11 ms·

I fundamentally don't understand the danger of "traditional" (box cutters, etc.) weapons getting through airport security. I understand that we need to continu

by 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.
    - mseebach 13y ago
      Don't you see, you're only helping the TERRORISTS by pointing that out. :) Anyway, in that case, they'd have to remember to buy one of these first, then: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Elf-1000-30-Pin-Receiver/dp/B0035Y7ZJ2/ http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Elf-1000-30-Pin-Receiver/dp/B0035Y...
    - gizmo686 13y ago
      Is that an actual limitation of the GPS network, or a limitation of the client-side software. My understanding is that GPS satellites broadcast a timestamp, and the receivers use that information to compute their position. Assuming that this is accurate, devices should still be able to get the signal at higher altitudes. The only way I can think of this not working is if the geometry works out so that at 10K feet you are no longer in ranges of 4 satellites. I suppose this could be done my calibrating how wide to make the signal (which would make the signals stronger on the ground, but require more satellites for full coverage). This would likely also require having been thought of back when the GPS network was planned. Also, I would imagine that planes use GPS, in which case it would have to be a client-side restriction.
      - toast0 13y ago
        Client side (may be in firmware or software): GPS above certain elevations or speeds requires a special export license that your smartphone probably doesn't have. An unlicensed device is required to output no fix (but it has to be able to calculate that the parameters are outside the allowed range). http://ravtrack.com/GPStracking/cocom-gps-tracking-limits/469/ http://ravtrack.com/GPStracking/cocom-gps-tracking-limits/46...
        gizmo686 13y ago
        How difficult would it be for someone to work around these restrictions? If I have an unlocked Android phone, would I be able comment out the range check and recompile the gps software?
        13y ago
- twoodfin 13y ago
  I'm also a bit curious just how difficult it would be to take down a modern jetliner if you had the run of the back of the plane and whatever you could legally bring on board.
  - twistedpair 13y ago
    Using the plane as a weapon and bringing it down are very different objectives. The chief concern here is using that plane as a force magnifying weapon. If you wanted to pop a hatch in the floor and start messing with the avionics bay, you'd rather easily scuttle the plane.
- pkfrank 13y ago
  I guess I simply don't buy that any terrorist on board -- even if there were several of them and they were armed with box-cutters and the like -- could ever take the cockpit. The doors are locked, the pilots are sometimes armed; and mostly, the passengers would never let it happen. Even in the most extreme scenarios imaginable, the passengers would have a 20-1 advantage, and would understand that the cost of failing to neutralize the threat would likely result in their personal demise (not to mention the greater threat of using the plane as a weapon).
  - sejje 13y ago
    I've been on planes with about 20 passengers, so 2 or 3 terrorists could significantly narrow the odds. That said, I don't disagree with your point at all. I'd rather see an armed plainclothes officer on every flight than be harassed at the airport.
    - khuey 13y ago
      That size of a plane is too small to worry about. Commercial aviation is usually at least 50 seats. The TSA isn't preventing terrorists from chartering a private jet and flying it into something either.
      - aaronem 13y ago
        I've been on 737s with about 20 passengers. It's rare, but given the right combination of flight, time of day, and season, it can happen.
  - viraptor 13y ago
    This is of course not really testable, but putting other passengers in a position where their actions would directly result in someone else's death could change that. Would you really expect people to resist if someone started by binding random person and promising to stab them if anyone gets up? (yeah, starts like a bad action movie plot, but it could be relatively effective)
  - jheriko 13y ago
- dopamean 13y ago
  I don't think passengers would ever allow this to happen.
- ArbitraryLimits 13y ago
  I thought the cockpit doors were actually sealed until the plane landed, i.e. the pilots couldn't open them even if they wanted to?
  - khuey 13y ago
    Pilots can definitely exit to cockpit (they do this routinely to use the restroom, and flight attendants sometimes barricade the forward galley with one of the service carts)
tokenadult 13y ago
The original 9/11 attack showed how simple traditional weapons could be used to leverage using four whole airplanes as nontraditional weapons, three of them with devastating effect, all of them with lethal effect. I think Schneier's point is correct that spending the same amount of money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response would keep us safer than screening what innocent passengers bring on to airplanes, but current procedures for airport security are still a reaction to 9/11 as it happened then. I look forward to the day when we dial back airport security procedures to the new reality of reinforced cockpit doors and passengers who will fight would-be hijackers to save their lives.
- ArbitraryLimits 13y ago
  > The original 9/11 attack showed how simple traditional weapons could be used to leverage using four whole airplanes as nontraditional weapons, three of them with devastating effect, all of them with lethal effect. Right, but the GP's point is that it was only possible to do that _once_, because the success of the 9/11 attacks depended on the passengers cooperating with the hijackers. That was a reasonable assumption because for the previous 30 years, "in the event of a hijacking just cooperate until we can negotiate your release" was the standard advice. Now it isn't. Even in 9/11, 25% of the passengers figured out on their own that they shouldn't cede the cockpit. Today the figure would be 100%, plus the cockpit is sealed off for the duration of the flight anyway. So I really don't see a scenario where box-cutters would take out the whole plane any more.
  - memset 13y ago
    I have heard many people express this sentiment - our own attitude has changed since the tragedy, and thus we would never let a small group of people muscle their way to the cockpit as they did then. That said, whenever I read accounts of the actual attack [1] they seem well planned - several "muscle men" clearing the way, using pepper sprays, etc. That is, it is not obvious to me that a group of people would be able to overcome that level of coordination and brute force. What piece am I missing? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Events
easy_rider 13y ago
"The cost of TSA (direct and indirect through delays, etc.) is immense" I hate debating based on speculative estimates.. That said, El Al seems to put sky marshalls on every single flight. I would throw in a dime that this would be a more (cost)effective and reliable solution compared to current screening implementations.
- pkfrank 13y ago
  I haven't been able to find any instance of an air marshal actually confronting a "terrorism-related" event. I'm sure there are examples of them subduing an unruly or drunk passenger; but the sheer magnitude of flights, combined with the fact that on-board threats are very few and far-between, makes me doubt the cost-effectiveness of the program.
  - ufmace 13y ago
    I hope they're trained better than that. It would be awfully easy for a small group of terrorists to have one of their group act like a unruly drunk asshole. If an air marshal intervened in that, he'd out himself, allowing any other terrorists on board to jump him from behind at their convenience.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Air marshals are superflous at this point, in my estimation. Post 9/11 regular passengers have intervened admirably every time the opportunity has arisen.
CWuestefeld 13y ago
I seem to recall just a couple of months ago the FAA proposed relaxing the rules so that small knives would be legal. Immediately following that, the media reported widespread public condemnation of the proposal by people concerned for their safety. So as much as I despise this nonsense, this seems to be what a significant, vocal portion of the people want.
- pavel_lishin 13y ago
  > this seems to be what a significant, vocal portion of the people want. I wonder how many of them fly, and how many of them are just afraid that once we allow pocket knives on airplanes, they'll start falling out of the sky onto their heads.
  - Pinckney 13y ago
    Many flight attendants were vocal about their opposition. https://www.change.org/petitions/tsa-do-not-allow-knives-on-airplanes https://www.change.org/petitions/tsa-do-not-allow-knives-on-... http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/06/business/la-fi-tsa-airplane-knives-20130606 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/06/business/la-fi-tsa-a...
    - pavel_lishin 13y ago
      Nice; the change.org link references the Boston Marathon bombing, as if it had any relevance whatsoever to this issue.
san86 13y ago
"it's not terribly different from a random attack in the street or a shopping mall" You are right. However, the one difference is the reaction to an attack. It is fairly straightforward (these days) to get responders on the scene in a mall. A shooting or knife fight in an airplane is much harder to contain or react to. Overall though, I agree with Schneier about the need for intelligence replacing TSA check points.
- justincormack 13y ago
  Well in Kenya the reaction wasn't great. Perhaps other countries are better prepared.
jksmith 13y ago
Missing the point. TSA is just another jobs program. Another example of how a large bureauocracy has to keep expanding control. The best solution against terrorism is for people to be brave enough to accept it, and brave enough to defend themselves and the people around them. No government will ever encourage this sort of behavior because it gives up too much control in the process. At any rate, the TSA is not going away. Just step in the scanner, raise your arms like you're already a perp, step out, and be on your way.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Missing the point. TSA is just another jobs program. TSA is more a means of moving the liability risk of security from private firms (starting with the airlines, but its creeping out to other areas) to the government (which can simply handwave much of it away with sovereign immunity) as a subsidy (by removing risk) to industry. The jobs were there before nationalization, they were just private jobs where private firms were at risk of liability if the job wasn't done right.
rasur 13y ago
"The only super-substantial potential damage stems from an explosive of some sort, not a box-cutter, knife, or anything of the sort." Not entirely true. If you can get some Mercury on board, it's party-time. Mercury just loves Aluminium...
larrys 13y ago
"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." Well one way it's different is in the availability of emergency response personnel. In the air you are confined in a small space and much further from help.
iconjack 13y ago
While TSA are examining my shoes and scanning my bum, they let through without fanfare my carry-on device: a solid brick of chemicals surrounded by advanced electronics including a radio receiver. Seriously, I'm no bomb expert but wouldn't laptops still be the most fruitful terrorist attack vector? Mine laptop is 6 lbs and has never been given a second glance.
- pkfrank 13y ago
  Haven't you always been required to place it into it's own bin to go through the X-Ray machine? That seems like an effective "second glance" to me. They'll also sometimes swab it and check for explosive residue.
pearjuice 13y ago
Well the truth of the matter is that a bunch of angry guys living in caves in the desert really hated American freedom, so they pooled together some money, flew to America, and sneaked past the notoriously anal TSA. These were dangerous men armed with the most dangerous weapons known to man - BOX CUTTERS. Using their BOX CUTTERS, they hijacked planes full or several hundred individuals who were to terrified of their BOX CUTTERS that instead of trying to overpower them, they decided to accept a fiery death via crashing into skyscrapers, taking thousands more with them. That's really the whole truth - there's nothing more to it. If you don't believe it, then you truly underestimate the power of BOX CUTTERS.

by pkfrank 13y ago

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.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    Don't you see, you're only helping the TERRORISTS by pointing that out. :) Anyway, in that case, they'd have to remember to buy one of these first, then: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Elf-1000-30-Pin-Receiver/dp/B0035Y7ZJ2/ http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Elf-1000-30-Pin-Receiver/dp/B0035Y...
  - gizmo686 13y ago
    Is that an actual limitation of the GPS network, or a limitation of the client-side software. My understanding is that GPS satellites broadcast a timestamp, and the receivers use that information to compute their position. Assuming that this is accurate, devices should still be able to get the signal at higher altitudes. The only way I can think of this not working is if the geometry works out so that at 10K feet you are no longer in ranges of 4 satellites. I suppose this could be done my calibrating how wide to make the signal (which would make the signals stronger on the ground, but require more satellites for full coverage). This would likely also require having been thought of back when the GPS network was planned. Also, I would imagine that planes use GPS, in which case it would have to be a client-side restriction.
    - toast0 13y ago
      Client side (may be in firmware or software): GPS above certain elevations or speeds requires a special export license that your smartphone probably doesn't have. An unlicensed device is required to output no fix (but it has to be able to calculate that the parameters are outside the allowed range). http://ravtrack.com/GPStracking/cocom-gps-tracking-limits/469/ http://ravtrack.com/GPStracking/cocom-gps-tracking-limits/46...
      - gizmo686 13y ago
        How difficult would it be for someone to work around these restrictions? If I have an unlocked Android phone, would I be able comment out the range check and recompile the gps software?
        13y ago
twoodfin 13y ago
I'm also a bit curious just how difficult it would be to take down a modern jetliner if you had the run of the back of the plane and whatever you could legally bring on board.
- twistedpair 13y ago
  Using the plane as a weapon and bringing it down are very different objectives. The chief concern here is using that plane as a force magnifying weapon. If you wanted to pop a hatch in the floor and start messing with the avionics bay, you'd rather easily scuttle the plane.
pkfrank 13y ago
I guess I simply don't buy that any terrorist on board -- even if there were several of them and they were armed with box-cutters and the like -- could ever take the cockpit. The doors are locked, the pilots are sometimes armed; and mostly, the passengers would never let it happen. Even in the most extreme scenarios imaginable, the passengers would have a 20-1 advantage, and would understand that the cost of failing to neutralize the threat would likely result in their personal demise (not to mention the greater threat of using the plane as a weapon).
- sejje 13y ago
  I've been on planes with about 20 passengers, so 2 or 3 terrorists could significantly narrow the odds. That said, I don't disagree with your point at all. I'd rather see an armed plainclothes officer on every flight than be harassed at the airport.
  - khuey 13y ago
    That size of a plane is too small to worry about. Commercial aviation is usually at least 50 seats. The TSA isn't preventing terrorists from chartering a private jet and flying it into something either.
    - aaronem 13y ago
      I've been on 737s with about 20 passengers. It's rare, but given the right combination of flight, time of day, and season, it can happen.
- viraptor 13y ago
  This is of course not really testable, but putting other passengers in a position where their actions would directly result in someone else's death could change that. Would you really expect people to resist if someone started by binding random person and promising to stab them if anyone gets up? (yeah, starts like a bad action movie plot, but it could be relatively effective)
- jheriko 13y ago
dopamean 13y ago
I don't think passengers would ever allow this to happen.
ArbitraryLimits 13y ago
I thought the cockpit doors were actually sealed until the plane landed, i.e. the pilots couldn't open them even if they wanted to?
- khuey 13y ago
  Pilots can definitely exit to cockpit (they do this routinely to use the restroom, and flight attendants sometimes barricade the forward galley with one of the service carts)

tokenadult 13y ago

The original 9/11 attack showed how simple traditional weapons could be used to leverage using four whole airplanes as nontraditional weapons, three of them with devastating effect, all of them with lethal effect. I think Schneier's point is correct that spending the same amount of money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response would keep us safer than screening what innocent passengers bring on to airplanes, but current procedures for airport security are still a reaction to 9/11 as it happened then. I look forward to the day when we dial back airport security procedures to the new reality of reinforced cockpit doors and passengers who will fight would-be hijackers to save their lives.

ArbitraryLimits 13y ago
> The original 9/11 attack showed how simple traditional weapons could be used to leverage using four whole airplanes as nontraditional weapons, three of them with devastating effect, all of them with lethal effect. Right, but the GP's point is that it was only possible to do that _once_, because the success of the 9/11 attacks depended on the passengers cooperating with the hijackers. That was a reasonable assumption because for the previous 30 years, "in the event of a hijacking just cooperate until we can negotiate your release" was the standard advice. Now it isn't. Even in 9/11, 25% of the passengers figured out on their own that they shouldn't cede the cockpit. Today the figure would be 100%, plus the cockpit is sealed off for the duration of the flight anyway. So I really don't see a scenario where box-cutters would take out the whole plane any more.
- memset 13y ago
  I have heard many people express this sentiment - our own attitude has changed since the tragedy, and thus we would never let a small group of people muscle their way to the cockpit as they did then. That said, whenever I read accounts of the actual attack [1] they seem well planned - several "muscle men" clearing the way, using pepper sprays, etc. That is, it is not obvious to me that a group of people would be able to overcome that level of coordination and brute force. What piece am I missing? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Events

easy_rider 13y ago

"The cost of TSA (direct and indirect through delays, etc.) is immense" I hate debating based on speculative estimates.. That said, El Al seems to put sky marshalls on every single flight. I would throw in a dime that this would be a more (cost)effective and reliable solution compared to current screening implementations.

pkfrank 13y ago
I haven't been able to find any instance of an air marshal actually confronting a "terrorism-related" event. I'm sure there are examples of them subduing an unruly or drunk passenger; but the sheer magnitude of flights, combined with the fact that on-board threats are very few and far-between, makes me doubt the cost-effectiveness of the program.
- ufmace 13y ago
  I hope they're trained better than that. It would be awfully easy for a small group of terrorists to have one of their group act like a unruly drunk asshole. If an air marshal intervened in that, he'd out himself, allowing any other terrorists on board to jump him from behind at their convenience.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Air marshals are superflous at this point, in my estimation. Post 9/11 regular passengers have intervened admirably every time the opportunity has arisen.

CWuestefeld 13y ago

I seem to recall just a couple of months ago the FAA proposed relaxing the rules so that small knives would be legal. Immediately following that, the media reported widespread public condemnation of the proposal by people concerned for their safety. So as much as I despise this nonsense, this seems to be what a significant, vocal portion of the people want.

pavel_lishin 13y ago
> this seems to be what a significant, vocal portion of the people want. I wonder how many of them fly, and how many of them are just afraid that once we allow pocket knives on airplanes, they'll start falling out of the sky onto their heads.
- Pinckney 13y ago
  Many flight attendants were vocal about their opposition. https://www.change.org/petitions/tsa-do-not-allow-knives-on-airplanes https://www.change.org/petitions/tsa-do-not-allow-knives-on-... http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/06/business/la-fi-tsa-airplane-knives-20130606 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/06/business/la-fi-tsa-a...
  - pavel_lishin 13y ago
    Nice; the change.org link references the Boston Marathon bombing, as if it had any relevance whatsoever to this issue.

san86 13y ago

"it's not terribly different from a random attack in the street or a shopping mall" You are right. However, the one difference is the reaction to an attack. It is fairly straightforward (these days) to get responders on the scene in a mall. A shooting or knife fight in an airplane is much harder to contain or react to. Overall though, I agree with Schneier about the need for intelligence replacing TSA check points.

justincormack 13y ago
Well in Kenya the reaction wasn't great. Perhaps other countries are better prepared.

jksmith 13y ago

Missing the point. TSA is just another jobs program. Another example of how a large bureauocracy has to keep expanding control. The best solution against terrorism is for people to be brave enough to accept it, and brave enough to defend themselves and the people around them. No government will ever encourage this sort of behavior because it gives up too much control in the process. At any rate, the TSA is not going away. Just step in the scanner, raise your arms like you're already a perp, step out, and be on your way.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Missing the point. TSA is just another jobs program. TSA is more a means of moving the liability risk of security from private firms (starting with the airlines, but its creeping out to other areas) to the government (which can simply handwave much of it away with sovereign immunity) as a subsidy (by removing risk) to industry. The jobs were there before nationalization, they were just private jobs where private firms were at risk of liability if the job wasn't done right.

rasur 13y ago

"The only super-substantial potential damage stems from an explosive of some sort, not a box-cutter, knife, or anything of the sort." Not entirely true. If you can get some Mercury on board, it's party-time. Mercury just loves Aluminium...

larrys 13y ago

"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." Well one way it's different is in the availability of emergency response personnel. In the air you are confined in a small space and much further from help.

iconjack 13y ago

While TSA are examining my shoes and scanning my bum, they let through without fanfare my carry-on device: a solid brick of chemicals surrounded by advanced electronics including a radio receiver. Seriously, I'm no bomb expert but wouldn't laptops still be the most fruitful terrorist attack vector? Mine laptop is 6 lbs and has never been given a second glance.

pkfrank 13y ago
Haven't you always been required to place it into it's own bin to go through the X-Ray machine? That seems like an effective "second glance" to me. They'll also sometimes swab it and check for explosive residue.

pearjuice 13y ago

Well the truth of the matter is that a bunch of angry guys living in caves in the desert really hated American freedom, so they pooled together some money, flew to America, and sneaked past the notoriously anal TSA. These were dangerous men armed with the most dangerous weapons known to man - BOX CUTTERS. Using their BOX CUTTERS, they hijacked planes full or several hundred individuals who were to terrified of their BOX CUTTERS that instead of trying to overpower them, they decided to accept a fiery death via crashing into skyscrapers, taking thousands more with them. That's really the whole truth - there's nothing more to it. If you don't believe it, then you truly underestimate the power of BOX CUTTERS.