4 ms·

"Movie plot threat" anyone? Sigh...

by wazoox 16y ago

jgrahamc 16y ago
That's not a movie plot threat. The FedEx example was a real example of a disgruntled employee trying to crash a plane.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Yes, and he was a passenger, not one of the pilots scheduled for the flight.
  - borism 16y ago
    I call out BS. "Prior to the departure of this flight on April 7, 1994, Mr. Calloway presented himself at the plane in full flight gear and with carry-on items. Although he was not a member of the flight crew, he entered the cockpit and began adjusting instruments and controls as if he were." http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/116/116.F3d.1129.95-6206.html http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/116/116.F3d.1129.95...
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Yes, he did stuff he was not supposed to do, but on that flight he was a passenger. That he knew his way around the aircraft and that he knew exactly how to misbehave is exactly what I meant when I wrote that you are going to have to put trust in people at some point. Pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met and in general will not get up to stuff like this nearly as often as 'regular' folks do. If they did there would be suicide induced plane crashes every other day with the number of pilots in active service. Incidents will always happen, the question is if you think that it is worth draconian safety measures to get the incident level down an unmeasurable fraction. Again, all it would take for a major accident is for one guy to lift his foot for 2 seconds while taxiing. You could not stop that if you wanted to.
      - borism 16y ago
        I don't think you're an idiot, so stop pretending like you don't realize that he used his special privileges as a pilot to get concealed weapons onto the plane. And stop advocating for lifting security requirements off pilots with ridiculous arguments like "pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met" and "he already has full control of the plane, so heck, he should be allowed to bring whatever the fuck he wants onboard anyway".
        wazoox 16y ago
        Did you read at least some of the most prominent articles from Schneier on security? Do it, it's worth it. The basic tenet is this : filtering potential threats at the bottom of the plane is almost useless, but makes a nice "security theater". Investigating the menace is harder, doesn't show off as well as nice big machines in airports, but it's efficient. Scanning people shoes is useless. Full body scanners are useless. As the pilot said, what will they do when someone try to blow up a plane with dynamite in his rectum? Rectal check for everyone? This is absurd, expensive and serves only one purpose : covering TSA officials' asses. See for instance some of these: http://www.schneier.com/essays-airline.html http://www.schneier.com/essays-airline.html
        borism 16y ago
        I read Schneier all the time and agree with him most of the time. Not once did he advocate not screening pilots, did he?
        wazoox 16y ago
        Please read carefully : http://www.schneier.com/essay-304.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-304.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-245.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-245.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html Security in airports is already much too high, too annoying and too costly. There must be a point when it stops getting tighter and tighter. It won't catch the next terrorist anyway. We need a better use of resources and people (better than taking away mineral water bottles, and full-body scanning everyone and his dog).
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    But the point is: he was impersonating a pilot. If pilots didn't have to go through security, we'd presumably see a lot more of this. Security checks on the pilots are not attempting to prevent pilots from causing harm-- they are attempting to close a loophole which would allow people impersonating pilots to do harm.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      How is scanning his body and frisking him going to help identifying him?
      - michael_dorfman 16y ago
        It's not going to help identify him. It's going to help limit the damage if somebody impersonates him, by making sure they don't have a bomb/gun/what-have-you. You do get this, don't you?
        borism 16y ago
        Of course he does, but he won't admit it because it dents his argument and won't get him any upvotes.
      - ceejayoz 16y ago
        They hopefully would've noticed the speargun he was carrying?
    - bambax 16y ago
      He was in uniform, maybe, but he was not in charge of flying anything that day. So he was a passenger that day (in a pilot uniform).
    - lelele 16y ago
      > Security checks on the pilots are not attempting to prevent pilots from causing harm-- they are attempting to close a loophole which would allow people impersonating pilots to do harm. Wouldn't fingerprints be enough to avoid identity theft?

"Movie plot threat" anyone? Sigh...

by wazoox 16y ago

"Movie plot threat" anyone? Sigh...

jgrahamc 16y ago

That's not a movie plot threat. The FedEx example was a real example of a disgruntled employee trying to crash a plane.

jacquesm 16y ago
Yes, and he was a passenger, not one of the pilots scheduled for the flight.
- borism 16y ago
  I call out BS. "Prior to the departure of this flight on April 7, 1994, Mr. Calloway presented himself at the plane in full flight gear and with carry-on items. Although he was not a member of the flight crew, he entered the cockpit and began adjusting instruments and controls as if he were." http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/116/116.F3d.1129.95-6206.html http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/116/116.F3d.1129.95...
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Yes, he did stuff he was not supposed to do, but on that flight he was a passenger. That he knew his way around the aircraft and that he knew exactly how to misbehave is exactly what I meant when I wrote that you are going to have to put trust in people at some point. Pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met and in general will not get up to stuff like this nearly as often as 'regular' folks do. If they did there would be suicide induced plane crashes every other day with the number of pilots in active service. Incidents will always happen, the question is if you think that it is worth draconian safety measures to get the incident level down an unmeasurable fraction. Again, all it would take for a major accident is for one guy to lift his foot for 2 seconds while taxiing. You could not stop that if you wanted to.
    - borism 16y ago
      I don't think you're an idiot, so stop pretending like you don't realize that he used his special privileges as a pilot to get concealed weapons onto the plane. And stop advocating for lifting security requirements off pilots with ridiculous arguments like "pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met" and "he already has full control of the plane, so heck, he should be allowed to bring whatever the fuck he wants onboard anyway".
      - wazoox 16y ago
        Did you read at least some of the most prominent articles from Schneier on security? Do it, it's worth it. The basic tenet is this : filtering potential threats at the bottom of the plane is almost useless, but makes a nice "security theater". Investigating the menace is harder, doesn't show off as well as nice big machines in airports, but it's efficient. Scanning people shoes is useless. Full body scanners are useless. As the pilot said, what will they do when someone try to blow up a plane with dynamite in his rectum? Rectal check for everyone? This is absurd, expensive and serves only one purpose : covering TSA officials' asses. See for instance some of these: http://www.schneier.com/essays-airline.html http://www.schneier.com/essays-airline.html
        borism 16y ago
        I read Schneier all the time and agree with him most of the time. Not once did he advocate not screening pilots, did he?
        wazoox 16y ago
        Please read carefully : http://www.schneier.com/essay-304.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-304.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-245.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-245.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html Security in airports is already much too high, too annoying and too costly. There must be a point when it stops getting tighter and tighter. It won't catch the next terrorist anyway. We need a better use of resources and people (better than taking away mineral water bottles, and full-body scanning everyone and his dog).
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  But the point is: he was impersonating a pilot. If pilots didn't have to go through security, we'd presumably see a lot more of this. Security checks on the pilots are not attempting to prevent pilots from causing harm-- they are attempting to close a loophole which would allow people impersonating pilots to do harm.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    How is scanning his body and frisking him going to help identifying him?
    - michael_dorfman 16y ago
      It's not going to help identify him. It's going to help limit the damage if somebody impersonates him, by making sure they don't have a bomb/gun/what-have-you. You do get this, don't you?
      - borism 16y ago
        Of course he does, but he won't admit it because it dents his argument and won't get him any upvotes.
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      They hopefully would've noticed the speargun he was carrying?
  - bambax 16y ago
    He was in uniform, maybe, but he was not in charge of flying anything that day. So he was a passenger that day (in a pilot uniform).
  - lelele 16y ago
    > Security checks on the pilots are not attempting to prevent pilots from causing harm-- they are attempting to close a loophole which would allow people impersonating pilots to do harm. Wouldn't fingerprints be enough to avoid identity theft?