7 ms·

Schneier on Security: Ass Bomber

36 points by billpg 17y ago

webscaler 17y ago
I prefer Una Bomber.
tomjen2 17y ago
I wonder what TSA is going to do now. The public won't stand for anal-searches each time they are going to fly, but on the other hand they would have to appear to be doing something.
- jgrahamc 17y ago
  They don't because this was not done on an aircraft. If this had occurred on an aircraft then they might have tried to do something about it, but I doubt there'll be any response. In addition this was not done against a US target.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    True, for now. I can't stand security theater but basically we're quite well off insofar as we have the luxury to complain about it with a relatively low expectation of anything bad happening (as in being blown up, rather than annoyed by officious and undereducated security staff). As a sometime screenwriter I often come up with ideas which seem so obvious that I wonder why terrorists don't employ them, but I'd rather not repeat them here.
- GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
  "The public won't stand for anal-searches ..." Well, you certainly can't expect to do them sitting down!
  - die_sekte 17y ago
    "Now slide your pants down and sit on that gloved hand." Well yes, you can.
rfreytag 17y ago
Here comes millimeter-wave scanning (http://www.manolith.com/2009/05/18/whole-body-imaging-is-wholly-frightening/ http://www.manolith.com/2009/05/18/whole-body-imaging-is-who...)
- jrockway 17y ago
  It is interesting that people are so upset about being "naked" on a screen somewhere. I find it much more troubling for someone to root through my consciously-collected possessions. That says a lot more about who I am than my standard-issue body that is pretty much the same as 3 billion other people's. Yet nobody has any problems with that -- only being "naked".
  - derefr 17y ago
    That's the point: people got to pick their stuff, so they're generally proud to show it off. People didn't get to pick their bodies, so they're generally embarrassed by them.
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    only being "naked" Only being naked while being judged by someone with power over you, armed, typically humourless and in control of whether you make your flight or get 'extra processing'.
- lallysingh 17y ago
  Great, now I've gotta slim down before hitting the airport!
  - mahmud 17y ago
    It's always a good idea, specially if you want to join the MHC, for N > 2.
tfh 17y ago
People will always figure ways out to harm the guys opressing them. The best way to avoid that is not to give them a reason. I admid that millimeter-wave scanning is really useful but not in the field of preventing terrorism.
- Tichy 17y ago
  "The best way to avoid that is not to give them a reason." I agree in principle, but realistically, I doubt it is possible to satisfy everybody's wishes. Also, how to deal with the people who are already "fanaticised"? I guess one problem is that terrorism is also a system - the organizations behind it tend to have a system for growing, that will take on a life of it's own. It's not just disgruntled people looking for terror organizations to join, it is also terror organizations making people join.
  - Maktab 17y ago
    Exactly. In the real world you're always going to have disgruntled people, no matter how reasonable and fair you may be towards them. It's probably true that you could prevent some terrorism by changing your actions to stop doing whatever's causing some subset of the population to become upset, but there will always be some person or group whose demands are so crazy and far-out that no country could reasonable accede to them. Against the irrational even appeasement is an imperfect deterrent. I don't think, for example, that it would have been realistically possible to have avoided giving Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh or even Osama Bin Laden a reason to attack their respective targets.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      Well, for McVeigh, apparently a large sign saying "Day Care Inside" would have worked for that particular target, but not targets in general.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      Nothing can justify what these people have done. But to be fair, neither McVeigh nor bin Laden would have reasons to commit acts of terrorism if the federal government wasn't doing things it wasn't supposed to be doing. McVeigh was motivated by Ruby Ridge and Waco (both of which were debacles the feds completely mishandled, to speak charitably), and bin Laden was motivated primarily by American intervention in the Middle East.
byrneseyeview 17y ago
Amazing. A reddit commenter (pica, for those who were there from the beginning) once suggested doing exactly this as a way to mess with the TSA. He also suggested forcing the TSA to do racial profiling; if a shoe-bomber means everyone with shoes is a suspect, what does an Afro-bomber mean?
skwiddor 17y ago
oh it was in his rectum, I thought the had been really creative and opened up his abdomen and sewn him back up. We are one step closer to the bombdogs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvfQw8UCDE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvfQw8UCDE
idm 17y ago
I wonder if there's any value in "lobbying" the TSA to implement rectal searches on the basis of this story. It's the reducito ad absurdum tactic: if the lobbying were successful, there's no way there wouldn't be backlash, right? As a result, we'd have people lobbying for sensible security, right? Please? Of course, the worst case scenario is that the TSA caves in to the pressure, starts rectal searches, and keeps doing it... and then I get searched.
- daniel-cussen 17y ago
  Or you stop flying and start taking the bus.
  - mahmud 17y ago
    I drove to Australia, mainly to limit my carbon footprint but also to avoid the merciless torture that is in-flight entertainment. Delta runs the golden collection of Adam Sandler: Auteur.

36 points by billpg 17y ago

I prefer Una Bomber.

I wonder what TSA is going to do now. The public won't stand for anal-searches each time they are going to fly, but on the other hand they would have to appear to be doing something.

jgrahamc 17y ago
They don't because this was not done on an aircraft. If this had occurred on an aircraft then they might have tried to do something about it, but I doubt there'll be any response. In addition this was not done against a US target.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  True, for now. I can't stand security theater but basically we're quite well off insofar as we have the luxury to complain about it with a relatively low expectation of anything bad happening (as in being blown up, rather than annoyed by officious and undereducated security staff). As a sometime screenwriter I often come up with ideas which seem so obvious that I wonder why terrorists don't employ them, but I'd rather not repeat them here.
GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
"The public won't stand for anal-searches ..." Well, you certainly can't expect to do them sitting down!
- die_sekte 17y ago
  "Now slide your pants down and sit on that gloved hand." Well yes, you can.

rfreytag 17y ago

Here comes millimeter-wave scanning (http://www.manolith.com/2009/05/18/whole-body-imaging-is-wholly-frightening/ http://www.manolith.com/2009/05/18/whole-body-imaging-is-who...)

jrockway 17y ago
It is interesting that people are so upset about being "naked" on a screen somewhere. I find it much more troubling for someone to root through my consciously-collected possessions. That says a lot more about who I am than my standard-issue body that is pretty much the same as 3 billion other people's. Yet nobody has any problems with that -- only being "naked".
- derefr 17y ago
  That's the point: people got to pick their stuff, so they're generally proud to show it off. People didn't get to pick their bodies, so they're generally embarrassed by them.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  only being "naked" Only being naked while being judged by someone with power over you, armed, typically humourless and in control of whether you make your flight or get 'extra processing'.
lallysingh 17y ago
Great, now I've gotta slim down before hitting the airport!
- mahmud 17y ago
  It's always a good idea, specially if you want to join the MHC, for N > 2.

tfh 17y ago

People will always figure ways out to harm the guys opressing them. The best way to avoid that is not to give them a reason. I admid that millimeter-wave scanning is really useful but not in the field of preventing terrorism.

Tichy 17y ago
"The best way to avoid that is not to give them a reason." I agree in principle, but realistically, I doubt it is possible to satisfy everybody's wishes. Also, how to deal with the people who are already "fanaticised"? I guess one problem is that terrorism is also a system - the organizations behind it tend to have a system for growing, that will take on a life of it's own. It's not just disgruntled people looking for terror organizations to join, it is also terror organizations making people join.
- Maktab 17y ago
  Exactly. In the real world you're always going to have disgruntled people, no matter how reasonable and fair you may be towards them. It's probably true that you could prevent some terrorism by changing your actions to stop doing whatever's causing some subset of the population to become upset, but there will always be some person or group whose demands are so crazy and far-out that no country could reasonable accede to them. Against the irrational even appeasement is an imperfect deterrent. I don't think, for example, that it would have been realistically possible to have avoided giving Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh or even Osama Bin Laden a reason to attack their respective targets.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    Well, for McVeigh, apparently a large sign saying "Day Care Inside" would have worked for that particular target, but not targets in general.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    Nothing can justify what these people have done. But to be fair, neither McVeigh nor bin Laden would have reasons to commit acts of terrorism if the federal government wasn't doing things it wasn't supposed to be doing. McVeigh was motivated by Ruby Ridge and Waco (both of which were debacles the feds completely mishandled, to speak charitably), and bin Laden was motivated primarily by American intervention in the Middle East.

byrneseyeview 17y ago

Amazing. A reddit commenter (pica, for those who were there from the beginning) once suggested doing exactly this as a way to mess with the TSA. He also suggested forcing the TSA to do racial profiling; if a shoe-bomber means everyone with shoes is a suspect, what does an Afro-bomber mean?

skwiddor 17y ago

oh it was in his rectum, I thought the had been really creative and opened up his abdomen and sewn him back up. We are one step closer to the bombdogs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvfQw8UCDE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvfQw8UCDE

idm 17y ago

I wonder if there's any value in "lobbying" the TSA to implement rectal searches on the basis of this story. It's the reducito ad absurdum tactic: if the lobbying were successful, there's no way there wouldn't be backlash, right? As a result, we'd have people lobbying for sensible security, right? Please? Of course, the worst case scenario is that the TSA caves in to the pressure, starts rectal searches, and keeps doing it... and then I get searched.

daniel-cussen 17y ago
Or you stop flying and start taking the bus.
- mahmud 17y ago
  I drove to Australia, mainly to limit my carbon footprint but also to avoid the merciless torture that is in-flight entertainment. Delta runs the golden collection of Adam Sandler: Auteur.