. Give them something to loose or care about. When you have nothing you have nothing to loose.

You mean like this last guy? You know, the son of an international banker, the guy's last address was a $3 million family owned London apartment. Yeah, he had nothing to lose. /s

Re:Uh No

[dirkdodgers]

No, that is not the logical conclusion. What we're talking about are measures to ensure that terrorists do not take down a plane over a populated area or gain control of a plane. Strangling a fellow passenger with your underwear will not accomplish either and is not the object of these measures.

Simple intrusive screening techniques will give us a very high level of assurance that terrorists with the ability to take down or gain control of planes are not allowed on board.

The sky is not falling just because some dude at the screening station sees the profile of your dick and tighty whities on a little black and white monitor for 10 seconds.

Re:Uh No

[Gorobei]

Note that this was all of 50 grams of untamped PETN, i.e. about a third the energy of a grenade. In a man's pants, enough to volley his penis into the passenger next to him, but not much more. No way would this have seriously damaged a commercial jet (no, they don't fall out of the sky from a little hole in the fuselage.)

Re:Uh No

[FozE_Bear]

I am sorry, but wasn't the most recent terrorist the son of a well-to-do banker? He reminds me more of Karl Marx than some poverty stricken sob-story.

Re:Uh No

[interploy]

As the saying goes, "If it can be made, it can be unmade." People really need to be made aware of this fact and stop thinking of security as fool-proof and start thinking in terms of deterrent ability. There's no such thing as "truly secure".

Re:Uh No

[h3llfish]

Your post reminds me of this Seanbaby quote: [quote]You're only allowed to bring three ounces of liquid on a plane. Kind of. You might have a four-ounce bottle of toothpaste that's almost empty, but airport security guards are so stupid they're not allowed to do that kind of math. This is a problem, but I have an idea. Since we don't have enough money to hire dentists to inspect everyone's toothpaste, we should put a chimpanzee at each checkpoint. Then, every passenger gets to select two items from their bags to carry into battle against the chimp. This will not only quickly identify each commuter's two best weapons, but if they choose toothpaste, hold on, there's something up with this guy's toothpaste.[/quote] It's all so ridiculous... All of this is designed, essentially, to prevent "another 9/11". But another 9/11 was already impossible on 9/11/01, as proven by the fact that the fourth plane did not hit its target. Once ordinary people realized what was going on, they were essentially willing to die rather than allow another plane to get used as a missile. It takes a clever idea to succeed in terror, and those clever ideas tend to only work once.

Most terrorists are pretty stupid. But in the rare cases when they are clever, we're going to be too busy inspecting the shoes of elderly travelers to notice that something is up.

Re:Uh No

[HiThere]

I don't think that's what he meant, but if he did, he's wrong.

You need to defend the points of control. In the case of airplanes, that means the door between the crew section and the passenger section. Then if they seize the passenger section, it doesn't gain them much. If they manage to seize the crew section, though, you need to shoot the plane out of the air.

This means you've reduced the value of taking the passenger compartment to the point where it won't be done. (Well, hijackers perhaps, but not suicide pilots.)

E.g., when is the last time you heard of terrorists taking over a train?

You've got to harden minimal areas, and reduce the value ot taking the other parts. If it isn't worth it, they'll rarely do it. (And when they do, it will cost them more than it costs us. So they'll then be even weaker, relatively.)

This does mean being willing to take losses, if they're determined enough. It would still let a suicidal bomber take down a plane. But it wouldn't let him aim it at a target, so it wouldn't be worth while. (Except, of course, for the occasional lone madman. But they are quite rare. Most suicides either want to kill themselves relatively privately, or lack the courage to kill themselves, so they want to force you to kill them.)

All THAT said, yes, intelligence gathering is quite important. Defending against specific threats is quite reasonable. But trying to defend everything against everything is not only impossible, it's a recipe for a totalitarian state...which STILL can't defend all points against all threats, and is also both demoralising and quite expensive to maintain. Also, if that matters to anyone, blatantly unconstitutional.

Re:Uh No

[santiagodraco]

Give them something to care about? And exactly what might that be? You make an interesting quip but don't provide anything to support it, that's not wisdom it's foolishness. Foolishness get's people killed.

Here's my take. There are two types of terrorists, 1) the fanatical leaders with an agenda and 2) the recruits who, through the use of peer pressure and brainwashing, are made into the cannon fodder. The second can be stopped but only if the first are eliminated. Yes, eliminated. Why? Because these people don't want ANYTHING from us other than our deaths. That is their world view, their religion, their paradigm. Not until we are all dead will they rest. To stop them they must be eliminated. Ruthlessly and without mercy.

Luckily there's a lot less of the number 1s than there are number 2s. The problem is finding them. Until such time we need to be dilligent and face the fact that they do nothing other than hide and plan ways to kill us. Expect the unexpected and plan for it, that is the key to security of our nation and our allies.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to loose? Take your head out of the sand, this last terrorist is the son of a wealthy banker. By and large the majority of terrorists committing acts against the West have been wealthy and educated. Claiming terrorism arises from poverty makes nice snippets for the liberal news establishments but the claim isn't based upon any form or fashion of fact and your sympathy, although heartfelt is premised upon falsehood, and only encourages more terrorism.

Re:Uh No

[bytesex]

O man, I have so many screws, I can easily afford to lose one.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymusing]

Better sedate them and flood them with muscle relaxants... which, of course, could work as a dead (relaxed) man's switch for a trigger as well.

And, of course, a terrorist might have an explosive implanted in their body with a timer or a remote.

Re:Uh No

[Red Flayer]

You miss the point entirely. Schneier's points, my point, all of them... because you got hung up on one little detail I threw in, as an exaggeration, to accentuate the folly of trying to stop all attack vectors.

Simple intrusive screening techniques will give us a very high level of assurance that terrorists with the ability to take down or gain control of planes are not allowed on board.

Those simple instrusive screenings are, if I'm not mistaken, exactly part of the security theater that Schneier objects to. They don't *really* make us safer, they just seem to.

What we're talking about are measures to ensure that terrorists do not take down a plane over a populated area or gain control of a plane.

No. That's not what we're talking about -- if you think it is, you didn't RTFA. We are addressing prevention and control of terrorist acts in general, NOT specific threats on a specific target (like airplanes). An entire point of TFA is that looking only at specific threats is pointless and wasteful -- it's just security theater.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just an example of "Protest by excessive compliance." The natural extension of protest by passive resistance. Or it would be if it wasn't much, much older than passive resistance.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Give them something to loose or care about. When you have nothing you have nothing to loose.

Like their ability to use the correct word. Only then will the terrorists have something to lose.

Re:Uh No

[shentino]

And that's one of the reasons TSA gets away with murder...er, theft.

They know that you've probably invested a grand or two in your ticket...which usually is flat out non-refundable, and that you can't get on the plane until they're damn well good and ready to.

Result: people with the power to abuse you as they see fit because there's not a damn thing you can do about it without forfeiting a honking huge investment. If you don't agree to surrender your goodies, you get yanked out of the line and escorted from the premesis, kissing your precious airfare goodbye. And that's if you're lucky enough not to get flagged as a terrorist and outright detained.

The fact that you're about to be miles away from the problem to boot only enhances your helplessness.

Re:Uh No

[mhajicek]

No matter how thoroughly they search there will always be ways around it.

If stopping terrorism is the real goal, the best response would be for the media and government to play down any terrorist plot, successful or not. When they hype it up and run around screaming they're doing exactly what the terrorists want: spreading terror and drawing attention to the terrorist organizations. Unfortunately the media and the government do the exact opposite of what they should do, so that we'll be scared enough to let them strip search us whenever they want to, tap our communications, and put cameras on every street corner. It's a tool for control.

Re:Uh No

[Haydn]

The question should be "How can we improve airline travel?", rather than "Can we make air travel safer?". It isn't possible to make air travel much safer without inconveniencing travelers even more. Instead, how about making air travel reasonably safe and more enjoyable? What a concept, eh?

Re:Uh No

[t0p]

How about we treat the problem instead of the symptom. Give them something to loose or care about. When you have nothing you have nothing to loose.

I assume you're talking about Islamic terrorists. What the hell are you on about, that the terrorists have nothing to care about? Do you honestly believe that a terrorist would blow himself to bits for a cause he doesn't care about? Just because a man doesn't care about the same stuff you care about, doesn't mean he has nothing to care about. Stop being so blinkered and self-centred..

Re:Uh No

[gedrin]

The NWA attack was made by a 23 year old son of a promenent banker. He attended a prep school popular with the wealthy. His college education was in London, a mechanical engineering degree program. While there he apparently lived in a multi-million dollar apartment.

What exactly is it that we sheould "Give them" so that a person like this can have "something to loose or care about"? Perhaps you'd caer to come up with an alternative motivation for his acts than "having nothing to loose"?

Re:Uh No

[mhajicek]

Nothing wrong with being a "truther", it just means you insist on thinking for yourself instead of being spoon fed. Beware of "straw man" arguments, they're quite common in the "anti-truther" crowd.

Re:Uh No

[Danse]

Luckily there's a lot less of the number 1s than there are number 2s. The problem is finding them.

Actually, the problem is finding and killing them without creating more of them as a result.

Re:Uh No

[iamacat]

Nope, terrorists are NECESSARILY stupid, otherwise they would be negotiators. What did Bin Laden achieve by 9/11? We went from hands-off approach to Taliban to toppling the government of what he considered to be the only true Islamic country. You just don't stop the country with one of the world's largest armies by hijacking airplanes or even detonating a couple of dirty bombs. If anything, in the later case we are likely to just forget about laws and nuke the whole middle east.

So yes, security theater may well work to turn back jihad wannabes who hope to ride to their 40 virgins with flaming underwear. The only thing is that airplane travel is getting so complicated that our family just might stop flying for leisure. Perhaps we need some more intimidating but less inconvenient measures. Like a guy with a gun and in army/police uniform seating on each flight but no disassembling your belongings into a million pieces in security lines.

Re:Uh No

[Dracos]

On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld was giving a press conference about how $2B was missing from the Pentagon.

On September 10, 2001, the WTC security contract with Securacom ended. Marvin Bush, W's brother, was a principle in the company, and also sat on the Board of directors of KuwAm, an Kuwaiti-American investment firm which financially backed Securacom.

Re:Uh No

[MostAwesomeDude]

It's "true." We tend to "use" lots of "dialectic" and "fact-based evidence" when coming to our "conclusions" instead of feverishly insisting that "everybody" with an opposing viewpoint is "wrong."

Re:Uh No

[Culture20]

Give them something to lose or care about. When you have nothing you have nothing to lose.

And when everything is given to you, you don't care about it either. The underwear bomber was the son of a wealthy banker. Bin Laden is/was... the son of a reasonably wealthy construction magnate. Without working for something, you feel no claim to it.

Re:Uh No

[rainmaestro]

I've had similar experiences. I have a larger-sized Swiss Army Knife that I carry around. I've taken it traveling numerous times, and only *once* has it been found. Where? Asheville, NC of all places. Tampa, Ft. Lauderdale, Charlotte, Atlanta, no problem getting through. The only place it gets caught is a little podunk airport with so few commercial flights that the ticket agent actually remembers you if you fly through more than once a month.

The one time they caught it is actually a great story highlighting the absurdness of the whole system. When the screener spotted the knife, he gave me two choices: surrender it, or take it out to my car. I chose the latter. Only instead of going to my car (parked too far away), I went into the little store and got a plastic bag. I went outside, wrapped the knife in the bag and buried it in a potted plant two feet outside the terminal. When I flew back in a few days later, I dug it back up and went home.

Now, where we my bags during all of this? At the security checkpoint. That's right, they allowed me to exit the building while leaving my bags at the checkpoint, so that I wouldn't have to take them through the scanners a second time.

Re:Uh No

[Angostura]

Speaking as a parent with small children who flies with them occasionally; that idea sounds strangely attractive.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

well feeling of security is important. how would world look like if we all were fully aware of the fact we could die any moment?

Re:Uh No

[EL_mal0]

If that happens, the terrorists have won.

Re:Uh No

[Culture20]

On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld was giving a press conference about how $2B was missing from the Pentagon.

On September 10, 2001, the WTC security contract with Securacom ended. Marvin Bush, W's brother, was a principle in the company, and also sat on the Board of directors of KuwAm, an Kuwaiti-American investment firm which financially backed Securacom.

...and Earth has 4 corner simultaneous 4-day TIME CUBE in only 24 hour rotation. Care to connect more dots, Gene?

Re:Uh No

[10101001 10101001]

The only difference between then and now is that these days, the government pretends to be working to keep us safe, and the people expect that fantasy to be maintained for them. People who remain calm and think for a few moments see right through most of it, but most of the population does not bother to think and just go on assuming that when their government says "this will keep you safe" it will really keep them safe.

So, if I read you right, you're saying "the government will keep you safe from terrorists with Obamacare" would have gotten full Republican and significant domestic support behind Obama's health care reform?

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be worse, they could have something to lose rather than "loose".

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Take off your tin foil hat. Nobody likes people dying. You think the executive office is HAPPY when people are killed under their watch? Politicians are human beings too.

Re:Uh No

[McFly777]

I once realized (before getting to security) that I had my pocket knife. I had parked off-airport so I couldn't get back to my car, and I didn't want to lose the knife. I like your potted plant as the solution, but what I did was to go to the airport lost and found and give it to them.

It almost worked...

I asked them for an envelope and put my name and address on it and enclosed the knife. When I got back the next day, they couldn't find my envelope in the lost and found, but a couple of months later I recieved it in the mail.

Re:Uh No

[nedlohs]

Except that lots of terrorists come from wealthy families, or are well educated, or have lived in western countries, and so on.

What exactly do you think they should be given?

Re:Uh No

[mhajicek]

Mod parent up.

Re:Uh No

[Bigjeff5]

You know what would stop every hijacking that ever has or will ever occur?

Give every single passenger a knife with a 6" blade upon boarding the plane. Seriously, what terrorist would attempt to hijack a plane like that? You think he's actually going to make it into the captain's cabin when 200+ people have the exact same weapon he has? I seriously doubt it. If everyone on board were armed, 9/11 would not have happened. Even if the hijackers were fool enough to attempt it, we would have simply heard in the news about 19 hijackers killed in an attempt to hijack four planes.

You would still want to check for bomb threats, but current screening policies are terrible for discovering bombs anyway - pack some c-4 in the shape of a little toy and you're past security as it is. No more need for metal detectors, you may or may not want to allow guns, that's iffy, since random gunfire can cause more damage to an actual flying plane than knives can. Pre-9/11 measures were more than enough to find guns though.

That's more than Schneier talked about, but his point was we already have the tools to deal with terrorism without the ineffective security theater we have now. I've known airport security was a joke ever since a former coworker of mine accidentally left a box cutter in his carry on luggage and made it through at least six TSA screenings before he found it and removed it. If they can't even catch the weapon that started this whole mess, what's the frickin point? What we really need is good intelligence and swift response on the part of law enforcement, and a willingness to fight back on the part of the passengers. The fourth plane in the 9/11 attacks is a good example, but had the passengers acted sooner they might have prevented the plane going down at all. Everything we do at the airports is just playacting, trying to stop, as Schneier put it, "movie style" hijackings that never occur in real life. It doesn't stop anything.

Re:Uh No

[Obfuscant]

we'd all have to board planes naked ... or even restrained

Ah, sorry, don't think that will get you far. Most people can probably carry an amount of explosives rectally, and I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility that they could learn to trigger it with sphincter muscles.

No need to learn anything. Put a pressure sensor on it and wait for the pressure to drop to 6000 foot elevation for five minutes.

To get anywhere close to safety:

1. All checked baggage flies on a cargo plane separate from people.
2. No carryon of any kind. You won't need it.
3. You arrive at the terminal, you remove and put everything into a "checked" bag.
4. You get full anesthesia.
5. Prior to being put into a shipping box with anesthesia/oxygen, you are xrayed and cat scanned to detect any non-body parts. Anything odd, you are ejected from the terminal. No exceptions.
6. You are "shipped" to your destination.

You have a pin in your hip? Tough. You have a metal plate in your arm? Tough. You swallowed ten baggies of heroin as a mule? Tough. You get cancer from the xray? Tough.

And, unfortunately, you still rely on the loaders not to have loaded a bomb some other way, or the pilots not to go jihad on you. So, no, absolute safety is impossible. "Do whatever it takes to make us feel safe" is the chant of the moron.

Re:Uh No

[cvtan]

I lost a $40 bottle of fancy shower gel my wife had given me because I left it in my carry-on bag. Bottle said >3oz., but it was part empty. This incident caused some marital strife ... At least they didn't make me take off my underwear.

Re:Uh No

[Mr. Freeman]

What's the problem here? Someone who wasn't a threat made it past security. What's your argument, that people shouldn't be allowed the free speech to wear T-shirts with osama bin laden on them or that everyone who looks nervous is a terrorist? He had no ID, that shouldn't be a problem though because terrorists can quite easily get legitimate IDs. Before 9/11 you didn't even have to show ID to board a non-international flight.

So, he had a fake boarding pass. That's about as bad as sneaking into a movie theater. The fact that he got through with a fake boarding pass doesn't mean that security would have missed any explosives if he was carrying any, or that they wouldn't have found a knife if he was carrying one.

Re:Uh No

[Stanislav_J]

Also, most poor people are too busy just trying to survive to plot and plan a terrorist attack. A store holdup, maybe. Isolated violence against individuals, sure. A mass terror attack, not so much. But the children of privilege, who have all their material needs met, and are well-educated, often have a lot of time on their hands. Couple that idleness with intelligence, the money to travel, and the general ennui that can't be satiated with material things, and you're looking at a breeding ground for radicalization in an Islamic society. Sure, the poor can hold extreme religious views, but they're pretty much powerless to act on them to any great extent.

Re:Uh No

[sjames]

The single most effective measure is to realize that the vast majority of passengers are just regular people, not terrorists. This means they can be trusted with knives on a plane. Even on a targeted flight, a terrorist (or group of terrorists) will be vastly outnumbered by regular people.

The old advice of sit quietly and hope it all blows over when a terrorist is on the plane is now out the window. They now know that even one or two passengers acting results in a terrorist tied up and for once not having to circle the airport for 30 minutes before you land.

So, give the terrorist what he fears most. 200 regular people who hate his guts and are terribly pissed off all carrying knives.

Make the cockpit door decently strong and lockable.

You now have a flexible security plan that can handle most contingencies with little problem.

Since the terrorists seem quite concerned by honor and such, set a policy that any terrorist on a plane will get tied up with his head in the toilet. and a kick me sign stapled to his butt. (all video taped for CNN and youtube).

Re:Uh No

[sjames]

Then the airlines can finally show what they REALLY think of their coach passengers and install garbage truck styled compactors.

Re:Uh No

[Exception Duck]

Very true, you kill one, and in the way 20 innocent civilians, 5 children.

You could easily create 2 for every one you kill.

Re:Uh No

[Obfuscant]

Those simple instrusive screenings are, if I'm not mistaken, exactly part of the security theater that Schneier objects to. They don't *really* make us safer, they just seem to.

As I recall, immediately following the blossoming of TSA after 9/11, some fellow got himself arrested on a flight for demonstrating to the waitress, ummm, I mean "flight attendant", how to turn an empty coke can into a pretty good flesh cutter.

Why is it that airlines still carry cans of drinks instead of plastic bottles? Seems like a no-brainer. Less weight, less dangerous. And if you haven't noticed, those first class meals are coming with metal knives and forks these days.

Re:Uh No

[MooUK]

With a walled off cockpit, flight crews could still be susceptible to threats against the passengers and cabin crew. Cutting off communication is never going to happen. Modern armoured cockpit doors and entry systems basically do wall off the cockpit unless permission to enter is given. Even the codes the crew use to enter can be entirely disabled from within the flight deck.

Re:Uh No

[mean pun]

Nope, terrorists are NECESSARILY stupid, otherwise they would be negotiators. What did Bin Laden achieve by 9/11?

With the expenditure of just a few thousand dollars and a few men he inflicted enormous damage in the US (buildings, economy), he dragged the US into a war in Afghanistan (plus a bonus war in Iraq), made himself world-famous, and he drew thousands to his cause.

Not bad for such a small-scale guerilla attack.

We went from hands-off approach to Taliban to toppling the government of what he considered to be the only true Islamic country. You just don't stop the country with one of the world's largest armies by hijacking airplanes or even detonating a couple of dirty bombs.

The Taliban is certainly not defeated. And of course he didn't expect to defeat the enemy with just a single guerilla attack.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

You're "security theatre" response is typical of the hyperbolic and pseudo-intellectual opinions nerds tend to throw out on topics they are not experts on. Sure, it's fun to throw around words like "security theatre" to make yourself sound smart and critique an easy target like airport security. However, you, like most people who throw out the term "security theatre", fail to define the problem. What criteria must be met for something to not be defined as "security theatre"? How do you measure that criteria? Arguing without defining the problem and a measurable performance criteria is simply an exercise in pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Judging from your arguments, you would consider a firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware tools being deployed on a network a security theatre, right? Because after all, it only takes one dumb user to open an email attachment to ruin the whole integrity of the network and also because they are reactive security measures (nobody back in the day ran personal firewalls and anti-virus until viruses became a problem). Security theatre, right?

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume everyone likes 'orange'. So his family is rich and powerful. Power corrupts and that will rub people the wrong way eventually.

From a religious point of view (even though I am not affiliated with one), I totally understand people would rebel against Western culture, that spreads over the world.

Maybe you don't want to be part of the banksystem as it is now (debt makes the world go round). You see everything you value being threatenend by powerhungry companies that want to make you part of their system too. You see outside powers invading your culture, your country, and your freedom to live as you want. Stop doing that, and you will stop terrorism. No fences are needed when you let people be.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even have to work around the list of things you can't carry on board; items on the list get missed all the time.

my little key-shaped keychain knife has racked up about 100,000 flight miles over the past 2 years

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing about that anecdote is that the suervisor actually did the right thing...

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Give them something to lose, then threaten to shoot it if they don't cooperate!

Re:Uh No

[DerekLyons]

I think you missed Schneier's point, if you RTFA. The approach to dealing with threats should be intelligence gathering, our criminal justice system, and resilience in response to successful attacks.

Were Schneier an actually security professional, even fairly knowledgeable about the field, he'd know that's just one side of security. (And one we actually are doing.)
 
But Schneier isn't a security professional, he's a consultant and columnist and a pundit. (OK, I'll grant he's a professional in computer security, but that's not the same thing as physical security. They aren't even close.) He makes his money by getting his name in print pontificating about things he not only doesn't understand, he makes no effort to understand. Were he an actual security professional or even knowledgeable about the field, he's understand that there is a second side to the coin - deterrence. Intelligence gathering and criminal justice doesn't deter, but visible security does. That's why stores have silent alarms and physical barriers. That's why military security at bases housing nuclear weapons have gate guards - and an armed and short tempered Marine company inside. Real security has multiple layers, with backups, and works as a concerted whole.
 
You also cannot (as Schneier haughtily and ignorantly does) discount the positive effects of visible security. If people feel secure, they keep flying. As a google chunk of the US economy depends on those passengers, keeping 'em flying is a good thing.
 
Now, I'd be the first to agree that the TSA's response to the latest attack is wrong headed, but to roll back physical security to pre-911 levels (as Schneier proposes in the article) and relying only on law enforcement methods is just stupid.

Re:Uh No

[DerekLyons]

The only difference between then and now is that these days

Is that internet pundits with perfect knowledge and 20/20 hindsight can Monday morning quarterback.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

"Give them something to lose" was my first thought, too, but -

The London bombers had things to lose. They had families, a good education even by British standards, and most of their lives ahead of them. Nevertheless they went suicidal.

Re:Uh No

[santiagodraco]

Abolutely agree with you. And I'm not a proponent of just going in willy nilly. I'm just stating the obvious - that they have to be removed, one way or the other, before we can be safe - and it won't be easy. While they don't care about the value of life we do, and that means taking care in how we eliminate the threat.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just deport all muslims from European countries, (i.e. WHITE countries, which were built by generations of white people), and never allow any muslims back in?

But that would be too easy.

And probably "racist" as well.

If all muslims were WHITE, Islam would be universally vilified. Apparently, anything any non-white does is just fine, solely because they aren't white.

Have you had enough of it yet? You soon will have.

Re:Uh No

[metamatic]

My guess? The planes were hijacked, demands were made, and the hijackers were told to go to hell (I don't think GWB would have EVER negotiated with terrorists).

My guess is that the decision was made to do nothing, in the hope of repeating the Reagan trick with the Iran hostage crisis: give Bush, the new and deeply unpopular president, a chance to send in the Marines to kick ass and rescue the hostages. He'd look like a great leader. Unfortunately, they didn't know that the terrorists weren't planning on taking hostages this time.

Re:Uh No

[mpe]

Most people can probably carry an amount of explosives rectally, and I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility that they could learn to trigger it with sphincter muscles.

There's already been a "butt bomber" attack this year. The only person killed was the bomber.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

except loose change, that's always easy to .. er .. loose?

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

lose.

Re:Uh No

[greenbird]

You see outside powers invading your culture, your country, and your freedom to live as you want. Stop doing that, and you will stop terrorism. No fences are needed when you let people be.

The Taliban had themselves a nice little islamic state set up in Afghanistan where no one was bothering them. They were free to rape and stone women to there hearts desire. What did they use it for? As a terrorist training camp to attack western culture that wasn't doing anything at all to them. So lets see...according to you they attack us slaughtering thousands of civilians and were just supposed to do what? How many terrorist attacks did it take before their country was invaded? And don't even mention the invasions of Iraq as a justification. Iraq was about as far from an islamic state as you can get pre-invasion. It's closer to one now than it was under Saddam.

I'm also going to throw out there that their "culture" is such that women are oppressed to the point that they get stoned to death as justice after they are raped just to mention one aspect of it. This is a "culture" that needs to be invaded.

Re:Uh No

[Hurricane78]

Wow, way to be superficial. But I don’t blame you, because I understand your basis of thought.

But in reality, you have to deeply understand someone, to solve things like this.
See, a “terrorist” is just another human too. Who thinks that either
a) this is the right thing to do, from all he knows,
b) he is forced to do this, but does not actually want it at all (or just lives in the illusion of being forced),
c) out of bad luck happens to be the idiot who got into the wrong situation, and does not have any own or forced drive to do it,
(For women, point C is a bit stronger and point A a bit weaker, because they are more specialized on emotional intelligence.)

So you have to find out, what drives that “terrorist” to doing what he does.

I bet with you, that it’s a combination of some religious asshole brainwashing him since early childhood,
and a very desperate life. where channeling the hate and anger towards this, becomes an acceptable way.

Now you can’t tell me, that it’s fair to punish someone for growing up in a fucked up mindset and a not so nice world.
It’s wrong to channel it to you, yeah, definitely. But saying that he is a poor slob, and that the result is wrong, is not mutually exclusive.
In fact, the ass who brainwashed him, most likely got brainwashed himself, or something bad happened to him. Or he just lives in such a strong mindset, that everyone inside would think it’s real without doubt.
Like the people that flee from North Korea, who think that if they touch something with the American flag on it, that their hands will actually really rot off!

Sure you can call him a “nasty terrorist”, and kill him. Then kill those mullas or whoever, etc, etc. But that will only mean an even more desperate world there, that will spawn even more desperate people. And in the end, would you then be much better than them?
Definitely not.

So don’t go down that path, to that low level.
Instead... well, do the opposite. Be a shining beacon of light that they can really respect. Show that you understand them, and even support them. Then slowly let them discover your mindset. Be someone that they can trust.
It’s interesting, how close it is to handling the bully in the club: Befriend him. ^^ I’ve done this with whole groups of big dudes who were full of drugs. I channeled their aggression against something else, and because they saw that I understood them, they suddenly thought I were cool, and wanted to befriend me. :)

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather, people should be led into a waiting hall and put under with a sleeping gas, then loaded into explosion proof containers and loaded onto cargo planes for delivery.

Leeloo Dallas Multipass FTW

Re:Uh No

[cfa22]

Dimetapp elixir, baby!

Re:Uh No

[C18H27NO3]

Sedation AND a pass through an EMP field then?

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

They will shave/wax all the hair off your body as well.

Re:Uh No

[dgatwood]

Your numbers are way, way off.

First, the underwear bomber had about 80 grams. The shoe bomber had 50 grams. And 50 grams was enough to blow a hole in the side of an aircraft in controlled tests.

Second, the only reason this was not a devastating explosion is that the bomber did not ignite it properly. As best I understand it, to trigger explosives like PETN, you have to have a starter that burns really hot. If you just light the stuff, most or all of it burns up before it gets hot enough to explode. That's what happened, and since they put the fire out, it never got hot enough to explode at all. Because it is so hard to ignite, for all practical purposes, PETN isn't very useful except in a lighter cord, as a heart medication, or as a secondary charge....

Had it been ignited properly and gone off all at once, 80 grams of PETN is equivalent to about 132 grams of TNT, with a potential explosive force of about 552 kilojoules. That's about a quarter of a stick of dynamite, or nearly an entire hand grenade, not a third of a grenade. I'm pretty sure that's more than enough to kill several people and blow a hole in the side of an airframe. Would it bring the plane down? Probably not, unless the explosion just happened to damage some critical control cables or something. Would it be a very serious disaster? You bet.

Re:Uh No

[shadowbearer]

  I just wanted to comment on your sig in relation to the discussion:

"We also have a halon fire extinguisher. Its always nice to have a fire extinguisher that kills people around."

  Aren't those standard equipment on commercial aircraft? ;-)

  Queue movie plot now... damn, maybe I should patent the idea first...

SB

Re:Uh No

[shadowbearer]

  Now you've gone and done it.

  All of the people with *any* history of martial arts training aren't going to be able to fly at all. I'm sure just about every politician out there has seen at least *one* martial arts movie with the hero in it killing dozens of *armed people* without a scratch on him or her.

  Chuck Norris is going to be PISSED OFF.

SB

 

Re:Uh No

[ErkDemon]

If you're going to have a guy in police/army uniform with a gun on each flight, then you're going to have to recruit a lot of guys with guns.

I suppose that the ideal candidate would be someone with army training, who's been taught how to deal with terrorists, and who ideally has psychology training so that he knows what to look out for. So maybe the perfect candidate would be an army psychologist with weapons training, perhaps one who'd be happy to take the airline posting rather than go to Iraq?

In which case, after your recruitment drive, you'd find that amongst your hundreds of new air staff, you'd have employed this guy.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they pretend to have security. I mean, idiots have tried to take freaking dull garden spades in their carry-on luggage. It won't be long before they work in groups, where one guy is able to sneak a freaking dull garden spade through security, one guy sneaks a whetstone through, and a third guy takes a capsule of a couple of drops of whetstone oil. Before long, they will have a freaking sharp garden spade and running all through the cabin causing mischief (or trying to create a beautiful flower garden).

I mean really, you didn't see any problem trying to take a garden spade on a plane? Or, where you going to snicker about how you pulled one on the TSA guys if you did get it on the plane? I guess the TSA dudes laugh about people like you who get caught trying to take things that obviously shouldn't be a carry-on item.

Re:Uh No

[TermV]

You can buy $40 shower gel, and people actually buy it? That's ground for marital strife right there.

Re:Uh No

[Gorobei]

Ok, I'm just the one-time owner of a federal explosives license, so you probably understand much more than me, but...

First, even going with 80g, an untamped pile of HiEx is very different from 50g placed in a controlled test.

Second, you basically need a blasting cap to detonate it correctly (given it is a small quantity, so heat from burning is a non-issue.)

Had it ignited properly, it would not have killed several people. Fragmentation grenades mostly kill people from the metal bits flying around: the old throw yourself on the grenade trick is adequate to render it mostly non-lethal for bystanders. A loose, unshaped charge in some guy's pant is just going to mess up the guy and give the people nearby a bad day.

Re:Uh No

[dgatwood]

That's all quite true. When I said that it could do serious damage if detonated properly, by "detonated properly", I meant if the person setting it off was competent, i.e. if he took the time to collect the powder into a reasonably compact mass and used something significant to ignite it all at once (e.g. a blasting cap, a hammer, etc.). Yeah, strewn loosely in his underpants as this was, there was no chance it was ever going to do anything but burn.

Re:Uh No

[wolf]

As the song goes 'Beautiful Dreamer Wake Unto Me'.

You will look really good manacled by your ankles to the roof, in which ever lockup they decide to drop you in.
You are also very right, Sigh, thankfully, the terrorists are not the brightest lights on the street, or we would have Real problems.
Unfortunately our security is done by the lowest price contractors, ain't free enterprise wonderful?!!!!!!!!

Re:Uh No

[ZorbaTHut]

I had airport security find a Leatherman, with a nice 4-inch blade, that I'd accidentally left in my backpack. Pretty good, right?

Except that I'd lost it a year earlier and had traveled cross-country half a dozen times since then. With the same backpack. And - unless aliens found the Leatherman and jammed it in my backpack for me - the same Leatherman inside.

I was not impressed. (Though at least I found my Leatherman.)

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone figured out the statistics over the last 10? years. At any rate it is something like 6 terrorist incidents over 99 million flights. In short our reaction to terrorism is completely insane compared to the actual damage, or, in other words, for a relatively small amount of investment the terrorists get us to make a good effort at bankrupting ourselves and destroying our own freedoms. It is completely insane and the politics are very sickening. They are all about finding some way to twist things to attack the current administration for their own political purposes. In short there are a lot of people that are using the Christmas day act of terrorism to advance their own agenda. I dearly pray that people remember those people next November when we vote again.

With regards to the specific attacks, well the 9/11 ones can't be pulled off again, unless people allow it. For one thing they have new cockpit doors, for another, the passengers are bound to take them down, even if a few die in the process, (although personally I think I'd probably use my laptop as a blunt weapon if the occasional called for it). The shoe bomber and the latest guy are more or less the same. They appear to more or less have had the tools, but not the knowledge to do it right. Of course there were some issues with sharing intelligence, and to be honest I'm not sure a blame game is appropriate here though, since it is counterproductive. Most likely all the people directly involved were probably part of the previous administration, but that doesn't mean they weren't doing their job. It means that something slipped through. We need to understand the problem and try to address it. Of course, a lot of things are always more obvious in hindsight, and we need to remember that.

As far as preventing people with hidden explosives from boarding, well, that is very hard to do, although I could see running people though a better scanner if they do have reasons to be suspicious. Of course, if we are concerned with breaching a fuel tank, then maybe we need to consider reinforcing those areas, or perhaps just not allowing seat assignments there for people on certain lists. In the end though, despite our best efforts, it is likely that occasionally we will fail. There is, after all, a price for freedom. Why is it that it seems so few people in our beloved country are willing to pay it?

Of course, the price is not as simple as not being able to stop all terrorism. It is a deeper price than that. It is the price where each citizen of the world is ultimately the last line of defense in protecting it. Constant vigilance is our price for freedom and our duty. It has been practiced since 9/11, because we now know the price of failure. Beyond that, if we truly want all the people who use fear to influence our actions to fail, then we need to stop acting irrationally, and instead use logic and reason to guide our actions. In the end, I wonder how many lives could have been saved, if we just used all the money spent on security theater in the last eight years, for some more worthy cause.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Now Chuck Norris can't get on a plane.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Chuck Norris doesn't need a plane to fly. He stairs down the ground and it backs off.

Re:Uh No

[deboli]

cocking a meal? Something tells me you're using one of those first generation MacBook pros...

Re:Uh No

[Rei]

Right. What a brilliant terrorist plot. Have three people involved, one to smuggle in a spade, another a whetstone, and another whetstone oil. And all the passengers just sit around while the people noisily sharpen the spade for 15 minutes. Versus, say, pre-sharpening frame components of electronics or breaking virtually anything rigid that will hold an edge.

FYI, the spade was a last-minute part of my camping gear.

Re:Uh No

[MichaelSmith]

As best I understand it, to trigger explosives like PETN, you have to have a starter that burns really hot.

How about if you had a liquid you could burn, like lighter fluid or petrol? Could you use that to get the PETN hot enough to explode?

Re:Uh No

[indiechild]

Except a girl.

These types of terrorist bombers are usually the loner types... often highly intelligent, but social outcasts. They latch on to propaganda and it becomes their mission to wreak revenge on the jock infidels. It's just another variation on the highschool/uni mass shooters.

Re:Uh No

[japa]

Can't bring liquids on board? Sure, but you can bring freeze-dried watermelon that you've reconstituted with a liquid of your choice onboard.

Nope, no can do. During Christmas time, one of the Finnish traditions is to eat ham. Not just a slice, but 10-20 pounds of big part of pig that is then cooked at home. Some buy their ham fresh, some buy it frozen (Cheaper). You are not allowed to take frozen ham onboard, it's considered as liquid. Ref: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kauppalehti.fi%2F5%2Fi%2Ftalous%2Fuutiset%2Fetusivu%2Fuutinen.jsp%3Foid%3D2008%2F12%2F16969%26sort%3Dfalse%26request_ahaa_info%3Dtrue&sl=fi&tl=en
(Article translated from Finnish to English)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fi&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kauppalehti.fi%2F5%2Fi%2Ftalous%2Fuutiset%2Fetusivu%2Ftulostus.jsp%3Foid%3D2008%2F12%2F16969%26type%3Detusivu
(printer friendly version (=no ads) , just press cancel to print dialog. )

Re:Uh No

[yogiguru]

The question asked was "can we prevent terrorism?" Your response .. "Carried to its logical conclusion, we'd all have to board planes naked (you could strangle someone with the elastic band from your underwear!), or even restrained (hands are weapons too!) in order to prevent terrorist actions on planes." .. is the answer to "will we " not "can we." We most certainly can. This will only happen, however, when people realize that they don't have a right to fly and that if they don't want to go through progressively more intrusive screening processes, there is always the train, boats or automobiles. Of course, the best way to deal with terrorists is to wipe out the population centers of every country that supports terrorism any time a terrorist act occurs. Note that I said EVERY country. One single terrorist act could result in twenty countries being targeted. Once again, this course of action brings up the question, "can we stop terrorism" when the real question should be "will we?"

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

How truly pathetic you all are- I checked all 540 posts on this topic, and only one, mine, contains the word "muslims".
Scared of facing the truth?

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

I hadn't heard this one before. It made me laugh out loud (for real). Thanks!

Re:Uh No

[dgatwood]

Normally, you would ignite it with an impact/compression force (often from another explosion). If you wanted it to combust all at once by merely adding heat, I *think* you would have to suddenly bring the entire mass up to combustion temperature all at once. That's harder than it sounds. That said, IANABE (I am not a bomb engineer), so I'm not the right person to answer that question.

Re:Uh No

[IndustrialComplex]

Nah, give them something like a blackjack or a slapper. Basically a bit of lead on the end of a leather strap. Or even a nightstick.

The knives could really ruin someone's day, but the nightsticks would give all of the passengers an effective but mostly non-lethal weapon which could be employed against anyone who tried anything dangerous.

Could even be great comedy. Some guy acts up and pegs the guy in front of him with the night stick, and the guy behind him then reacts and beans him, causing a chain reaction to the back of the plane until the entire passenger cabin is knocked unconscious except for the last guy. Pilots keep the doors locked and the last guy stretches out across 3 seats.

But seriously, I'd have no problem if they did give a nightstick to every single passenger as they boarded the plane.

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

But... The current batch of terrorists operate on an entirely different plane than our way of thinking. Most seem to be from well off families and already have everything to lose that we consider "something to lose". Their only care is destruction of the infidel and getting to their heaven. They are a disease that needs to be stamped out. Though, that's probably an impossible task because their cause isn't ideological, it's religious and defies any logic as we know it. (JMO of course)

Re:Uh No

[mcgrew]

Do they think terrorists are retarded?

No, they think we are. And considering the fact that there seems to be little backlash, maybe they're right.

Re:Uh No

[mdielmann]

One of these days, when I have enough time before a plane flight, I'm going to follow the letter of the rules while showing off (in a non-threatening manner) how easily they can be worked around: by attempting to cook a full four-course meal onboard a plane during the flight from my coach seat ;)

And the likely response from the TSA would be to make cooking a meal on the plane by non-airline staff a criminal offense.

Re:Uh No

[albedoa]

"had an article from last year detailing all the things he's managed to sneak onto planes, including pocketknives"

Good job.

Re:Uh No

[Gorobei]

You basically need to bring the temperature of a small amount up to combustion temperature before the rest decomposes/deflagrates due to the heat. This is why a detonator/rifle cartridge primer works.

Re:Uh No

[RockDoctor]

Carried to its logical conclusion, we'd all have to board planes naked (you could strangle someone with the elastic band from your underwear!), or even restrained (hands are weapons too!) in order to prevent terrorist actions on planes.

Strange - that's exactly the proposal I made over the breakfast table yesterday. Glad to see someone else in agreement with me.
Then again, I know that I hate flying, and that I recognise that it's a luxury, not a necessity, and that in the near future (not the distant future) we're going to have to get used to paying it's real costs, not it's heavily tax subsidised costs. Goodbye flying, hello trains!

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

Chuck Norris doesn't need to fly, his destinations come to him.

Nope

[inviolet]

Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?"

Nope. "Truly secure" means defended infinitely well from all risks, which implies infinite cost. The minority of us adults who are mentally adult understand that everything is a cost/benefit tradeoff and nothing justifies the effort to render it "truly secure".

To be sure, an individual's own life is worth very very much to him, and he is free to spend his money on protection, but that's not the context of this discussion. The context of this discussion is how much wealth should the tribe expend protecting its assets (including its members, none of whom are infinitely valuable).

Re:Nope

[weicco]

Let's give every passenger combat shotgun where they enter the plane. Let's also give them permission to shoot everyone they think is a terrorist trying to blow up the plane. That way we'll be all safe in heaven.

If you get my meaning.

Re:Nope

[Rei]

The odds of airborne terror are so low it's ridiculous that we focus on it as much as we do. Here's an excellent post on the subject:

----------

Not going to do any editorializing here; just going to do some non-fancy math. James Joyner asks:

"There have been precisely three attempts over the last eight years to commit acts of terrorism aboard commercial aircraft. All of them clownishly inept and easily thwarted by the passengers. How many tens of thousands of flights have been incident free?"

Let's expand Joyner's scope out to the past decade. Over the past decade, there have been, by my count, six attempted terrorist incidents on board a commercial airliner than landed in or departed from the United States: the four planes that were hijacked on 9/11, the shoe bomber incident in December 2001, and the NWA flight 253 incident on Christmas.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics provides a wealth of statistical information on air traffic. For this exercise, I will look at both domestic flights within the US, and international flights whose origin or destination was within the United States. I will not look at flights that transported cargo and crew only. I will look at flights spanning the decade from October 1999 through September 2009 inclusive (the BTS does not yet have data available for the past couple of months).

Over the past decade, according to BTS, there have been 99,320,309 commercial airline departures that either originated or landed within the United States. Dividing by six, we get one terrorist incident per 16,553,385 departures.

These departures flew a collective 69,415,786,000 miles. That means there has been one terrorist incident per 11,569,297,667 miles flown. This distance is equivalent to 1,459,664 trips around the diameter of the Earth, 24,218 round trips to the Moon, or two round trips to Neptune.

Assuming an average airborne speed of 425 miles per hour, these airplanes were aloft for a total of 163,331,261 hours. Therefore, there has been one terrorist incident per 27,221,877 hours airborne. This can also be expressed as one incident per 1,134,245 days airborne, or one incident per 3,105 years airborne.

There were a total of 674 passengers, not counting crew or the terrorists themselves, on the flights on which these incidents occurred. By contrast, there have been 7,015,630,000 passenger enplanements over the past decade. Therefore, the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning.

Again, no editorializing (for now). These are just the numbers.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of your dumb idea, lets give every passenger a 15" long, 1" diameter oak dowel. No one passenger (or 10) will be a credible threat compared to the entire rest of the plane full of folks ready to beat an exposed terrorist into a thin red paste. Bombs are still a problem, but this is an area where increased technology spending actually makes some sense.

Re:Nope

[Archangel Michael]

Again, no editorializing (for now). These are just the numbers.

Numbers are editorials in and of themselves. Speaking volumes where opinions would just add noise.

Now if we could only use this approach when dealing with other emotional issues, like every other "crisis" out there. Drugs, Poverty, Healthcare

Re:Nope

[greenbird]

The odds of airborne terror are so low it's ridiculous that we focus on it as much as we do.

Whats even more amazing is the complete lack of concern that ten of thousands (in the US alone) are killed and hundred of thousands injured and maimed on the roads every day. What is it about people that they have absolutely no concern for something that's fairly likely to injure or kill them while something that is only an extremely remote possibility causes them to freak out in fear.

Re:Nope

[Zangief]

What kind of imbecile metric is "terrorist incidents per mile flown"?!?!

You may as well make it terrorist incident per atom transported to get a much more impressive number.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. People are probably a thousand times more likely to be *car*jacked than hijacked on an aircraft. No, it's probably more than a 1000x.

Re:Nope

[Amouth]

not sure - but i always wondered that too - i think it is because they have this worry that it is unexpected.

when driving - i expect the SUV to cut me off - and try to drive over me - there for i pay attention and try to avoid being hit or forced into an accident.

when you have people whom are afraid of the unexpected - they feel helpless because there is nothing they know they can do to avoid it. Sure it's on the outside chance that it will happen but they still are struck with fear of it. I know people that won't go swimming in the ocean for the fear of sharks (FYI east cost US here - not really a problem).

i think it all boils down to a sence of control. If people have a feeling that they are in control of what is happening to them - even if its a remote feeling or chance of action - they seem to have less fear and therefor will put them selves in far more danger. Take that feeling away and they are helpless - which induces fear, even of the most remote chance of being harmed.

Re:Nope

[SanityInAnarchy]

Interesting, but that just leads to a mob mentality -- how long would it take for a bunch of cramped and cranky passengers to turn into Lord of the Flies?

Re:Nope

[AP31R0N]

People care how/why they die.

A survey of how and why you'd prefer to do would prolly indicate that people would rather be hit by lightning than blown up by terrorist even if the net result (death) is the same. Plus there is something worse about being killed to benefit someone else's cause, or by someone who meant you ill... and worse yet when it could have been prevented by some policy or procedure.

That said, i'd rather see more effort on killing these people before they get to us and ending the problems that inspire them to want to kill us.

Re:Nope

[Red Flayer]

Awesome. I love the way you pointed out the numerical editorializing done by the author (despite claims of non-editorialization).

Now, for the sake of completeness:
Let's assume that we're only counting people atoms (and not luggage, clothing, etc).

Atoms transported == people*miles * (atoms/person)

Per this site, there are about 7*10^27 atoms in an average person.

So we're talking 7*10^27 * 11.6*10^9, so roughly 8 * 10^37. In long form, for enhanced visual impact:

We have only one terrorist attack per each 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atom*miles !11!!!one!eleventyone!

How's that for perspective?

Re:Nope

[mhajicek]

Arming someone who's normally unarmed and untrained just as they're entering a situation that may scare them is a bad idea. However, allowing CCL holders to carry their concealed pistols would be perfect. They're accustomed to being armed, they've proven themselves competent with the weapon, and they aren't openly displaying a threat. Anyone planning funny business wouldn't know who's carrying or how many, so it would be very difficult to negate that threat. The threat you don't know is more intimidating than the one you do know.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that we could have colonized Neptune by now?

Re:Nope

[misexistentialist]

How much would secure cockpits cost? How much for an air marshal on every plane? How much for blast-resistant panels? I'm guessing less than the trillion dollars to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and certainly within acceptable levels for the high-overhead airline industry. There's is never 100% security, but right now almost nothing has been done. Even shoot-down procedures are not in place, as we saw with Northwest Flight 188.

Re:Nope

[MaskedSlacker]

Hopefully not long. Once the overweight albanian women with excruciating body odor are dead maybe I can stretch out and get comfortable.

Re:Nope

[MaskedSlacker]

But that sense of control is completely false.

There are no driving tactics that make driving safer than flying. Period. You think you're in control of the risk when you drive, but you're not. It is an entirely false perception--to the point that if it wasn't so common, it would be considered psychosis. That's how complete the disconnect from reality is.

That's what it boils down to: most people are fucking insane. They don't live in reality (and they don't want to). Sucks for the few that do and have to put up with them.

Re:Nope

[Rei]

Yeah, but every other flight would be blown up by terrorists.

Re:Nope

[SanityInAnarchy]

That is a very good point. I'd mod you up, if I hadn't already posted.

I mean, ok, yes, you can hijack the plane -- you can also hijack a bus, or anything else. You could theoretically shoot a hole in the plane, depressurizing the cabin, but I don't really see how that causes that much more harm than hijacking it or randomly firing into a crowd.

Re:Nope

[DerekLyons]

The chance of me being read ended by semi on the highway tomorrow is pretty low too. But, I'll still buckle my seat belt and drive defensively none the less.

Re:Nope

[fishbowl]

It was frighteningly easy for me to get a concealed carry permit. It was even scarier to find out that without much practice at all, my range shooting was in the 99th percentile compared with police.

Re:Nope

[aaarrrgggh]

Wow... if I continue to fly 100k miles per year for the next 30 years I stand a 1:3800 chance on being on a plane with a terrorist incident! And here I thought I was safe!

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate these kind of statistics. If someone could kill another once per day, then I could come up with a statistic that it's nothing to worry about because considering the number of people on earth and the number of hours they live it's way less than the odds of being struck by lightning - so nothing to worry about and don't try to do anything about it.

Re:Nope

[Amouth]

whether that control is there or not - or the amount of control is not the point - it is that the person has a feeling of control and therefor has a lack of fear (or at least a suppression).

And while i agree there are no driving tactics that make driving safer than flying - there are driving tactics that make driving safer. With that logic - what flying tactics are there that make flying safer?

ignore the fact that flying is already amazingly safe for what it is - but put your self in the random Joe's shoes that doesn't know it? people that don't bother doing the math on probabilities.. the Average Joe who fly less than once a year. they Hear about this plane crashing - this one attacked - and they all fear that their plane will be next.

The government as seen a niche - they realize that they can do what ever they want as long as it is presented to Average Joe as the ONLY tactic to make flying safer - so it isn't his flight.

It's a load of shit - but that is how it is happening.

Re:Nope

[IndustrialComplex]

It was frighteningly easy for me to get a concealed carry permit. It was even scarier to find out that without much practice at all, my range shooting was in the 99th percentile compared with police.

You hit the target you were aiming at right? What's scary about that?

The only way to fly safe!

[spammeister]

Is to either remove all people from flights, or somehow put them all into a coma for the duration of the flight.

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[wizardforce]

somehow put them all into a coma for the duration of the flight.

DON'T GIVE THEM IDEAS!

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly, 5th element style !

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[Minwee]

somehow put them all into a coma for the duration of the flight.

DON'T GIVE THEM IDEAS!

Have you seen the movies they show on flights nowadays? If they aren't aiming for "comatose", they're at least hoping that the stomach pains will keep us from doing anything unexpected.

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[Jeng]

it's eternity in there...

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

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[CharlyFoxtrot]

DON'T GIVE THEM IDEAS!

Unless they are using tequila to induce this coma, then I'm all for it. "I'm sorry sir this is a 10 drink minimum flight."

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[hrvatska]

Will we have Milla Jovovich waiting for us when we wake up?

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[Jeng]

Don't feel bad when you wake up and not find her next to you. She was gone before Corbin Dallas woke up also.

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[thisnamestoolong]

Hey if they can figure that one out sign me up -- I hate sitting in those cramped seats listening to the little kids crying behind me -- if they could knock me out for the duration of the flight and wake me up on the other end without any problems I'd be all over it.

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, everyone having ideas means more good people can see what to look for than bad people can think of doing bad things.

I think Bruce missed an important point: monkey-see, monkey-do. That is, it is right to be reactive, because if you aren't, they will keep on doing it. Also, there is a long lead time on many of these things - notice that the shoe-bomber Reid and this latest Nigerian both needed access to the particular explosive, and training in how to use it - we're lucky the training was insufficient. See how in some countries suicide bombers are trained and prepared - there are many, not counting those towards possible airline attacks is a mistake.

And don't forget, the whole idea of commandeering planes for use as weapons has been around for a while, several Indonesian attacks were thwarted before 9/11. All those attacks, 9/11, and even the recent tries have had a long lead/preparation time. Preparing the people for these missions takes years, and there's no way to pick them out from freakin' datamarts. Remember the "terrorists practicing plane attacks in San Diego?" They were bored Indian H1-B's playing video games. Meanwhile, no one noticed the actual terrorists taking flying lessons.

Fear based reactive stupidity isn't going away, as people will demand action. Bruce is living in a dream world advocating what he is. Comparing WWII propaganda to the modern situation is a mistake, as it misses the differences that come from asymetrical warfare (google it).

I can't believe no one has thought of simply blowing out the windows, instantly putting everyone in a coma until the plane runs out of fuel (as has happened on several private jets by accident).

You people don't know anything about statistics, just ask the guy who's been hit by lightning 11 times.

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[snarkh]

If they aren't aiming for "comatose", they're at least hoping that the stomach pains will keep us from doing anything unexpected.

Just make sure these stomach pains don't make you spend too much in the toilet!

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[Duradin]

Then terrorists will just implant time delayed explosives in themselves. Make the circuitry look like a pace maker.

Or some sort of non-instantly fatal toxic substance with an aerosol vector that gets released into their lungs so they exhale it into the cabin.

Or go off and get some horribly contagious deadly exotic disease in time to be nice and contagious while still alive enough to get (loaded) onto the plane.

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[MaskedSlacker]

The funny thing about that idea is that it would actually DRASTICALLY increase the death toll from flying. Putting people under (by any means) has a vastly higher chance of resulting in death than if the airplanes had zero security in the first place.

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[Xtravar]

I wish cars did this, too. Sometimes driving is just too stressful.

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[Petrushka]

-- I hate sitting in those cramped seats listening to the little kids crying behind me --

Let me introduce you to the best travelling companion I have ever had: noise-cancelling headphones. Most - all? - brands and models come with attachments to plug into airline sockets too (though I wouldn't be surprised if US airlines have different sockets to stop people doing that; but even without anything playing through them, headphones like these help a LOT).

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[mpe]

Unless they are using tequila to induce this coma, then I'm all for it. "I'm sorry sir this is a 10 drink minimum flight."

If the only worry was Islamic terrorists then you wouldn't be allowed to board until after having your first drink. The US might have to reconsider having such a high drinking age though :)

Re:The only way to fly safe!

[Anonymous Coward]

somehow put them all into a coma for the duration of the flight.

Isn't this called 'onflight entertainment'?

The Terrorists are Winning

[headkase]

I have another discussion on this very topic going here: The Terrorists Are Winning. Please steal anything from it for this discussion, because in the end I just want to see the situation fixed.

Re:The Terrorists are Winning

[headkase]

Is entirely possible considering the origin in the world of the flight, but you must keep in mind that information sources must be vetted: critical thinking skills are necessary without having the complete picture.

Re:The Terrorists are Winning

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to make yourself look batshit insane, linking to Alex Jones is a good way to do it.

Re:The Terrorists are Winning

[sconeu]

Bomber Had No Passport, Helped To Board Plane By Sharp-Dressed Man

So ZZ Top are helping terrorists? Because every girl crazy about a sharp dressed man!

Re:The Terrorists are Winning

[mhajicek]

Parent should not be modded flaimbait just because you disagree with him. It's on topic, relevant, and a valid opinion with supporting evidence.

Re:The Terrorists are Winning

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe the terrorists are winning. Your problem in seeing them as victorious is that you are defining their goals from your perspective: You think they see victory as you being inconvenienced. That is not their goal. The goal, stated multiple times by many fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, is to reduce American influence in the Middle East.

Are they succeeding at that goal? It would appear that since 9/11 American influence has, in fact, increased, not decreased, in the region. So, not only are they not winning, they are actually causing their own defeat because their actions are bringing about the exact opposite of what they want.

Now, you might look at the situation and say "yeah, but they are wearing down the US, so eventually they will win". Honestly, the US is worn down because the country went on a debt feeding frenzy, including buying too many houses at too high prices with too much debt financing. The fact that the US can go through such a ridiculously caused financial meltdown and *still* fight 2 wars with excess capacity should have anyone in awe of their military strength and staying power.

If you look at the terrorists and bankers you realize that the latter group is better at doing what the former group wants. The financial meltdown will do more to wane American influence around the globe than anything. The terrorists are stupid, impatient and irrational, at least based on their stated goals.

You think the terrorists are winning, but the reality is just that you are losing.

You are both losing.

Expert?

[iamapizza]

Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight.

I'm a developer, does that mean I can work in real estate?

Re:Expert?

[Capt James McCarthy]

Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight.

I'm a developer, does that mean I can work in real estate?

As long as it virtual....sure, knock yourself out.

Re:Expert?

[mea37]

Being a developer has as much to do with real estate, as being a published security expert has to do with security?

Ok.

Re:Expert?

[iamapizza]

No, I was just wondering why a crypto/technology security expert would be considered an expert at security in aviation - was it just because he has the word security in his title? Of course, being on /., I thought it fit to express it as gracefully as possible. But then Bruce Schneier saw my post and modded me down.

Quick, Silence The Dissenter!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurry, black bag him before he tells everyone the truth! Copyright Infringement! DMCA! Trade Secret! Terrorism! Something! Quick!

Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[Afforess]

The answer: No.

The sooner most people grow and learn that "Shit Happens (tm)" and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality, the better. The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.

Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

The answer: No.

Yes we can, we already have. Though we can't protect against every contingency the odds of dying on a flight because of a terrorist attack are astronomical : "the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning."

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[LOLLinux]

Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Except Benjamin Franklin never said that.

A frequently-misquoted phrase commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Many misquotations simplify or generalise the sentence somewhat, or add parts not in the original quote, such as "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both", one of the more common variants.

The original quote is taken from, "A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania," first published anonymously in London in 1759. The quote is an excerpt from a letter written in 1755 from the Assembly to the Governor of Pennsylvania.

Benjamin Franklin did publish the edition printed in Philadelphia, and most likely the original, but denied writing any part of it. The quote however may have originated from Franklin, but was excerpted for the book by the author.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[jhol13]

AFAIK Franklin never flew in a plane. So I'd rather listen someone else. Besides, listening a long since decomposed body would not be fun anyway.

We can make flight safer - and I bet the cheapest way is to educate people and try to decrease unequality and unfairness in the world.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[Torodung]

Actually, the quote is that anyone who would give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary security. You make it sound as if letting security search your bag when you enter a concert disqualifies one from the rights and privileges of citizenship. As always, the devil is in the details.

--
Toro

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[thisnamestoolong]

Are you suggesting that the astronomically low odds of being a victim of a terrorist attack while flying is due to the increased security? If so -- citations please.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[stewbacca]

Shit happens, especially when you do absolutely nothing to stop it. Terrorists will follow the path of least resistance.

And to fix the Franklin quote, I would prefer to live in a society that gives up a little liberty to gain a SHITLOAD of security. Our current system has it backwards...giving up a little liberty (I don't find the current airport travel system to be anything other than a minor inconvenience) for very little (if any) security. Why can't we do it right and get a better security return for the same investment?

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[girlintraining]

The sooner most people grow and learn that "Shit Happens (tm)" and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality, the better. The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.

That's a defeatist attitude. One problem is we're leaving ourselves helpless -- assuming that the checkpoints will work, creating "sterile zones", and if those methods fail we have nothing to fall back on. Israel, on the other hand, requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough, being armed in public is commonplace. Carrying knives onto planes is legal. Very few terrorists succeed despite the large numbers of attempts occurring daily, because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down and knows that they are surrounded by others who also have training and know what to do, look for, and react when a situation occurs.

Whereas in this country, our sense of helplessness and fear leads people to become terrified of a man with food poisoning puking his guts out in the bathroom during landing -- because of the color of his skin. That's simply pathetic for so many reasons, first of which is that the guy must have been terrified to open the door for fear of being dragged out and beat on by a bunch of people who'd already judged him a threat and could easily kill him for doing nothing worse than eating a burrito that didn't agree with him and that's a shame on us. Secondly, that our rules are so stringent and unyielding that we would make grown people piss or shit their pants, vomit over each other and themselves -- and for what? How can that possibly help security? This is a pathetic state of affairs that wouldn't exist if we as a society felt we could take care of ourselves.

Our problem isn't in terms of operational security -- our problem is culture. We are constantly told to be docile and passive in the face of lethal threats. How is this a sane response? Anyone who's had even the most minimal combat training will tell you that the right answer 98% of the time is to turn into the attack. I don't care if the guy has fully automatic assault rifle and body armor on the plane -- five people with pocket knives within fifteen feet of him bum-rushing him's going to drop him if they're coordinated. And yes, a couple people will die that is a certainty -- or you can sit there and let the two hundred or so people die. Really, now -- if you had the knife in your hand, which option would you pick? Wait for death, or meet it head on? We all strive to prevent the worst-case scenario, but we shouldn't be paralyzed by fear if we find ourselves in it.

Terrorism only works because we allow ourselves to be afraid. As politely as I can say this -- stop living in fear. Learn how to defend yourself and then stop putting yourself in high-risk situations. That's advice that works as well for countries as it does for individuals.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[Kozz]

The future of flying is a small plane at a small regional airport.

Why? Is it because the terrorists will have destroyed the industry? No, it's more likely that the TSA has helped the industry destroy itself.

Richard Reid (aka the Shoe Bomber) is the reason we all have to take off our bloody shoes when we go through the screening process. I'd love to string up that fucker personally. Of course, his partner was the TSA -- taking off the shoes is just another measure in security theater.

Now a Nigerian national (by way of Yemen) has likely blown his nuts off in an attempt to take down an airliner. And what is the response? Well, at least they're not taking away your shampoo and nailclippers...

But there's talk of turning off seatback entertainment systems sporting GPS tracking for international flights. If you're in the final descent, you'll know it (if you've flown a few times). How much does it matter whether a terrorist knows precisely where they are in the flight?

You can't visit the bathroom, access overhead bins, have a blanket or pillow during the last hour of the flight? Well, apparently some of these restrictions are being eased, giving discretion to the flight crew (as of 12/28) but they're simply more DUMB ideas from the TSA. If one is determined to do something nefarious, do these restrictions really provide any obstacles whatsoever?

Perhaps in the future, the TSA will require that all passengers wear TSA-approved flight garments (with diapers) and shackled securely to their seats? Sedation at your request? Maybe if you agree to sedation, they'll even drop the price of your ticket.

If the foolish restrictions remain in place, the sensible citizens will seek travel options which do NOT treat them like criminals (or fools). They will use cars, buses, trains and ships whenever possible. Flight will be best accomplished by purchasing a seat aboard a chartered aircraft where you can become approved for travel with a background screening process, and the pilot/co-pilot have ultimate discretion as to whether they want you to board their flight. You won't have to submit to humiliating searches of person and property -- dignity restored!

It may be an expensive venture, but it will very likely be worth it.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Are you suggesting that the astronomically low odds of being a victim of a terrorist attack while flying is due to the increased security? If so -- citations please.

No it's because the number of actual terrorists is pretty small and common sense measures already go a long way. The increased "security" measures probably have the opposite effect IMHO: added bureaucracy is the enemy of efficiency because it always provides a convenient excuse for incompetence or laziness and shift focus from doing the job to turf wars.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[Reziac]

Agreed, but I think the parent post had the same idea: Shit happens, shit will ALWAYS happen -- so let's deal sensibly with it instead of being mindlessly afraid of it and going off the deep end in the name of Shit Must Never Happen. And don't scream to mommy to save you, or duck down and hope to go unnoticed, when you're perfectly capable of saving yourself (or when the group is capable of saving itself, such as swarming a would-be hijacker).

I think you're right on what this will do to air travel. The future may well be strictly small-craft charter flights, if only because (at least for now) it doesn't force you to be a walk-on in a security theatre production. Of course, once some yahoo uses a small craft as a mobile bomb, expect the same restrictions to trickle down.

And then what -- trains, busses, private cars, walking?? there's no logical stopping point until we're all permanently confined in our own homes. (Well, the gov't-owned homes that they graciously allow us to use...)

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[Anonymous Coward]

um no...We make it sound as if letting Government security forces search our bags and person without cause or a warrant and track our movements around the country is unconstitutional. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Just because you and others are too ignorant of both history and the nature of governments to understand the freedoms we are losing, doesn't mean that we aren't losing them. In fact, it is just such ignorance that will ultimately lead to the tyranny that the ignorant, the uneducated, or the just plain stupid so richly deserve.

I elect officials to represent my interests, not to decide what is best for me and control the course and quality of my life.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[jra]

Interesting.

What's your source for that? ;-)

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[Duradin]

You could make everything fair and equal and people would still find reasons to kill each other. Its human nature. Could be as simple as someone not wearing the same kind of silly hat as you wear.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[dissy]

The answer: No.

I would say Yes, we Can.

However the cost of doing so would place it far far far outside of me being able to ever use it, and fairly far outside of millionaires wanting to use it. Yes it would probably cost that much.

However adding 6+ zeros after the price tag just to guarantee such a thing would not make people fly safer, it would make people not fly, and thus flying would disappear as an industry.

On second thought, I guess making the price of all tickets in the multiple millions of dollars WOULD provide safety in a round-a-bout way. Can't die on a plane if you can never afford to be on a plane ;}

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[MaskedSlacker]

Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

No he didn't, because he didn't say that.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[MaskedSlacker]

We didn't make flying safe--flying was just as safe before 9/11 as it is now. New security screening measures have contributed virtually nothing, other than wasting millions of dollars on something that was ALWAYS less likely than being struck by lightning.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[Culture20]

The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people. Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

We can't give up even just a little liberty to gain security against corrupt politicians?

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[Anonymous Coward]

your post is full of epic fail.

you respond to a post that essentially stated that people need to defend and take care of themselves instead of sitting back and waiting for the government to do it for you ...and that accepting the government's promises of safety and liberty results in neither.

you say the same thing. at the individual level, meet the terrorist head on.

you won't get any disagreement from individualists who tend to quote Ben Franklin.

it's quite interesting how you took the grandparent's post, spun it around, said the same thing, but threw in some nonsensical crap about israel, like they are some kind of good example. let me tell you something about israel. they're in the middle of a giant cluster fuck, that they are contributing to that cluster fuck.

there are numerous posts that analyze the issue in a non-emotional, we need to "face them head on" propagandist-style fashion. I'm pretty sure anyone that tries anything on a plane now-a-days is at risk at being bum rushed. and they don't need some crackpot like you ordering them to get training and do it.

you forgot to add to your post "you're a great american"

fuck you.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[dkleinsc]

Really, now -- if you had the knife in your hand, which option would you pick? Wait for death, or meet it head on?

Before 9/11, the standard script for hijackings was option C: take the hijackers to Elbonia, give them the money they want, Elbonian police arrest them (if not a state-sanctioned hijacking), and while you may be delayed a few days no one is actually seriously hurt.

The options "attack" or "be killed" tend to show a lack of creative thinking and misplaced priorities. Discretion is the better part of valor for a reason. For instance, if someone puts a gun to your head and says "gimme your wallet", the smartest thing to do is almost definitely to give 'em your wallet, because your life isn't worth whatever's in the wallet. Even if you've mastered the martial arts techniques designed to help you deal with a gun against your head, that's still almost definitely your best option. Does that mean the bad guy will get away? Yes. But so will you, and since the bad guy has the upper hand (surprise, superior firepower, and superior positioning) that's not a fight you want to get into.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[ConceptJunkie]

I believe the El-Al airline would beg to differ with that assessment. The difference is, they aren't afraid to hurt the feelings of crybabies to enforce security. We in the U.S. are.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel, on the other hand, requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough, being armed in public is commonplace. Carrying knives onto planes is legal. Very few terrorists succeed despite the large numbers of attempts occurring daily, because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down and knows that they are surrounded by others who also have training and know what to do, look for, and react when a situation occurs.

Sorry, but no - I'm Israeli, and I was never allowed on an EL AL (or other) plane carrying a knife, or anything resembling a weapon.
And also sorry to break your illusion, Israelis are just like the next person - only very very small percent of Israelis has the training to subdue a terrorist on a place - just like any other nationals.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[JohnFen]

I believe the El-Al airline would beg to differ with that assessment. The difference is, they aren't afraid to hurt the feelings of crybabies to enforce security. We in the U.S. are.

We're not afraid of hurting anybody's feelings. This is a fight about freedom, not comfort. God forbid we run things like El-Al.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[Pharmboy]

I used to fly several times a year, but now fly maybe once, and drive the rest of the time. Not because of any fear, but because of the shear hassle and expense. My wife has a heart monitor, and it took a new TSA agent 20 minutes to search her. (its like a pager with two wires to her chest, nothing big at all) The TSA has become too fucking stupid for its own good. As I told the airline attendant, just give everyone a baseball bat as they enter the plane and everyone will be safe. I wanted to say knife or gun, but felt sure that would end up getting me on the "no flight" list, like the guy who tried to set off the bomb...oh yea, thats right, they didn't put HIM on the list. And I'm supposed to feel safer.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[mjwx]

That's a defeatist attitude.

No it's not. A defeatist attitude is that we have to sacrifice what we hold dear in order to gain a blanket of false security.

Israel, on the other hand, requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough, being armed in public is commonplace. Carrying knives onto planes is legal.

Israel is not a poster child of a safe place to live. You can be killed there for having the wrong colour skin or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You also forget that despite all this Israel still suffers regular attacks. Israel developed national service as a response to real attacks, not a proactive defence against imagined dangers.

Further more, giving everyone guns will make people forget about the terrorist bogeyman, but only because they now have to worry about everyone else around them, only one person has to pop a vein in their head and decide that shooting their way through the Macca's line is a good idea. MAD does not work on a large scale for this reason, it makes everyone as safe as the most unstable individual.

because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down

You're assuming that everyone wants this. You're also assuming that everyone will be capable of doing this. We can't even make sure that everyone on the road can drive safely yet you expect them to become Krav Maga experts, good luck with that.

You also fail to account for the fact that now many potential terrorist will have the same training or that the current tactics will not evolve. You are making the same mistake as the TSA/Homeland Security, you're preparing to defend against the last attack rather then treating the cause.

Now your general point is OK but your application is not sound. No, we should not be afraid but we do not have to kill in order to do this, having to kill to ensure your safety is the act of a scared coward. What we forget is that previously, every time a plane was hijacked, it landed and the hijackers sent a list of demands to the authorities (normally for money and/or prisoners), the authorities either acquiesced or stormed the plane, most deaths in hijackings occurred when the police/militaries botched the storming part. Now since 2001, as Bruce Shneier points out, passengers will fight back so most of the worlds terrorist organisations are now sitting back in their palaces/caves/jungle huts saying "fuck, now we cant hijack planes for fun and profit any more", the law of unintended consequences at work. The vast majority of terrorist organisations (HAMAS, FARC, LTTE, Abu Sayaf and so on) are aiming for a very specific goal (normally land/regime change in their home countries) so killing a plane load of good hostages doesnt get them anywhere.

BTW, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front has to be the best named terrorist organisation in the world.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[GrumblyStuff]

Sedation at your request?

Fuck yeah! I mean, it'd suck if the plane went down and you needed to crawl out on your own (had you been conscious) but why not? It'd be great if it was like The Fifth Element. Hop into the little cubby hole, yer out like a light, and fresh as a daisy when they land.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[jhol13]

I did not say safe, I said safer. On purpose.

Besides, you forgot education, that is to address your problem.

I do not believe it is impossible to change the "human nature to kill each other".

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment about the Israelis caused me to remember that I was haunted by a joke I made years earlier as I watched the events of 9-11. During the time when a lot of flights were being hijacked to Cuba, an acquaintance made a comment to me about all the security precautions that should be taken to stop this; the usual highly intelligent stuff about searches and limitations. I told him that seemed like a lot of inconvenience, expense, and time wasting - what we should really do is equip every plane with a stock of pistols equal to the number of seats on the plane, every passenger would be handed one upon boarding and they would return it to the airplane's gun rack on exiting. Hijacking anything full of armed individuals seems like an unsolvable problem.

Especially after I learned what had happened in Pennsylvania, I wondered if we should revisit an old truth: The best way to stop damage caused by armed bad people is to surround them with armed good people.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[mahadiga]

I think it is possible to make air travel safer by giving sedate to passengers till the flight reaches its destination.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[IndustrialComplex]

Franklin DID sail in ships though.

And ending unequality and unfairness? the recent attempted bomber was actually fairly well off.

Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?

[The Cisco Kid]

As long as the non-terrorists vastly outnumber the terrorists :P

Of course, they could always fill an entire plane with terrorists.. I suppose I shouldn't be giving them any ideas, but it probably wouldn't be cost-effective (both in terms of ticket prices and whatever you measure 'suicidal-martyrs-per-terror-induced' in)

Yes I do Know

[b4upoo]

Terrorism is the smallest of security problems for air craft. The greatest issue is the rapid delivery of diseases from all corners of the world which threatens all of us all of the time. For example a common flu strain will easily kill far more people than we lost on 9/11. Rarer strains could wipe out millions.
                        The simple answer is to allow far less travel even inside our borders. International flights should be extremely limited. That will not only insure better health and safety but will also diminish the availability of air craft to terrorists as well.
                        Nations such as the old USSR that restricted travel were not totally wrong in that policy.

Re:Yes I do Know

[Reziac]

Or put another way, your chances of contracting TB while on an international flight are perhaps a few thousand times higher (judging by the stats someone posted above about miles flown per terror incident) than of being the subject of a terror incident.

Pass the filter masks, eh??

Re:Yes I do Know

[Araes]

The simple answer is to allow far less travel even inside our borders. International flights should be extremely limited. That will not only insure better health and safety but will also diminish the availability of air craft to terrorists as well. Nations such as the old USSR that restricted travel were not totally wrong in that policy.

This is just as wrong for similar reasons as our terrorism policy. It allows threats of disaster to shift our internal policy and disrupt our society. Its a short step from this to wearing facemasks everywhere and not touching doorknobs. Hell, lets all just separate ourselves equidistantly and never have human contact so we can stop stay perfectly safe. Your quoting "In Soviet Russia" without a joke for goodness sake.

Re:Yes I do Know

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah you are right, just rob the right of people to travel.

9/11 changed peoples' minds

[wizardforce]

What are your thoughts? Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?"

No. There will never be a time when anything is "truly secure" only more secure. We can make air travel safer and indeed most people have already taken a few of the steps necessary by instinct. 9/11 changed peoples' mindset about hijackings in general and now it is far more dangerous for people who hijack a plane. If the passengers have even a suspicion that anything like what happened on 9/11 is taking place, they will act accordingly.

What a strange metric!

[ifwm]

"Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight"

I find that his credibility stems form something other than "volumes in his bibliography".

Is that anything like "Libraries of Congress"?

"That guy is really credible, look at that VIB number!"

Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorists prefer easy targets. This is much less likely if they have to assume the plane (or bus.. or train) might be full of people carrying weapons.

No.. I'm not an NRA activist or a 'gun wacko'. I don't even own a firearm, but I do know that people used to carry guns on planes and that the stupidity with hijacking actually went up when passengers were required to disarm. I'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy.

Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy.

Yes. Because if it's one thing terrorists (the ones we seem to deal with, anyway) fear, it's death.

By the way, how did you find out what terrorists prefer? Know many, do you? Been polling them?

(Sorry for that, I prefer not to use sarcasm. But sometimes, the statement is just so amazingly out of touch and stupid, it's the only way to stay sane.)

For the record, the same argument is used for carrying weapons in public in general. But the fact it, it seems to have no effect at all on violent crime rates. (Much to the consternation of both sides of the gun debate.)

Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed

[stewbacca]

The odds of getting shot by an armed and sleepy, grumpy, drunk, clumsy, whatever, passenger would be exponentially higher than the current terrorism threat.

Terrorists aren't the only ones running the risk of being shot dead on a plane if you let average Joe start target shooting in aisle 15.

Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed

[Anonymous Coward]

The way the flying experience is going these days, I can very easily see where a lot of people would be shooting up crap left and right in airports and on planes if they had guns. After about hour two on the tarmac due to "weather" over Boston, I'm not sure you could blame people for it.

So yeah, giving guns to just everyone is probably bad. Actually, I'm not even sure they'd help Air Marshalls as much as tasers inside a plane.

Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed

[Zalbik]

I do know that people used to carry guns on planes and that the stupidity with hijacking actually went up when passengers were required to disarm.

The stupidity with hijacking also went up since people started carrying iPhones...

ooo, iPhones for everyone...that'll fix it!

Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed

[Mr. Freeman]

Carrying guns onto planes can cause a lot of problems if it's not done extremely carefully. For most situations on the ground, say a restaurant, a bunch of armed citizens could easily drop an armed robber and that'd be the end of it. In a plane, you have to worry about decompression (sure, it's no explosive decompression, but it's still something you have to worry about), the very tightly packed people, and the presence of hydraulic and other control lines that can easily be penetrated by a stray bullet. It's not a simple matter of "There's a terrorist, open fire".

Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed

[Eil]

I'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy.

Well, the interesting thing about all of the recent airplane terrorists is they fully expect to die already while carrying out their idiocy. Arming passengers only guarantees that your garden variety drunk (or otherwise mentally unstable individual) will be able to kill other passengers when the whim strikes him.

If I had to choose between taking a flight that had a 1:10,000,000 chance of having a terrorist onboard and one in which any given passenger could be carrying a deadly weapon, I'd take the former every time.

Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed

[CAIMLAS]

Yep. Just like trains in the Old West: no gang was foolish enough to rob a train with Marshalls on it unless they:

a) somehow killed/injured/confined the Marshalls
b) crashed the train remotely/from the exterior
c) attacked the train outright, with vastly superior numbers, after it was stopped.

No, I didn't look at a history book to write that, but it's in the movies. Older movies are a good measuring rod for what's plausible. The only way someone might take a train - even 12 people - with knives is if the train were full of women and children. They'd be fucked if they attacked (with knives) a train of men. And even if they used guns, they'd need multiple gunmen to deal with a train full of mixed company.

Arming people is important, but it's a useless gesture if the mindset of the people is that of sheep. And yes, I think that still applies to a large degree - even now after 9/11, on airplanes.

Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation Needed]

Weighing Opinions

[flaming error]

> Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight.

One would hope that experts be judged by quality rather than quantity.

Bruce Schneier has earned street cred in the industry over many years of work. He knows security top-to-bottom, cryptography to psychology to economy.

Once in a while some media outlets decide to air an actual competent professional instead of a fud-mongering buffoon, and people in the industry send them to Bruce.

Re:Weighing Opinions

[scsirob]

Bruce is sooo right. The whole security sharade is not part of the solution, it is part of terror itself

Re:Weighing Opinions

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently he's anti-dereklyons-dick-sucking too.

Re:Weighing Opinions

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out that he's anti-motherhood, anti-baseball, anti-beer, anti-freedom, anti-life, anti-deathpenalty, anti-war, anti-christian, anti-aryan, anti-deepfriedtwinkie and that he pals around with gay card-carrying communist peacenik terrorists who listen to top 40 music.

Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[Salgak1]

. . .simply, that as far as the TSA and similar efforts go, the Emperor not only has no clothes, nobody ever remotely NEAR him has a stitch on. About the only people doing airline security right are the Israelis, and their model only works because of the relatively limited scope of El Al's operations. The Christmas Day "panty bombing" showed cascade failures in the intelligence and investigation systems that are the only effective methods of defense against terrorism. In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions. But, alas, because some people don't bother checking, or reporting (assuming it's their job to do so. . .) in a timely matter, really obvious cases are allowed to pass, and the aftermath of Enhanced Security Theater does nothing but inconvenience the public, and potentially cause so much noise as to effectively mask any REAL events or dry-runs in progress. . .

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[bcrowell]

In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.

It's pretty evident from your remarks that you didn't actually read Schneier's article. He doesn't advocate anything like this.

Your post advocates focusing on airplanes. Schneier's article advocates not focusing on airplanes.

Your post advocates increased security at the airport. His article advocates "investigation, intelligence, and emergency response," i.e., old-fasioned police work to foil plots before they go into action.

Your post advocates strip searching people because a bureaucrat put their name on a list, presumably because you believe that if one guy put explosives in his underwear, the next guy will do that too. His article says, "We confiscate liquids, screen shoes, and ban box cutters on airplanes. We tell people they can't use an airplane restroom in the last 90 minutes of an international flight. But it's not the target and tactics of the last attack that are important, but the next attack. These measures are only effective if we happen to guess what the next terrorists are planning."

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[PPH]

Ever see the holding area for passengers boarding an El Al flight? It'll make you yearn for the good old days of taking your shoes off and the occasional random body cavity search.

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article, you would see that Schneier is advocating against exactly the type of thinking you call "RATIONAL". In the article, he talks about how the TSA focused on liquids and shoes because those were the specific methods of attack that were attempted; what happens when they try using solid explosives and hiding them in their pants instead? If you're going to hassle people who have a one-way ticket, paid in cash, and no luggage then what are you going to do when they wise up and get a two-way ticket, paid in credit, and bring a few bags? Your "RATIONAL" thinking doesn't actually do anything to make anybody safer, though it might make us FEEL safer.

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[AK Marc]

We react to events, not risks. The real risks are untouched until exploited. We need penetration testing. We need to pay people to try to bring down planes, and then figure out how to stop them. And is the problem blowing them up, or getting an armed person on board? Making them crash is easy. A kid with a slingshot and good aim has a reasonably large chance of taking down a jet. It took a piece of "debris" to take down a Concord.

We want "safety" and can't even define that. We let employees run around with almost no control (and a large amount of theft from "secure" baggage areas) and subject passengers to questionable security practices. We don't deploy bomb detectors because it would be too expensive to put them everywhere, and for some reason, we decided that we have to have exactly the same security everywhere, rather than slowly deploying more effective devices as the funds become available.

As it stands, rolling back to the security we had 30 years ago wouldn't greatly impact security, but would greatly improve passenger experience.

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You're joking right? Your first three flags "one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage" are completely pointless. Nobody is going to commit a planned terrorist attack and do any of the three.

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.

All of the terrorism flags you point out frustrate me every time I hear them, as they don't make any sense at all. If it is known that a one way ticket is a "flag" then terrorists will simply buy a two way ticket. Do you think that extra hundred bucks they have to spend to get the return ticket is going to matter if it will reduce their chance of getting caught? Same with not having luggage, if that's a known flag they'll just carry some luggage. Buying with cash an issue? It's not hard to steal someone else's credit card and use that.

In a RATIONAL world we wouldn't use such easy to overcome flags. The things you mention are simply security theatre, just like Bruce was talking about in his article.

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[Salgak1]

Actually, I read Bruce regularly. My point was, if TSA is actually GOING to do the Investigation and Intelligence method, then implement a response in accordance with the indicators: No indicators, no action, as the number of indicators goes up, raise the response level to the appropriate level for the individual at hand. In other words, ACTUALLY USE THE RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION AND INTELLIGENCE IN A TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE MANNER. . . Otherwise, any effort expended gathering data that will not be used, is just a waste of effort and money. . .

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[bcrowell]

No indicators, no action, as the number of indicators goes up, raise the response level to the appropriate level for the individual at hand. In other words, ACTUALLY USE THE RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION AND INTELLIGENCE IN A TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE MANNER. . .

This presupposes that the indicators are accurate. The TSA "threat levels" are nonsense. People get put on the TSA's lists simply because their names are similar to other people's names. People get beaten by border guards, or detained and interrogated for no apparent reason; want to know the reason, i.e., the "indicator?" -- you're not allowed to, because it's a secret.

I'm not criticizing you for disagreeing with Schneier. He's not a god or an oracle. But when you say "Bruce is only pointing out the obvious...," and then go on to contradict everything he says in the article, it does seem a little odd. Maybe we should check what he has to say about the "indicators" you want to put so much faith in -- "indicators" such as the TSA threat level and the no-fly list. You seem to be advocating strip-searching people because they show up on lists like the no-fly list. Schneier says the no-fly list is bogus.

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[Carnildo]

In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.

Earlier this year, I bought a one-way ticket at the last minute with cash while carrying no luggage. Does this make me a terrorist? No, it just means I missed my connecting flight because the flight I was on was delayed by weather, and the airline lost my luggage.

In a RATIONAL world, I'd be permitted to walk from the ticket counter to the departure gate without any interference -- the determination that I'm not a terrorist would have taken place far from the airport and long before I arrived, through the actions of whichever three-letter agency is tasked with investigating and breaking up terrorist plots.

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[McFly777]

No offense, but buying a one-way ticket and not having luggage shouldn't get quite the reaction you are speaking of. I usually avoid checking luggage, instead keeping to the minimum needed in my carryon. And there are times when one needs a one-way ticket.

For example, I had two interviews in two different cities. Each company bought me round trip tickets, but I couldn't get from one to the other in time without buying a one way in the middle, and forfiting half of the "free" round trips. Another example will be when I move, I will need to drive my car to my new place, fly "home" one way, and drive the second car to my new place. I won't need luggage at all in that case. Third example; one-day business trip (no luggage) + missed return flight (change in plans) = one-way ticket with no luggage.

In example one and three someone will say, "why didn't you just change the flight instead of buying an additional one-way ticket?" The answer is that the airlines are now charging more for the change fee ( >$150) than the cost to buy another one-way ticket.

This brings me to another point, having to buy a round trip ticket to be "less suspicious" isn't going to deter a terrorist. If he is willing to die, why should he care if he spends an extra $140 doing it?

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[Eil]

In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation"

Bruce is right that better intelligence and investigative work is needed for real security against terrorist threats. However, there should never be a case where one action or trait marks you suspicious. For example:

1. A one-way ticket has no bearing on whether or not a person is a threat. If it was, a terrorist would simply buy a two-way ticket.

2. I never want to live in a world where paying with cash is considered suspicious. And in any case, a real terrorist would simply use his credit card. If he plans to blow up a plane while on it, he has little fear of leaving a paper trail.

3. I know people who travel without luggage all the time. They do so because it's expensive and a huge hassle to deal with luggage on airplanes these days. Thanks in part to the security theatre that previous terrorist attacks have inspired.

4. If someone is on a watch list, they're already to be considered suspicious and should warrant investigation regardless of any other "flags," so this really doesn't fit in with the rest of the properties you've listed here.

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[jrumney]

In example one and three someone will say, "why didn't you just change the flight instead of buying an additional one-way ticket?" The answer is that the airlines are now charging more for the change fee ( >$150) than the cost to buy another one-way ticket.

The airlines that do that will also deny you the use of the return portion of a ticket if you fail to show up for the incoming flight. How did you get around that?

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[McFly777]

The airlines that do that will also deny you the use of the return portion of a ticket if you fail to show up for the incoming flight. How did you get around that?

Good catch! I almost mentioned that too, but thought it sounded too much like a rant and detracted from my point.

I managed it like this: I was able to cancel (surrender) the incoming flight in advance. Which meant I now had two one-way tickets.

To make matters even worse, I had to fly into one airport and leave at another. I totaled 5 different airports in 3 days, booked through three separate systems. It was a mess, costly, and I wouldn't count on being able to pull it off again, but I got the job.

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[shadowbearer]

as far as the TSA and similar efforts go, the Emperor not only has no clothes,

  A friend of mine not long ago likened it to the Emperor doing a strip tease in public, and the media didn't show up, save for a few bloggers ;)

  Irony is still one of the least appreciated forms of humor...

SB

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[Donkey_Hotey]

Last year I was sent by my companyr to Connecticut to help repair a Navy sub.

1: As I was going to be there for at least six months, I bought a one-way ticket.

2: I bought it with cash (my company reimbursed me for it on my very next paycheck).

3: I didn't bring any luggage because all work clothing is provided by my employer, and someone who was already there told me that there were a couple of cheap clothing stores nearby (work 16+ hours/day, 7 days/week = doing laundry ain't a happening thing).

In your "RATIONAL" world I'm a prime candidate for a strip-search, deep cavity inspection, and not even a reach-around to show for it. Thanks, but no thanks.

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious is not so obvious to a lot of people.

Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .

[srvivn21]

In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.

So if I decide to buy a car 600 miles away, buy a one-way plane ticket with cash and only carry a small bag (or just a book/magazine to read on the plane), you think I should be physically violated (one-way ticket, paid cash, no luggage)?

That doesn't sound very rational to me.

Yes, but...

[Angst Badger]

Yes, we can probably make air travel completely secure, or very nearly so. The problem is that the level of scrutiny that would require would make air travel too expensive for anyone to afford and so unpleasant that even those rich enough to afford it would be unwilling to undergo it.

That said, there's room for progress, but odds are we won't see any. We'll just see more nonsensical, ineffective rules and more numerous pissing contests with the semi-literate thugs they hire for airport security.

Our biggest problem

[autocracy]

“I feel better with the heightened security because I feel safe,” said Belisle, who was flying to Washington, D.C., to visit her son in Virginia.

Source: my local newspaper this morning. We call it security theatre. It's annoying, wasteful, ineffective in our minds. For much of the world, it's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away. People just feel better.

Re:Our biggest problem

[thisnamestoolong]

That is because people are by and large, completely retarded. I really don't care how much better it makes them feel.

Re:Our biggest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely hate it when they interview clueless loons like this woman. It is patently a "shut up and get in line" suggestion from the media....

Re:Our biggest problem

[SuperKendall]

That is because people are by and large, completely retarded. I really don't care how much better it makes them feel.

Keep in mind that when anyone says this, it always includes themselves.

Re:Our biggest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

“I feel better with the heightened security because I feel safe,” said Belisle, who was flying to Washington, D.C., to visit her son in Virginia.

Source: my local newspaper this morning. We call it security theatre. It's annoying, wasteful, ineffective in our minds. For much of the world, it's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away. People just feel better.

Security theater is not intrinsically bad. For good security theater, you need a few things:

• Brings people's expectations into line with reality (i.e. reassures them that nothing bad will happen, because in reality, nothing bad will)
• Is cheap (in terms of cost and convenience)—and this is Bruce's criticism, because what's being proposed ain't!

Re:Our biggest problem

[alder]

That is because people are by and large, completely retarded.

While there is grain of truth in that ;-) there are other ways to look at the newspaper quote, for example Opinion Polls: Getting the results you want ;-)

Re:Our biggest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time a terrorist does something...

You can force people to do something they dont want to do.

You can stop or delay them from doing something they want to do.

You can arrest/kidnap them if they dont do everything you want them to do.

You can beat them.

That is one hell of a teddy bear.

Re:Our biggest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to work WITH that tendency, not against it.

The politicians are responding to a need: a need to cover their own asses. Ideally, the security people could provide something along those lines while actually increasing both real security and apparent security, while reducing passenger harassment (e.g. the crap with shoes, water, not being able to use the toilet, etc.)

Right now, we have no leadership in the TSA (at any level) and DHS is headed by a politician who only knows about immigration, so it's not much better. First, they need some idea about what the hell they're doing, because they're being left to their own devices and all they can think of are new and ineffective ways of harassing passengers.

I do think though that there's some danger in thinking that "security theater" is the enemy. We do need to make people feel safe, we just need to do that while providing real security (and ideally it shouldn't harass passengers). And we certainly can't accept solutions that provide only the illusion of security without improving anything.

I just hope that this overhaul of the system they're planning gets decent experts, not more political flunkies. Maybe then they can figure out how to come up with security measures that don't drive people away from the airports...

Re:Our biggest problem

[tkw954]

it's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away

My teddy bear keeps the closet monsters away; have you ever seen one? I also have a rock that repels tigers.

Simple - stick everyone through an MRI

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be possible to detect signatures of typical types of explosives. The same goes for luggage.

Then you just have to scorch the earth of areas surrounding airports to avoid SAM missile rockets.

Of course, only idiots try to blow up planes. The planning that goes into blowing up a plane could easily go into taking down a bridge or elevated footpath.

Luckily, the best suicide bombers don't reproduce

[Anonymous Coward]

After a few generations, they will be defeated by mean words and harsh glances.

Just what I've always said

[Locke2005]

"When somebody can commit an atrocity and no laws are changed as a result, only then will I agree that we have achieved maturity as a society."

Re:Just what I've always said

[Itninja]

Impressive. I can see you have said this hundreds of times.

Re:Just what I've always said

[Anonymous Coward]

Feeding the troll, but who says he posts it on the internet repeatedly (rather than in person, or in a newspaper or book or IMs or email?) and who says that if he has otherwise posted it that he used that exact same wording?

Re:Just what I've always said

[selven]

Unfortunately, society can never be mature. Change will continue to occur and will not stop. Technology will solve all of the world's problems and create new ones in their place. We're stuck in a constant loop of adapting forever.

What about making other things more secure first?

[Eadwacer]

Roughly 16,000 people were killed by automobiles in the first six months of this year. Roughly 22,000 were killed by preventable medical errors. If we crashed two or three 747s per week, we still wouldn't be at that level of deaths. If the money we waste on TSA were spent elsewhere, we'd be ahead of the game.

That's just part of it.

[khasim]

Now look at how many people die every year from other causes.

If you are in the USofA, you are more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.

But that is the problem.

Because terrorism is so rare, when it happens it is covered in the newspapers, on TV, on the radio, etc. Repeatedly. For weeks.

Re:That's just part of it.

[berashith]

good call. Lets commit constant acts of terror until the US population becomes numb to it. Once the apathy towards airplane bombing sets in, we will be free to travel in peace!

I think my math may be off a bit here.

Re:That's just part of it.

[dkleinsc]

This is exactly the same problem as kids being much more likely to be molested by good old Uncle Joe than by some stranger who peed in a park 10 years ago. It's a completely irrational fear of some outside boogieman because we are unable to accept that the people we know and trust are capable of such things.

As Stanley Milgram and Philip Zombardo have demonstrated, yes, there's a very good chance they (and most of the rest of us) are capable of doing horrible things.

Re:That's just part of it.

[SanityInAnarchy]

It also has to do with our tribe mentality, mostly a result of our evolutionary heritage.

If you're in a small tribe of fifty people or so, and one of them is eaten by a tiger, statistically, you're likely to be eaten next. The tribes which react with tighter security, or maybe a counterattack (kill the tiger!), are more likely to survive than the ones who shrug, figure it's an isolated incident, and get slowly picked off, one by one.

Our brains are simply not wired for evaluating the risk of things we see in the news in any sizable city, let alone national or world news.

Re:That's just part of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because terrorism is so rare, when it happens it is covered in the newspapers, on TV, on the radio, etc. Repeatedly. For years.

Fixed that for you...

Re:That's just part of it.

[sincewhen]

Yes, I think there are around 7000 deaths per day in the USA.
While an extra 250 deaths in a plane crash due to a terrorist attack would be tragic, it would only be a blip statistically.
If we could convince the public at large of the truly insignificant risk of terrorist attack, perhaps we could wind down the security theatre, and spend that money instead on intelligence work.

Security is harder than safety

[drdrgivemethenews]

The FAA has a pretty good record of making travel via commercial aircraft truly safe. But their adversaries are aircraft and flight control systems, and all the various ways those can malfunction.

The TSA has an equivalent job, but terrorists, as stupid as some of them are, are a good bit brighter than airplanes, and they're self-destructive to boot. So perfect security is unlikely to happen until terrorists go away.

We need to learn *as a country* what cost/benefit analysis means, and how to use it on the terrorism problem.

Mod Up

[XanC]

Finally the right idea. Why should we gift-wrap defenseless sheep for the bad guys?

Re:Mod Up

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm actually chair of the National Ninja Warrior's Advocacy Group; packing a gun is silly in most situations, mostly because you don't know how to use it or you don't know how to deal with situations where a gun is useless. For example, if I grab you in the alley, your gun is useless; I'm skilled enough to recognize your attempt at a weapon (assuming it's a knife) and block it (then find out it's a gun you're currently being forced to hold pointed at your foot...). However, if you're highly trained in Judo, my head is probably going into the nearest brick wall for trying.

A gun is a great self defense weapon. So are your fists. Your fists won't work from 30 feet away, and if you're being shot at you've got a slight problem. I believe we should train everyone to react in hostile situations. Anything, Judo, Boxing, Aikido, Ninjutsu, Kung Fu, it doesn't matter. If you hold a second level rank after 8 months, you're pretty dangerous; if you hold fifth Dan level after 17 years of training, you're carrying around one hell of a concealed weapon. If you're on a plane and some idiot pulls out a box cutter, he now has a plane full of ninjas to deal with; oops.

We should all learn to be some kind of martial artist, so we have a nation of ninja warriors. Nobody will fuck with anybody ever again. It's infeasible. On one point, everyone can kick your ass; on the other, everyone's reaction to being threatened is now to actively seek a way to destroy you. Maybe I'll stand here nice and quiet while you point a gun at some girl's head; but as soon as you glance behind you, and that thing slides just a bit up, angled away from her skull? I'm there, and your whole arm is gone, and neck snapped right in half. First chance I get.

This is the most stable form of society possible.

Re:Mod Up

[Jeng]

Where do I subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:Mod Up

[rale, the]

For example, if I grab you in the alley, your gun is useless;

What does this have to do with martial arts? The first step to ensuring your own safety is to be aware of your surroundings. Letting someone get close enough to grab you while you're walking alone through an alley means you already failed at the most basic level of self defense.

Re:Mod Up

[bluefoxlucid]

It's boring and wordy and mostly amounts to Basket Case whining about how people are told that self-defense is wrong, or Letters to the Editor that read along the lines of "you are fucking stupid, you think you can take someone with a gun, anyone who has a gun just has to shoot you and you're dead!"

You'd be better off 1) taking your gun to a firing range and learning to fire it; 2) taking a self-defense-with-guns class to learn how to use it; and 3) taking a close-combat martial art to learn how to deal with situations where your firearm is useless (or you don't have it).

Or you could just learn to play guitar. By the time someone offs you, you'll just be staring down the barrel thinking, "Eh, I've got blow jobs from like four thousand girls, I had a fun enough ride."

Re:Mod Up

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Re:Mod Up

[PPalmgren]

Ninjas on a plane? What half the passengers on the plane are attending a pirate convention in LA? All hell will break loose!

ARRRR

Re:Mod Up

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're on a plane and some idiot pulls out a box cutter, he now has a plane full of ninjas to deal with; oops.

I can see it now. Most likely staring someone like Bruce Willis. Would it be the idiot -- or the ninjas? -- saying "yippee ki-yay?"

Re:Mod Up

[sulliwan]

Also, bar fights would be a hell lot more awesome!

Re:Mod Up

[bluefoxlucid]

... actually, watch old episodes of Walker Texas Ranger. In some eps, the actor playing the bad guy is a trained martial artist. So is Chuck Norris. The fight scenes are epic, but in real life they'd be ... more epic.

Re:Mod Up

[Anonymous Coward]

The National Ninja Warrior's Advocacy Group does not exist...

Anyway, tongue-in-cheek exaggeration set aside, your arguments don't hold water:

> A gun is a great self defense weapon.

Hum, No, it's not! A gun is only a good self-defense weapon in the hands of someone who is well trained AND can keep his wits/calm when in a crisis. Ever seen those movies (see Youtube) where the police shoots some suspect because they were nervous? Myself, I don't know many people who are really able to remain calm under panic situation and would trust almost nobody with a gun in such a situation...

> if you hold fifth Dan level after 17 years of training, you're carrying around one hell of a concealed weapon

If you were interested in self-defense you would know that martial arts training _alone_ do not make someone able to fight in a real danger situation. There are many testimonies of black belts that were beaten by much less skilled opponents. (Eg. I've seen: the Aikido black belt teacher who is punched because, you know, the aggressor does not act as in the dojo, he will not follow rules!)

Martial arts can only help if you can keep your calm (which is very hard), if you panic, no matter how skilled you are, you lose all the advantage that your training should bring. Note, that this is normal: people are afraid when attacked. This is a perfectly normal reaction. Unless you are MENTALLY prepared, you are at a very serious disadvantage. That's why the widespread belief that learning some martial art (no matter which) will make you able to defend yourself is one of the worst fallacy. In fact, it's STUPID, can make you over-confident and end in a hospital. Self-defense is about being able to keep your wits, react as needed, use your fear as a fuel to fight, then you can take advantage of a martial arts training...

> We should all learn to be some kind of martial artist

The problem is that the bad guys will then be much worse! I've seen it at school (long ago) when some ass*le would learn Judo and use it to annoy/attack the others (leg-sweep and such).

Then, why should people have to learn how to fight? We're supposed to be a bit more civilized, it's sad that we still live in a world were violence is so frequent.

> everyone's reaction to being threatened is now to actively seek a way to destroy you

Exaggeration aside, this is the answer to aggression in general, in my opinion. If when someone is assaulted, if everybody around would react by fighting back, the attacker would stand no chance. No matter if the opponent is much stronger, at one against 10, even unskilled people would kick his ***. Unfortunately, people are coward, and would rather look the other way, which explains why you regularly read about someone killed/assaulted/raped whereas dozens of people were around and did nothing to help... Sad.

I've seen it it many times myself in the public transports: both as a victim and as an interferer when someone else was threatened. Each and every time, there were _dozens_ of people around (most bigger and stronger than me), and nobody EVER tried to help in any way, so I had to take the risk of being hurt (or worse) without any hope that I'd get some help should things go ugly. Pathetic.

Re:Mod Up

[dropadrop]

I think you are correct. I lived in Lebanon for a few years, and while statistics and sense might consider the country dangerous, it was very safe in some ways. People did not really get into fights lightly. You always had to assume the guy you are starting to argue with is carrying a gun, and has actually used it to shoot people. Of course the downside was, that arguments (while rare) could end up very ugly...

Re:Mod Up

[Zalbik]

We should all learn to be some kind of martial artist, so we have a nation of ninja warriors. Nobody will fuck with anybody ever again. It's infeasible. On one point, everyone can kick your ass;

Awesome idea!

One question...how do we make sure that we only train the good guys in martial arts?

Re:Mod Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man I wish I had mod points today.

Re:Mod Up

[steveha]

The fight scenes are epic, but in real life they'd be ... more epic.

I think that in real life, fights tend to be over a lot faster than in movies/TV. The first guy to land a really good hit gains an advantage, then presses the advantage, then wins. If I let you get in a good shot to my chest and I'm sucking air, you can then land several more attacks and lay me out. If you even land a good hit against my knee, I've probably lost the fight right there. This is all assuming a real fight and not just posturing in front of an audience.

Also, in movies/TV, people seem to be able to run flat out and fight with 100% intensity for minutes at a time. You especially see this in superhero movies, even where the hero has no actual powers (Daredevil, Batman, etc.)

P.S. My favorite fight scene in fiction is probably from the story "Gulf" by Robert A. Heinlein. The protagonist is a super-intelligent spy, and he is expecting some sort of trouble from the bad guys; since he is in a public place he figures their first move will be some kind of diversion. The bad guys light off some fireworks, and almost everyone around the spy turns to look in the direction of the bang; two people near the spy do not look and head straight for him. Without hesitating he attacks them, and lays them out instantly, and then walks away as if nothing had happened. I thought that was a lot cooler than a three-page fight scene would have been.

Re:Mod Up

[Mr. Freeman]

"National ninja warrior's advocacy group"? Is your main office by any chance located in a treehouse? Do you still believe that girls have cooties?

Something about your quite immature writing style makes me think that perhaps you haven't thought this through, especially that part where you assume that people don't know how to use guns. Sure, distributing firearms to a bunch of uneducated morons is a bad idea, but assuming you're properly trained in their use, they can be a great defensive weapon.

Re:Mod Up

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually chair of the National Ninja Warrior's Advocacy Group [...]

No, your're not. You just made that up; your comment is the sole, lone Google hit, in fact.

Damn shame, too. It would've been cool.

Re:Mod Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to reconcile your claim that fights would be over quickly with the reality that fights between trained martial artists (e.g., UFC fights, Olympic judo matches, boxing matches, Olympic TKD matches, etc...) the majority of the time go to decision.

Also hard to reconcile your claim that a kick to the knee would end a fight with the reality that kicks to knees are legal in lots of martial arts competitions (MT matches, UFC fights, K1 fights) but almost never end fights.

Re:Mod Up

[The Archon V2.0]

Awesome idea!

One question...how do we make sure that we only train the good guys in martial arts?

Check their evil bit, duh.

Re:Mod Up

[khchung]

We should all learn to be some kind of martial artist, so we have a nation of ninja warriors

This is so funny that I hope you are joking here. The USofA has trouble keeping most of it's citizen from getting obese due to lack of physical activity, and here you think it is possible to get the whole nation to take effort to go through the training to be ninja worriors?

Re:Mod Up

[mjwx]

We should all learn to be some kind of martial artist, so we have a nation of ninja warriors

But then we create a ninja arms race, we make big ninjas so they make bigger ninjas. In response we make even bigger ninjas and so on until eventually we make a ninja big enough to destroy us all.

Besides, we cant even manage to teach everyone how to drive safely, how can we expect them to master a martial art?

Re:Mod Up

[WuphonsReach]

P.S. My favorite fight scene in fiction is probably from the story "Gulf" by Robert A. Heinlein. The protagonist is a super-intelligent spy, and he is expecting some sort of trouble from the bad guys; since he is in a public place he figures their first move will be some kind of diversion. The bad guys light off some fireworks, and almost everyone around the spy turns to look in the direction of the bang; two people near the spy do not look and head straight for him. Without hesitating he attacks them, and lays them out instantly, and then walks away as if nothing had happened. I thought that was a lot cooler than a three-page fight scene would have been.

See also most of the Quiller novels by Adam Hall.

Throw the ferret down the hole, see what he comes back with.

Re:Mod Up

[MiniMike]

I just had an image of a pirate (arrrgh type, not Somali) trying to take a flight somewhere, and all mayhem breaking loose...

but as soon as you glance behind you, and that thing slides just a bit up, angled away from her skull? I'm there, and your whole arm is gone, and neck snapped right in half. First chance I get.

Unless she's also trained, then you only get to snap their neck into thirds.

How can I arrange to have a trained Ninja on every flight I take?

Re:Mod Up

[steveha]

Hard to reconcile your claim that fights would be over quickly with the reality that fights between trained martial artists (e.g., UFC fights, Olympic judo matches, boxing matches, Olympic TKD matches, etc...) the majority of the time go to decision.

These fights do not allow crippling blows. No eye gouging, no cheap shots below the belt (or else, if they are allowed, the men are wearing cups), definitely no neck snapping and I doubt full-on hits to the brain case are allowed. These guys aren't even allowed surprise attacks; they can't attack until the referee says it is time.

Unless you know of a martial arts fighting contest where the losers are typically hauled off to the hospital or the morgue, I will not accept that they perfectly model real full-on fights.

On the other hand, I'll grant you that martial artists doing full-contact kick each other pretty hard in various parts of the body without the fight being decided.

Also hard to reconcile your claim that a kick to the knee would end a fight with the reality that kicks to knees are legal in lots of martial arts competitions (MT matches, UFC fights, K1 fights) but almost never end fights.

Hmmm. And these people have unpadded, unprotected knees? I've constantly heard this meme that the knee is rather fragile. If you are correct, and martial artists are allowed to attack each others' knees full-force, then I must be mistaken on this point. (I am not any kind of expert on lethal hand-to-hand fighting and I don't claim to be one.) How often do the losers have to go to hospital for a messed-up knee?

steveha

Re:Mod Up

[bluefoxlucid]

Besides, we cant even manage to teach everyone how to drive safely, how can we expect them to master a martial art?

Oh god mod this one up +1 Hilarious.

TSA works for Al Qaeda

[Anonymous Coward]

The flight was never in any danger. The so-called "bomber" had the explosive equivalent of a box of matches, which he used to great effect to castrate himself in the most embarrassing, painful, and self-destructive manner possible. The proper response to seeing someone light his own underwear on fire is to laugh, not panic.

If there was a overarching strategy, it was to put "Al Qaeda" back on the front page as part of a new recruitment effort and to disrupt American commerce. With only the tiniest of nudges, Americans are once again demanding to have their civil liberties destroyed, freedom of travel curtailed, billions of dollars to be spent in self-defeating and paralytic "security" measures. Air travel in the US is now a self-inflicted nightmare. It does not need to be this way.

If there really is an "Al Qaeda," its most effective tool is the TSA. The American taxpayer has spent billions of dollars to build "Al Qaeda" from a rag-tag group of forty guys living in caves into a globe-spanning super-spy network more powerful than the CIA. All based on a one-time event that was solved nine years ago by simply locking the cockpit doors.

I wonder if this is what it was like to live through the McCarthy "Red Scare" era? We are far beyond that now.

Re:TSA works for Al Qaeda

[larry bagina]

Wow, where can I get some of those matches?. He had almost twice as much PETN as the shoe bomber and was near the fuel supply (although over the ocean would have been a better time). Had he successfully detonated his crotch, there would have been a problem.

Re:Luckily, the best suicide bombers don't reprodu

[aaandre]

For some insight on suicide bomber culture, see Syriana. Extensive training and brainwashing for months. Similar to Army training... very methodical and efficient. Another similarity, the suicide bombers are the poor and desperate of their own country, their innocence and faith taken advantage of by people with their own agenda and ulterior motives.

A better article about Schneier exploits

[joeflies]

The Atlantic published an article about Schneier exploiting airport security by pointing out the fundamental flaw that airport scanners don't actually check the no fly list.

Bruce points out that the no fly list only gets checked when you purchase the ticket, and your ID isn't checked when you actually use it. For example, bad guy steals a credit card and buys a ticket under a fake name. That gets him a valid ticket and avoids the no fly list

Next, the bad guy takes a boarding pass and modifies it in photoshop to show his real name, and uses that fake boarding pass along with his real id to get through airport screening. Security checks if his id matches the name on the boarding pass, but they never check the computer to see if the name is on the no fly list or even if the boarding pass is valid.

Finally, the bad guy can rip up the fake boarding pass and use the real boarding pass purchased with the stolen credit card at the gate and gets on the plane. Notice throughout the whole process, nobody checked if the bad guy's id against the no fly list?

Re:A better article about Schneier exploits

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been a change in regard to this at some airports. I have had the screener at SeaTac scan the barcode on my boarding pass with a handheld device and then compare its result with my drivers license and what was printed on the boarding pass.
Unfortunately on the return flight (Austin) no such checks were performed.
Obviously the TSA listened to something Bruce had to say.

Re:A better article about Schneier exploits

[modemboy]

Considering you can still fly without id, and they have the automated ticket kiosks at the airport now, you wouldn't even have to go to the trouble of forging the boarding pass. Show up to the airport with stolen CC, print out ticket, tell security you forgot your id (subjecting you to the more thorough search) and you're off to terrorizing!

Change our clothes

[supradave]

A simple way to accomplish the clothing aspect is to disallow us to wear clothes on an airplane. Of course, the flying naked idea wouldn't fly. So why not provide us with a flight uniform that is made from some easily scanned material so if you're wearing clothes, it would be easy to tell. That way, no naked scanners. No puff tests. No shoes. Then when we're off the flight, collect our luggage, change our clothes and get on our way. Not allowing bags or clothes and such on the plane would be best.

Just removing the ridiculous security checks and allowing us to continue living a life of liberty would be best, even if some people die.

Re:Change our clothes

[moranar]

Of course, the matter of all the people changing into those clothes - and putting away their own clothes, and putting them back again - is irrelevant. No mention of the facilities that would allow dozens or hundreds of people to change at the same time in time for their flights. Nevermind the distribution and recovery of the uniforms. Nor the fact that your own clothes would go with you on the hand baggage, which puts your 'security solution' back at square -20.

Seriously, think things through before posting. The article speaks against exactly this 'security theatre' kind of half-assed bullshit.

Re:Change our clothes

[moranar]

Or maybe I'm an idiot, and don't get sarcasm. Sorry.

it can be improved

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace the TSA with a bunch of Israeli screeners. They manage to do a good job without inconveniencing legitimate travelers.

Re:it can be improved

[kbeyer]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/macbook-gun-shot-israel-security,9269.html

Don't bring a MacBook then..

Extra "security" makes people feel safe?

[russ_allegro]

I find it odd that there are people who feel more safe when they take off their shoes. Whenever I've gone somewhere where they pat me down and check me with a metal detector wand, it makes me feel like someone is going to shoot me inside there. I feel more vulnerable.

I recently went to a rollerskating rink where I was wanded and patted down by a police officer. Of course he didn't even check my skates which has more than enough room for a hand gun. Metal detector and pat down at a skate rink, perhaps I shouldn't be here. Did I feel safe there? Not at all, it did the opposite.

Re:Extra "security" makes people feel safe?

[Anonymous Coward]

“Never go to clubs with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside. But what about all those niggas waiting outside with guns? They know you ain't got one.” - Chris Rock

Still not safe! Re:The only way to fly safe!

[Timothy Brownawell]

Is to either remove all people from flights, or somehow put them all into a coma for the duration of the flight.

Actually, the plane could still crash due to mechanical failure, pilot stupidity (including other pilots not looking where they're going), unexpected bad weather, or collision with large birds.

Re:Still not safe! Re:The only way to fly safe!

[gerddie]

Is to either remove all people from flights, or somehow put them all into a coma for the duration of the flight.

Actually, the plane could still crash due to mechanical failure, pilot stupidity (including other pilots not looking where they're going), unexpected bad weather, or collision with large birds.

So remove all people from flights it is.

Eh, right

[SmallFurryCreature]

Have you followed the latest terrorist attempt? The guy comes from a rich family and was given the chance to study in the west with every western luxury and with every western freedom.

And yet, he did become a terrorist.

So what more do you want to give him?

And Osama? Member of one of the richest families in the world.

Let go of your racists ideas that everyone not living in the west is piss poor.

No starving child has ever committed a terrorist attack, they are to busy dying.

Check the red army brigade (german terrorist group) plenty of them coming from well to do families.

Check the US terrorists who blow up abortion clinics, lynched blacks or the guy that did Oklahoma. Is there a single piss-poor individual among them?

Re:Eh, right

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember these massive cult suicides?, how did they manage to get cult members to kill themselves? Books have been written on the subject.

Now if you create a cult based on the Muslim religion - where you have to pray 6 times a day - you have a very powerful brainwashing machine. Now all you need is to get your members to kill themselves... along with a bunch of "infidels"

<tinfoilhat>I wonder if this whole airplane bomber thing have something to do with the renewal of the Patriot Act...</tinfoilhat>

Because bullets don't work like that.

[khasim]

The bad guy at the back of the plane will draw first. So that means probably one person dead no matter what.

Then the good guys in the front of the plane turn and see everyone behind the bad guy with their guns drawn. How are they supposed to identify the bad guy in that split second?

Meanwhile, the other bad guy at the front of the plane starts firing at the people at the back of the plane so they return fire, hitting the good guys at the front of the plane. And the good guys at the front of the plane return fire on the good guys at the back of the plane.

Everyone ends up dead and the bad guys only had to fire a few shots.

Re:Because bullets don't work like that.

[zulater]

People that carry firearms don't work like that. This is a red herring tactic that the anti-gun crowd and police departments use. In reality it's easy to tell who the bad guys are. They will be the ones with everyone's gun pointed at them.

Re:Because bullets don't work like that.

[stewbacca]

Most people are stupid. I'm not willing to suspend my judgment about who the bad guy is based on whomever the gun nuts on board have their guns pointed at.

Airport security is stupid.

[tjstork]

Airport security is stupid. I fail to see the logic of having a guard search my rear end in case I am one of the 1 in 10 billion airport travelers that decides to carry a bomb, so that I can get run over by a girl talking on her cell phone on my way home from the airport.

Americans have no way of measuring or comparing risks, and honestly I think every interest group wants it that way.

Re:Airport security is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've flown with some really sketchy dudes and none of them ever received a cavity search. What the hell are you doing wrong?

Re:Airport security is stupid.

[interval1066]

AMERICAN airport security is stupid, I'll agree to that. Having every single little old lady from Peoria, Il. take off her slippers before boarding a plane is asinine. The Fed. needs to do only two things; sky marshals, and send the idiots who head the TSA (perhaps after firing the lot of them currently in place and replacing 'em with a fresh pack of idiots) to training in Israel for a few months. That's it. All the scanner machines and removed shoes can't match one man who is allowed to board with a gun and some proper anti-terrorist training org-wide. That's security, and it won't cost billions.

Re:Airport security is stupid.

[tjstork]

I've flown with some really sketchy dudes and none of them ever received a cavity search. What the hell are you doing wrong?

I guess I should make it clear, that when I have a bomb in my rear, that I'm talking about McDonald's for lunch, not C4.

Re:Airport security is stupid.

[dkleinsc]

Actually, right now there really isn't a head of the TSA, because Sen Jim DeMint (R-SC) is doing his best to stop Obama's nominee (Errol Southers) from ever getting confirmed. The reason: he has refused to guarantee that he will fight any attempts by TSA employees to unionize.

But hey, obviously stopping unionization is way more important than stopping terrorism.

Re:Airport security is stupid.

[The Archon V2.0]

I guess I should make it clear, that when I have a bomb in my rear, that I'm talking about McDonald's for lunch, not C4.

Given the ban on using the bathrooms for portions of the flight, I'm no longer sure which bomb will be worse.

Nope... not even that...

[denzacar]

Stowaways, hidden explosives on board, sabotage, anti-aircraft systems, use of military aircraft to attack civilian ones...

About as much chance as...

[Anonymous Coward]

Secure travel is about as likely as secure software.
Some idiot savant will poke a hole in whatever protection you put in place.
T

Easy...

[denzacar]

How are they supposed to identify the bad guy in that split second?

He will be the brownish-blackish male speaking bad English or chanting/babbling in some foreign tongue.

Why go to all the effort?

[khasim]

If your name is on a no-fly list, you send a different guy who's name is not on the list.

If you cannot find someone who's name is not on the list, you buy guns and go on a shooting rampage inside the terminal where all the other travelers are standing in line, holding their shoes.

The terminal closes and all the flights are re-directed to other landing strips. If you pick the terminal right and the day right, you pretty much shut down all travel in that sector.

Re:Why go to all the effort?

[MickyTheIdiot]

> If your name is on a no-fly list, you send a different guy who's name is not on the list.

Same thing goes for profiling. Not checking grannies at the airport gate because they aren't a threat? Guess what... find a granny to radicalize and send HER! We're in a never ending race to oneup each other now.

Re:Why go to all the effort?

[selven]

Why not keep your own life and just leave an explosive piece of luggage in the airport, beside 4-5 families to foil their feeble "remove all unattended stuff" policy? You could even put 2-4 machine guns in it instead of a bomb and have them fire randomly everywhere.

Re:Why go to all the effort?

[t0p]

If your name is on a no-fly list, you send a different guy who's name is not on the list.

But how do you know if your name is on a no-fly list? I'm pretty sure the authorities don't tell you. You won't know until you actually try to fly. But if you use fake ID belonging to an utterly unradical person, it doesn't matter if you're on the list or not.

Re:Why go to all the effort?

[The Archon V2.0]

But how do you know if your name is on a no-fly list? I'm pretty sure the authorities don't tell you. You won't know until you actually try to fly.

Two words: "Dry run"

USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror..

[fantomas]

The USA has declared for several years a "War on Terror". The USA (and many other nations to be fair) is a state that fears visitors bringing their own nail scissors to its shores. The USA is seriously thinking of asking people to keep their hands in view and not visit the toilet 60 minutes before arriving as this is seen as a real threat to its national security.

These actions don't seem rational to me. The country with a military spend ten times greater than the next largest country, probably with a military the size of most of the rest of the world is scared of individuals approaching its shores bearing nail scissors? These seem to be the action of a terrified, irrational people and nation. Therefore, if the USA (and others) have declared a War on Terror*, then the USA being terrified means the emotion Terror has won. What happens now?

*I would note that I have a problem with the concept "War on Terror" as I don't see how you can declare a war on a human emotion. Is it possible to have a "War on Joy" for example? Perhaps you could declare a "War on preventing terror in Americans" and find ways of stopping Americans being terrified but I think this would be a tricky task. A lot of people are quite frightened of spiders in their bath tubs after all.

I think "War on Terror" is short for "War on people who use non-conventional forms of warfare against us that do not declare war on us as a sovereign nation" but I fear that this is difficult to bound in any way so actually means "permanent warfare against any individual or group that we, by our definitions, define as guilty of violent action against us and/or a threat to us at any time in the future". If it is not against another sovereign state, can war be declared, and can it be agreed to be ceased? References really welcomed to any well written definitions on what a "War on Terror" means. I'd really love to find some well argued definitions.

What's the point in reporting that?

[copponex]

Listen up, pal. I don't know who you've been talking to, but the media isn't here to report facts or put news in perspective. We're here to sell ads. If we don't blow everything out of proportion around the clock, what is going to keep you glued to our 24 hour news^W entertainment cycle?

Re:What's the point in reporting that?

[Divide By Zero]

+1, Understanding News Organizations' Business Models and "If It Bleeds, It Leads"
+1, Snarky Cynicism

Re:What's the point in reporting that?

[Reziac]

No more than the literal truth. TV news doesn't exist to inform the public; it exists to sell YOUR eyeballs to THEIR advertisers. The more eyeballs are glued to the screen, the more their ad-time is worth in the open market. They don't really give a shit WHY your eyeballs are present, so long as they're salable.

Video interview

[hey]

Since the plane in this latest attack flew from outside the US I expect the next measure will be video interviews by US-based security personal before you are allowed into a plane heading to the US.

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[harl]

The regular, non swine, flu kills 25K-32K a year according to the CDC.

Can be done, but public won't like it.

[petes_PoV]

No carry on at all and dressed only in disposable paper overalls.

Once you separate the people (i.e. their bodies) from everything else the chances of them doing anything that could threaten an airplane drop dramatically. Short of ingesting some sort of explosive, in large enough quantities to make a hole in a plane there aren't many other ways to do damage.

However, all that will happen then is that the baddies will find other ways to cause fear: such as targeting easier forms of transport, IEDs beside motorways for example.

Re:Can be done, but public won't like it.

[drdrgivemethenews]

Perfect setup for an attack by the evil Sex Ray machine smuggled into the luggage compartment.

> No carry on at all and dressed only in disposable paper overalls

Re:Can be done, but public won't like it.

[Reziac]

I'd think chucking a few cans of shaving cream into open vents, turbines, or whatever else has already been inspected for the flight and will hold a pressurized can in place for half an hour or so, would be just as effective, and a lot cheaper (no need to buy a ticket, just hie yourself over the airport fence in the dark of night).

Re:Can be done, but public won't like it.

[cvtan]

References to Flesh Gordon will get you modded up.

Re:Can be done, but public won't like it.

[jonwil]

Even if you do that, I can still find at least 20 things on the plane itself that can be used to kill or incapacitate the pilots and crew (which is generally the easiest answer if you want to bring down the airplane)
Not to mention that Al-Queda could easily teach their terrorists the art of killing with your bare hands.

Short of putting all the passengers to sleep with pills or knockout gas, it is impossible to stop a determined terrorist from gaining control of the plane and/or damaging it in such a way as to cause it to crash.

Travel safely outside the NATO alliance

[xiando]

Only the NATO alliance and then primarily it's biggest member, the USA, carries out false-flag terrorist attacks against it's own citizens using aircraft. Don't travel to the US and you're pretty much safe, stay out of the NATO alliance and you're flying with no chance of being killed by your government in a false-flag terror attack.

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[petes_PoV]

And how many were killed by guns in america? At a guess, the same number as road fatalities.
(if this doesn't get neg'd out of existence I'll be amazed)

Yabut

[sconeu]

He's gonna get the 400 pound guy with the flab slabs and the man-boobs instead.

Re:Yabut

[actionbastard]

His name is Robert Paulson.

Re:Yabut

[Zero__Kelvin]

"He's gonna get the 400 pound guy with the flab slabs and the man-boobs instead."

He already does, every night. He was hoping to have sex with someone else for a change ... ;-)

Re:Yabut

[GrumblyStuff]

Yeabutt is what Kramer utters when the fat guy gets up to go to the bathroom and has to squeeze past him.

Re:Yabut

[zoewhite]

Great

Because guns do work that way. Right?

[khasim]

In reality it's easy to tell who the bad guys are. They will be the ones with everyone's gun pointed at them.

Because guns always point to the bad guys, right?

No. They don't.

The people holding the guns won't be able to tell who the bad guy is because they will not have seen him start shooting. They will pull their guns and point them in the direction they think the bad guy is.

Which will be towards the passengers in front of them. Which is what those passengers will see when they look behind them.

Re:Because guns do work that way. Right?

[zulater]

So by your logic events like THIS can't happen because no one knows who the bad guy is? You guys are a hoot. Responsible gun carrying citizens are not going to cause a wild west shootout where everyone kills each other.

They're not dumb

[busydoingnothing]

I think the biggest mistake that we appear to make is that we think these people attempting to pull of these attacks are dumb. I think we grossly underestimate their intelligence, almost as if it's dangerous or anti-American to think of them as smart and very capable. In response to their failed attempts, we institute rules that'll potentially prevent that specific attempt in the future, and any person of average intelligence can see how absurd it is to think that will make us any safer, as if there's not a thousand other ways to commit such an act. In turn, that makes us look absolutely foolish. Shouldn't we at least try to look like we're outsmarting them?

Re:They're not dumb

[MickyTheIdiot]

But 1) they *are* dumb and 2) we *are* foolish. At least in some sense of the word. The people performing these acts are suicidal cultists and by definition *are* deranged and the people trying to get more power by making them out to be Ian Flemming-like masterminds are foolish.

My thinking went this way about 3-4 years ago. After hearing a poor single mom on CNN upset and claiming her biggest fear in life was terrorism, I started to believe that any time a regular citizen has to even THINK about terrorism it is a tiny failure in government. It's like like worrying about other murders or your car being stolen is a failure in government. They are supposed to be there to protect your person. The fact that government has to harp on it's constantly to gain power is BIG failure of government, and our gullibility when it comes to terrorism is a failure in ourselves as a nation.

Believe it. There is no other way for a moron like John Bolton can gain power. Only by making people afraid of some boogieman or some sort.

Re:They're not dumb

[Master Moose]

Americans trying to look like they are outsmarting people? It would never happen. I thought that the "typical dumb yank" was a gimmick that you were all trying to live up to.

I never believed it to be completely true (well maybe in the southern states) But I thought it was some part of a master plan - a way to lure your enemies into a false sense of security.

I thought that by playing dumb and not being shy about it, you were walking around in the carnival of the world with a big chalk mark on your back. Only in reality, as a people, you are all ready and waiting for your opportunity to out carny the carnies.

Re:They're not dumb

[busydoingnothing]

I agree that their motivation and reasoning behind their attacks (religious fundamentalism) is dumb, yes, but I'm talking more about their actual plotting out of the attacks. That takes a level of intelligence that I would think that wouldn't be hindered by having to take off your shoes.

I also agree about the failure of government, but I would add the entertai...news media to that. The constant reference to terrorism to keep the public on edge is terrorism at its core definition. I think it's also a failure within the individual to not quite comprehend the true threat of death by terrorist versus the other thousands of ways to die. Hell, I just read an article today about how more people died last year from super-germs that came from animals who are fed antibiotics than from prostate and breast cancer. The number of deaths from terrorist acts still pale in comparison to that relatively small number (63,000, I believe).

Re:They're not dumb

[selven]

Some are smart, but most are dumb. They can get through airport security just fine, but they don't really think past the moment of grabbing the bomb from their purse and shouting "Allah Akbhar" (even though that tends to make people notice you 5-10 seconds earlier). 24-style terrorist masterminds are a myth.

Re:They're not dumb

[t0p]

The people performing these acts are suicidal cultists and by definition *are* deranged

You're making a common mistake in assuming that someone with religious convictions is fruit-loopily insane. The fact is there are many people who are sensible, realistic and down-to-earth and are also religious. You may believe that belief in a god is delusional, but that doesn't mean the "deluded" man is a mad-eyed biter off of chicken heads. Or maybe you think it's okay to have a "sensible" faith like Christianity; but if someone follows a non-western religion he must be a nutter? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if people think that. I mean, the USA and Europe are the only rational regions in the world. Everyone else is some kind of savage. Right?

Re:They're not dumb

[maxume]

You are chasing your tail. Deranged doesn't narrowly mean "fruit-loopily insane", it can also mean "in disorder".

Having the intention to kill hundreds of people is not a normal mental state.

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Just put the bomb in your ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

Naked? Restrained? Forget it!

One could easily conceal a few 100 grams of explosives in your rectum, possible including a timed device. Or even have it operated inside your body with the detornator disguised as a pacemaker or some implant. Whats the official plan to avoid that?

It's not like they plan to get away unharmed anyway, so why not use the whole body as the bomb? Of course, it's going to be a little hard to explain if it fails ;-)

Re:Just put the bomb in your ass!

[xmundt]

Ok...some idiot tried this with a Saudi (I think) prince a bit ago. All that happened was that the room got covered with splats of terrorist and the prince was a bit shocked (and probably grossed out a bit). The problem is that the human body has a fair amount of mass that is hard to blow apart, and tends to diffuse the effects of the explosive. Unless there IS some technology that would turn all the fluid in the body into nitroglycerin that is stabile enough to keep from going off until the desired moment, the idea of a "human bomb" remains the pipe dream of Science Fiction.
         

Re:Just put the bomb in your ass!

[Red Flayer]

Maybe a shaped charge and some general aiming by the would-be assassin?

The prior failure may have been a problem with execution (no pun intended), not with concept.

Re:Just put the bomb in your ass!

[MaskedSlacker]

Ah, but if said terrorist is HIV positive or a carrier for some better bioweapon...

Re:Just put the bomb in your ass!

[BluBrick]

Of course, it's going to be a little hard to explain if it fails ;-)

I wouldn't worry, there's a tshirt for that!

Re:Just put the bomb in your ass!

[metamatic]

One could easily conceal a few 100 grams of explosives in your rectum, possible including a timed device.

Damn near destroyed 'im.

Re:Just put the bomb in your ass!

[Jedi Alec]

Maybe a shaped charge and some general aiming by the would-be assassin?

Taking "farting in your general direction" to a whole new level.

Simple Solution....

[Anonymous Coward]

We try to fight terrorism with all of these complex scanners, policies, laws, procedures just like the war on terror.. Meanwhile they use very simplistic means to thwart our security, blow up our stuff and even eavesdrop into our predator drones with simple approaches and little investment. We're not dealing with idiots as much as our egos in this country would have us believe and thats where the problem begins. There is such a thing as being overconfident.

There are many points of failure in all of our current security in this country, at the borders, in the airports, by sea, by land, by air there are many ways for someone to get into this country. Our own watch lists fail at preventing people from getting in. The only way to effectively reduce terrorism is not to provide opportunities where there is a gap or lack of security. Apparently the TSA and other agencies don't test there own policies. If they hired actual people that could think of every way possible to thwart dogs, scanners, bomb sniffers, security pat downs etc. We might actually have some "real" security. Politicians and other pencil pushers can think all they want about laws and adding layers of security but until you take a group of thinking people with a reward attached to it and say thwart our security (much like the hacker contests) your not going to have a true test until someone actually commits an act of terrorism.

Just off the top of my head some simple examples of where security could be thwarted...(and I'm just an average civilian)

What is to stop someone from swallowing bomb making materials and then taking laxatives just before boarding a 8 hour or more flight (much the same as cocaine smugglers)?

What procedurs are in place to check prosthetic limbs such as legs or arms for containing bomb making materials or weapons ?

The easy solution is to seperate the passengers from the cargo.

Make everyone go into a room with security guards present when they arrive at the airport where they remove all clothing and then put on a airport supplied white robe (or whatever color) there clothes are put in a bag which is then run through the xray machine and those clothes are put with the rest of there baggage on a seperate plane designated as a cargo only plane. People are not allowed any of their baggage until after they arrive at there destination.

Yes it would be two planes but they could be smaller more efficient ones as they are carrying half as much weight as they normally do. Heck they could eveb fly faster or longer without refuel since they are lighter. For all the captialists out there this could be coordinated with UPS, USPS, FEDEX or DHL to transport baggage.

No one is going to bother blowing up a cargo plane. The only things left that someone could do using this method would be swallowing something or sticking it someplace or using a prosthetic limb or spraying something on themselves that reacts chemically with something else however dogs or sensors should pick this up as residue of some sort would exist.

However IMHO I think we should concentrate on making food or the environment safer since more an more people seem to be dying of heart issues now more then ever or making vehicles and roads more safe as many more individuals die from car crashes each year then what a single act of terrorism can accomplish. But we will keep pumping billions into the war machine (Security Theater) to save a flight of several hundred passengers. I personally value life in general but everything these days is in terms of cost vs benefit perspective. We're not getting our monies worth on many things including health care but no fear our saviours (politicians) will keep spending our money for us on these things as they always find the greatest deals to spend tax dollars on putting the country further in debt, all in our best interest of course (sarcasm).

Re:Simple Solution....

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't agree more

Mod up

Bruce Schneier at an airport

[slasho81]

I ran into Bruce Schneier at an airport once. While we were waiting for a plane, I asked him if he would show me a "cool computer trick". He popped the RAM out of my laptop and quickly tasted the edge with the gold leads. He then told me that at 11:23pm the previous night I had visited ideepthroat.com with Firefox. Damn he's good.

Re:Bruce Schneier at an airport

[selven]

Bruce Schneier gets the jokes in the Voynich manuscript.
Bruce Schneier can determine if a program terminates just by looking at it. And then the program terminates itself.
Bruce Schneier once decrypted a box of AlphaBits.
Most people use passwords. Some people use passphrases. Bruce Schneier uses an epic passpoem, detailing the life and works of seven mythical Norse heroes.
Bruce Schneier knows Alice and Bob's shared secret.
Bruce Schneier can read captchas.
Bruce Schneier's password has so much entropy, that gzipping it results in a stream sixty four times as long. And yet he can type it with a single roundhouse kick to the keyboard.
Bruce Schneier knows Chuck Norris's private key.

Re:Bruce Schneier at an airport

[slasho81]

Bruce Schneier's secure handshake is so strong, you won't be able to exchange keys with anyone else for days.
Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat.
Bruce Schneier writes his books and essays by generating random alphanumeric text of an appropriate length and then decrypting it.
When Bruce Schneier observes a quantum particle, it remains in the same state until he has finished observing it.
Though a superhero, Bruce Schneier disdanes the use of a mask or secret identity as 'security through obscurity'.

Re:Bruce Schneier at an airport

[davros-too]

+1: funniest comment in ages

Re:Bruce Schneier at an airport

[drinkypoo]

Please look up the word you believe is spelled "disdane" before you kill again. Thank you.

Schneier characterizes the CNN piece as...

[jra]

"a rewrite of an older article of [his]".

Most of the piece, clearly, isn't specific to this attack... but I think that's actually his point here: he didn't *have to* write a fresh piece for this, since the problem hasn't really changed, *just* because this particular guy wore Semtex boxers on a plane.

The problem is what it always is, and Security Theatre isn't going to change it.

*I* tend to think that what Bruce ought to do is to write one or more general circulation pieces on the issue, explaining the underlying background even more deeply than he generally does, and sell them to Popular Mechanics. And GQ. And Playboy. And The Atlantic. Etc....

Hope people start listening

[deep9x]

Schneier's been saying most of these things in similar articles for years now, and I can only hope it eventually is taken seriously.

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[Reziac]

As it happens, you're wrong -- total gun deaths, about 3000/year in the U.S., including crap like gang shootings (which account for around half of 'em, last I heard).

Contrast that to somewhere around 30,000 auto-related deaths, and 100,000 deaths caused by physicians' errors.

Clearly, we need to ban doctors!

Some other things you might not know about Bruce

[AP31R0N]

Bruce Schneier knows Alice and Bob's shared secret.

Most people use passwords. Some people use passphrases. Bruce Schneier uses an epic passpoem, detailing the life and works of seven mythical Norse heroes.

Bruce Schneier's secure handshake is so strong, you won't be able to exchange keys with anyone else for days.

Bruce Schneier once decrypted a box of AlphaBits.

Vs lbh nfxrq Oehpr Fpuarvre gb qrpelcg guvf, ur'q pehfu lbhe fxhyy jvgu uvf ynhtu.

Bruce Schneier writes his books and essays by generating random alphanumeric text of an appropriate length and then decrypting it.

Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat

If we built a Dyson sphere around Bruce Schneier and captured all of his energy for 2 months, without any loss, we could power an ideal computer running at 3.2 degrees K to count up to 2^256. This strongly implies that not only can Bruce Schneier brute-force attack 256-bit keys, but that he is built of something other than matter and occupies something other than space.

When Bruce Schneier observes a quantum particle, it remains in the same state until he has finished observing it.

Though a superhero, Bruce Schneier disdanes the use of a mask or secret identity as 'security through obscurity'.

Get real; there is an overriding state interest he

[dirkdodgers]

Planes have been demonstrated to be used as weapons of mass destruction. Laugh at that if you want, but you'd have to be one sick, narcissistic fuck to think that's humorous. Should we really allow airlines to pickup lightly screened passengers out of Yemen by the busload and fly them into our country just because that's the business model they chose? Should we really outlaw intrusive screening because you're uptight about the possibility that some dork behind the scanner will chuckle at your beer gut and your low hanging balls?

Get real. There is absolutely an overriding state interest in ensuring that planes are not commandeered by terrorists and are not taken down by terrorists over densely populated areas, if nothing else because it is charged with the protection of the life and property of those on the ground in the paths of these flights. Requiring intrusive screening techniques and requiring that passengers keep their hands visible and their laps unobstructed are entirely reasonable as short-term measures until a full reevaluation can be completed.

Flying is a privilege, not a right. Security of life and property, is a right, and you do not get to endanger my life and property for your own preference for convenience or privacy in exercise of the privilege of flying.

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Close to the number people who were killed by people wanting to kill someone that had a gun available as one of their means of doing so?

Who's afraid of air travel?

[Bromskloss]

Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?

Isn't it already as secure as anything else?

Re:Who's afraid of air travel?

[GrumblyStuff]

I'm afraid I'll get extended search or whatever the hell they call it when I forget to leave my inch and a half leatherman at home or that my belt, shoelaces, or socks are deemed weapons because they could be used to strangle someone, or because I had to use the fucking bathroom really really bad.

So... yeah, I'm afraid of air travel. Terrorists? Given the statistics, nah, not really.

Here's how

[chord.wav]

Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?

Yes, just stop taking the oil and other resources from foreign countries like locusts.

Re:Here's how

[couchslug]

"Yes, just stop taking the oil and other resources from foreign countries like locusts."

The US didn't "take" anything from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and in general has put quite the liplock on the collective arse of the House of Saud.
The conflict is more complex that your post would have it.

Re:Here's how

[mjwx]

The US didn't "take" anything from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and in general has put quite the liplock on the collective arse of the House of Saud.

And the House of Saud is kind and generous to the impoverished people of Saudi Arabia and would never buy massive yachts for themselves whist their people subsist in 3rd world conditions.

The US happily turns a blind eye to the abuses of the governments they support in exchange for resources. But what makes most people angry is when the US and sometimes her allies force a regime change. This gets people off side real quick.

Schneier is right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Schneier is right, as always.

Politicians always react to one specific attack, and just do something to make people feel more secure, not to actually improve security. Many of these actions just limit the freedom or conflict with peoples privacy, which ironically makes most people think they are more secure.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Aw, come on, mod this up, it was, funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh so serious all the time.

Re:Aw, come on, mod this up, it was, funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't funny, and commas weren't really all that overused in the summary.

Quit helping them!!!

[LockeOnLogic]

I think the answer is quite clear, BAN PHOTOSHOP NOW! Or the terrorists will win

Reverse of Computer Security

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting that this stance in the piece - which I agree with - is opposite that of computer and network security. In computer security we defend against every attack vector because trying to unravel motivations and possible sources is a waste of time (although I am sure someone is doing it). There is a neat write up about this over at ATW: http://www.pantos.org/atw/35703.html (see relying on attacker's motivations).

Bruce Schneier is blowing smoke

[SmallFurryCreature]

I think he is going senile, since clearly he has forgotten the endless terrorists attacks on planes BEFORE security was raised. For the young ones, open your history books or even just watch Munich for an idea of how the world was before "security theater".

What is the point of all those armed guards walking about? Well because BEFORE they walked around, any attacked could just walk in and gun people down with the police on scene only having pistols and being far to thinly spread and airports typically being a long way away from the city centers where SWAT teams (which are themselves a new invention) operate.

Bruce Schneier seems to desire what most simple people desire, a magic solution that will fix everything. It is the Oprah Winfrey method of fixing problems and it only works in making her filthy rich. Check how many follow-ups she does. Check how badly her magic one-shot solutions work on her own life, like her weight.

He suggests several solutions, and shows how much of a racist he really is in the process:

Arabic translators. Eh, the latest attacker comes from Nigeria. There Berbers who speak Arabic but the individual is not one of them. Main language of Nigeria between all the various groups is English. Now I grant you, Americans would probably need translators to understand English but why does Bruce Schneier automatically link terrorism to the Arabic language? He complains after all about ordinary buildings becoming targets, like Oklahoma? Did that guy study Arabic?

He also suggests that better ties with the Islamic world (again with Islam) would prevent terrorism. Better ties like freedom to travel and study in the west? Exactly like what was given to the latest attacker? In fact, which of the 9/11 attackers was NOT allowed to freely travel and do anything they want in the west? Were they kept behind an iron curtain or welcomed with open arms?

So, we know that attack on aircraft were far more common BEFORE security increased. We also know that the most secured airline in the world (El Al) hasn't had any successful attacks.

So is there a link between security "theater" and the number of attacks? What you got to accept before you can answer this question is that not all attacks are the same. A soldier (and a terrorist would see him/herself as a soldier fighting for a cause) might accept the potential of death but few would want to throw it away. The men who landed at Omaha must have known the risks but if had asked the men that went into the boats to have half their number put in the boilers to fuel the passage across to an unopposed beach, they would have refused. Not all attacks that result in death are committed by suicide attackers.

The attacker will want a return on their investment (terror for a life) and just being shot after the first bullet being fired is not very terrorizing. It would just be another criminal.

Schneier is right that an attack could indeed come anywhere and that it is impossible to defend against them all. Your house could be hit by a tornado, so why do you have smoke alarms? A lock on your door is not going to stop a determined burglar, so why lock your door at all? Why even have a door?

England pre-WW2 was debating wether they needed all those farms that messed up the country side. It had a large empire and booming trade, surely it could import everything it needed. It could, until the war. The same argument is currently being held in Holland, get rid of all the farms and re-locate them to places with more space. Sensible, right up to the point that you can't ship things anymore. What exactly is an army for when you haven't used it in 60 years. Well because you don't get to say when you need one. Germany steam-rolled over europe because the other countries had not been ready.

And the thing about being ready is that you can't stop it. Because then you aren't ready. The US has vowed never to led its guard down again after Pearl Harbour but that comes at an enormous cost AND it might not be enough because the

Re:Bruce Schneier is blowing smoke

[frank_adrian314159]

I wish I could be as paranoid as you, but then I'd have to have myself committed. Believe it or not, the majority of the people in the world don't want to kill you and, if every single one who wanted to kill "random American" showed up on our doorstep tomorrow and tried to blow themselves up or start killing people at random locations in the US, it probably wouldn't put even a reasonably-sized dent in the US population. I just don't know why people like you are so scared. If my having to die is the price for having a free society, I say, "Bring it on." Just admit it, you're a scared little wuss.

Re:Bruce Schneier is blowing smoke

[t0p]

airports typically being a long way away from the city centers where SWAT teams (which are themselves a new invention) operate

What exactly do you mean by "new"? The first SWAT team in the USA was formed in 1968 in Los Angeles. In the 1970s, there was a TV show called "SWAT", about a SWAT team. Do you really believe that a 40-year old idea is "new"?

Re:Bruce Schneier is blowing smoke

[paulsnx2]

"Schneier is right that an attack could indeed come anywhere and that it is impossible to defend against them all. Your house could be hit by a tornado, so why do you have smoke alarms? A lock on your door is not going to stop a determined burglar, so why lock your door at all? Why even have a door?"

Your analogies are bogus. Smoke alarms reduce your risk of fire, not just fire caused by tornadoes. Locks reduce your risk of burglary, not just burglary by a determined burglar. Doors do not just stop burglars, but prevent animals and bugs from just walking into your house.

The "Security Theater" we are spending billions on doesn't do anything useful but pretend to stop terrorists.

Actual Cost/Benefit analysis needs to be done on security, and the cost is far higher than the benefit. Even if three or four times the terrorist attacks occurred (which would be hugely tragic! Don't get me wrong!) because we diverted these billions of dollars from "Security Theater" and directed them to our highways and public transportation to reduce traffic deaths by five percent, thousands more people would be alive than sticking to the current approach.

That's because we have only had 3000 deaths in 10 years from terrorism, while we have had 400,000 traffic deaths in the same period.

Re:Bruce Schneier is blowing smoke

[jonwil]

The security measures taken by El Al are genuine security, not security theater. Measures like subjecting all bags to depressurization (to trigger any bombs with altitude sensors) and having armed sky marshals on all flights.

But the risks for El Al are much greater (and the number of flights they have smaller than many airlines) so they can afford these extra security measures.

Re:Bruce Schneier is blowing smoke

[swillden]

We also know that the most secured airline in the world (El Al) hasn't had any successful attacks.

Have you ever flown El Al? I have, and I can tell you that, unlike the TSA, El Al does *not* engage in security theatre. Israeli airport security doesn't ban nail clippers or pocket knives or liquids. They don't bother with pat downs, either, nor do they x-ray your baggage, and Schneier knows all of this. In fact, he's written essays in which he pointed to El Al's approach as the right way to do airline security and contrasted it with what we do.

Israeli airport security is focused on identifying and removing terrorists, not their weapons. That's because it's fundamentally impossible to deny them weapons, and the Israelis understand that. They do search your belongings. By hand. Thoroughly. But they do it less to see what you have than to watch your reaction while they do it. While one agent is searching your stuff, two more are watching you. And they also ask a lot of questions about who you are, why you're traveling, where you've been, where you're going, etc., and they demand proof of your statements. They quizzed me in detail about every person I'd met with while in Israel, and then they actually called some of them on the phone to verify my statements. They also separated me from the people I was traveling with, asked us all questions individually, and then conferred with one another to compare the answers.

That's what real, serious airport security looks like. And it does work. The security theatre we have doesn't, not against anyone with a clue. It's trivial to smuggle a weapon onto a plane; I've done it accidentally! Really smart terrorists won't bother bringing anything through the front door, either. Have maintenance, cleaning crews, etc. bring the weapons in. US airport security in those areas is laughable. Not so on El Al flights.

You're right that security can be effective. Schneier is right that what we do is not security.

I hate it when people get that quote wrong.

[jra]

The best sourced version I've been able to find, which makes important points that version does not, is

"They that would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither."

People care how/why they die.

[AP31R0N]

A survey of how and why you'd prefer to do would prolly indicate that people would rather be hit by lightning than blown up by terrorist even if the net result (death) is the same. Plus there is something worse about being killed to benefit someone else's cause, or by someone who meant you ill... and worse yet when it could have been prevented by some policy or procedure. Misguided or not, that's the case.

That said, i'd rather see more effort on killing/capturing these people before they get to us and ending the problems that inspire them to want to kill us.

Yes and no

[fprefect]

First, I think people pigeonhole too much as just "security theatre", such as the liquids ban. In this instance, if there were no such ban, the guy may have brought on a gallon of explosives instead of what he could fit in his tightie-whities. Yes, there are hundreds of other ways to take down a plane than box-cutters or binary explosives, but it's naive to think that since we can't stop *everything* that we should just shrug and roll back *all* air-travel restrictions.

The same goes for the photo ID canard... sure, it's possible fake a photo ID, but such trivial checks make it more difficult for someone off the street to just walk out with unattended equipment or penetrate the local network. Is it going to stop a determined thief or terrorist... no, but it's not necessarily the intent. Even Bruce would have to concede that opportunistic-theft is statistically much more likely than movie-style heists.

Basic security is necessary in our society, not just for terror attacks, but for random acts of violence and theft. There's nothing wrong with checking up on people or reporting suspicious activity. We're not talking Patriot Act and black boot tactics, just "suspicious lump sums" and "neighorhood watch" type common sense. It's like security at Best Buy or Wal-Mart... sure, they may fail to prevent some merchandise from walking out the door, but without them, it would be open-season.

Now, on the other hand, I think he's got a solid point about the dangers of over-reacting and the resilience of an open-democracy. Our law enforcement and investigative branches are capable of pursuing the enemy, much better than our armed forces are. And finally, we need to spend more time and money supporting the first responders, so that they are well-prepared for the next major catastrophe -- be it man-made or natural.

Re:Yes and no

[infalliable]

You yourself said that the measures won't stop a determined person. If a person is willing to die to do something, aren't they pretty damn determined?

The TSA is a waste of peoples time and is just put on for show.

The liquids things is retarded. You just have to have multiple people go through, or put the same thing in a dozen 3 oz bottles. This isn't hard to figure out. If you let any through, you let in as much as someone is willing to bring through. It is just slightly harder for a determined individual, and inconveniencing as hell for everyone else.

Knives being banned is dumb. Who is going to let the plane get taken over by someone with a knife after 9/11? Nobody. They're also terrible at catching them anyway. I've accidently carried knives on planes a couple times.

Taking your shoes off is dumb. Terrorists also know they have to take off their shoes, you really think they'll do the same thing again?

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[nine-times]

Good point. Wikipedia says 40k people per year die in car accidents. Every year. I'm finding conflicting stats for heart disease, but everyone seems to have it up over 400k per year. Some of that probably isn't preventable, but some of it probably is. I think there's something like 60k deaths per year from flu. That's just the normal flu. Another couple-hundred thousand deaths from tobacco (though that probably overlaps with heart disease, but still...).

While we worry about terrorists and heroin and AIDS and swine flu, we're being killed in much greater numbers by other things. Not that we shouldn't worry about AIDS and the swine flu, but *some* perspective is warranted. It reminds me of the Joker's speech in the hospital in "The Dark Knight":

You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan," even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that, like, a gang-banger will get shot or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

Not quite the same thing, but nobody gets freaked out about 40k people dying every single year in car accidents because we think it's just supposed to work that way. People still drive around recklessly as though they're playing Need for Speed. Hundreds of thousands can die from preventable diseases every year and we see no problem with it. Calls to regulate the food industry at all are seen as horrible infringements on our freedom. But have a couple thousand people die one year in a freak accident or a terrorist attack, and suddenly everyone loses their minds. Suddenly we should all give up our privacy and our freedoms for counter-terrorist measures. Suddenly we should accept suspensions of habeas corpus.

Re:Some other things you might not know about Bruc

[Dracos]

This epic comment raises a couple of questions. Who would win these fights?

• Bruce Schneier vs Chuck Norris
• Bruce Schneier vs Vin Diesel

Everyone here is missing the point.

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

It isn't that we allow any random person to walk onboard with a firearm, it's that we allow the airlines to manage their own security. This would likely result in the total elimination of terrorist events on planes at a substantially reduced cost. These companies are multi-billion dollar firms that are threatened every time some poor indigent person who happen to be born in a country suppressed by the U.S. wants to put a final end to his PTSD, and they're not going to be run by congressman trying to send pork projects to some random place in the U.S. They'll take real actions to provide real results since they know that they'll lose tons of business if they don't because their competition won't be making the same mistake.

Re:Everyone here is missing the point.

[maxume]

If the excellent security you suppose can be provided ended up costing a lot, people might just fly on Mostly Safe Air.

Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[SuperKendall]

The sooner most people grow and learn that "Shit Happens (tm)" and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality, the better.

I agree with this statement generally. However you need to realize that there are a large number of people with buckets of shit who will quite happily rain it upon you when it becomes easy enough to do so. People like to point out the chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is really low - the solution then is not to raise the odds until it's more likely to be killed by terrorism than even X you are comparing odds with,

This is where I think Bruce misses the mark, he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up. Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true. What people are not willing to do, is to enter in a plan they think has little chance of success. You can find a lot of martyrs but not a lot of patsies.

So the real problem is, what security measures actually have some, vs. no, effect. I would argue a lot of the things prohibited or new rules being put in place (like not being able to tell passengers the name of landmarks out the window!) have as close to zero percent chance of preventing any attack as to make no difference. These rules, should all be abolished or re-thought. All rules need careful risk assessment applied to say, is this really helping or is it just there because one guy did one thing and it was the first thing we thought of to stop that?

The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.

Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern for the well-being of all the people who are not terrorists, or at least that aspect gets lost in the process. They also show no understanding of how they can leverage or rely on fellow air travelers who are indeed more than happy to help with air security by detaining people as they act.

"Security Theater" is a term Bruce and others like to throw around a lot to dismiss the efforts to improve security. And yet they ignore the very real value of illusion in warfare throughout the years. As I noted there are a lot of people perfectly willing to blow themselves up, but they are not throwing themselves at plane travel because they THINK they will get caught and not be able to carry out the plan. As we can see from the attack that's not really as true as they think, but large number of people still think it's really hard to work around the system and so they do not try.

Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

And here's the term that is most overused of all, and the least well understood. Yes if you give up a little liberty for the gain of a little security you deserve neither. But what about the gain of a LOT of security for a little liberty? When the equation is far more asymmetric is it not also more compelling?

This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes. But not like todays world of scans - you stand on a platform for 10 seconds with your carryon in hand, and the device scans all of you along with your boarding pass. No human looks at the scan, no human asks you what you have - you just go on your way. Computers (not humans) analyze the image for potential issues, and flag people for more complete screening before you actually board. Then you as a traveler have no delay, but you still basically catch most people trying to bring a bomb of any size aboard a plane, and you still have the current aspect of not as many people willing to even try an attack because they think the magic box will get them. People are against showing ID to board a plane but it's what it's going to have to come down to in the end, because the reality is this

Why Airplanes?

[gedrin]

There's got to be a reason. Why commercial aircraft? In spite of all the failures in the system, and the gaps when it does function, they're much harder targets than most places. If my goal was to kill lots of people spectacularly, I'm sure it would be easier to use a lower powered bomb and just drive it into a daycare center at pick up time. It seems like a good question to ask, and I've heard very few answers that seem to make sense.

Re:Why Airplanes?

[t0p]

There's got to be a reason. Why commercial aircraft? In spite of all the failures in the system, and the gaps when it does function, they're much harder targets than most places. If my goal was to kill lots of people spectacularly, I'm sure it would be easier to use a lower powered bomb and just drive it into a daycare center at pick up time. It seems like a good question to ask, and I've heard very few answers that seem to make sense.

But terrorists do drive truck bombs into buildings. And they plant bombs on trains and roadsides, and they storm hotels with automatic weapons and shoot people indiscriminately, and they blow themselves up in crowded markets. Targeting planes is just another part of their strategy. They don't just want to kill and maim people: they want to make us feel insecure everywhere we go, and they want to harm commercial interests. A plane is just another target, albeit a very high value target. And there's also the fact that, if a terrorist succeeds in blowing up a plane, you can be pretty sure there will be lots of victims and no survivors.

Re:Why Airplanes?

[gedrin]

Perhaps it is a matter of publicity and perception, but I do not see the number of truck based attacks in the West compared to the number of airplane targets. Certainly there have been truck attacks, but it seems that the airplane is a prefered target. If similar effort were devoted to softer targets, surely there would be more casualties, and the numbers of targets hit would be larger. It may simply be a matter of perception, that attacks that reach Deployment/Attack phase are just as likely to be against aircraft as any other target.

I'd like to see the raw targetting data, including attacks that were late in Planning but not yet Deployed. Unfortunately, that data, with good reason, is likely classified. Maybe the agrigate of Prevented vs. Successful against phase that the attack was stopped in vs. target would be available somewhere?

Re:Why Airplanes?

[mjwx]

There's got to be a reason. Why commercial aircraft? In spite of all the failures in the system, and the gaps when it does function, they're much harder targets than most places. If my goal was to kill lots of people spectacularly,

But the objective of hijacking a plane was never about killing people, it was about getting hostages. Most of the worlds terrorist organisations have very very specific goals, mostly about getting a regime change in their own nation or a concession of land. In the past, when Hamas wanted to make a statement by killing people, they send a suicide bomber onto a bus, into a theatre or just launch a crapload of WWII era rockets. When Hamas wanted hostages to extort western nations they hijacked a plane. Most terrorist organisations have better weapons then an airliner, 9 times out of 10 it was about getting some hostages so they could bargain for money, prisoners and/or political concessions. Ironically, Al-Queda screwed this one up for most terrorist organisations as now passengers will fight back.

Re:USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror

[Reziac]

Your post brought to mind this old gem from the late 1970s:

=====
It beats you with a stick and tells you, "Your spirits are REJOICING!"

So off you go, muttering to yourselves, "Our spirits are rejoicing, our spirits are rejoicing..."

-- Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra program notes re the Shastikovich 5th symphony
=====

As you essentially point out, the "War on Terror" is becoming yet another variant of "The beatings will continue until morale improves".

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[Apparition-X]

Actually the number is about 4-5x times that. I am remembering 14,000, but you can find a breakdown on the NRA site (http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/phil.html): 11,920 firearms homicides in the USA in 2003.

Bruce's fallicy

[santiagodraco]

Bruce tries to make a case that "movie theater" attacks are all the government plans for and that in some way we OVERPLAN and think about such attacks. He also states that we need better intelligence and to look at the "little stuff" and be smarter about security, sure that makes sense. But movie theater attacks are over emphasized?

Bruce, here's where you are missing the point. On 911 the largest "movie theater" attack ever was executed. Do you think this was a fluke? Do you not think that they'd do this again, every day, if they could? You my friend are missing the point. Sure, smaller types of attacks are likely to be more common, but not nearly as impactful. You miss the forest for the trees. Preventing another 911 is top priority. 911 killed thousands, greatly disrupted the world economy and led to even further deaths and destruction due to necessasary retaliation.

Don't get so caught up in the little stuff that you miss the bigger picture. We can't afford another 911.

Re:Bruce's fallicy

[CoccoBill]

Do you work for TSA by any chance?

Re:Bruce's fallicy

[infalliable]

The point isn't that you should do nothing, it is that security screening is not the answer. It's a waste of time as it is always back-looking and can't cover all possible attack possibilities. All the TSA security measures have been put in place to combat the last attack.

Even the attack methods they do cover, they don't do it all that well. Look at liquids for example, I can only carry a 3 oz bottle. But I can take a quart bag of them, and so can Bob, Jim, John, Luke, and Marty. It doesn't stop a large amount of hazardous liquids from being brought onto a plane. It just gives the impression it does.

The only way to effectively combat any terrorist activity is through old-fashioned police and intelligence work.

Re:Bruce's fallicy

[CAIMLAS]

Yet, Hasan and the Ft. Hood attack - which is much, much more significant in terms of body count, potential damage, etc. - is being completely overlooked as potential societal/security changes are concerned. There have been no policy changes. Troops are still not allowed weapons on base. There have been no (justifiable) increases in profiling (not stereotyping, but profiling). Nothing.

I'll stop being critical of the TSA's security masterpiece theater when there are actual efforts taken to prevent things which are actually plausible. I'm talking about: stop issuing a disproportionate number of vistas to Islamic countries; allow citizens to defend themselves

On a network, gateway security isn't enough. You need endpoint security or you're fucked. It's the same with physical security: if all they've got to do is get through the gate, they'll get through. In both cases, the threat might still get through, but if there's a better security mindset, your chances of surviving unscathed improve. I'd think Bruce, a so-called security professional, would realize that.

Re:Some other things you might not know about Bruc

[AP31R0N]

Batman.

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[stewbacca]

Government money doesn't work that way. You can't just take money from one government agency and give it to another, let alone give it to a private hospital or doctor to help with preventable medical errors or to private citizens to improve their driving skill.

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[fprintf]

You will be neg'd out of existence because your post is a troll and flamebait, in addition to being wholely inaccurate (as the followup posts indicate).

Please take your political agenda elsewhere.

I worked there ....

[tazanator]

Having worked for the TSA and the army for some time, the only way for safe air travel is you show up at the airport and just like a prison you strip and leave everything behind for a jump suit. Only the jump suit and your body goes on the plane (no phones, paper, whatever! and body screened for hidden items) a second plane flies the luggage and you belongings to the destination. Humans are safe and only belongings can get blown up. (only threat left is the burrito you had for lunch)

And attack is easier then defending

[SmallFurryCreature]

Take Pearl Harbor, a seemingly classic example of a failed defense.

But what were the Americans supposed to do? The Japanese knew were the attack was going to take place, and for that matter that an attack would even happen.

The attack could have happened anywhere including targets now controlled by the US. And it could happen at any day. The US went on alert because of warning signs, but not on the right day.

A simple game can show you this, one of the Medal of Honor titles ask you to defend a position, with the attack coming from 3 directions. You are alone, so you stand a 1/3 chance of being in the wrong spot. That is as simple as it gets. Oh you can check intel, make educated guesses etc etc, but as a defender, you got to be right every time every second of the day while an attacker can spend ages picking his moment.

Take Mumbai, how the hell do you defend against that? You can't seal of an entire city forever, cities only work if you can get in and out. The only alternative is to keep a force ready every second of the day and that attack might never come.

Really, if people talk about the wasted money of "security theater" why do they never talk about the wasted money of "fire fighting show". Go and count, how many exthinguishers and such do you come across in a typical day, all of them unused. Why bother? Especially since in a real fire they are rarely used?

Go ahead, board an aircraft without oxygen masks or seatbelts or emergency doors. None of them saved anyone ever. (well not enough to be worth the costs) So why bother?

It has become popular to bash aircraft security and to be fair, they made some really stupid choices at times, but there isn't much of an alternative. Do nothing and it will happen again, do something and people will say "oh you wasted money, because it never happened again".

One of the signs that democracy is severely overrated.

Re:And attack is easier then defending

[The Archon V2.0]

Really, if people talk about the wasted money of "security theater" why do they never talk about the wasted money of "fire fighting show". Go and count, how many exthinguishers and such do you come across in a typical day, all of them unused. Why bother? Especially since in a real fire they are rarely used?

I come across tons. And I also come across one I had to use to put a fire out. I quite like that one. The difference is that a fire extinguisher actually has a chance of doing some good. Security theater doesn't - it's like an empty fire extinguisher that someone comes by and polishes once a week. Looks damn good but is otherwise useless.

It has become popular to bash aircraft security and to be fair, they made some really stupid choices at times, but there isn't much of an alternative. Do nothing and it will happen again, do something and people will say "oh you wasted money, because it never happened again".

People almost never say that, even when it's warranted. What usually happens is this: Do something and when nothing happens, proclaim that all that money spent was worth it, even if all you did was stick feathers in the ears of everyone named Steve. Terrorism is rare, so all one has to do is implement SOMETHING and then when nothing else happens - because terrorism is rare - proclaim that action was right. Eventually you'll be proven wrong, but that's probably years in the future when it's not your responsibility anymore.

One of the signs that democracy is severely overrated.

I find it's idiots with power that are severely overrated. Sadly, every system has them.

Re:And attack is easier then defending

[pipedwho]

Really, if people talk about the wasted money of "security theater" why do they never talk about the wasted money of "fire fighting show". Go and count, how many exthinguishers and such do you come across in a typical day, all of them unused. Why bother? Especially since in a real fire they are rarely used?

Go ahead, board an aircraft without oxygen masks or seatbelts or emergency doors. None of them saved anyone ever. (well not enough to be worth the costs) So why bother?

I agree with most of what you said, but these two points are not quite accurate.

Fire extinguishes are rarely used once a fire takes hold, but numerous building fires are prevented because an extinguisher was available to stop a small fire from growing into a bigger one (think stove fires, equipment fires, etc).

Also, seat belts in planes are there to keep people in their seats during severe turbulence - ie. prevent injuries to themselves and others. They also help during aborted takeoffs and harsh landings. If the plane 'falls out of the sky', there's not much anything can do to help you.

Re:And attack is easier then defending

[nelsonal]

A fire extinguisher costs what 20 bucks every maybe 3-4 years. A TSA agent costs $7.50/hr plus probably $20/minute for the wasted time spent by all the folks standing in line. That's a big differnce in cost, for something that might only have similar prevention effects.

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[swinefc]

Quick Google search shows that 300,000 people are killed by obesity each year. Time to ban cheeseburgers.

Please let the madness of trying to ban / legislate away all the things that can hurt us.

The question becomes how far is too far? I think as long as I wake up each morning without fearing for my life, then a reasonable level of safety has been achieved.

I like to talk on the phone while driving. BTW, I find the radio much more distracting.

Could someone get a clue?

[MikeTheBike]

Could we all get a reality check here, please!

The idea behind terrorism is not the attack itself but the assumed possibility that an attack will happen somewhere sometime.

The western worlds governments are doing the dirty work for the terrorists by imposing ridiculous rules on us instead of trying to solve the problems in the world and by that taking away the fertile ground in which radical extremism keeps growing.

We should not forget medias role in this as they are trying to cut through the noise and competitive landscape by trying to scare the living crap out us... and the way that news has been transformed to entertainment it won't be better.

It has gone far when Al Jazeera actually have a more balanced coverage on things happening INSIDE the US than US media itself...

It is a sad, sad day for humanity that the terrorists win this on walk over by our lack of understanding and commitment!

guns are better.

[zippthorne]

You have to train a lifetime to become a Ninja, and you have to learn a lot of useless skills like clever ways to poison people. Further, the equipment is expensive and must often be custom forged and relentlessly cared for.

A Pirate can be trained in a matter of days and requires no more expensive equipment than a pile of shabby rags and a rusty flintlock pistol. What they lack in manners and aim, they make up for in volume and gusto.

Re:Get real; there is an overriding state interest

[briareus]

Did you even read the article? Or are you lacking comprehension skills?

Change of Mindset

[gedrin]

The greatest security measure implemented since 9/11 has not been put in place by the government or any other formal policy. Before the 9/11 attacks were over, the mindset had changed. Without any official making a statement, people, using their own judgement, through out the advice to sit quietly and hope to be rescued. Prior to those attacks, the response to a guy trying to light something on fire would have been to inform a flight attendant. Now, it is to beat him down and drag him off in a head lock. That's probably the most effective security change we've had.

Re:Change of Mindset

[Ares]

If only I had mod points right now. The only problem of course is that the government didn't implement it and can't take credit for it.

Re:Change of Mindset

[colinrichardday]

Well, if you insist on dragging facts and logic into the discussion . . .

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[maxume]

You are posting on the internet, there is no excuse for guessing. You did guess relatively correctly, at least for the couple of years I checked:

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

You should re-read that.

[khasim]

First off, the guy announced himself.

Secondly, he was hit 23 times.

Thirdly, 47 expended cases were found.

That means that those people missed the thief better than half the time. After he had announced himself.

Yeah, I'm going to say that that kind of shooting, in an aircraft, is going to hit the other passengers.

Re:You should re-read that.

[Anonymous Coward]

*YOU* should re-read that. The 23/47 hits was part of the fictionalized account. The gunman was hit 4 times: 3 in the chest (center of mass) and 1 in the arm. They didn't have an actual count of shots fired because...well, let's copy it here since some people don't like to read the whole story:

"It's unclear how many shots were fired, in part because some of the suspect's shots struck ammunition on a counter, causing the ammunition to explode. "There were slugs all over that place," Persson said. As for Zaback, he died with four wounds in him, one in the arm and three in the chest, not the 23 wounds claimed in the colorized account. "

So...yeah.

Re:You should re-read that.

[zulater]

Keep grasping at straws. Just because you may not understand firearms and how to properly use them doesn't mean those of us who carry daily do not.

Yes, we can!

[mi]

Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?"

Not only do we can, the past years show, we have... By abandoning the cowardly (if seemingly "sophisticated") paradigm of "obey their orders, do as they say, let SWAT handle it, when they land" we made it rather difficult for these a-holes to do their thing. Even the fourth plane on 9/11 didn't hit its target, because the terrorist — in a moment of weakness — allowed the passengers to learn, that some hijackers may not be interested in ever landing.

How truly secure now then? Well, nothing ever will be absolutely secure. But air-travel is more secure than (ever!) before now, that the fellow passengers readily engage the would-be terrorist preventing him from blowing up his shoes or underpants. I think, it is secure enough for them to switch to different targets (bridges, tunnels, ships?)...

Want to fix it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Write to an airline you've used in the past. Include your name and approximate dates of travel.

Inform them that you will NO LONGER BE TAKING ANY FLIGHTS FROM ANY CARRIER until the security theatre is scaled back.
Tell them you are not scared of terrorist attacks.
Tell them you are frustrated by security inconvenience; so frustrated you'd rather take a bus/train/bicycle.

You see, when sales numbers drop off, they automagically assume it's due to threat of terrorism. If they receive letters that indicate exactly the opposite: That "security" measures are driving away business, they'll put pressure on the government to dial it down a notch.

Sometimes, corporations owning and controlling your government can be a good thing, if you know how to use it properly.
The airlines got Reagan to fire the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers and ban them from federal service for life, so dialing security down a notch is child's play by comparison.

Robert Hamburger, is that you?

[TiggertheMad]

so we have a nation of ninja warriors. Nobody will fuck with anybody ever again.
...BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE REAL ULTIMATE POWER(tm)!!!!111!One

he now has a plane full of ninjas to deal with; oops.
Hey, can I use that for the title of the screenplay I am working on? 'Ninjas on a Plane' sounds totally HARDCORE!

I'm actually chair of the National Ninja Warrior's Advocacy Group;
As a fellow martial artist, could I ask that you please stop advocating? You are making the rest of us look really, really silly...

Re:Robert Hamburger, is that you?

[bluefoxlucid]

As a fellow martial artist, could I ask that you please stop advocating? You are making the rest of us look really, really silly...

It was mostly meant to be a joke. There's actually a ninja school near me (a branch of Genbukan), and the instructor seems kind of crazy. Nobody says humor can't carry a moral.

Easy Fix: Fire Home;and Security

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you believe that the Directory of HS said, "The system worked.' No, it didn't. The system failed, miserably.

Turn the terror around and point it in the opposite direction. Remove all scanners and 'people checks,' which have never worked. Allow any citizen to carry a firearm on board. Issue free frangible ammo to anyone who asks (so we don't blow a hole in the airplane). Deputize everyone. Dare a terrorist to light a match.

Re:Get real; there is an overriding state interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations you just lost the war on terror.

Odds are a terrible argument

[SuperKendall]

The odds of airborne terror are so low it's ridiculous that we focus on it as much as we do.

By focusing on the odds of occurrence you are essentially arguing that we decrease security until the odds of occurrence are high enough that we put the measures back in place - until the odds drop, so we drop the measures again...

You are comparing odds of occurrence now with (somewhat flawed) security measures in place, against some incalculable percentage of base activity with no security. Since Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us it's really easy to get people to blow themselves up on command, I maintain the natural level of terrorism with no security is a lot higher than the current level with some layers of security.

So instead of thinking about odds of occurrence, you need to instead think of the odds of any given measure preventing and attack weighed against inconvenience to normal people just trying to travel (for example stripping naked and being put under is fairly effective in preventing attack but obviously would not be borne).

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[maxume]

I was looking more, 16,000 of the firearm related deaths are suicides, which probably aren't quite the same as accidents or murders.

Not useless at all

[SuperKendall]

Targeting specific vectors on specific targets is practically useless.

Not really. Let's say we get rid of metal detectors and all screening today. Do you doubt there would be a fair number of people with traditional suicide vests board and blow up airliners? I don't, because it would be easy - just like in Iraq or Afghanistan today it's pretty easy to drive a car full of explosives into things and so once a month or so, they do. And with planes you get to kill a lot more people than you do with the car attacks... again, we have real world examples of what WILL happen when attacks are easy against a desired target, and the repeated attacks on airliners show they are a desired target.

So it's pretty obvious you need to target some of the most likely attack vectors, which you can easily do with some minimum level of fuss. Airport travel used to be pretty easy, even with metal detectors - keep them (or higher-tech variants thereof) and stop the common attacks. Then you leave the terrorists with harder to use things like unstable liquid explosive mixtures, which may or may not work...

Re:Not useless at all

[Red Flayer]

Not really. Let's say we get rid of metal detectors and all screening today

Metal detectors and some of the other screening is a general measure that can help prevent multiple attack vectors on a specific target (an airplane). It's the no-liquids-over-2-oz rule, and the new sit-in-your-seat-for-an-hour-and-no-hanky-panky-mister rules that are silly.

Re:Not useless at all

[SuperKendall]

It's the no-liquids-over-2-oz rule, and the new sit-in-your-seat-for-an-hour-and-no-hanky-panky-mister rules that are silly.

Actually even the liquids thing is not silly, since part of what the recent attack used was liquid based - if he'd had a far larger amount with him, the attack would had succeeded despite only partial detonation just through volume of fire. There were already YouTube demonstrations of what could be done with a simple water bottle liquid explosive. I don't like that rule but I think that's a real enough attack vector (and one the terrorists seem to really like using) that the rule is sound. And again this creates an aura of protection where even if you can get around it to some degree, it's hard enough that many would not try.

The seat / hand thing is absurd. No-one is really going to be prowling the aisles for an hour looking at your hands the whole time, so anyone will have plenty of time to do as they choose. That's not realistic.

Re:Not useless at all

[dgatwood]

Where did you hear that there were liquids involved? AFAIK, it was a powdered explosive in somebody's underpants. Next time it will just be disguised as heart medication (which it happens to be, BTW).

Re:Not useless at all

[KamuZ]

Agreed but now think... They denied their entrance to London because of his connections with terrorism groups. He was in the list to be observed.
If TSA actually made their work (intelligence) they probably would have denied his visa and would have never touched USA. Which is one of the points from the article.

There is a way to make travel secure

[wizzerking]

We have two options 1: everybody travels naked, with no carry on or checked luggage, all luggage will be shipped by UPS, FedEx or the Like. 2: Nobody Travels except in their own car, or in cars with people they are familiar with. In this case we will have the situation of travel board websites and people will just organize themselves any way. Examples are commuter stops in San Francisco, or the old fashioned boards in college about who is traveling where, and who would like to pay for gas, or food. As far as I am concerned we should all be using the internet for conferences, etc. My company literally forbids traveling in the USA unless teh client absolutely will pay for my time, and travel expenses. In the case of Europe, well I had hoped to visit some locations, but not by plane, i think I will travel by old fashioned boat.

Wrong answer skippy...

[Anonymous Coward]

If we don't have enough resources to secure an airport and you think we have enough to do old fashioned police work to track down terrorists? That's ridiculous. Any person on the planet could be planning something. You would have to monitor everyone. Schneier is wrong. Terrorists don't want to attack just anything, they want spectacular high value targets. No one cares if they blow up a tool shed, but if they bring down an airplane, that has emotional as well as economical damage.

If our scanners can't detect explosives, then we need better scanners.

because planes are the only potential target...

[bigbigbison]

Let's say that we make airline flights 100% terrorist proof. Then what? Simple, the terrorists move on to bombing other things. Can you imaging the panic that would happen if they bombed a large high school graduation? There are a nearly infinite number of potential targets for terrorists and it is impossible to secure them all.

Re:because planes are the only potential target...

[Anonymous Coward]

All the responses I have read here are completely beside the actual point! Doesn't anyone listen to Alex Jones or any of the other patriots? Thank God we still have the internet and people can still use it to air unpopular views.

In case you don't know what he says about the matter of terrorism, he (and others) say that it is the way that TPTB (the powers that be) lead the masses in the direction that they desire. In this case just put a clown on an aircraft with some type of distraction and they get to tighten the security, take away more of our liberties and acclimatize the masses to more control. Cheap and easy!!!

How about the shooter at Ft Hood? Let me quote from infowars.com:
"How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most.

According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he was allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America’s finest warriors for at least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100 rounds of ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30–and was finally taken out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE BUILDING. I’ve got to tell you: I cannot get my brain around this one."

OK! why did I bring this one up? What happened, just like clockwork, was just after this incident there were calls for restrictions on the second amendment. But I am the one who is nuts because I don't believe what is on TV!!!

Don't believe me? Go to Alex Jones' web site infowars.tv and watch either Terrorstorm or End Game. Either of them show how events are used to herd John Q. various directions. If you can seriously watch these documentaries and still think that 19 Arabs were responsible for 911 you are on crack! I want to remind people that the reason we have such security is that terrorism was blamed for 911.

Before you call me a "conspiracy theorist", consider that the Government's story about what happened is also a story about a conspiracy.

Whatever!!! The fools in this forum will respond by calling me a "conspiracy theorist", thereby marginalizing my point of view. Go ahead. I'm used to it!

Re:because planes are the only potential target...

[master_p]

Indeed. Why not solve the problem at its roots, i.e. start a sort of propaganda in muslim countries that shows America and the west in a good light instead of an evil one. And also stop being so one sided with a certain nation.

Re:because planes are the only potential target...

[GrumblyStuff]

I would instead prefer that America simply acted good and not need or try to use propaganda to look better.

Re:because planes are the only potential target...

[evilviper]

Let's say that we make airline flights 100% terrorist proof. Then what? Simple, the terrorists move on to bombing other things.

Commercial jets are a ripe target because they're barely holding together as it is, and hundreds of people won't survive the fall...

Otherwise, a bomb that will fit in your shoe or underwear probably won't even kill the guy sitting next to you.

Can you imaging the panic that would happen if they bombed a large high school graduation?

What's to imagine? See the '96 Atlanta Olympic park bombing. See the Oklahoma City, Murrow Federal Building bombing. etc. People have small bombs going off in their driveways on a regular basis thanks to teenagers and introductory chemistry class.

If they really want to kill a bunch of people, the terrorists should start selling cheap cars...

Less Security

[play_in_traffic]

I would pay more for less security and less waiting/lines when I travel domestically by air.

Re:Less Security

[CAIMLAS]

Would you? Welcome to the watch list, Mr. play_in_traffic. You are obviously an person of interest, on account of your unwillingness to play by the same rules everyone else must in order to Keep People Safe.

There is no security, get over it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Security is a myth. Get over it.

The best security is diligent on-site people, so if 8 inch knives were handed out as we boarded airplanes, then we'd all be safer. AND more polite.

I avoid flying. I used to fly multiple times a week rather than drive 2 hours. It was easy and just a little faster. Cost was not an issue. Not anymore thanks to all the so-called security. Now I drive 7 hours just to avoid the hassles of air travel. Good job TSA, airlines, and our government. Good job.

What really told me we were going too far in the wrong direction was when my 2 inch pocket knife/keychain was confiscated by the TSA. A week later, my replacement pocket knife was taken on another trip. What a waste.

30 years ago, my mother traveled with her fancy silver for carving ham and turkey dinners in her carry on. That had the big fork and huge knife. No issues. What has really changed? Nothing.

Bravo Bruce!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bruce's commentary is one of the base written and most cogent arguments I've read to date criticizing the U.S.'s current security policies. My only addition would be to expand upon how our often schizophrenic foreign policy has resulted in the disenfranchisement of millions around the world. If we'd concentrated more on supporting and fostering democratic and economic reforms throughout the developing world rather than propping up two bit dictators for political expediency then we wouldn't be in this situation.

Dogs

[lotho brandybuck]

Use well trained dogs. Not only can dogs be trained to smell very minute quanties of just about anything, they also can smell fear and nervousness. And the presence of a dog is going to make a would be terrorist nervous. Trouble is, dogs don't make money for defense oriented companies pushing cat scans and fancy sniffer machines which may or may not work.

You propose the opposite of what Bruce wrote?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"There is nothing wrong with listing possible attack vectors -- that should be the goal. Each should be weighed in terms of order of likelyhood, and any that are justified to merit preventive action should be handled."

You couldn't be more wrong. The number of potential attack vectors approaches infinity. To do as you suggest would require that nobody ever be allowed to do anything. The necessary approach is to behave in ways that don't encourage an attack (as much as feasible) and establish relationships and trust, etc. It won't guarantee zero attacks, but then nothing will. Schneier points all of this out. Did you not read what he wrote, or were you just thinking you were better at security than him?

Re:USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror

[Opyros]

This is actually a quote from Testimony: the memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich . It should be noted that questions have been raised about the book's authenticity, for which see the linked Wikipedia article.

Re:USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror

[Reziac]

Really? Thanks for the info. The source of the quote (which some 35 years later I apparently slightly misremembered) wasn't given in the broadcast.

There's a chunk of the 5th that always puts me in mind of gunpowder kegs rolling along a cobbled street, ponderously out of control. So I call it the 'barrel roll symphony'. :)

Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is where I think Bruce misses the mark, he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up."

He's right. You are wrong. There are very few suicide bombers vs terrorists or insurgents or whatever you want to call them.

"The full body scanners are more expensive but given the amount of personnel and time they same are still cheaper in the end"

They are a waste of money. They aren't going to be any more effective than the basic metal detectors we already have. You still need the same amount of staff.

Easy, accurate and cheap explosive detection would be useful, though.

But we could eliminate all of the TSA rules imposed after 9/11 and not affect air travel safety. Air travel is amazingly safe. It's probably more dangerous travelling to the airport. The most dangerous people (in terms of your safety) are the ones who maintain, fly, and build the plane. Not the terrorists.

The Real Point

[anorlunda]

You're all missing the real point. Airport security has nothing to do with actual security. It is the government's way of responding to criticism that they're doing nothing.

After past incidents (especially 911) criticism of the government was severe. Their reaction is to do something, anything. In fact the more inconvenient and the more in your face it is, the better the evidence that they're doing "everything possible."

When the next attacks occur, government can duck the blame by saying, "look how many dollars and how many man hours we threw at the problem. What more do you want?"

I just listened to Obama's statement this afternoon on the Christmas attack. What a bunch of bureaucratic double talk and utter crap. Don't believe me? Look at the transcript of his statement when it appears. Then imagine it being delivered by a mid level manager.

Not the U.S. who is terrified, it's the TSA

[SuperKendall]

These actions don't seem rational to me. The country with a military spend ten times greater than the next largest country, probably with a military the size of most of the rest of the world is scared of individuals approaching its shores bearing nail scissors?

P.S. - They allowed nail clippers again some time ago.

But that doesn't mean the core of your argument is not as valid - some of the new rules, in particular the hands thing and the hour line Time Of Penance are just as (if not more) absurd and do nothing to help.

But make no mistake, it's not more than a handful of travelers and U.S. citizens that welcome these measures. It's not the citizens that are afraid, it's the bureaucracy!

If it is not against another sovereign state, can war be declared, and can it be agreed to be ceased?

I don't see why you can only have nations declare war, and not any other group. If companies can be multi-national, why not fighting forces? To me it's every bit a war as a war with a state that has physical boundaries. After all, let's say Iran deploys nuclear weapons against someone and we decide to retaliate - there are millions of people there who are not really at war with us either and we would not want to harm. It's exactly the same with terrorists, a core of people who have declared war on us surrounded by people we should not harm. So a "war against terrorism" is really not that much different than a traditional modern war, just more physically dispersed.

And that is also why I think it makes a lot more sense to harden likely targets rather than try and eliminate terrorism, which is obviously an impossible goal (though a realistic one is to make it difficult for them to build serious levels of strength, that is practical because that generally happens in a relatively few specific physical or logical areas you can attack)

Bad analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

The mugger holding a gun to your head for your wallet isn't comparable to 9/11 type hijackings, where deaths are a significant portion of the end goal. Muggers generally want your stuff and then to get away ASAP - they know the police are too busy to track down every mugger, while a murder gets real attention.

The rest of your post was fine.

- T

Re:Bad analogy

[dkleinsc]

My point was that for many many decades, airline hijackings were more or less the same sort of situation: the hijackers wanted money, wanted to get to someplace, and get the heck out of there.

Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[DerekLyons]

One of the best response on Slashdot, ever.

I don't know the number...

[NotQuiteReal]

can find a breakdown on the NRA site um... that is link to an anti-gun site, not the NRA...

Re:I don't know the number...

[Apparition-X]

Sorry, you are correct. But to clarify for those who don't care to click the link, the statistics themselves are from the National Center for Health, part of the CDC. So about as unbiased as one could reasonably expect without working through the numbers yourself.

Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Security Theater" is not 'just a term' that *anybody* likes to throw around. It's a military-based term which refers to ineffective security practices designed to make it *look* like you're doing something. The key word in the term is *theater*. You know, the place you go to watch people act out make believe bits of fiction? That's what it means.

Guns on planes!?

[Prien715]

Um...because you shouldn't fire bullets in an air-tight aluminum tube because it could cause the plane to malfunction/crash/kill everyone on board?

From a decision tree perspective, the terrorist doesn't mind dying...so you either let him kill everyone on the plane...or you can shoot him and do the same thing yourself. And that doesn't even account for the xenophobe who screams terrorist and shoots when he sees someone with brown skin and speaks "funny".

Now, special bullets that won't go through the plane? Maybe. But no, I for one am glad we try and make sure there's no guns on planes.

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[mpe]

Roughly 16,000 people were killed by automobiles in the first six months of this year. Roughly 22,000 were killed by preventable medical errors. If we crashed two or three 747s per week, we still wouldn't be at that level of deaths. If the money we waste on TSA were spent elsewhere, we'd be ahead of the game.

Even in terms of aviation AA 331 is probably a more important incident to worry about.

Would have impressed me more

[roman_mir]

This Jeffrey guy would have impressed me more if instead of a beer belly to carry the beer he used the winerack to do it.

most americans havent a clue what security is

[webishop]

Historically, travel has never been safe. Travelers have always been exposed to accidents, adverse weather, freak events and predatroy humans. Schneier's comments about how to stop terrorism are the same I was making immediately post-9/11. The sad fact is that most people in this country are no more interested in hearing this message today than they were 9 years ago. The idiots demanding security theatre deserve the bufoons of the TSA. I call that a match made in heaven. In the mean time, I'm even more resolved to not fly anywhere in this country.

which one are you there

[roman_mir]

Are you the one on the right, or the cool one?

The chances.

[v(*_*)vvvv]

The chances of getting hit by a hijacked plane is less than winning the lottery. But guess what? Enough of us think it'll happen to them. So that makes it right.

Lotteries are taxes for people who can't do math, but unfortunately all of us are being forced to pay for anti-terrorism.

Sorry, but Bruce has no proof and I do

[SuperKendall]

He's right. You are wrong. There are very few suicide bombers vs terrorists or insurgents or whatever you want to call them.

I have on my side of the argument proof - monthly (sometimes as high as daily) suicide bombings in places like Iraq. These people often come on from other countries, and are told the families will get money when they die (and they do). So what on earth makes you think they will not throw themselves at airlines when it's practical to do so, given they have repeatedly tried and as I said we have countless real-world examples of suicide bombers? Life is cheap, a fact proven by decades of reality across the middle east. I am assuming you are not saying monthly attacks on airlines bringing down whole planes is acceptable in any way.

Can't prove a negative you say? Well then it seems your argument has a problem, not my examples.

They are a waste of money. They aren't going to be any more effective than the basic metal detectors we already have. You still need the same amount of staff.

Read what I said. All I am looking for is the SAME level of effectiveness as we have today, which is actually pretty good in terms of how many attacks are carried out as is pointed out by the fact the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is pretty low. But MY suggestion is vastly better in that instead of disrobing and waiting for some guard to wonder just why you have so many cords in such a small space, you spend a max of ten seconds on the scan because the device scans you and everything you are carrying in one take without you even setting down anything. There are far LESS personnel involved because you are through faster and there's less people needed to manage crowds, and you need fewer lines - and like I said there aren't even humans examining the scan results, it's all computer analysis of the scan imagery and then if it decides something it finds odd you are searched at your gate. My suggestion is about not really increasing the likelihood of a successful attack, while at the same time making air travel 10000x less annoying and delay-prone for everyone.

Does it let people wander into the gate area with stuff they should not have? Possibly, but you can already get to a large number of people outside the security area so that really doesn't matter. And you still need a valid ticket to get in, along with an ID the system likes - the system would be scanning that at the same time (RFID in boarding pass or more likely a QR code that could be scanned as you entered the body scanner).

But we could eliminate all of the TSA rules imposed after 9/11 and not affect air travel safety.

Everything but the liquid rule, that has a sound basis in something they are still trying to use (the last attack was of this type). All the other rules are as you say mostly useless.

But again my suggestion is even better than how things used to be while maintaining around the same level of security, and requires fewer employees in the process. Because the scanners are more advanced (assuming they have chemical sniffers too) you could probably also eliminate the liquid rule also. The scanners are more expensive but long term cheaper and really a lot more flexible.

Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[dkf]

People are against showing ID to board a plane but it's what it's going to have to come down to in the end, because the reality is this is the most efficient way to actually catch people who are trying to do bad things vs. trying to simply find the tools used to perform an attack carried by any random person.

That's correct, and that's because that's a real security step (along with things like only allowing checked luggage on if it accompanies someone). It's where you can correlate whether the person is someone who is "likely to be of interest" and where you can verify that the airline is only carrying those who it thinks it is. (Even then, that's not a perfect solution, but a perfect solution would be economically crippling and so won't happen.)

Note that terrorism by suicide bombers is not the only real threat that has to be defended against. Out-and-out crazies are at least as big a problem, and some measures are there to defend against that too. (Note that the "security theater" is much more effective against that threat.)

They already do, but they don't give up either

[SuperKendall]

Let's say that we make airline flights 100% terrorist proof. Then what? Simple, the terrorists move on to bombing other things.

They already bomb a lot of other stuff.

But we can see from repeated examples that while we are probably as close as we ever will be to preventing bombs on airplanes, they keep trying that attack vector despite a single successful attempt (I group all of 9/11 in one attempt for this purposes even though it was multiple planes, because the same technique was used simultaneously and even then passengers on one of the planes were able to catch on and stop one plane before the plan was fully carried out). They really, really want to blow up a plane, so it makes some sense to try and stop them from doing so as long as they show a keen interest.

The real question is what measures help and what do not, the mess we have now has many elements that do not help whatsoever - including pretty much all of the new rules just implemented.

The most important line of air defense...

[wumingzi]

was completed by early morning on 11 September 2001.

Once upon a time, people hijacked airplanes. Airplanes were flown to Cuba, Russia, Taiwan, Mainland China, Africa, wherever people wanted to go for whatever personal or political axes they had to grind.

After this, the ICAO convened a treaty in 1970 which required that any country that flew airplanes treat hijacking as a felony. No exceptions. In the old days, if an airline pilot flew from (China/Taiwan) to (Taiwan/China), he would get gold, women, his name in the paper, etc. as a propaganda tool to show that (Capitalism/Communism) was a superior form of government which people yearned for. No more. Do that today, you go to prison. Period.

Even wacky countries we don't like much like Libya, Cuba, North Korea, etc. are signatories to this treaty. Hijack an airplane, go to jail. No exceptions. Anywhere.

It was a very effective treaty. As a result, a set of "rules of engagement" came up around hijacking. Keep calm. Don't make any sudden moves. Fly the airplane wherever in the world the hijackers want to go. Wherever you land, there will be negotiators if they play nice, and SWAT teams in reserve if they don't. Getting in a fight in the air can only endanger innocent people's lives.

After 2001, nobody is EVER going to follow those rules of engagement again.

USA: Get out of Middle East

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, he's not.

All of the terrorism that originates in the middle east from Islamic extremists is a direct result of bad foreign policy on behalf of the USA in that region.

Specifically, if the USA dismantled its military bases in Saudi Arabia, etc, then it would probably be a bigger step in halting terrorism than anything else.

Why?

Because it would remove foreign military from their holy soil. There would be no more infidels desecrating their land.

Whilst we may think that is a stupid way to think, that is their country, their region, so it is their right to do so. They don't get to tell us to be Islamic so we shouldn't tell them what to think about foreign military presence on their land.

Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[paulsnx2]

We don't have enough terrorist numbers to say that the "Security Theater" is effective or isn't effective. Terrorists have targeted planes for almost 50 years, and the latest security was put in place mostly after 2001. The numbers prior and afterwards aren't much different.

Personally, I think the term "Security Theater" is perfect. I think effective security (body scans and computer image recognition) fall outside that term, as they might actually be effective.

I would go further on the ID issue. IDs should be provided via secure sources. Why trust IDs provided by a passenger? A person could be vetted for travel in detail at some security office, and issued a user name or ID number. Providing THAT to security would allow their picture to be viewed and compared to the individual. Doing an ID check once, in detail, by people trained to do so is going to be far more effective then expecting lightly trained individuals to usefully evaluate ID documents over and over every time a person flies.

This is, if tracking the IDs of individuals is really what we want to do.

But these kinds of changes are not "Security Theater." These are changes that make a difference in our security.

Like enabling cell phones on planes. This has been proven to INCREASE security and does not pose any risk to navigation equipment. Yet still, cell phones are not allowed, and planes do not have the technology to enable cell phones in flight.

Personally, I am tired of not being able to take a jar of homemade Jelly on a plane. Tired of leaving my knife at home. Tired of the waits as thousands if not millions of mistakes are made daily by security staff to no ill effect on our security. (My son has flown with a full sized tube of toothpaste, and my wife with a swiss army knife in their carry on bags, which slipped easily through security. All by accident, but stll).

Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[JohnFen]

Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.

Apples and oranges. They're fighting a war for their own land in Afghanistan/Iraq, which means that there are a large number of people who are willing to go to extreme lengths than is typical. Even so, the percentage of the population willing to do these things is quite small. The percentage of that percentage that would be willing to come over here and engage in the same things is even smaller.

Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern for the well-being of all the people who are not terrorists, or at least that aspect gets lost in the process.

I think that it's quite fair. History bears this out time and time again. Perhaps the people who are putting these rules into place have our best interests in mind (although I'd be surprised if that's the main concern for most of them -- most of them are worried about political ramifications and fundraising, not our best interests) however there will inevitably come corrupt goons who will abuse these rules, potentially to disastrous effect.

But what about the gain of a LOT of security for a little liberty? When the equation is far more asymmetric is it not also more compelling?

Perhaps so, however this is not the situation we are facing. What we are facing, speculations of future technology aside, is the inverse of this -- we'd have to lose a LOT of liberty to gain a little security. Personally, I'd rather live in a dangerous and free world than a safe and unfree one. As near as I can see, based on what the government (and too many people) have been saying and doing, is that this is the decision in front of us.

This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes.

Your idea would be less intrusive, but not fundamentally any better. Also, it's years away from being technologically possible, at best. We'd still be subject to the whims of the authorities, we'd still lose our privacy, we'd still be treated like cattle and like criminals.

The security system as it is now keeps me from flying except in extreme circumstances. I hate being so demeaned, and avoid it. If it gets worse, such as full body scans (whether your fantasy version or the one that exists now), pat-downs, etc., then I simply will no longer fly at all. I'm far from the only one who takes this stance.

Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[wyldeone]

You make this claim, that terrorists don't attack because they are deterred by the idea of security, with no evidence. Here's some very good evidence why your theory is bunk: there are literally millions of highly visible targets in this country with no security. Anybody who wanted to could attack them trivially, compared to the relative difficulty of attacking an airplane. And yet, nobody does. There have been a handful of attempts over the past decade (most of them prompted or at least significantly helped by FBI informers), but nothing really successful (unless you consider Fort Hood, which clearly is a separate issue). If there really were all of these potential terrorists in the US, why would they just give up after deciding airlines are too hard? Why aren't they attacking all our undefended targets instead?

Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[DiegoBravo]

> This is where I think Bruce misses the mark, he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up. Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.

I agree with you, but note that Bruce is also suggesting a real change in relationships with middle east so that number eventually could be insignificant. But I suspect that will not be the case in the near time (even with the Obama's Nobel price:)

> Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern

Well, one of the politicians' jobs is to lead the people (including whatever committees.) By that way, the financial crisis would have been repelled by the government by printing and throwing a lot of money to every citizen...

> you stand on a platform for 10 seconds with your carryon in hand, and the device scans all of you along with your boarding pass.

I don't know about such technology, but I found that:

"Experts say the technology would almost certainly find a gun or knife but not necessarily something carried the way the Nigerian carried his explosives."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/whole-body-scan-vs-your-privacy-how-far-is-too-far.html

Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[jonwil]

The #1 issue with cellphones is the fact that when you are in an airplane up in the air, your phone is in range of so many towers (and passing between towers so fast) that your phone would overload the network rather than get a stable signal.

There is talk of micro-cells in airplanes that would allow your phone to connect to them instead of anything on the ground which would overcome the problems.

Really truly extremely verily secure

[adoarns]

So what does "really secure" mean? What's acceptable--or more to it, what is an acceptable expenditure of capital, both in cash and in irritation?

What are the paragons of the "really secure"? People always reference Fort Knox. Is Fort Knox really secure? The gold depository indeed is very difficult to infiltrate, very difficult to steal from. But is it impossible? Or for that matter, would it be impossible to destroy or scatter? A small-scale nuclear weapon could sublimate the entire deposit. The security of Fort Knox makes it very unlikely it will be compromised, that's all. Just as a jail makes escape very improbable, the population squatting around it very unlikely to be accosted by inmates. But not impossible. There's no impossible except in mathematics and physics.

So how rare can we make attempts on air transport? Well, since 2001 there has not been a civilian death due to terrorism on commercial aircraft. There have been two noteworthy attempts, both foiled by a mixture of equipment malfunction, bomber incompetence, and fellow passenger vigilance. Most flight-safety wallahs will tell you disasters happen not because of a simple malfunction but because three, four, or five different systems all failed. The fail-safe, the redundant fail-safe, the alternate computer were all rendered useless. Terrorist attacks can happen when similar strings of failure happen in the security apparatus. You can make them rarer but at cost.

Already commercial flights are unflyable. The airlines' penny-pinching clamps down on checked baggage, so everyone tries to drag through as much carryon as they can, which is exactly what the TSA discourages. To get from one city to another by plane, I have to show ID, I have to forego anything as basic as a regular bottle of shampoo, toothpaste, or mouthwash. Forget razors. They've already figured out what infinitesimal space can accommodate 99% of passengers with less than 1% risk of DVT and press us in to fit. My wife can't even come through security to see me off.

What else can I give up? Perhaps I don't need luggage. Everyone can simply buy new clothes at the destination. Hotels will stock up on toiletries and surcharges. Everyone will doff their shoes in the terminal; airports will be like Japanese houses. Slippers on the plane and whatever you can scavenge at your destination. Go through metal detectors naked. Well, they've got machines that do that essentially anyway and they want to roll them out. Each person spends five minutes with a Bruce Willis look-alike who asks for aspirins and grills you about your destination. "Our records show you visited Aunt Millie just five months ago--what is your real agenda here!?" Special papers for transport. Each seat with seatbelts only releaseable by the captain or designated air marshal. Nothing bad could come of that. No more paper--paper cuts, you see. Tickets carried on USB drives with a USB fee added.

Just what would make you feel safer? "Really secure" can't happen with commercial air transport because there are too many people. Millions of people, every day, getting on and off planes. If you've got a couple billion dollars in gold locked up in one place, you can make it real secure. Esp. if you have a tank division nearby. If you're talking tens of thousands of flights and millions of people, day-in-day-out, it can't happen. Not without denying every single one of them basic human decency. A few attempts will get through, and will hopefully get foiled. The terrorist masterminds, who are always working on something to hit us where we least expect it, aren't likely to be targeting planes anyway. Their plans already worked, people are already terrified and cowed.

The worst thing is that horrible processes and institutions outlast their exigencies. TSA will be around doing the same or worse crap fifteen years after there are any credible threats to commercial air. A whole generation is ruined on air travel, and we're still not building anything else to compete. Trains, anyone? Fuck it, I'll just drive to Cali next time I'm bound there.

Re:USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror

[dkleinsc]

I've studied the 5th Symphony in great depth, and I'm guessing you're referring to the last movement, particularly the opening theme, which is loud, bombastic, and designed primarily to keep the Communist Party apparatchiks happy.

Bunk is Bunk

[SuperKendall]

You make this claim, that terrorists don't attack because they are deterred by the idea of security, with no evidence. Here's some very good evidence why your theory is bunk: there are literally millions of highly visible targets in this country with no security.

But not ones that kill a lot of people. And the guys that really want to do this, we mostly don't let into the U.S.

The magical thing about air travel is that people anywhere can take a plane. The guys you get that are willing to blow themselves up to attack others look pretty out of place in Iowa and generally get caught before anything happens (witness the two guys in a car scoping out a military base for attack, I think in Arkansas) - it goes back to what I was saying, suicide bombers generally go forth when they are pretty sure they will have some success.

You offer no counterproof as to why they would not attack planes when they already drive cars into things every month. If they can reach it they will attack it.

unless you consider Fort Hood, which clearly is a separate issue

That's not clear at all. In fact he has direct links to the Pantsonator, in that they both worshipped under the same Imam. And in fact it kind of proves my point, he had easy access to do what he did and a will to do so - if even a well-educated phycologists working for the army for years can be turned against his own peers, there are countless others that would easily take on the same role with less motivation.

Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like the Pigs from Animal Farm.

The safety net that we have now from terrorism has nothing to do with theatre or improved law enforcement. Technology will do nothing to scare or harm terrorism. We are safer today because the end game changed from 30 days of being held hostage to in a few minutes you might explode. The people in airplanes and in any other situation are more apt to react now that they fear for their lives.

The only difference between the unibomber and an al-qaeda terrorist is that al-qaeda sometimes has meetings. No matter how much you throw technology at that problem, no matter how much you inconvenience the people as a whole or how much you pierce their individual liberties, the problem will still exist.

The most effective way to make the U.S. more secure is to remove the effectiveness of terrorism. Don't give them air time, don't spend $200M->$1B anytime a bomb made from grocery store items goes off, don't attack innocents in response to terrorism, and don't take away freedom and call the lack thereof security.

Apples are Apples

[SuperKendall]

Apples and oranges. They're fighting a war for their own land in Afghanistan/Iraq

I wasn't aware Iraq was owned by Sadia Ariba, Syria, and Iran. Because those are the people dying in suicide bombing attacks there, and were most of the jihadists (especially so once the people of Iraq figured out Al Quida didn't like people drinking which Iraqi's like quite a lot).

we'd have to lose a LOT of liberty to gain a little security

I consider nothing done at an airport to be a loss of "liberty" since flying is not a right. Also as another poster noted elsewhere planes are in fact rather good weapons (even if all you are doing is destroying them over a large city).

My whole issue is, how can we better build a system around acceptable risks and trying to find people who are a problem rather than tools that could be a problem but in the hands of most people will not be.

Your idea would be less intrusive, but not fundamentally any better.

It's not any more intrusive for most people because you already show ID and a boarding pass at the airport today (yes you do not HAVE to show ID but 99.9% of people do because they don't want extra security checks). And it's far, far faster because you aren't waiting for people in front of you to unpack AND disrobe and then reverse the process once screened. You could process probably 20x the number of people in the same amount of time, which given the amount of flights from any given airport means almost no wait - even at Terminal 5 in Heathrowe transferring between planes (one of the more maddeningly slow security screening setups and probably one of the worlds busiest).

The security system as it is now keeps me from flying except in extreme circumstances.

I agree, anything under 10 hours and I drive. Most travel I do does not give me that option. That's why I seek to eliminate all the aspects that slow me down, while not being any more intrusive than what we have today and in fact a good bit less because there are fewer people to ogle you and go through your stuff.

To my troller...

[denzacar]

You hate my comment because you know that it is exactly what everyone would have been thinking. :D

What's the fascination with aircraft anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

As you say, I've no idea why so much effort is put into airline security, nor do I understand why terrorists put so much effort into trying to blow planes up. But I don't think anything as elaborate and large-scale as what you're suggesting is necessary either.

(This is where I make a post that gets me a knock on the door from The Man)

Let's think. What are these terrorists trying to do? Draw attention to their "cause", obviously. Scare the shit out of ordinary decent people, definitely. Kill as many people as possible in a spectacular fashion, seemingly. Well I'm no terrorist but I can think of a far easier way to do this - bomb Glastonbury.

Here's an event where 180,000 or so people are gathered in one place with the sole purpose of having fun. Security's extremely lax - they're looking for drugs, not explosives. It would be the easiest thing in the world to stroll into a crowd of tens of thousands of sinful, decadent Westerners with a rucksack full of high explosives and let rip, causing utter carnage. And it'd all be caught live on camera by the BBC, who send only slightly fewer staff there to cover it than they used for the Beijing Olympics.

No complicated plot, no big conspiracy, just a guy and a backpack full of something that goes bang.

Ticks all the boxes, and yet they seem to want to spend their time getting past ever-tighter security and onto aircraft. Why? Is it simply because they know the inconvenience it causes pisses us off and costs lots of money? Maybe they're not so dumb after all.

Try to sneak in another bomb into the plane..

[lazy_nihilist]

The chances of there being a bomb is slim but the chances of there being 2 bombs on a plane is very very low. You can always feel more secure when you try to sneak in a bomb into the plane :-)

It doesn't help to react after

[SuperKendall]

The safety net that we have now from terrorism has nothing to do with theatre or improved law enforcement. Technology will do nothing to scare or harm terrorism. We are safer today because the end game changed from 30 days of being held hostage to in a few minutes you might explode. The people in airplanes and in any other situation are more apt to react now that they fear for their lives.

That is very true, but it only stops hijacking. Remember the Pantsonator actually DID detonate his bomb. Only after that, did people tackle him yada yada. I am fully with you in the game having changed after 9/11 and the passengers being pretty security conscious - but no one reacted to him wriggling under his blanket, it was only fire that made them act.

That's why the ban on things like knives is foolish, because it's impossible to take over a plane with pretty much anything now. Even a gun wouldn't stop you from getting pummeled eventually. But security measures to prevent the general category of explosives are NOT foolish, because they prevent an issue passengers simply cannot correct for. That to be is the optimal system, that relies on passengers to stop general takeovers and leaves only the use of explosives to detect and prevent.

The most effective way to make the U.S. more secure is to remove the effectiveness of terrorism

That helps (because it is a vector they use very heavily) but in the end they will still want to kill you just as much with air time as without.

You should care how it's used then.

[SuperKendall]

"Security Theater" is not 'just a term' that *anybody* likes to throw around.

You gave a very specific definition, but you are wrong in this first part. Look at this very discussion, "security theater" is used repeatedly and in fact lots of people throw it around all the time, just as I said.

If you care so much as to the exact definition, then you should *also* care it is used accurately. Airport security is not *wholly* theater, even if some aspects are (like ID checking as Bruce rightfully points out). But as I noted, even if some parts are theater there remains some value from the show in deterrence, and therefore the term "security theater" is not accurate because it's not totally ineffective. "Security Illusion" or something along those lines is much more accurate, at least if you care about the term...

Re:Get real; there is an overriding state interest

[colinrichardday]

In that case, what is penalty for an incompetent TSA employee? Or is it only mere citizens who should face sanctions?

More Americans die from firearms (or lack of health insurance) every year than from 9/11. Where's the "overriding state interest"? And to what extent can the government secure your life and property? Can the government save you disease? From RICO (oh wait, that is the government!)?

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[Mspangler]

First page on a google search;
in 2004; 29,569 total firearm fatalities, including 16,750 suicides, 649 accidents and 235 with unknown intent.

I am not out to prevent the last bombing

[SuperKendall]

I agree with you, but note that Bruce is also suggesting a real change in relationships with middle east so that number eventually could be insignificant.

That aspect though is fantasy, the dream you can kiss and make up with a violent religious cult never works out - it has not in the history of the world. With them you are either subsumed or attacked. He is normally very astute in psychology, so I'm really not sure how he gets so far off kilter that he imagines this will work.

"Experts say the technology would almost certainly find a gun or knife but not necessarily something carried the way the Nigerian carried his explosives."

But unlike the TSA I don't care about preventing the last attack. I care just about making attacks hard in general so that a guy has to store components in his underpants making them harder to re-asssemble, and optimizing air travel greatly without increasing the rate of attempted attacks. With a big old scary scanning box hooked to big scary computers somewhere lots of people will *think* they can't get a bomb on and so won't even try. Or will be nervous enough the behavioral analysts will get them. I mean, the last attack is basically un-preventable unless you want to get pretty damn intimate with every passenger and that just is not practical.

Also, I imagine the scanning device combined with something like a "puffer" they use in airports today, that could pick up chemical scents - that would have a much higher chance of having found something I think. Basically it's all about changing the mindset to "what can we scan for in 10 seconds with a guy on a platform" rather than adding another stage to an already elaborate series of procedures you must follow.

Re:I am not out to prevent the last bombing

[DiegoBravo]

> it has not in the history of the world. With them you are either subsumed or attacked.

Well, most countries are not threatened by Al Qaeda, so it is clear to me that the US foreign politics is partly responsible, or at least can do something else in order to improve the situation. I agree that is naive to assume that such a change of the attitude will avoid or reduce the attacks for at least 10 years, but is important to affront and revert the causes that lead to such hate for the future.

> lots of people will *think* they can't get a bomb on and so won't even try.

That could be good against standard psychopaths. But something Al Qaeda has demonstrated is that they're not uninformed people. The lots of (fanatic) people (from outside US) you talk about never will get a flight (to US) simply because 1) don't have the money and 2) don't have a Visa. The problem Schneider talks about is precisely about the single originally planned attacks.

Already solved.

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes.

Scans will always be defeatable and every terrorist so far has used his real name when boarding - ID wouldn't help at all.

What has worked in every case since 1 hour past when the World Trade Center was hit, are passengers beating the living hell out of somebody who tries to harm the aircraft.

Hardened cockpit doors were a good idea, but separate pilot entrances are still needed.

scarcity of terrorism?

[CAIMLAS]

Apparently Bruce isn't paying attention. That's to be expected, as physical security of the guys-with-guns type really isn't his domain, but... uh, there have been quite a few terrorist attacks against Western countries alone (not even counting the almost-daily attacks in places like India which are closer to the front).

A cursory search will tell you that there have been quite a few - over a dozen "major" attacks (ie, of the type where security personnel from every level of gov't are involved, resulting in societal changes) have occurred since 9/11/2001. Furthermore, there have been 10s of thousands in the West; I've heard numbers as high as 100,000 passed about.

Shit, there've been 2 'significant' terrorist attacks this year alone. (Ironic, though, that when it's embarrassing, it gets swept under the carpet by the gov't - Ft. Hood - but when there's a chance to increase state power and impose new restrictions on the populace - crotchbomber - it's a fucking circus.)

So yeah, terrorism is not uncommon. It's something we've simply conditioned ourselves as a society to ignore or overlook.

You misunderstand the nature of suicidal terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Sacrificing yourself for what you believe in is not correlated with "having stuff to lose". Many Christian martyrs, including some apostles were certainly not destitute. Self-sacrifice is about faith, not property. Terrorist social-revolutionaries in Russia mostly came from well-to-do families, and so did many Bolshevik operatives. The most recent would-be terrorist came from a rich family, and 9/11 hijackers studied in the West -- that is, were a lot richer than a lot of people in their home countries. And so on.

Look into the history of suicidal cults for more examples. The only difference is, these terrorists who target airplanes belong to a cult that glorifies taking a lot of other lives together with their own. It's that simple. They might yet win, get to realize their utopia, and spread it across the world just like Bolsheviks did -- and when they started their homicidal cult, no one took them seriously either.

Re:USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror

[Reziac]

That's likely it (I say, having not heard it in decades) -- I vaguely recall this memorable bit is short and well into the work, and sortof hammers at you on its way by. And my ear always wanted to hear more of it.

Hmm. If that's the hammer, where is the sickle? ;)

not how it works here...

[Chirs]

The last time I flew, at the gate they took my boarding pass and photo ID, scanned the bar code on it, and checked the result in the computer against the pass and against my ID.

I'm in Canada though...maybe they do things better here?

Re:Some other things you might not know about Bruc

[shadowbearer]

  Bruce Schneier has decrypted the results of millions of years of trillions of monkeys trying to duplicate all of modern civilization. He doesn't publish the results because it'd mean the end of All We Hold Dear (TM).

  Hey, at least the guy has some feelings, give him a break. Chuck never attempted anything like that.

SB

it's like the old Soviet Union saying . . .

[vaporland]

. . . about government employees: "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us..."

In this case, the government pretends to protect us, and, uh... Hmmm... oh, we pretend to believe it?

Re:USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror

[Donkey_Hotey]

No, it's because the spell-checkers on government computers keep replacing "the People" with "Terrorism."

Khalid the Droll...

[evilviper]

The scariest thing about all this, is that it was prophesied to a "T" on the Daily Show quite some time ago:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-19-2006/calvin-trillin

Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.

[babybird]

This along with a layer of behavioral analysts who can access the scan history to also flag people (and yes a good analysts can tell a person who is worried about flying over being nervous about something else)

No they can't. What they CAN do is spot someone who doesn't fit an ordinary profile of someone about to board a flight for some reason, i.e. someone who's displaying signs of malicious intent (or who is displaying behavior indicitive of malicious intent but for a perfectly benign reason). There has not been enough scientific research done to date to be able to do what you suggest here with the capability that you're claiming, and certainly not enough to train the massive number of "good" analysts that would be required to use them to screen millions of passengers per day at airports throughout the country.

The research behind this IS being done today, but there is quite a lot of work yet to do before what you're suggesting could be deployed on a wide scale. And the training for behavioral screeners is being created and tested as we speak. What has been done and has been tested, has had pretty positive results so far; so we are at least headed in the direction you're suggesting.

I'm sure you're aware that Dr. Paul Ekman (among probably a handful of others equally qualified in these fields) are among the driving forces behind these new security models. But if you read any of what he writes about it, it's very nearly filled with more caveats and cautions than it is with actual applicable knowledge. And there are still that small number of individuals who have a natural ability to walk right by ANY of these people without raising any red flags, and it would necessarily fall upon other technologies such as the body scanners, puffers, and trained dogs to pick up the slack.

I'm not denying that what you envision as the future of airport security is on the way, and would perhaps even be the ideal scenario, just that this one point really stuck out at me based on all that I've been able to read and learn about it over the past 2 years.

Re:What about making other things more secure firs

[babybird]

It's usually between 1/3 and 1/2, but that's if you also count suicide-- both self-inflicted suicide as well as "suicide by cop."

Re:USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror

[dkleinsc]

Well, give it a listen and tell me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0iqZbM1Pdc

IDIOTS

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen up tools, the solution is simple and is currently the primary method for 1 small country surrounded by hostile neighbors with self proclaimed global enemies, Israel.

What do they do?

They fucking profile and dont waste their time on Red Headed Grandmothers or Blond Haired Blue Eyed Babies.

Its fucking ridiculous to simply ignore that "the terrorists" are males, typically of medium or dark complexion and muslim.

now shut the fuck up and get on the fucking plane knowing that fucking tool in the white house along with all of his minions tools, are working toward your collective demise simply because they are worshipping some PC Deity of which there is no appeasing!

anon

[Anonymous Coward]

just stop enforcing your MTV culture on anybody else in the world
(things like jackass for example etc).

Re:USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror

[Reziac]

Oh yes, that's it -- and what an exquisite performance! Perfectly captures that wondrous meld of grandeur and terror, especially at the conclusion. Thanks so much for pointing me at this!!!

BTW do you know when it was recorded? It looks fairly old.

(Grabbed as an mp4 thru Clipnabber, so the sound wasn't too badly mauled, and even retains some of the concert hall ambience that I find so necessary. I *hate* what compression, including CDs, do to classical music.)

sismondi

[psismondi]

Americans are not actually in any serious danger from terrorists. The threat is tiny compared with the loss of life from, say, drunk drivers. Americans (and increasingly, people in Canada, where I live) live in a constant state of paranoia about terrorist attacks, crime (which criminologists say is *decreasing* here) and so on. The threat to our lives and freedom from out of control police and military authority is much greater than any threat from Al Qaeda. The US, Britain, and of course the former USSR made things waaaay worse in the Middle East than they had to be. Sure Al Qaeda is evil. But that organization is, at least in part, the product of cynical, exploitive and massively violent policies on the part of western powers. Now we Canadians are pulling the same idiotic stunts.