Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
Is to either remove all people from flights, or somehow put them all into a coma for the duration of the flight.
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
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.
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.
Finally the right idea. Why should we gift-wrap defenseless sheep for the bad guys?
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.
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)
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
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?
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.
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
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.)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
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.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
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.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.