Slashdot Mirror
Object Lessons: Evan Booth's Post-Checkpoint Airport Weapons
Jah-Wren Ryel writes "In early-2013, independent security researcher, Evan 'treefort' Booth, began working to answer one simple question: Can common items sold in airports after the security screening be used to build lethal weapons? As it turns out, even a marginally 'MacGyver-esque' attacker can breeze through terminal gift shops, restaurants, magazine stands and duty-free shops to find everything needed to wage war on an airplane."
We mentioned Evan's work several months back; now his not-just-a-thought-experiment exploration of improvised weapons has been cleaned up and organized, so you don't have to watch his (fascinating) talks to experience the wonders of the Chucks of Liberty (video) or the Fragguccino (video).
After watching the videos... did I just put myself on a list somewhere?
How about chaining lithium batteries together to make a tazer or device to overload the planes circuits? Laptops contain plenty of sharp metal pieces too.
All the weapons would be notices and the shooter disarmed before they went off. Even if they could get one shot off reload time would allow other passengers to take the hijacker down before he re-loaded. After 911 passengers are more proactive in dealing with hijackers. These things are toys at best. Sure one may be able to start a fire in a luggage compartment but even they have fire suppression equipment. Even if the aerosol cans went off it would not bring down an aircraft. The ones that explode are a lot of flash and sound without much damage. Even of a couple of people are hurt the hijacker would have to deal with the remaining passengers.
I saw Evan give this presentation at HouSecCon last month and I've been telling everyone to watch it since. I'm not a rah-rah kind of person, but after Evan finished, I wanted to save the world...but I didn't know what was attacking it...so I felt like attacking it and saving it from myself. Oh, and I had an odd urge to plagiarize Hoyt Axton.
There are so few terrorists its irrelevant.
When hundreds of people are dying daily from terrorist attacks involving airplanes there might be some argument. There aren't and there isn't any evidence to suggest that the TSA has ever even prevented an attack.
What there is evidence of is economic harm as the result of our decisions to scrutinize every passenger boarding a flight.
Terrorism has an insignificant impact compared to the costs of fighting it. Compare it to any other risk and we're much better spending our money on curing cancer, reducing vehicular accidents, etc.
Flying is the safest method of travel with or without the TSA. That's the truth of the matter and man kind just can't see beyond the emotional aspects of threats. As a result we do the most illogical thing possible passing bad rules/polices/laws and accept the most illogical thing in accepting the legislation (society).
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without.
You much prefer having people's rights violated? The land of the free and the home of the brave indeed.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
You and people like you have done far more damage to this country than any terrorist could ever hope to achieve.
DATABASE WOW WOW
In a democracy the elected member of the government are expandable. We can LITERALLY, replace them over night. They do no need extra 'security'. This is the strength of democracy; for as long as there are citizens we can find, among ourselves, a new leader to replace the previous one.
I'd suggest it is wise to provide elected members with an appropriate income and protection because theoretically it should reduce the ability of others to corrupt them. However I use the word theoretically because in many countries the influencers have become very sophisticated at manipulation.
What is a "naive" opinion ? If you check the luggage, terrorist will find another way to scare you, and you will give up more of your freedom. TSA checkpoints are a show to make you feel safe while you're truly scared to death. The only rational way to answer a terror attack is not to change anything, continue living as if nothing happened.
Don't need the whole TSA to screen for guns or bombs. The airlines were doing mostly OK before, except for the locked re-inforced cockpit doors. I don't know when air marshals stopped being used; in any case, their selection and training could likely use improvement; I'm not sure they're needful anyway.
Detectors ought to be at terminal entrances, not each airlines' booth. Check your guns at the door, pick 'em up on the way out.
the good news is that he's made and excellent point. the bad news is that a shortsighted authority figure is going to loose his shit over this and evan is going to need a lawyer.
welcome to the dystopian present.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Again, a popular opinion but again, naive.
What's naive is your blind trust in the government. I find it so naive that it disgusts me throughly.
What 'rights' are you violating making a search.
Your privacy, and it also violates the fourth amendment; those are the obvious violations. Where in the US constitution does it give the government the power to molest people who want to get on a plane? Nowhere.
I don't want to be harassed by worthless government (or private) thugs just because I want to get on a plane.
There are ways to make a proper search
You can't violate everyone's rights just because some people may be terrorists. I don't even think you can selectively violate people's rights. Just leave people alone.
people have been doing it for years, it's an accepted method of protection.
I don't care how long it has been around or how accepted it is; I think it's absolutely immoral and disgusting. If you cared about freedom at all, I dare say you'd feel the same way.
Go and do even a modicum of international air travel then imagine what it would be like if there were no checks.
I think freedom is more important than security to anyone with a brain. With that said, the terrorist bogeymen are largely nonexistent; you've been duped.
While I abhor the reports for TSA (I won't fly to the USA because of this nonsense) and I agree that most of the way the checks are done by them is 'theatre', having professionally trained, and accountable 'agents' (or whatever you want to call them) making appropriate searches at borders of countries is sensible.
I disagree that randomly searching people can ever be appropriate or sensible. Freedom is simply more important to me than your or my ability to feel safe.
We do not have such shrill protestations (at least as far as I can tell) in Europe
That sounds like a problem to me.
where frankly many of those countries have had a far more thorough search regimen than the USA
Yeah, definitely sounds like a problem.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I would prefer one without checks. It would make absolutely no difference to security. The bus to the airport would still be by far the most dangerous part of the journey, and it would take about 2 hours off the journey time.
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without. Honestly, what would be your preference?
Honestly, I'd prefer that to travel without being subject to a warrantless search with no probable cause. I'd rather take a statistically insignificant risk and retain my Constitutional and human rights, as opposed to existing as an insignificantly-safer coward. I can't see the bogeymen in the shadows that the ruling class want me to fear; I only fear for our liberty.
If there were an airline that allowed passengers to board after passing through an old-style, cursory weapons check — the type of security that's still used at small municipal courts — or even no security, other than a reinforced cockpit door, I would have kept flying during the past seven years. The feelings I experience when my rights are violated are such that it isn't worth it for me to fly anywhere, for any reason. Until the Fourth Amendment and all-around sanity returns to US airports, I'll have no part in that degrading and unconstitutional display of cowardice.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
All he's doing is getting batteries, deodorant and patriotic tchotchkes banned from airports. Besides, a dental floss rope garrote or a soda-can knife would be far more effective and easy to make if you could ever find the privacy in an airport to do something like this.
Between 1948 and 1957, there were 15 hijackings worldwide, an average of a little more than one per year. Between 1958 and 1967, this climbed to 48, or about five per year. The number dropped to 38 in 1968, but grew to 82 in 1969, the largest number in a single year in the history of civil aviation; in January 1969 alone, eight airliners were hijacked to Cuba.[5] Between 1968 and 1977, the annual average jumped to 41.
Now, how many aircrafts have you heard being hijacked over the last decade? Do you think that the heightened security level has nothing to do with that?
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Logan airport was infamous for poor security. It's why they the 9/11 attackers selected that airport.
And if you think surrendering your weapons at a door to a public area is safety enhancing, you've perhaps not thought out how those weapons will be stored and released only to the original owner. They _will_ be stolen.
Oh, please. Don't pretend that that only options are TSA or no security at all. Back in the day, before the TSA, the airlines were handling security on their own and doing a fine job. It was a measured response, where the level of security suited the contemporary threat level. As a result, the inconvenience to travelers was less, the cost was less, and it was only paid for by people who were actually traveling by plane. Now, with the TSA, you've got airport nudity scanners and inefficient security theater all on the taxpayer dime, so you have to pay for it whether you travel by plane or not. It's worse now by every measure I can think of.
High jacking was much easier then. The door to the cockpit was not locked and secured.
Apples. Oranges.
And don't forget the different politic climate and the different goals of the high jackers.
In a nutshell you can't derive potential high jacking cases from the past.
It is not naive the TSA is naive. If you want security you can have it by doing real security screening and not "security theater." Ask the Israelis about it some time. I flew out of Amsterdam the day after a scare, it was the first security screening I have ever had. Someone looked me dead in the eye and asked my why half of my passport was in Arabic. He looked at me, listened to me, and made a real judgment. It is all bullshit anyway post 9/11 everyone knows that even if the terrorists are able to kill 90% of the people of the plane they are still not going to be able to kill all the passengers plus the external target. By making the risk=damage*likelihood equation infinite they have closed that door for ever. Someone tries to hijack the plane I am on and I am reciting "we few, we happy few" and the then going to stomp those fuckers to death with evey other top level predator on the plane. I will feel bad if they cut the stewardess' throat but that is not going to stop me wrapping my coat around my forearm and pulling the handle out of my luggage and reminding him has he dies that I will bury him in pigskin with his feet pointing to Mecca.
I think the singular rule that stopped hijackings of substantial significance was enacted far later than the other provisions that represent a significant step backwards for freedom.
Two hours? I've flown to and from (and within) the US quite a few times over the past year, and I don't think security has taken more than 10 minutes at any airport. Immigration took far longer on the way into the US, because the fingerprint scan and photo plus the passport check and the sequence of questions all take a long time per person.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"In 1973, the Nixon Administration ordered the discontinuance by the CIA of the use of hijacking as a covert action weapon against the Castro regime. Cuban intelligence followed suit. "
You oh so conveniently missed that bit out.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without.
Because the only two choices are TSA and nothing?
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
May I recommend not bringing your weapons with you?
If you cannot trust handing them off to a sworn officer when you enter a secured area, maybe you should keep them at home.
As a matter of fact, should your weapon indeed get stolen, you can be pretty sure that it's unlikely to be by a foreign terrorist threatening a plane (since the personnel gets background checks), therefore the goal of protecting planes has been accomplished.
It will just, like most weapons stolen from homes and cars, be used for some illegal activity and likely be used to threaten others, but your Precious will clearly not land in the hands of foreign terrorists until at least the second black-market resale.
It is not about terrorists, but population control. If they were serious about terrorism they would put the control just before boarding, as this shows.
A control is better than no control, but an abusive and intrusive control like TSA's one provides little extra protection, a lot of false positives, and keeping population scared and so in control.
Now, how many aircrafts have you heard being hijacked over the last decade?
That's awful logic, because you're ignoring all the other things that changed as well. Secured cockpit doors. The willingness of passengers to fight back. Etcetera.
and we'll have assholes like Evan to thank for it.
The people who are actually violating your rights? They have absolutely nothing to do with any of that!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I agree the rational thing is not to overreact. Doing nothing though is not always the answer either. When something bad happens its always worth trying to understand why and how and what it would take to prevent it or reduce the risk. Then you way your options.
Re-enforced cockpit doors locked during flight are a good response. They don't infringe on freedoms in a way much of anyone would find objectionable. Little Timmy can't get his cockpit tour anymore on a long flight but that is about it. The cost is low in the context of commercial aircraft maintenance. The risk of and potential consequences from a terrorist being on an aircraft are drastically reduced by this. Its a good response.
The rest of it however is a waste of money and time, and if we read our Constitution honestly not legal. A private company running an airport or airline could implement whatever security they want but government is runs up against the first and fourth amendment or should.
I have the right to peacefully assemble, which implies a right to travel to the assembly and my fourth amendment rights to be secure in my person and effects. If I want to assemble with people in California and I am in New York, air travel my be my only option for getting there in time, since it isn't a choice government should be barred from expecting my to waive my fourth amendment rights to exercise my first amendment rights.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Do you think that the heightened security level has ...
Nope, it doesn't. Hardened locked cockpits and passengers will to aprehend and beat the shit of of scoflaws will do that.
Those are worldwide hijackings, and we're talking about a US measure. Try stats for US domestic flights vs US domestic policy (we could always do invasive checking just for international if that's warranted, but honestly international flights to/from the US probably don't warrant it either). Also, lumping all hijackings is silly as well. Many of those early hijackings were more to do with small criminals and there was no real intent to destroy a plane or kill the passengers. We didn't have 48x 9/11-level incidents between 1958 and 1967. Most of those were pretty benign "re-route us to this airport please" hijackings.
It is true that they may now start to resort to tactics that were not imaginable just a few years ago, ...
The sooner you realise that your attitude to a minuscule terrorist threat is actually the problem here, the better.
I would suggest you are suffering from a form of mental illness similar to that of obsessive compulsives who refuse to touch door handles for fear of picking up "germs". You cannot see the obvious facts for what they are: there is no significant threat from terrorism, and there never was one. The fact that you are willing to drive around in cars, or ride on the subway when a) there is a far higher risk of you dying from non-terrorist causes doing that (and pretty preventable causes too, given TSA-like funding) and b) terrorists could just as easily attack those as well, is plainly deluded when the price you pay in return for "safety" on a plane is so utterly disproportionate.
The sheer Owellian nature of what is going on in the minds of Americans like you is amazing. Land of the free? Don't make me laugh.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Actually some credit should go to the x-ray scanners and walk-through metal detectors as well. With those two in place it is basically impossible to sneak a viable bomb aboard an aircraft now. Sure, you can get explosives through, but not the types that are easy to detonate. The shoe bomber and pants bomber both managed to get explosives on board but were unable to detonate them because the process was so involved other passengers noticed and stopped them.
Even without locked cockpit doors hijacking would be almost impossible now anyway, since passengers don't assume they will be safe if they co-operate any more. They assume the hijacker might be planning to crash the aircraft into a building and kill them anyway, so will keep fighting them no matter what.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Security checks are not about security. It's meant to show off an impression of security and to make it feel risky to bring lethal when boarding a plane.
It's the same principle with police patrols. They spend a huge amount of time doing nothing, but it's useful. You see the policeman, you know you can get caught, you abide law.
Terrorism has an insignificant impact compared to the costs of fighting it. Compare it to any other risk and we're much better spending our money on curing cancer, reducing vehicular accidents, etc.
Flying is the safest method of travel with or without the TSA. That's the truth of the matter and man kind just can't see beyond the emotional aspects of threats. As a result we do the most illogical thing possible passing bad rules/polices/laws and accept the most illogical thing in accepting the legislation (society).
You are being totally static in your assumptions, as though terrorism were the weather or something.
As well say something like "our town has such low crime that we should disband the police department. Much better to spend that money on pig feed inspections."
That certainly doesn't mean that the TSA is the best approach ... something like Israel's methodology would make more sense.
>You can bet that terrorists would find it an easy attack vector if there were no checks anymore.
False dichotomy. We can go back to the old security measures (i.e. metal detector). It's not an all or nothing situation.
>Honestly, what would be your preference?
I'd prefer to do away with the new "security" measures. I'll gladly take the risk of a terrorist slipping through. I live in this country, I fly semi-regularly. I'm agreeing to assume as much risk as anyone else under my preference. There are two, and only two, things that have made air travel safer since 9/11":
1. Reinforced cockpit doors. If the hijackers can't get to the cockpit then they cannot take the plane by force. Even if they kill all the passengers, they cannot gain control of the airplane and use it as a weapon.
2. Passengers now know to resist hijackers. The old logic used to be that you should obey the hijackers, don't be a hero, and keep your head down. The hijackers wanted money, political stuff (e.g. prisoners released), or free travel to $country_without_extradition_treaty. If you shut up and did what they said then no one would get hurt. The plane would land, SWAT (or equivalent) would negotiate with them. The hijackers would either surrender or SWAT would storm the plane with minimal innocent casualties. But now we know that the hijackers might want to use the plane with a weapon. Thus, passengers now know to dogpile anyone who tries to take over the plane. Even with a fully-loaded, fully-automatic rifle, no hijacker could possibly take over an aircraft. Have you seen pictures of recent would-be terrorists? The passengers beat those fuckers to within an inch of their lives!
TL;DR: We're safer now, but not thanks to the TSA.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
High jacking was much easier then. The door to the cockpit was not locked and secured.
Apples. Oranges.
And don't forget the different politic climate and the different goals of the high jackers.
In a nutshell you can't derive potential high jacking cases from the past.
Really it was the crackdown on drugs on airplanes that put paid to the high jackers. Now the best they can manage are drunk jackers.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
That certainly doesn't mean that the TSA is the best approach ... something like Israel's methodology would make more sense.
Bulldozing the houses of anyone committing anything that could remotely be interpreted as an act of terror, with their elderly relatives still inside, would surely strike sufficient fear into other 'terrorists' that they wouldn't dare do anything!
(yeah I'm aware you are talking about the Israeli airport screening, which is demonstrably effective, just pointing out that the Israeli 'follow through' is nowhere near effective as a deterrent, just makes their opponents angrier).
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
You can't count on a swift passage through security. I believe it is still recommended that one arrives at a US airport a couple hours early just in case.
Having said that, there are other reasons to arrive early at an airport. So I don't believe that two hours would be saved, even if there was no security checks.
It's far more basic than that. It's being seen to be doing something, pointless busywork really, and then a pile of opportunists that see it as a chance to push their own personal agendas (eg. lining up a job with the supplier of the xray machines). It's turned into welfare for the vast number of people that are consuming the TSA budget - from greeters dressed as security to silicon snake oil salesmen.
They are usually quite inflated on their own, I don't think they are that expandable.
Dealing with risk and mitigating against it is my primary job. So lets examine your comments from a mitigation point of view and see where it leads us...
To mitigate the risk you have to go to the root cause. Namely our foreign policy. The US has been building its empire trying to think of itself as the world's police. We meddle in other countries affairs both political and economic whether they asked for our help or not. We have supported dictatorial regimes as well as provide blind support for allies, especially Israel, whether they were right or wrong. We have invaded countries for natural resources and have economically sanctioned countries that refused to cooperate with the corporate interests of the US. Our belief in American Exceptionalism (the belief that we are somehow superior to everyone else) leads to an attitude that other countries see as arrogance. Our largest export isn't food or energy, it is weapons both advanced and deadly accurate.
So far, all our mitigation efforts have been reactionary to the incident as your comment points out without addressing the root causes. Our reaction to a terrorist with explosives in his shoes? Require everyone to take off their shoes for deep inspection. Our reaction to another terrorist with explosives in his drawers? Invasive pat downs and explicit x-ray machines that display everything under the clothing. Our reaction to the possibility of liquid explosives? Ban liquids on flights.
To truly mitigate this, we need to change our foreign policy to leave other countries alone to fight their own battles. We need to scale back our consumption of resources dramatically and ditch the attitude that we are the best thing since sliced bread. We need to stop the empire building and support of dictators that we use as proxies for that empire building. We need to stifle our corporate overlords in their quest for world domination and exploitation in the "global economy".
Lastly, we need to stop exporting weapons to everyone especially to those same regimes that are committing the worst atrocities whether they are allies or not.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Who needs "chux'o'liberty" when the Security Theater is lax enough to permit 12" steel razor blades on a flight?
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
He said he lives in Europe so how is he a good American?
How do passengers fight back against explosives again? Hijacking isn't the only threat anymore, in case you haven't noticed.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
I agree; I also am not completely opposed to a security check prior to boarding airplanes. I am, however, opposed to the excessive and pointless checks we are now forced to endure.
A pre-9/11 walk through a metal detector looking for recognizably metallic items - guns, large knives - is fine. It's quick and non-intrusive. It gets rid of all the low-hanging fruit; the idiots who haven't given much thought before giving in to their violent tendencies. Sure it won't catch the "professionals" but - as TFA indicates - if you are truly committed to the cause /nothing/ will stop you from that. Anything can be a deadly weapon in the right (or wrong, as the case may be) hands.
Forcing people to remove their shoes, or preventing people from boarding because they're carrying a big bottle of lotion or have the same name as a freedom fighter in some far off land, or any of the dozens of other inconveniences we put up with in the name of security are pointless hassles that do nothing to actually protect us. It is nothing more than bad theater to distract from the insolubility of the actual problem and to inculcate mindless obedience to authority.
I think the singular rule that stopped hijackings of substantial significance was enacted far later than the other provisions that represent a significant step backwards for freedom.
What stopped hijackings is the fact that the 9/11 hijackers crashed their planes.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
My job is also mostly about risk identification and mitigation as well. I am not a believer in root cause analysis. Proximate cause analysis is more interesting and more useful, which is why its what the legal system usually aims for. Your root cause analysis may be correct. We might indeed prevent a considerable portion of future international terrorism by dealing with the military industrial complex and putting in some cooler heads to run the CIA.
That would not do anything to address all the other crazy reasons someone might decide to use an airliner as guided missile. Root cause analysis fallaciously assumes there is some single point up a decision tree that lead to branch where the event was possible. In the real world there is often more than one way to get somewhere.
The proximate cause of the towers getting hit on the other hand was "passengers were able to gain the ability to alter the flight path of the aircraft" A secured cockpit door addresses that. It addresses it no matter if the would be perp does it because the CIA install an oppressive regime that denies him his freedom in east whocaresisatan or because the voices in my head tell me to smash things.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
A popular opinion on slashdot. But naive.
A popular rebuttal on slashdot. But based on a logical fallacy.
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without. Honestly, what would be your preference?
You can bet that terrorists would find it an easy attack vector if there were no checks anymore.
Your logical fallacy is attacking a straw man. Nobody is calling for the elimination of security checks. We are calling for the elimination of the TSA, and the placement of security checks back in the hands of airlines and airports. The TSA has been shown to be more effective at being criminal than at catching them, and as such should be abolished as a cure worse than the disease.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, airport security checks are useless and no more than a waste of taxpayers' money.
Your logic does not apply. Let me demonstrate why.
Say, you need perfume A, toothpaste B, and battery C to make an explosive.
Now, it is known that the TSA builds a profile of you even before you enter the plane.
This profile, combined with the information about stuff you bought post-checkin, can set off some alarm bells.
Even if you buy stuff with several people.
Hence, while you can build an explosive with post-checkin materials, it is NOT CERTAIN you can buy them AND enter a plane.
There is just one step missing in the logic.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
They assume the hijacker might be planning to crash the aircraft into a building and kill them anyway, so will keep fighting them no matter what.
I know this is the popular opinion, but I really have a hard time buying into this notion.
Yes, we have the example of Flight 93 but I think that's an exception to the rule as a direct result of the passengers learning of the three other attacks. In this case, there was direct evidence that the terrorists were very likely to destroy the airplane and this prodded the passengers into action.
However, barring similar circumstances I do not see a repetition of these events, especially if the hijackers have even a modicum of common sense. People are not generally prone to putting themselves in harms way unless the threat is dire and imminent. They are also very likely to believe any lies told convincing them that there is no imminent threat. I believe that all the hijackers need do to prevent another revolt is 1) appear appropriately menacing, 2) assure their prisoners that the ultimate goal is /not/ to immolate themselves and everyone else on the plane in some fiery statement of defiance, 3) prevent the passengers from learning the lie behind point no. 2. Given these circumstances, the passengers will remain in their seats rather than attempting to re-take the vehicle. I'd even wager that in these circumstances that any would-be heroes would be as likely restrained by their fellow passengers as by the criminals themselves.
I would in no way depend on the passengers to protect the plane as any sort of security measure.
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without. Honestly, what would be your preference?
Checkpoints that actually work. If they were serious about stopping acts of terror, they'd go back to metal detectors (which had a *much* higher catch rate than the current backscatter x-ray machines, Google for the number of times people have gotten stuff past the backscatter x-rays, it's kinda scary), and make everybody in line have a once-over from bomb sniffing dogs. Much cheaper, much less of an invasion of privacy, and much more effective.
You can bet that terrorists would find it an easy attack vector if there were no checks anymore.
Actually, the checkpoint itself is probably going to be the next attack vector. A large group of people waiting in line to be screened, who haven't had to go through any checkpoints/security to get to that point? Perfect place for a suicide bomber. Has already been attempted in Russia, actually. Anything that gets people through the security faster is a good thing, which brings us back to my suggestion about a metal detector and bomb-sniffing dogs... more effective, and faster.
It is true that they may now start to resort to tactics that were not imaginable just a few years ago, like implanting in their body - but no security checks would make their attempts so much easier.
Nobody's seriously suggesting no security. Getting rid of the TSA and going back to what we had before 9/11 would be the right step. The existing fortifications that are required for the cockpit are effective enough, and would prevent another 9/11 from happening.
Has any hijacking been attempted since? I can't really recall any. Besides, aircraft high jackings have been out of fashion since the late 1980s.
You obviously don't make any long distance trips.
If you ever consider crossing the Atlantic, you will find out that there are no ships available that take you. Planes are the only option.
Or if you occasionally want to travel between say Europe and the Far East, you can choose either a plane, or a 14-day train trip (plus a lot of hassle for the various transit visa).
There are so few terrorists its irrelevant.
When hundreds of people are dying daily from terrorist attacks involving airplanes there might be some argument. There aren't and there isn't any evidence to suggest that the TSA has ever even prevented an attack.
To add a little perspective. 3000 people died in the attacks on 9-11-01. A tragedy to be sure. Almost that many people died ever
Are you seriously arguing that making it much more difficult to bring firearms and explosives on board has no effect on aircraft hijackings!? And that, say, a few machine guns will not deter passengers?
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
However, the situation has not returned to the pre-1968 level and the number of successful hijackings continues to be high - an average of 18 per annum during the 10-year period between 1988 and 1997, as against the pre-1968 average of five.[2]
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
You have a point, but it would only work once or twice before no one would believe them (or at least a sufficiently large fraction of the population would not believe them).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
According to this list there have been 10 "notable" hijackings in the last decade.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Every TSA payday, the terrorists have won. While some level of screening makes sense, the cost of the TSA security theater does not.
The USA needs to grow a pair, and remember its roots: the cost of freedom is an acceptance of risk.
Will
Hijacking airplanes was much easier back then, because it was much easier to smuggle guns and explosives on board. Often there were little, if any, security checks, making it relatively easy to smuggle guns on board. In turn, guns make crowd control a lot easier. Today, it is extremely difficult to smuggle anything but very primitive weapons on board. And even that requires careful planning and preparation. These primitive weapons makes it comparatively easy for passengers to rush the would-be hijackers. My point is that the security checks actually do increase security. (Some of them are quite obnoxious, and seem to be dictated by airport shops rather than security concerns, though).
One interesting question is if airplane hijacking will get a renaissance when/if 3D printing becomes able to print robust automatic weapons in plastic.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
None in the US, it seems.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
> May I recommend not bringing your weapons with you?
You may suggest this. But the metal tools I normally carry are considered weapons by most security checkpoints, and I do want them everywhere. It's amazing what a small folding knife or a multitool can do to help in an emergency. Many Americans have taken to discarding personal knives, and my tools have been very helpful to them in numerous public instances.
> If you cannot trust handing them off to a sworn officer when you enter a secured area, maybe you should keep them at ho
If it's local police officer, or a military personnel whose name and ID number I've recorded, I might and have. But in such a large area, they're likely to be TSA personnel, not police. Those personnel are consistently undertrained and overworked, and are rapidly on their way in major airports to becoming the same harried staff who let the 9/11 bombers through with utility knives.
Further, as has been pointed out numerous times here, the Israeli experience doesn't scale. They have exactly one significant International airport. They do explicit racial profiling. Horses for courses.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
How do passengers fight back against explosives again?
You're more likely to die in a car accident than to someone blowing up a plane. Someone could blow up a bus. Someone could blow up a train. Someone could blow up any number of things, including the airport, as someone else noted.
The problem is almost nonexistent.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
that the Muslims can't work out what he's doing from the video
But flying a plane into a building to use it as a suicide bomb isn't something that is going to be done frequently anyway. It was only as effective as it was because it was novel, and because four attacks were staged at once. A truck filled with explosives is much easier to get and as destructive.
The people who are really interested in this level of destruction are more likely to go with the more cost-effective method of garnering attention for their cause. I don't see suicide-hijackings becoming so common that passengers will automatically distrust an armed man enough that they will rush towards certain death in an attempt to forestall it.
People will believe the most unbelievable things when faced with overwhelming force. It's why seventy years ago millions marched quietly into "showers" to be put to their death despite overwhelming evidence rather than take a chance of surviving by rushing the armed guards. Our instincts scream at us that even a few minutes of extra life is considered a better alternative than a more immediate death should we act now.
The hijackers will lie and the the passengers will believe the lie.
There are so few terrorists its irrelevant.
When hundreds of people are dying daily from terrorist attacks involving airplanes there might be some argument. There aren't and there isn't any evidence to suggest that the TSA has ever even prevented an attack.
To add a little perspective. 3000 people died in the attacks on 9-11-01. A tragedy to be sure. Almost that many people died every month in car accidents in 2011. By the way, 2011 is the lowest number of traffic deaths since 1949. If you go back to 2001, 3000 people died in traffic deaths every 26 days.
I'm of the opinion that very few, if any, terrorist groups want to pull off an attack like Sept. 11 again. That kind of destruction and death toll did nothing good for them. The US attacked several countries, with the support of most of the worlds governments, and decimated the group who carried out those plans. The unsuccessful attacks have been much more fruitful from what I've seen. One guy fails to ignite a bomb in his shoes and we waste how many millions of hours of time per year taking off and putting on shoes. Another guy tries to set off a defective bomb in his underwear. How much more time and money is spent on back scatter scanners? How much additional ionizing radiation are people who fly exposed to? We really don't' know. We have the PR answers of what it is for one that is properly calibrated. But we don't know how often, or if those scanners are ever checked. There was only one study done regarding this, and it was by the TSA itself. The first, and only, independent study was cancelled. The TSA people don't even wear radiation badges. It's obvious to me that they aren't following what would be considered best practices by any other industry.
Yes, we have the example of Flight 93 but I think that's an exception to the rule
No so much:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/world/asia/china-plane-hijack-foiled/
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=man-attempts-to-hijack-thy-plane-in-istanbul-reports-say-2011-01-05
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-149289/Italian-plane-hijack-foiled.html
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
So, your argument is that the 9/11 attack only worked because it had never been tried before, but if we went back to the same airport screening as was in place on 9/11 it would work again?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
'chucks of liberty', 'fragguccino'? :)
what is this, team fortress 2?
One could also say that someone deciding to use an airliner as a guided missile requires someone insane enough to want to use themselves as the guidance system. Better mental health treatment might help such people.
Not a sentence!
Actually, I am European, now living in Asia. Once again, my mindset is quite different from Americans or at leadt slashdot americans. I fly approx 40 times per year. I have no real problem with tbe security checks that happen everywhere. They should at least discourage the more classic terrorist attempts. I twice took an internal flight in the USA before the September 11 tragedy and I was shocked that there was so little security, at least compared to Europe back then. I thought back then already that it was asking for problems.
you are confused. You think having no TSA is equal to having no security screens? Instead, lets give the job so someone who has higher IQ and higher stakes in the safety of their aircraft.
how many U.S. planes in last 50 years have blown up in mid air due to bombs again?
why don't you also worry about pink elephants flying over your head and taking a 50 lbs. dump on you?
people already were going through metal detectors without the TSA for decades
However, your solution, although practical still relies on the first strike which is bad news for those in that strike. It is reactionary and quite active mitigation. No matter how many holes you plug it is impossible to plug them all. A weakness will be found. All you have done is reacted irrationally to a threat that has succeeded and thrown billions of dollars at a ghost. All of our disaster related mitigation programs require a benefit cost analysis which is something lacking in the homeland security grants. Even a cursory glance at the TSA shows it is security theater unlikely to catch real threats.
Since you are in mitigation as well, you should know that the goal of it is to lessen the impacts of risk. It doesn't necessarily eliminate it. In the short term, proximate cause analysis works but the root causes still need to be addressed or you simply wind up chasing that ghost.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
If it's not both sides, how do you explain Dianne Feinstein? or Barack Obama's continuing of W Bush's policies?
--- We need more Ron Paul!
As I understand it, the extra time (it's only two hours for international flights) is mainly because those flights have more people on them than (most) domestic flights, and on top of that, people are much more likely to bring checked luggage, so they need more time to properly screen all of it, not to mention that you'll spend extra time waiting in line at the counter to check in the bags.
Except for some international flights at airports with a separate international terminal, planes don't usually arrive at the gate until less than an hour before takeoff, so clearly they don't load the bags onto them an hour before departure (unless they have a giant trebuchet that launches them into the air and stunt pilots to catch them mid-flight, which while awesomely cool in principle, is probably not very practical).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
So you make a dart-shaped mold. You get some pewter from the store. And then "apply heat." Right .. like you're going to have a blowtorch in the airport terminal. Hell, you might as well build a forge, find an anvil and hammer, some charcoal, an urchin to work the bellows .. and make yourself a bloody Samurai sword!
These ideas are all quite silly really. Chucks of Liberty? And how far are they going to get you, exactly, in your fiendish terrorist plot? You swing, I duck, you miss, and then I shove those silly looking pointy magazines right up your ... Well, you get my drift.
At least the creator wasn't afraid to look like a complete moron while striving for his 15 minutes of fame. And his point could be made without quite so much foolishness, eh? Look at prison shivs for creative use of readily available objects.
Actually some credit should go to the x-ray scanners and walk-through metal detectors as well. With those two in place it is basically impossible to sneak a viable bomb aboard an aircraft now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
If the shoe and underpants bombers had been intending to actually succeed, they would have gone to a lavatory to set their bombs off, they would not have done what they did in plain sight of other passengers. It's not really reasonable to think that the intent of either of those incidents was to actually take a plane down, since if it was, they would have been instructed to go to a toilet to do it.
The idea behind those "attacks" was to get us to enact even more incredibly stupid security tactics, and they succeeded perfectly.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
this based upon the assumption that the average airline passenger can find a remote control without having to pull their tits up over their ears...
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Thier approach to security screening seems to work despite a highly and continuously motivated opposition.
That is naive. They do not have information on what you bought and they do not know how things are combined. They just are not smart enough by far and do not nearly have the resources.
Incidentally, what Booth shows is the kid stuff. You can do far more dangerous things.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The people who are really interested in this level of destruction are more likely to go with the more cost-effective method of garnering attention for their cause. I don't see suicide-hijackings becoming so common that passengers will automatically distrust an armed man enough that they will rush towards certain death in an attempt to forestall it.
Certain death?? Even assuming that a large proportion of passengers are incapable of fighting, even a group of hijackers is likely to be outnumbered three to one. They will not get into the cockpit before the crew can use the address system.
The passengers will communicate using their cell phones, just like last time. The hijackers won't fool anyone again. And, as another poster said, they will never get to the point of telling anyone anything.
The rules have changed, and you're also failing to account for what desperate people can do.
Yeah they do. Every time I buy something post-security at an airport, I have to show my boarding pass, which then gets scanned. So, whatever it is that I bought is now tied to me via my boarding pass. They know. If and how they process this information is a totally different matter.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
Wrong. You have to show your boarding pass because stuff after security is tax-free or tax-reduced for international flights. Historically, they would just look at the boarding pass to determine where you are going. Today, scanners can read the destination. No connection to the TSA at all. So, no, they do not know. And there is always the option of having multiple buyers.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without. Honestly, what would be your preference?
A quick pass through a not too terribly sensitive metal detector and wanding if it goes beep. No groping, no nudie scan, no remove your shoes. All the water and shampoo you want (within reason, of course, don't bring a 5 gallon jug). AT MOST.
Then lock the cockpit like sensible people.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
So, basically, the actions of the CIA had lasting consequences?
"The USA needs to grow a pair...."
Never happen. It's largely the politicians who are scared shitless that something will happen when they're in office and so get blamed - thus being not re-elected. Can't have that, can we? So all the crap flows from that - the controls, the deliberate inflamation of unfounded fears, the lot.
Expecting the general populace to grow up, let alone with "a pair", is as fruitful as seeking unicorns, but not nearly so fun.
I couldn't bring a knife to school, but I could bring a compass with a 3 inch metal spike on it. Yeah, bout that.
"Logan...." So? Fix the lax security.
There are more than a few ways to do reasonably secure check-in of whatever. Hat-check style, with lock boxes, for instance. This is really simple stuff. So, yes I have though about it; two minutes was enough to come up with a half dozen or so ways of arranging things. I bet you could think of a few as well. Keep it simple, keep it fast, keep it un-ambiguous.
I think the key phrase that triggered for me is "trying to think of itself". If the US had actually succeeded in thinking of itself (as the world's police), I think the world would be a much better place. Because successful police protect the community they are assigned to, not their own interests or someone else's interests, and successful police learn the cultures and ways of the community they are assigned to, so that they can gain the trust and respect of that community and not negligently make things worse.
But instead of becoming the world's police, the United States became the world's legionaries. Legionaries weren't there to serve the local community; sure, they provided law and order, but people knew it was Rome's law and Rome's order, and if the local guy in charge was a corrupt tyrant, Rome didn't care too much so long as Rome's tribute was paid.
That said, I still think the US could succeed if it wakes up in time to the rot that gnaws at its heart. Because I see the increasing militarisation of the county, state and federal police within the United States itself, the increasing distance between rulers and ruled, the increasing disparities of wealth and encroachments upon liberty, and I wonder if I see the curse of Rome repeating itself:
"Official cruelty, supporting extortion and corruption, may also have become more commonplace.[14] While the scale, complexity, and violence of government were unmatched,[17] the emperors lost control over their whole realm insofar as that control came increasingly to be wielded by anyone who paid for it.[18] Meanwhile the richest senatorial families, immune from most taxation, engrossed more and more of the available wealth and income,[19] while also becoming divorced from any tradition of military excellence." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire
In that case they have achieved 'terrorism' anyway.
Such a thing wouldn't be very effective to begin with if people weren't so irrational about it.
Of course it is trivially solved by disallowing booze
All these 'solutions' sound disgusting to me.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Tell the president, if he gets a daily briefing (Aug 6, 2001) from the CIA entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" about a very possible terrorist attack on the WTC (which would be attempt #3) the should do more than say "OK, you've covered your ass".
To think, all Bush had to do was to read the PDB, and warn the airlines to step up security and be alert for a possible cockpit takeover. Maybe even install a lock on the door - there was time to do that.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
Yes, it is. _Being_ the world's police, at the request of the world's sovereign countries, is not. It's the difference between "we're here because we say so" and "we're here because you say so".
If you ever consider crossing the Atlantic, you will find out that there are no ships available that take you. Planes are the only option.
It would seem that you didn't look very hard.
https://www.freightercruises.com/voyages.php
http://wikitravel.org/en/Freighter_travel
http://intransit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/trans-atlantic-voyages-by-cruise-ship-or-freighter/?_r=0
Blowing up a bus wouldn't be nearly as expensive as a plane. The cleanup costs of New York City alone after 9/11 exceeded $20 billion, let alone the rest of the economic damage it did. Bad analogy.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Oh great, you again. I suppose if I were worried about a threat from 50 years ago, you'd tell me to skate to where the puck's gonna be. There have been several attempts to blow up planes, and now that they realize hijacking is no longer effective, it's been the focus of their attention. A fully loaded jumbo jet with jet fuel exploding shortly after takeoff over a city might be kind of a problem. The cleanup costs of 9/11 in New York City alone exceeded $20 billion.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
> There are more than a few ways to do reasonably secure check-in of whatever. Hat-check style, with lock boxes, for instance
Have you ever had to check all your metal in somewhere, and tools, for security reasons? Or because you'd be working near radiation or strong magnetic fields? I have: theft of checked in, locked down equipment is _rampant_ in many environments. These are legal firearms, for off-duty police, military, or people with concealed carry. The "just check them in a lockbox" is a proposal I've seen before, and it never works out well.
attempt on *cargo planes* from arab lands in *packages*? that's the best you can do for fear-mongering?
you can have the TSA irradiate, grope, fondle, and put the packages in line for days if it makes you feel better
That is not a "bad analogy," at least not to me. The point is, I don't think you should be cowering in fear just because there's a 0.000000000000000000001% chance that a terrorist could blow up a plane while you're on it, while at the same time saying absolutely nothing about all the other risks you take. I don't know if you're cowering in fear, but I for one am not worried at all about someone suddenly managing to blow up a plane.
Even if the plane just randomly blew up, I'd say that's much better than having nearly everyone's freedoms violated by government thugs.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Mag fields, yes, a few times.
Look, I'm not saying that there are not ways to screw it up; I contend only that it is, or ought not be, so difficult to do it well. At any rate, if there are metal scanners used somewhere, whether at the entrance to the airport building(s) or to each airline's concourse, wherever, there will likely need to be provision for such item check-in and temporary storage. I've been told that the military manages to do this fairly well, or used to.
Yeah, I can think of ways to mess this up; as my boss at a photo-lab once told me after one of my more memorable gaffes, "______, you could screw up a wet dream." Bad architecture, shoddy building, inept or bribed attendants, or even a blob of Semtex on a timer in the magazine well of an auto-loader come readily to mind. I've little doubt you can expand the list.
None of this is novel; we can quibble and cavil until the cows come home and get no forrarder.
So, don't waste the time and money on a system bound to be deeply flawed in execution due to budgetary limitations and civil rights issues.
You're quite right; it would make far less sense than what is now in place.
"bound to be deeply flawed in execution due to budgetary limitations" unlike the TSA.
What civil rights issues? How is a metal scanner a civil right violation and giga-hertz scanners are not?
This whole thing has gone sideways. This started with the simple idea of scrapping the bulk of what TSA does and returning to what the airlines used to do - metal detectors, with the added fillip of locked cockpit doors. The bit about checking guns at the door was an add-on, since it would likely be something that happened as a matter of course. None of this shit is new, yet y'all been reacting as though it's something cooked up alongside an opium pipe. Sheesh.
Expanding the weapons free perimeter to the edges of the airport, itself, is a massive increase in manpower and scanner resources. The existing checkpoints work, somewhat, by creating chokepoints in the flow of traffic, and restricting it to tocketed passengers who are actually boarding the plane. Expanding that border to the airport borders is multiplying the number of doors to control by a factor of 20, or installing new chokepoints that will interfere profoundly with the most casual of traffic.
It's what you refer to as the "add-on" that has me concerned. That "add-on" could easily multiply, by 10, the cost of the whole project, both in the costs of maintaining a secured perimeter and in lost revenues for the airlines and the airline shops.