35 ms·

Evading Airport Security

185 points by Garbage 13y ago

pinaceae 13y ago
airport security is not built to prevent evil geniuses to act out a brilliant act of terror macguyver style. airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife - which they failed to prevent at 9/11. it's to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc. the times square bomber types. it relies on underpaid, undereducated personnel. because it exists in reality, which means it is constrained by cost. it also relies on chance and probability. for every post here about sneaking stuff through you have posts of people being held in interrogation or even denied flying triggered by minor details. and yeah, how many security researchers would post if they got caught? survivorship bias at play.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  > airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife - which they failed to prevent at 9/11 That's the point of this sort of thing - it won't. As the article demonstrates, the tools to put together a weapon more lethal than a boxcutter are available within the airport terminal.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Boxcutters are no longer effective tools of terror on airliners. They ceased to be so on the morning of 9/11/2001. Why try to stop them now?
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    I think you're underestimating the havoc that a group of well-trained individuals armed with knives could cause in the middle of a transcontinental flight even with a locked, reinforced cabin door. I agree it's not as clear cut as a ban on firearms or explosives, but it seems like a sensible restriction to me, worth enforcing as best we can.
    - kalleboo 13y ago
      A "group of well-trained individuals" is going to manage to create the weapons mentioned in the link in the OP. You're never going to be able to stop someone who really puts their mind to it. The rationale in this sub-thread was to leave the current security in place "to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc", and those people will be stopped by passengers after the mindset of what the goal of an airplane is changed on 9/11 (it used to be "they want to redirect the flight to Cuba" now it's "they want to redirect the flight into a building").
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Maybe I am. The way I envision such an attack, they pull out their knives and start threatening or cutting people. Then the rest of the passengers, knowing that they will die if they don't stop this, dogpile on the attackers and subdue them. They then tie them to their seats with whatever is handy and hand them over to the police when they land. Where does that go wrong?
      - ugexe 13y ago
        When they pull their knives but immediately grab a child and threaten their life. Who is going to be the one to start this dog pile but also cause the demise of a child?
        mikeash 13y ago
        Passengers today know that everyone on the airplane is going to die if they don't act. That child is already dead if they don't act. People with nothing to lose are extremely dangerous, and that's what any hijacked passenger is now. Sun Tzu says never to back your enemy into a corner with no way out. 9/11 only worked because the passengers thought they had a way out. Nobody thinks that now.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      What about extreme physical fitness and martial arts? Or, to quote Carlin, "really big hands" - does a knife or 10 really make the difference?
  - puller 13y ago
    What the press will say if someone gets a boxcutter onto a plane and tries to do something with it.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Who cares?
- viraptor 13y ago
  > airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife Sorry, but no. Sharpened edge of a credit card, pieces of belt, metal parts of the shoes, pins from the hat - that's just what I can come up with in seconds - these are the things I always get on the plane without issues and would be just as effective as weapons as the boxcutter knife. They may prevent boxcutter knifes, but they don't prevent sharp items in general. If you want to go for dangerous, cutting items, you don't even have to take them with you. Buy a bottle of wine and smash the bottom off in the toilet - it's both better to hold in hand and more damaging when you wave it around.
  - twistedpair 13y ago
    Flying last week I watched a food delivery man in front of me go through security. He rolled an aluminum dolly loaded with boxes of foot up and put all the boxes on the xray conveyor. He was then scanned by the TSA and they rolled the dolly through to the otherside of the checkpoint after looking under it. Point: the dolly was a hollow tube framerail construction. They didn't xray it as it was too large. They just rolled it through the screaming metal detector. You could have put whatever you wanted inside those framerails. And that's just the victualler. There are myriad ways to get stuff through. Theater at its best.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > it's to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc. the times square bomber types. Why? They don't seem to be attacking large stadiums or subways.
- larrys 13y ago
  "and yeah, how many security researchers would post if they got caught? survivorship bias at play." Used to something similar at play with stock picking. You heard about people's successful investments but never their losses which they of course kept quiet. This is of course more old school. Now people are much more open about airing daily laundry. My guess is that Schnier would blog about something that didn't work not that that detracts from your point. A lesser known security researcher would not necessarily act the same. Not to mention separately that "getting caught" means you have an interesting story for the press.
twoodfin 13y ago
I typically think Schneier is too cavalier about "security theater", but in this case I agree completely. On the other hand, I don't think that means airport security should be drastically scaled back: There are probably 10x as many dumb potential attackers as smart ones, and it makes sense to be eliminate the easy avenues for the dumb ones while you concentrate other resources on the smart ones. It's also important not to ignore both the intelligence value of security checks as well as their potential forensic value in the event of a successful attack. TSA actually seems to be making an effort to get smarter about its screening. Trusted passenger programs are expanding dramatically, and I expect the overall burden on the traveling public to decline over time.
- kfk 13y ago
  I agree. But I am really tired of having problems because the deodorant I use has 150ml of liquid instead of 100.
  - eitally 13y ago
    I have never, ever been stopped due to what I consider reasonable amounts of liquid/gel/aerosol beyond the 100ml limit. Typical culprits: deodorant, shaving cream and sunscreen. I do my best to fit everything in a 1qt baggie, but typically the shaving cream and sunscreen are just jammed into a running shoe or put in a separate pocket in my carry-on. Never, ever been stopped. Also, never been confiscated by the TSA random checked bag checks in the couple of cases I've had to gate check a carry-on. For anyone who doesn't already know or wouldn't be willing to spend the $100 for Global Entry + PreCheck, the AMEX Platinum card covers the cost for both (along with free access to most AIrline lounges, and a free membership to Priority Club, which gives you access to even more lounges). Totally worth the annual fee for frequent travelers, especially ones who find themselves on random airlines connecting random airports.
    - kfk 13y ago
      They threw my deodorant in Frankfurt because of that. It was very annoying, I could not buy it for one week as I was very busy with work. Then there is the problem with medicines. I have a light psoriasis. Remember that before the 100ml extension, we could not carry liquid at all...
willvarfar 13y ago
Biological and chemical agents are perhaps the big next threat?
scrrr 13y ago
Don't they also use screening by looking at passengers? Don't know about USA but in my country there's usually a few security people just looking at the people who go through the security check. I suppose they are trained to see nervous people behaving oddly and so forth.
- AlisdairSH 13y ago
  The TSA tried this and failed miserably... http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/13/21428350-gao-1-billion-tsa-behavioral-screening-program-slightly-better-than-chance http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/13/21428350-... http://www.alamogordonews.com/alamogordo-opinion/ci_24584454/editorial-tsas-1-billion-program-fails-hike-security http://www.alamogordonews.com/alamogordo-opinion/ci_24584454...
- mikeash 13y ago
  Such things require extensive training of smart people, which conflicts with the TSA's technique of hiring large numbers of warm bodies at low pay.
pkfrank 13y ago
I fundamentally don't understand the danger of "traditional" (box cutters, etc.) weapons getting through airport security. I understand that we need to continue testing for bombs and anything that can actually bring a plane down. It would obviously be tragic and damaging for someone to attack "defenseless" passengers with "traditional" weapons, but -- in my eyes -- it's not terribly different from a random attack in the street or a shopping mall. Airline personnel and the typical cohort of passengers would simply never let a terrorist take the cockpit, which effectively removes that entire element of danger. The only super-substantial potential damage stems from an explosive of some sort, not a box-cutter, knife, or anything of the sort. The cost of TSA (direct and indirect through delays, etc.) is immense, and truly does feel like security theater at this point. I'd be all-for doubling down on bomb-sniffing dogs, behavior analysts, and all that; but this apparent focus on "traditional" weapons seems totally asymmetric to the risk it presents.
- viraptor 13y ago
  I don't think it's about the danger to the passengers as much as forcing your way to the pilot. I.e. someone capturing/torturing passengers until the pilot comes out.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    The pilots knows the same as the passengers: That if the hijackers take the cockpit, odds are nobody lives, so in a crisis, his best strategy for both personal survival and for saving the most passengers is to get the plane on the ground as soon as possible. If a hijacker "just" wants to perform an old-school hijack, ie. not use the plane as a 9/11-style missile, his best odds are convincing the captain of that fact without taking the cockpit. The hijacker can verify that the captain is complying using a smartphone with GPS.
    - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
      Fun fact: Smartphone GPS doesn't work above 10K feet, such that it can't be used to terrorize airplanes.
yeukhon 13y ago
Security is hard. Physical security is hard too. Just a thought: you can stuff anything you want in your big suitcase. So if someone wants to set an alarm bomb with some destructive chemical it is possible, no? Though I am in favor of airport security - even if false sense is better than zero. If it can prevent idiots or unstable from carrying a steel knife we should. Yes, you can't prevent more major terrorist attack easily - one could just drive a van full of gas and explode in the lobby if one wishes to do so - but we still need that basic security if it is doable. The truth is we as a civilization tends to blame all the time. When we fear danger we blame the government not doing enough and when we find inconvenience we ask for less protection. I see no one has yet attempt to provide a better solution - only complaint. Is TSA making people waiting? I often get to the airport two hours early so I think the waiting is fine. Is it embarrasing when someone stops you and scans you? I have been stopped before for carrying a coin in my pocket before going through the scanner. It's okay. Everyone is too busy to get through. The last point is last time when Schneier talked about the dry ice bomb he was wrong it being harmless. He just won't admit he is wrong.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Just a thought: you can stuff anything you want in your big suitcase. Of course this isn't true. Checked baggage is screened just as carry-on luggage is.
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    Baggage screening, of course! That's why your laptop, camera, or tablet gets stolen if you check it. The amount of thefts from luggage during the security process is simply mind-boggling. One would think that anyone unscrupulous enough to boldly steal a $200 item--even under the supposed scrutiny of cameras and co-workers--and get the item home from the airport undetected could likewise do the reverse for an anonymous envelope of cash. If people can steal from luggage, they can also drop something into it. If you absolutely, positively must do evil in the air, you just apply for a low-wage unskilled job at the airport and do it as an insider.
- aestra 13y ago
swalkergibson 13y ago
The irony is that the majority of the terrorist attacks on planes in recent memory have been stopped by vigilant passengers on the plane itself. Since 9/11, using the plane as the weapon is no longer an option. The passengers are going to fight back, without question, a la Flight 93. Additionally, reinforcing and locking the cockpit doors post 9/11 has put a stop to physical takeover of the aircraft, along with an expanded air marshal program. Bag through an x-ray and walk through a metal detector should be more than sufficient. At the airport in Jakarta, Indonesia, that is how it works. Of course, the problem is that we now live in a fear driven society where the bad people are literally around every corner and each time we step onto an airplane we are taking our own life into our hands.
girvo 13y ago
Well, guess this guy is now on the No Fly list.
- cheald 13y ago
  Bruce Schneier is and has been one of the most outspoken critics of the TSA for years. This article isn't going to change any three-letter agency's opinion of him.
  - girvo 13y ago
    Not Scheiner, should've been more clear. I meant the person he is writing about :)
jheriko 13y ago
"I think the answer is simple: airplane terrorism isn't a big risk. There are very few actual terrorists, and..." This is very true. Terrorism isn't a very serious problem or threat - it just got disproportionate attention from a combination of 9/11 and ignorance of the American public. I almost hate to say it, but it is sadly true. I've 'evaded' airport security a few times - and they give me extra hassle for being an arab. I have nothing against profiling - even if it wastes my time it is /sensible/ and not racist at all. By far the worst case is the one time I turned up at an airport suited and booted and looking especially white. They found the liquids in my hand luggage that I accidentally left there, and let me keep them. Its all for show, the idea that a government is in control and secure when they make 101 security fuckups like meeting in the same place regularly (!). If I was in anyway inclined to be a terrorist the result would be devastating - I'm glad the people we are dealing with in that regard are exceptionally rare and stupid (stupid enough to try what they do... as well as stupid enough to not have anything like an organised or well prepared strategy).
logfromblammo 13y ago
It may be my libertarded paranoia, but I think airport security screening in the last decade has been largely about diverting public money into private hands. Metal detectors are so cheap now that they can be placed in urban public schools, and every airport already has plenty of them. Pass-through x-ray luggage scanners are likewise already nearly ubiquitous. Automated gas chromatographs, microwave passenger scanners, and x-ray backscatter passenger scanners--those things are new, big, and shiny, and no one responsible for budgeting knows how much they should cost. Meanwhile, Schneier repeatedly and convincingly argues that the measures that we are paying through the nose for them to use are worthless to increase the physical security of the airplanes and their passengers. But the TSA already bought them. It doesn't matter if they work. They have them: they use them. All that remains now is to justify the budget for the labor force. The ID checker, that's a job. The pat-down guy, that's a job. The guys that stand in front of the tablet app that digitally flips a coin to see if you get your hands swabbed and chromatographed, apparently that's three jobs. The guy who stands at the exit to make sure no wrong-way traffic gets through, that's a job for every exit. Except they're proposing that the exit guard jobs be replaced with expensive machines now, too. Give it another few years and you'll have DNA sequencers and single-use biological test chips involved somehow. Perhaps after the next airborne pathogen scare, they will be introduced to reassure passengers that no one on their plane has ebolaria or influengue or tubercuningitis or whatever. Conspiracy hypotheses are easy if you just follow the money.
- dmix 13y ago
  This is neoliberalism 101, you don't even have to bring up "military-industrial complex". The state is increasingly working with industry (pseudo-privatization), in return the industry increasingly influences state policy. The system keeps working as long as contracts keep going to a small group of big companies (the only ones capable of "working the system") and as long as the big companies can keep influencing politics. It's simple math considering the "state" is just a collection of politicians easily influenced by fear-driven populism, media, money, nepotism, and their old private school friends. And on the other side there are extremely powerful billion-dollar defense contractors.
- elwell 13y ago
kunil 13y ago
Funnier thing is mall securities, you can't bring a small knife into mall but you can buy a chainsaw
- derleth 13y ago
  > Funnier thing is mall securities, you can't bring a small knife into mall but you can buy a chainsaw Can you fuel up (or charge up) a chainsaw in a mall? How dangerous is a chainsaw when it can't be turned on? And that's assuming small knives really are banned from malls. Do they really care if you have a pocketknife on your belt? Maybe things are different where I live (Montana).
Ryoku 13y ago
At this point, airport security is there to make people feel safe. That's it. Do you really think a plane full of people who know they will die unless they do something about it, will let a terrorist get away with it? On the other hand, do you really think so many people would have continued to fly as often as they did before 9/11 without some sort of reassurance that something is being done to prevent highjacks? Terrorism can be anywhere, and it does not need an airplane to happen. Now, if terrorists are not going to use planes to cause terror then you should be thinking on the next thing that's going to be used. There are many uses for perceived security and not all of them involve keeping people safe.
thisiswrong 13y ago
Yup - 9/11 has been used, along with its many other uses, to create fear and sell 'security'. Follow the money and you will find that the same 'security' profiteers are surprisingly linked to events surrounding 9/11: http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/3938-getting-rich-from-the-tsa-naked-body-scanners http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/3938-g... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement Just look at how easy it is to profit from and sell false 'security' in war-torn Iraq: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/02/fake-bomb-detector-conman-jailed http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/02/fake-bomb-detector...
dspeyer 13y ago
The videos are short on details, and I'm a little sceptical. A lot of it seems to involve removing Lithium from Lion batteries. I'm told that can be done with wire cutters, but I don't think you can buy those inside the sterile zone.
- girvo 13y ago
  Read the links Scheiner posted in the OP; apparently Lithium batteries is a really new thing, only the last couple of months.
chimeracoder 13y ago
I mentioned this as a comment on the original HN discussion about Booth's article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6742780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6742780). The TSA itself has admitted that terrorist threats to aviation are nonexistent: http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-in-leaked-doc-no-evidence-of-terrorist-plots-against-aviation-in-us/ http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-... Even if we ignore the independent investigations from third parties, what more evidence could we ask for that the TSA is ineffective and superfluous, if not its own admission?
hawkharris 13y ago
Trying to stop a terrorist plot with TSA security checks is like trying to prevent a divorce by hiding your wife's car keys. It's indicative of a shortsighted, reactionary way of thinking that glosses over the nuances of the problem.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  If you want to really worry - think about all the Iraqui and Afgani insurgents that for the last 10 years have waged war against US and survived. They have worldclass IED making capabilities and it is not that hard to smuggle them in US to begin ground warfare.
pearjuice 13y ago
>the answer is simple: airplane terrorism isn't a big risk It will be a massive wake up call to America (and the rest of the world, too) when Wikileaks publishes the reports of how 9/11 was a victim simulation[0]. Can't wait. [0] http://septemberclues.info/vicsims.htm http://septemberclues.info/vicsims.htm
- aaronem 13y ago
  Yes, a "victim simulation", of course -- carried out at the ultimate behest of the Reticulans, no doubt.
  - pearjuice 13y ago
    Instead of providing such edgy commentary (what even are Reticulans?), care to explain why they clearly decided to Photoshop pictures of the victims? Why relatives (which have never spoken up) did not supply the media with better pictures other than pixelated 80px by 80px frames? How come if there is more than one picture of a victim, they all look the same? This is are only basic questions you should be able to answer if you think 9/11 is real, I am not even taking into account all the other discrepancies encircling 9/11. I know, it is very hard to cope with the fact that you got tricked into believing something for years on end and find out that all of it was one big lie - a set up.
executive 13y ago
what happens if a terrorist tries to open the door or an emergency exit window in-flight?
- BorgHunter 13y ago
  Absolutely nothing, except maybe panicking some passengers. Planes are pressurized, and the exits all open inward. It's not possible for a human being to overcome that force. http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/exits/ http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/exits/
  - onemanshow33 13y ago
    The odds of someone EVER actually opening the door mid flight are ridiculous. Plus how many people would stop that from happening once they knew was occurring - I know I'd be one of the first people up and trying to get on top of that person to prevent that from happening - and I know I'm not alone on that thought.

185 points by Garbage 13y ago

airport security is not built to prevent evil geniuses to act out a brilliant act of terror macguyver style. airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife - which they failed to prevent at 9/11. it's to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc. the times square bomber types. it relies on underpaid, undereducated personnel. because it exists in reality, which means it is constrained by cost. it also relies on chance and probability. for every post here about sneaking stuff through you have posts of people being held in interrogation or even denied flying triggered by minor details. and yeah, how many security researchers would post if they got caught? survivorship bias at play.

ceejayoz 13y ago
> airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife - which they failed to prevent at 9/11 That's the point of this sort of thing - it won't. As the article demonstrates, the tools to put together a weapon more lethal than a boxcutter are available within the airport terminal.
mikeash 13y ago
Boxcutters are no longer effective tools of terror on airliners. They ceased to be so on the morning of 9/11/2001. Why try to stop them now?
- twoodfin 13y ago
  I think you're underestimating the havoc that a group of well-trained individuals armed with knives could cause in the middle of a transcontinental flight even with a locked, reinforced cabin door. I agree it's not as clear cut as a ban on firearms or explosives, but it seems like a sensible restriction to me, worth enforcing as best we can.
  - kalleboo 13y ago
    A "group of well-trained individuals" is going to manage to create the weapons mentioned in the link in the OP. You're never going to be able to stop someone who really puts their mind to it. The rationale in this sub-thread was to leave the current security in place "to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc", and those people will be stopped by passengers after the mindset of what the goal of an airplane is changed on 9/11 (it used to be "they want to redirect the flight to Cuba" now it's "they want to redirect the flight into a building").
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Maybe I am. The way I envision such an attack, they pull out their knives and start threatening or cutting people. Then the rest of the passengers, knowing that they will die if they don't stop this, dogpile on the attackers and subdue them. They then tie them to their seats with whatever is handy and hand them over to the police when they land. Where does that go wrong?
    - ugexe 13y ago
      When they pull their knives but immediately grab a child and threaten their life. Who is going to be the one to start this dog pile but also cause the demise of a child?
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Passengers today know that everyone on the airplane is going to die if they don't act. That child is already dead if they don't act. People with nothing to lose are extremely dangerous, and that's what any hijacked passenger is now. Sun Tzu says never to back your enemy into a corner with no way out. 9/11 only worked because the passengers thought they had a way out. Nobody thinks that now.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    What about extreme physical fitness and martial arts? Or, to quote Carlin, "really big hands" - does a knife or 10 really make the difference?
- puller 13y ago
  What the press will say if someone gets a boxcutter onto a plane and tries to do something with it.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Who cares?
viraptor 13y ago
> airport security is there to prevent someone to walk onto a plane carrying a boxcutter knife Sorry, but no. Sharpened edge of a credit card, pieces of belt, metal parts of the shoes, pins from the hat - that's just what I can come up with in seconds - these are the things I always get on the plane without issues and would be just as effective as weapons as the boxcutter knife. They may prevent boxcutter knifes, but they don't prevent sharp items in general. If you want to go for dangerous, cutting items, you don't even have to take them with you. Buy a bottle of wine and smash the bottom off in the toilet - it's both better to hold in hand and more damaging when you wave it around.
- twistedpair 13y ago
  Flying last week I watched a food delivery man in front of me go through security. He rolled an aluminum dolly loaded with boxes of foot up and put all the boxes on the xray conveyor. He was then scanned by the TSA and they rolled the dolly through to the otherside of the checkpoint after looking under it. Point: the dolly was a hollow tube framerail construction. They didn't xray it as it was too large. They just rolled it through the screaming metal detector. You could have put whatever you wanted inside those framerails. And that's just the victualler. There are myriad ways to get stuff through. Theater at its best.
darkarmani 13y ago
> it's to weed out the idiots, mentally unstable, etc. the times square bomber types. Why? They don't seem to be attacking large stadiums or subways.
larrys 13y ago
"and yeah, how many security researchers would post if they got caught? survivorship bias at play." Used to something similar at play with stock picking. You heard about people's successful investments but never their losses which they of course kept quiet. This is of course more old school. Now people are much more open about airing daily laundry. My guess is that Schnier would blog about something that didn't work not that that detracts from your point. A lesser known security researcher would not necessarily act the same. Not to mention separately that "getting caught" means you have an interesting story for the press.

twoodfin 13y ago

I typically think Schneier is too cavalier about "security theater", but in this case I agree completely. On the other hand, I don't think that means airport security should be drastically scaled back: There are probably 10x as many dumb potential attackers as smart ones, and it makes sense to be eliminate the easy avenues for the dumb ones while you concentrate other resources on the smart ones. It's also important not to ignore both the intelligence value of security checks as well as their potential forensic value in the event of a successful attack. TSA actually seems to be making an effort to get smarter about its screening. Trusted passenger programs are expanding dramatically, and I expect the overall burden on the traveling public to decline over time.

kfk 13y ago
I agree. But I am really tired of having problems because the deodorant I use has 150ml of liquid instead of 100.
- eitally 13y ago
  I have never, ever been stopped due to what I consider reasonable amounts of liquid/gel/aerosol beyond the 100ml limit. Typical culprits: deodorant, shaving cream and sunscreen. I do my best to fit everything in a 1qt baggie, but typically the shaving cream and sunscreen are just jammed into a running shoe or put in a separate pocket in my carry-on. Never, ever been stopped. Also, never been confiscated by the TSA random checked bag checks in the couple of cases I've had to gate check a carry-on. For anyone who doesn't already know or wouldn't be willing to spend the $100 for Global Entry + PreCheck, the AMEX Platinum card covers the cost for both (along with free access to most AIrline lounges, and a free membership to Priority Club, which gives you access to even more lounges). Totally worth the annual fee for frequent travelers, especially ones who find themselves on random airlines connecting random airports.
  - kfk 13y ago
    They threw my deodorant in Frankfurt because of that. It was very annoying, I could not buy it for one week as I was very busy with work. Then there is the problem with medicines. I have a light psoriasis. Remember that before the 100ml extension, we could not carry liquid at all...

willvarfar 13y ago

Biological and chemical agents are perhaps the big next threat?

scrrr 13y ago

Don't they also use screening by looking at passengers? Don't know about USA but in my country there's usually a few security people just looking at the people who go through the security check. I suppose they are trained to see nervous people behaving oddly and so forth.

AlisdairSH 13y ago
The TSA tried this and failed miserably... http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/13/21428350-gao-1-billion-tsa-behavioral-screening-program-slightly-better-than-chance http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/13/21428350-... http://www.alamogordonews.com/alamogordo-opinion/ci_24584454/editorial-tsas-1-billion-program-fails-hike-security http://www.alamogordonews.com/alamogordo-opinion/ci_24584454...
mikeash 13y ago
Such things require extensive training of smart people, which conflicts with the TSA's technique of hiring large numbers of warm bodies at low pay.

pkfrank 13y ago

I fundamentally don't understand the danger of "traditional" (box cutters, etc.) weapons getting through airport security. I understand that we need to continue testing for bombs and anything that can actually bring a plane down. It would obviously be tragic and damaging for someone to attack "defenseless" passengers with "traditional" weapons, but -- in my eyes -- it's not terribly different from a random attack in the street or a shopping mall. Airline personnel and the typical cohort of passengers would simply never let a terrorist take the cockpit, which effectively removes that entire element of danger. The only super-substantial potential damage stems from an explosive of some sort, not a box-cutter, knife, or anything of the sort. The cost of TSA (direct and indirect through delays, etc.) is immense, and truly does feel like security theater at this point. I'd be all-for doubling down on bomb-sniffing dogs, behavior analysts, and all that; but this apparent focus on "traditional" weapons seems totally asymmetric to the risk it presents.

viraptor 13y ago
I don't think it's about the danger to the passengers as much as forcing your way to the pilot. I.e. someone capturing/torturing passengers until the pilot comes out.
- mseebach 13y ago
  The pilots knows the same as the passengers: That if the hijackers take the cockpit, odds are nobody lives, so in a crisis, his best strategy for both personal survival and for saving the most passengers is to get the plane on the ground as soon as possible. If a hijacker "just" wants to perform an old-school hijack, ie. not use the plane as a 9/11-style missile, his best odds are convincing the captain of that fact without taking the cockpit. The hijacker can verify that the captain is complying using a smartphone with GPS.
  - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    Fun fact: Smartphone GPS doesn't work above 10K feet, such that it can't be used to terrorize airplanes.

yeukhon 13y ago

Security is hard. Physical security is hard too. Just a thought: you can stuff anything you want in your big suitcase. So if someone wants to set an alarm bomb with some destructive chemical it is possible, no? Though I am in favor of airport security - even if false sense is better than zero. If it can prevent idiots or unstable from carrying a steel knife we should. Yes, you can't prevent more major terrorist attack easily - one could just drive a van full of gas and explode in the lobby if one wishes to do so - but we still need that basic security if it is doable. The truth is we as a civilization tends to blame all the time. When we fear danger we blame the government not doing enough and when we find inconvenience we ask for less protection. I see no one has yet attempt to provide a better solution - only complaint. Is TSA making people waiting? I often get to the airport two hours early so I think the waiting is fine. Is it embarrasing when someone stops you and scans you? I have been stopped before for carrying a coin in my pocket before going through the scanner. It's okay. Everyone is too busy to get through. The last point is last time when Schneier talked about the dry ice bomb he was wrong it being harmless. He just won't admit he is wrong.

twoodfin 13y ago
Just a thought: you can stuff anything you want in your big suitcase. Of course this isn't true. Checked baggage is screened just as carry-on luggage is.
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  Baggage screening, of course! That's why your laptop, camera, or tablet gets stolen if you check it. The amount of thefts from luggage during the security process is simply mind-boggling. One would think that anyone unscrupulous enough to boldly steal a $200 item--even under the supposed scrutiny of cameras and co-workers--and get the item home from the airport undetected could likewise do the reverse for an anonymous envelope of cash. If people can steal from luggage, they can also drop something into it. If you absolutely, positively must do evil in the air, you just apply for a low-wage unskilled job at the airport and do it as an insider.
aestra 13y ago

swalkergibson 13y ago

The irony is that the majority of the terrorist attacks on planes in recent memory have been stopped by vigilant passengers on the plane itself. Since 9/11, using the plane as the weapon is no longer an option. The passengers are going to fight back, without question, a la Flight 93. Additionally, reinforcing and locking the cockpit doors post 9/11 has put a stop to physical takeover of the aircraft, along with an expanded air marshal program. Bag through an x-ray and walk through a metal detector should be more than sufficient. At the airport in Jakarta, Indonesia, that is how it works. Of course, the problem is that we now live in a fear driven society where the bad people are literally around every corner and each time we step onto an airplane we are taking our own life into our hands.

girvo 13y ago

Well, guess this guy is now on the No Fly list.

cheald 13y ago
Bruce Schneier is and has been one of the most outspoken critics of the TSA for years. This article isn't going to change any three-letter agency's opinion of him.
- girvo 13y ago
  Not Scheiner, should've been more clear. I meant the person he is writing about :)

jheriko 13y ago

"I think the answer is simple: airplane terrorism isn't a big risk. There are very few actual terrorists, and..." This is very true. Terrorism isn't a very serious problem or threat - it just got disproportionate attention from a combination of 9/11 and ignorance of the American public. I almost hate to say it, but it is sadly true. I've 'evaded' airport security a few times - and they give me extra hassle for being an arab. I have nothing against profiling - even if it wastes my time it is /sensible/ and not racist at all. By far the worst case is the one time I turned up at an airport suited and booted and looking especially white. They found the liquids in my hand luggage that I accidentally left there, and let me keep them. Its all for show, the idea that a government is in control and secure when they make 101 security fuckups like meeting in the same place regularly (!). If I was in anyway inclined to be a terrorist the result would be devastating - I'm glad the people we are dealing with in that regard are exceptionally rare and stupid (stupid enough to try what they do... as well as stupid enough to not have anything like an organised or well prepared strategy).

logfromblammo 13y ago

It may be my libertarded paranoia, but I think airport security screening in the last decade has been largely about diverting public money into private hands. Metal detectors are so cheap now that they can be placed in urban public schools, and every airport already has plenty of them. Pass-through x-ray luggage scanners are likewise already nearly ubiquitous. Automated gas chromatographs, microwave passenger scanners, and x-ray backscatter passenger scanners--those things are new, big, and shiny, and no one responsible for budgeting knows how much they should cost. Meanwhile, Schneier repeatedly and convincingly argues that the measures that we are paying through the nose for them to use are worthless to increase the physical security of the airplanes and their passengers. But the TSA already bought them. It doesn't matter if they work. They have them: they use them. All that remains now is to justify the budget for the labor force. The ID checker, that's a job. The pat-down guy, that's a job. The guys that stand in front of the tablet app that digitally flips a coin to see if you get your hands swabbed and chromatographed, apparently that's three jobs. The guy who stands at the exit to make sure no wrong-way traffic gets through, that's a job for every exit. Except they're proposing that the exit guard jobs be replaced with expensive machines now, too. Give it another few years and you'll have DNA sequencers and single-use biological test chips involved somehow. Perhaps after the next airborne pathogen scare, they will be introduced to reassure passengers that no one on their plane has ebolaria or influengue or tubercuningitis or whatever. Conspiracy hypotheses are easy if you just follow the money.

dmix 13y ago
This is neoliberalism 101, you don't even have to bring up "military-industrial complex". The state is increasingly working with industry (pseudo-privatization), in return the industry increasingly influences state policy. The system keeps working as long as contracts keep going to a small group of big companies (the only ones capable of "working the system") and as long as the big companies can keep influencing politics. It's simple math considering the "state" is just a collection of politicians easily influenced by fear-driven populism, media, money, nepotism, and their old private school friends. And on the other side there are extremely powerful billion-dollar defense contractors.
elwell 13y ago

kunil 13y ago

Funnier thing is mall securities, you can't bring a small knife into mall but you can buy a chainsaw

derleth 13y ago
> Funnier thing is mall securities, you can't bring a small knife into mall but you can buy a chainsaw Can you fuel up (or charge up) a chainsaw in a mall? How dangerous is a chainsaw when it can't be turned on? And that's assuming small knives really are banned from malls. Do they really care if you have a pocketknife on your belt? Maybe things are different where I live (Montana).

Ryoku 13y ago

At this point, airport security is there to make people feel safe. That's it. Do you really think a plane full of people who know they will die unless they do something about it, will let a terrorist get away with it? On the other hand, do you really think so many people would have continued to fly as often as they did before 9/11 without some sort of reassurance that something is being done to prevent highjacks? Terrorism can be anywhere, and it does not need an airplane to happen. Now, if terrorists are not going to use planes to cause terror then you should be thinking on the next thing that's going to be used. There are many uses for perceived security and not all of them involve keeping people safe.

thisiswrong 13y ago

Yup - 9/11 has been used, along with its many other uses, to create fear and sell 'security'. Follow the money and you will find that the same 'security' profiteers are surprisingly linked to events surrounding 9/11: http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/3938-getting-rich-from-the-tsa-naked-body-scanners http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/3938-g... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement Just look at how easy it is to profit from and sell false 'security' in war-torn Iraq: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/02/fake-bomb-detector-conman-jailed http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/02/fake-bomb-detector...

dspeyer 13y ago

The videos are short on details, and I'm a little sceptical. A lot of it seems to involve removing Lithium from Lion batteries. I'm told that can be done with wire cutters, but I don't think you can buy those inside the sterile zone.

girvo 13y ago
Read the links Scheiner posted in the OP; apparently Lithium batteries is a really new thing, only the last couple of months.

chimeracoder 13y ago

I mentioned this as a comment on the original HN discussion about Booth's article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6742780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6742780). The TSA itself has admitted that terrorist threats to aviation are nonexistent: http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-in-leaked-doc-no-evidence-of-terrorist-plots-against-aviation-in-us/ http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-... Even if we ignore the independent investigations from third parties, what more evidence could we ask for that the TSA is ineffective and superfluous, if not its own admission?

hawkharris 13y ago

Trying to stop a terrorist plot with TSA security checks is like trying to prevent a divorce by hiding your wife's car keys. It's indicative of a shortsighted, reactionary way of thinking that glosses over the nuances of the problem.

venomsnake 13y ago
If you want to really worry - think about all the Iraqui and Afgani insurgents that for the last 10 years have waged war against US and survived. They have worldclass IED making capabilities and it is not that hard to smuggle them in US to begin ground warfare.

pearjuice 13y ago

>the answer is simple: airplane terrorism isn't a big risk It will be a massive wake up call to America (and the rest of the world, too) when Wikileaks publishes the reports of how 9/11 was a victim simulation[0]. Can't wait. [0] http://septemberclues.info/vicsims.htm http://septemberclues.info/vicsims.htm

aaronem 13y ago
Yes, a "victim simulation", of course -- carried out at the ultimate behest of the Reticulans, no doubt.
- pearjuice 13y ago
  Instead of providing such edgy commentary (what even are Reticulans?), care to explain why they clearly decided to Photoshop pictures of the victims? Why relatives (which have never spoken up) did not supply the media with better pictures other than pixelated 80px by 80px frames? How come if there is more than one picture of a victim, they all look the same? This is are only basic questions you should be able to answer if you think 9/11 is real, I am not even taking into account all the other discrepancies encircling 9/11. I know, it is very hard to cope with the fact that you got tricked into believing something for years on end and find out that all of it was one big lie - a set up.

executive 13y ago

what happens if a terrorist tries to open the door or an emergency exit window in-flight?

BorgHunter 13y ago
Absolutely nothing, except maybe panicking some passengers. Planes are pressurized, and the exits all open inward. It's not possible for a human being to overcome that force. http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/exits/ http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/exits/
- onemanshow33 13y ago
  The odds of someone EVER actually opening the door mid flight are ridiculous. Plus how many people would stop that from happening once they knew was occurring - I know I'd be one of the first people up and trying to get on top of that person to prevent that from happening - and I know I'm not alone on that thought.