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).
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. 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
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.
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.
"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.
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?"
>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.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but at this point I think it's safe to say that we're ALL on the list.