Bruce Schneier On Airport Security 582
the4thdimension writes "Bruce Schneier has an opinion piece on CNN this morning that illustrates his view on airport security. Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight. In the article, Bruce discusses the rarity of terrorism, the pitfalls of security theater, and the actual difficulty surrounding improving security. What are your thoughts? Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?"
Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. "Truly secure" means defended infinitely well from all risks, which implies infinite cost. The minority of us adults who are mentally adult understand that everything is a cost/benefit tradeoff and nothing justifies the effort to render it "truly secure".
To be sure, an individual's own life is worth very very much to him, and he is free to spend his money on protection, but that's not the context of this discussion. The context of this discussion is how much wealth should the tribe expend protecting its assets (including its members, none of whom are infinitely valuable).
Re:Uh No (Score:5, Insightful)
We do all of these stupid things to pretend to have security that even the most brain-dead terrorist could work around.
Can't bring liquids on board? Sure, but you can bring freeze-dried watermelon that you've reconstituted with a liquid of your choice onboard. Any sort of saturated porous or fibrous solid is fine. You can bring any sort of solid hydrate with you, too. Heck, on my way back from Christmas, I realized that I had reusable heat packs in my pockets, and that those were liquid. To keep them? I simply activated them so that they crystalized (releasing heat). Bam -- they're no longer liquids. But they're the exact same stuff.
Can't bring knives on board? Heck, I had a freaking dull garden spade confiscated from me, as though I was going to hijack a plane with a dull spade. But you can sure as heck bring a glass or ceramic plate or other such object and break it into long, heavy, surgically-sharp shards in a cloth towel. You can also bring any sort of electronics or other devices with you whose internal frame components are made of long, sharp pieces of metal. Even if you personally sharpened them.
Do they think terrorists are retarded? Do they think that they can't figure this sort of stuff out? No, they'd rather just put on this "Security Theatre" and inconvenience millions upon millions of travelers for no damned reason.
If they actually cared about security, it would be obvious: the approach to dealing with threats would be proactive, not reactive. It wouldn't be a case of, "someone tried to blow up a plane with shoes? Everyone has to take their shoes off". Taking shoes off would come before someone tried it. Same with liquids and all of these other ridiculous regulations. They're just trying to pretend that they're on top of it, when what they're doing isn't helping anyone. It's just making flying a pain in the arse.
One of these days, when I have enough time before a plane flight, I'm going to follow the letter of the rules while showing off (in a non-threatening manner) how easily they can be worked around: by attempting to cook a full four-course meal onboard a plane during the flight from my coach seat ;) Electric or allowed-chemical heat (no flames), minimal cook times, liquids pre-stored in dehydrated food or reconstituted from powders and water-fountain water past the security checkpoint, etc.
Expert? (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight.
I'm a developer, does that mean I can work in real estate?
Can we make Air Travel Secure? (Score:5, Insightful)
The sooner most people grow and learn that "Shit Happens (tm)" and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality, the better. The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Yes I do Know (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism is the smallest of security problems for air craft. The greatest issue is the rapid delivery of diseases from all corners of the world which threatens all of us all of the time. For example a common flu strain will easily kill far more people than we lost on 9/11. Rarer strains could wipe out millions.
The simple answer is to allow far less travel even inside our borders. International flights should be extremely limited. That will not only insure better health and safety but will also diminish the availability of air craft to terrorists as well.
Nations such as the old USSR that restricted travel were not totally wrong in that policy.
What a strange metric! (Score:0, Insightful)
"Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight"
I find that his credibility stems form something other than "volumes in his bibliography".
Is that anything like "Libraries of Congress"?
"That guy is really credible, look at that VIB number!"
Weighing Opinions (Score:5, Insightful)
> Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight.
One would hope that experts be judged by quality rather than quantity.
Bruce Schneier has earned street cred in the industry over many years of work. He knows security top-to-bottom, cryptography to psychology to economy.
Once in a while some media outlets decide to air an actual competent professional instead of a fud-mongering buffoon, and people in the industry send them to Bruce.
Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Our biggest problem (Score:4, Insightful)
“I feel better with the heightened security because I feel safe,” said Belisle, who was flying to Washington, D.C., to visit her son in Virginia.
Source: my local newspaper this morning. We call it security theatre. It's annoying, wasteful, ineffective in our minds. For much of the world, it's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away. People just feel better.
Re:Uh No (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you missed Schneier's point, if you RTFA.
The approach to dealing with threats should be intelligence gathering, our criminal justice system, and resilience in response to successful attacks.
A proactive approach that you suggest would require listing possible attack vectors, then taking action to prevent each of them. Carried to its logical conclusion, we'd all have to board planes naked (you could strangle someone with the elastic band from your underwear!), or even restrained (hands are weapons too!) in order to prevent terrorist actions on planes.
It's simply unreasonable to take that kind of preventative action.
In truth, (and one of Schneier's points), we cannot realistically defend against all attack vectors. To try to do so is pointless, except that it gives people a feeling of security. True defense against terrorism isn't served by reactive restrictions, nor by proactive restrictions -- unless they absolutely limit our ability to conduct regular tasks.
You're right, though, what they're doing isn't helping and is a royal pain in the ass. But the solution is not to become proactive in travel restrictions. It's most of what Schneier wrote in the piece.
Just what I've always said (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh No (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with listing possible attack vectors -- that should be the goal. Each should be weighed in terms of order of likelyhood, and any that are justified to merit preventive action should be handled.
Now, the author is arguing that that bar on what merits action should be low. I agree. But if it's going to be high, as it currently is, it should not simply be based on "what they did last time".
That's just part of it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now look at how many people die every year from other causes.
If you are in the USofA, you are more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.
But that is the problem.
Because terrorism is so rare, when it happens it is covered in the newspapers, on TV, on the radio, etc. Repeatedly. For weeks.
Re:Uh No (Score:5, Insightful)
The only difference between then and now is that these days, the government pretends to be working to keep us safe, and the people expect that fantasy to be maintained for them. People who remain calm and think for a few moments see right through most of it, but most of the population does not bother to think and just go on assuming that when their government says "this will keep you safe" it will really keep them safe.
Re:Uh No (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't even have to work around the list of things you can't carry on board; items on the list get missed all the time. Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic had an article from last year [theatlantic.com] detailing all the things he's managed to sneak onto planes, including pocketknives, matches from hotels in Beirut and Peshawar, cigarette lighters, nail clippers, bottles of Fiji Water, and box cutters. He's even brought two cans' worth of beer through security by wearing a Beerbelly [thebeerbelly.com] under his clothes and walking it through the metal detector. And this in spite of the fact that he was selected for secondary inspection at the time he was wearing it.
He's also tried forging and printing out his own boarding pass (with help from Bruce Schneier) and getting through security with it, with similar results:
Re:Uh No (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have nothing you have nothing to loose.
Ummm...especially given where he was from, the crotch bomber had pretty much everything.
Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the quote is that anyone who would give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary security. You make it sound as if letting security search your bag when you enter a concert disqualifies one from the rights and privileges of citizenship. As always, the devil is in the details.
--
Toro
Why go to all the effort? (Score:3, Insightful)
If your name is on a no-fly list, you send a different guy who's name is not on the list.
If you cannot find someone who's name is not on the list, you buy guns and go on a shooting rampage inside the terminal where all the other travelers are standing in line, holding their shoes.
The terminal closes and all the flights are re-directed to other landing strips. If you pick the terminal right and the day right, you pretty much shut down all travel in that sector.
USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The USA has declared for several years a "War on Terror". The USA (and many other nations to be fair) is a state that fears visitors bringing their own nail scissors to its shores. The USA is seriously thinking of asking people to keep their hands in view and not visit the toilet 60 minutes before arriving as this is seen as a real threat to its national security.
These actions don't seem rational to me. The country with a military spend ten times greater than the next largest country, probably with a military the size of most of the rest of the world is scared of individuals approaching its shores bearing nail scissors? These seem to be the action of a terrified, irrational people and nation. Therefore, if the USA (and others) have declared a War on Terror*, then the USA being terrified means the emotion Terror has won. What happens now?
*I would note that I have a problem with the concept "War on Terror" as I don't see how you can declare a war on a human emotion. Is it possible to have a "War on Joy" for example? Perhaps you could declare a "War on preventing terror in Americans" and find ways of stopping Americans being terrified but I think this would be a tricky task. A lot of people are quite frightened of spiders in their bath tubs after all.
I think "War on Terror" is short for "War on people who use non-conventional forms of warfare against us that do not declare war on us as a sovereign nation" but I fear that this is difficult to bound in any way so actually means "permanent warfare against any individual or group that we, by our definitions, define as guilty of violent action against us and/or a threat to us at any time in the future". If it is not against another sovereign state, can war be declared, and can it be agreed to be ceased? References really welcomed to any well written definitions on what a "War on Terror" means. I'd really love to find some well argued definitions.
Re:Uh No (Score:4, Insightful)
Except, as soon as you put measures in place to prevent one vector, the other vectors have an increased likelihood, because terrorists are not necessarily stupid.
That argument is fallacious. It argues for no action against any type of threat whatsoever in any circumstance in any field of discussion. Forcing people off easy vectors onto harder vectors is not an illogical course of action. What matters is that the vectors are properly prioritized and the bar on what to defend against set appropriately. We're currently not doing this; the telltale sign of that would be that security would be proactive rather than reactive. And once again, I argue for a lower bar on what we defend against, not a higher one.
That's not what Schneier is arguing at all, please go back and actually RTFA
I did RTFA, and I recommend you do the same. He opposes targeting very specific "movie plot threats", but supports broadly-applicable investigative resources. Not once does he argue against prioritizing threats (he even does so himself, talking about how some circumstances are more dangerous than others). He simply sets a very low bar, only supporting actions that cover a wide range of possible threats.
Re:That's just part of it. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the same problem as kids being much more likely to be molested by good old Uncle Joe than by some stranger who peed in a park 10 years ago. It's a completely irrational fear of some outside boogieman because we are unable to accept that the people we know and trust are capable of such things.
As Stanley Milgram and Philip Zombardo have demonstrated, yes, there's a very good chance they (and most of the rest of us) are capable of doing horrible things.
Yabut (Score:4, Insightful)
He's gonna get the 400 pound guy with the flab slabs and the man-boobs instead.
Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed (Score:3, Insightful)
The odds of getting shot by an armed and sleepy, grumpy, drunk, clumsy, whatever, passenger would be exponentially higher than the current terrorism threat.
Terrorists aren't the only ones running the risk of being shot dead on a plane if you let average Joe start target shooting in aisle 15.
Re:Uh No (Score:2, Insightful)
If you reject the commission report and make up your own explanation, you are a truther.
Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure? (Score:3, Insightful)
The future of flying is a small plane at a small regional airport.
Why? Is it because the terrorists will have destroyed the industry? No, it's more likely that the TSA has helped the industry destroy itself.
Richard Reid (aka the Shoe Bomber) is the reason we all have to take off our bloody shoes when we go through the screening process. I'd love to string up that fucker personally. Of course, his partner was the TSA -- taking off the shoes is just another measure in security theater.
Now a Nigerian national (by way of Yemen) has likely blown his nuts off in an attempt to take down an airliner. And what is the response? Well, at least they're not taking away your shampoo and nailclippers...
But there's talk of turning off seatback entertainment systems sporting GPS tracking for international flights. If you're in the final descent, you'll know it (if you've flown a few times). How much does it matter whether a terrorist knows precisely where they are in the flight?
You can't visit the bathroom, access overhead bins, have a blanket or pillow during the last hour of the flight? Well, apparently some of these restrictions are being eased, giving discretion to the flight crew (as of 12/28) but they're simply more DUMB ideas from the TSA. If one is determined to do something nefarious, do these restrictions really provide any obstacles whatsoever?
Perhaps in the future, the TSA will require that all passengers wear TSA-approved flight garments (with diapers) and shackled securely to their seats? Sedation at your request? Maybe if you agree to sedation, they'll even drop the price of your ticket.
If the foolish restrictions remain in place, the sensible citizens will seek travel options which do NOT treat them like criminals (or fools). They will use cars, buses, trains and ships whenever possible. Flight will be best accomplished by purchasing a seat aboard a chartered aircraft where you can become approved for travel with a background screening process, and the pilot/co-pilot have ultimate discretion as to whether they want you to board their flight. You won't have to submit to humiliating searches of person and property -- dignity restored!
It may be an expensive venture, but it will very likely be worth it.
Re:Uh No (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't quite argue that... but even if it did, the argument is not fallacious (please point to the specific thing that falsifies the argument -- is it the assumptions? One of the logical deductions?). It seems to me that the conclusion, not the argument, is what you don't like.
:)
Targeting specific vectors on specific targets is practically useless. That's my point. Setting the bar lower (which you may be confused about -- setting the bar lower means to lower the threshold for something to qualify for a subset; this means a lower threshold for inclusion in the list of threats to defend against, which means increasing the list of specific threats to target). Schneier argues that we raise the bar on qualifying threats, thus defending with general measures most of the time. Or maybe I'm completely misreading what you're applying the "raise/lower the bar" metaphor to, in which case I'd appreciate a clarification
I have a hard time believing the first part of that (maybe you read it after your initial post?), since your OP and first follow-up not only blatantly contradict Schneier's points, but also attribute a conclusion to him that he did not make. Maybe you skimmed the first few paragraphs, then came back to comment early in the thread? As for me, I read it thoroughly before even looking at the comments to the article... still not sure how, up until this last post, you missed his major points.
At any rate, the point of this discussion is the claim of yours that the problem is one of reactive measures, rather than proactive measures. Can we agree, now that we've both read the piece, that it doesn't matter if it's proactive or reactive, it's the specificity that's the basis of Schneier's argument? Because that was my main gripe with your OP.
Re:Airport security is stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who's afraid of air travel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?
Isn't it already as secure as anything else?
Re:What's the point in reporting that? (Score:3, Insightful)
No more than the literal truth. TV news doesn't exist to inform the public; it exists to sell YOUR eyeballs to THEIR advertisers. The more eyeballs are glued to the screen, the more their ad-time is worth in the open market. They don't really give a shit WHY your eyeballs are present, so long as they're salable.
Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
The sooner most people grow and learn that "Shit Happens (tm)" and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality, the better.
I agree with this statement generally. However you need to realize that there are a large number of people with buckets of shit who will quite happily rain it upon you when it becomes easy enough to do so. People like to point out the chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is really low - the solution then is not to raise the odds until it's more likely to be killed by terrorism than even X you are comparing odds with,
This is where I think Bruce misses the mark, he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up. Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true. What people are not willing to do, is to enter in a plan they think has little chance of success. You can find a lot of martyrs but not a lot of patsies.
So the real problem is, what security measures actually have some, vs. no, effect. I would argue a lot of the things prohibited or new rules being put in place (like not being able to tell passengers the name of landmarks out the window!) have as close to zero percent chance of preventing any attack as to make no difference. These rules, should all be abolished or re-thought. All rules need careful risk assessment applied to say, is this really helping or is it just there because one guy did one thing and it was the first thing we thought of to stop that?
The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.
Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern for the well-being of all the people who are not terrorists, or at least that aspect gets lost in the process. They also show no understanding of how they can leverage or rely on fellow air travelers who are indeed more than happy to help with air security by detaining people as they act.
"Security Theater" is a term Bruce and others like to throw around a lot to dismiss the efforts to improve security. And yet they ignore the very real value of illusion in warfare throughout the years. As I noted there are a lot of people perfectly willing to blow themselves up, but they are not throwing themselves at plane travel because they THINK they will get caught and not be able to carry out the plan. As we can see from the attack that's not really as true as they think, but large number of people still think it's really hard to work around the system and so they do not try.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
And here's the term that is most overused of all, and the least well understood. Yes if you give up a little liberty for the gain of a little security you deserve neither. But what about the gain of a LOT of security for a little liberty? When the equation is far more asymmetric is it not also more compelling?
This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes. But not like todays world of scans - you stand on a platform for 10 seconds with your carryon in hand, and the device scans all of you along with your boarding pass. No human looks at the scan, no human asks you what you have - you just go on your way. Computers (not humans) analyze the image for potential issues, and flag people for more complete screening before you actually board. Then you as a traveler have no delay, but you still basically catch most people trying to bring a bomb of any size aboard a plane, and you still have the current aspect of not as many people willing to even try an attack because they think the magic box will get them. People are against showing ID to board a plane but it's what it's going to have to come down to in the end, because the reality is this
Re:Our biggest problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh No (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as a parent with small children who flies with them occasionally; that idea sounds strangely attractive.
Re:Get real; there is an overriding state interest (Score:1, Insightful)
because planes are the only potential target... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:3, Insightful)
Who fucking cares?
It's safer to fly without screening than to drive across town.
But, you'll pay for your own handcuffs - and the privilege to wear them. Now, where's my embedded microchip?
Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Earlier this year, I bought a one-way ticket at the last minute with cash while carrying no luggage. Does this make me a terrorist? No, it just means I missed my connecting flight because the flight I was on was delayed by weather, and the airline lost my luggage.
In a RATIONAL world, I'd be permitted to walk from the ticket counter to the departure gate without any interference -- the determination that I'm not a terrorist would have taken place far from the airport and long before I arrived, through the actions of whichever three-letter agency is tasked with investigating and breaking up terrorist plots.
Re:no (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
People are against showing ID to board a plane but it's what it's going to have to come down to in the end, because the reality is this is the most efficient way to actually catch people who are trying to do bad things vs. trying to simply find the tools used to perform an attack carried by any random person.
That's correct, and that's because that's a real security step (along with things like only allowing checked luggage on if it accompanies someone). It's where you can correlate whether the person is someone who is "likely to be of interest" and where you can verify that the airline is only carrying those who it thinks it is. (Even then, that's not a perfect solution, but a perfect solution would be economically crippling and so won't happen.)
Note that terrorism by suicide bombers is not the only real threat that has to be defended against. Out-and-out crazies are at least as big a problem, and some measures are there to defend against that too. (Note that the "security theater" is much more effective against that threat.)
Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't have enough terrorist numbers to say that the "Security Theater" is effective or isn't effective. Terrorists have targeted planes for almost 50 years, and the latest security was put in place mostly after 2001. The numbers prior and afterwards aren't much different.
Personally, I think the term "Security Theater" is perfect. I think effective security (body scans and computer image recognition) fall outside that term, as they might actually be effective.
I would go further on the ID issue. IDs should be provided via secure sources. Why trust IDs provided by a passenger? A person could be vetted for travel in detail at some security office, and issued a user name or ID number. Providing THAT to security would allow their picture to be viewed and compared to the individual. Doing an ID check once, in detail, by people trained to do so is going to be far more effective then expecting lightly trained individuals to usefully evaluate ID documents over and over every time a person flies.
This is, if tracking the IDs of individuals is really what we want to do.
But these kinds of changes are not "Security Theater." These are changes that make a difference in our security.
Like enabling cell phones on planes. This has been proven to INCREASE security and does not pose any risk to navigation equipment. Yet still, cell phones are not allowed, and planes do not have the technology to enable cell phones in flight.
Personally, I am tired of not being able to take a jar of homemade Jelly on a plane. Tired of leaving my knife at home. Tired of the waits as thousands if not millions of mistakes are made daily by security staff to no ill effect on our security. (My son has flown with a full sized tube of toothpaste, and my wife with a swiss army knife in their carry on bags, which slipped easily through security. All by accident, but stll).
Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
You make this claim, that terrorists don't attack because they are deterred by the idea of security, with no evidence. Here's some very good evidence why your theory is bunk: there are literally millions of highly visible targets in this country with no security. Anybody who wanted to could attack them trivially, compared to the relative difficulty of attacking an airplane. And yet, nobody does. There have been a handful of attempts over the past decade (most of them prompted or at least significantly helped by FBI informers), but nothing really successful (unless you consider Fort Hood, which clearly is a separate issue). If there really were all of these potential terrorists in the US, why would they just give up after deciding airlines are too hard? Why aren't they attacking all our undefended targets instead?
Re:no (Score:2, Insightful)
no additional airplanes have hit buildings since 2001...
How many were there prior to 2001?
Bunk is Bunk (Score:3, Insightful)
You make this claim, that terrorists don't attack because they are deterred by the idea of security, with no evidence. Here's some very good evidence why your theory is bunk: there are literally millions of highly visible targets in this country with no security.
But not ones that kill a lot of people. And the guys that really want to do this, we mostly don't let into the U.S.
The magical thing about air travel is that people anywhere can take a plane. The guys you get that are willing to blow themselves up to attack others look pretty out of place in Iowa and generally get caught before anything happens (witness the two guys in a car scoping out a military base for attack, I think in Arkansas) - it goes back to what I was saying, suicide bombers generally go forth when they are pretty sure they will have some success.
You offer no counterproof as to why they would not attack planes when they already drive cars into things every month. If they can reach it they will attack it.
unless you consider Fort Hood, which clearly is a separate issue
That's not clear at all. In fact he has direct links to the Pantsonator, in that they both worshipped under the same Imam. And in fact it kind of proves my point, he had easy access to do what he did and a will to do so - if even a well-educated phycologists working for the army for years can be turned against his own peers, there are countless others that would easily take on the same role with less motivation.
Apples are Apples (Score:3, Insightful)
Apples and oranges. They're fighting a war for their own land in Afghanistan/Iraq
I wasn't aware Iraq was owned by Sadia Ariba, Syria, and Iran. Because those are the people dying in suicide bombing attacks there, and were most of the jihadists (especially so once the people of Iraq figured out Al Quida didn't like people drinking which Iraqi's like quite a lot).
we'd have to lose a LOT of liberty to gain a little security
I consider nothing done at an airport to be a loss of "liberty" since flying is not a right. Also as another poster noted elsewhere planes are in fact rather good weapons (even if all you are doing is destroying them over a large city).
My whole issue is, how can we better build a system around acceptable risks and trying to find people who are a problem rather than tools that could be a problem but in the hands of most people will not be.
Your idea would be less intrusive, but not fundamentally any better.
It's not any more intrusive for most people because you already show ID and a boarding pass at the airport today (yes you do not HAVE to show ID but 99.9% of people do because they don't want extra security checks). And it's far, far faster because you aren't waiting for people in front of you to unpack AND disrobe and then reverse the process once screened. You could process probably 20x the number of people in the same amount of time, which given the amount of flights from any given airport means almost no wait - even at Terminal 5 in Heathrowe transferring between planes (one of the more maddeningly slow security screening setups and probably one of the worlds busiest).
The security system as it is now keeps me from flying except in extreme circumstances.
I agree, anything under 10 hours and I drive. Most travel I do does not give me that option. That's why I seek to eliminate all the aspects that slow me down, while not being any more intrusive than what we have today and in fact a good bit less because there are fewer people to ogle you and go through your stuff.
Re:Mod Up (Score:3, Insightful)
We should all learn to be some kind of martial artist, so we have a nation of ninja warriors
This is so funny that I hope you are joking here. The USofA has trouble keeping most of it's citizen from getting obese due to lack of physical activity, and here you think it is possible to get the whole nation to take effort to go through the training to be ninja worriors?
You should care how it's used then. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Security Theater" is not 'just a term' that *anybody* likes to throw around.
You gave a very specific definition, but you are wrong in this first part. Look at this very discussion, "security theater" is used repeatedly and in fact lots of people throw it around all the time, just as I said.
If you care so much as to the exact definition, then you should *also* care it is used accurately. Airport security is not *wholly* theater, even if some aspects are (like ID checking as Bruce rightfully points out). But as I noted, even if some parts are theater there remains some value from the show in deterrence, and therefore the term "security theater" is not accurate because it's not totally ineffective. "Security Illusion" or something along those lines is much more accurate, at least if you care about the term...
Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure? (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not. A defeatist attitude is that we have to sacrifice what we hold dear in order to gain a blanket of false security.
Israel is not a poster child of a safe place to live. You can be killed there for having the wrong colour skin or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You also forget that despite all this Israel still suffers regular attacks. Israel developed national service as a response to real attacks, not a proactive defence against imagined dangers.
Further more, giving everyone guns will make people forget about the terrorist bogeyman, but only because they now have to worry about everyone else around them, only one person has to pop a vein in their head and decide that shooting their way through the Macca's line is a good idea. MAD does not work on a large scale for this reason, it makes everyone as safe as the most unstable individual.
You're assuming that everyone wants this. You're also assuming that everyone will be capable of doing this. We can't even make sure that everyone on the road can drive safely yet you expect them to become Krav Maga experts, good luck with that.
You also fail to account for the fact that now many potential terrorist will have the same training or that the current tactics will not evolve. You are making the same mistake as the TSA/Homeland Security, you're preparing to defend against the last attack rather then treating the cause.
Now your general point is OK but your application is not sound. No, we should not be afraid but we do not have to kill in order to do this, having to kill to ensure your safety is the act of a scared coward. What we forget is that previously, every time a plane was hijacked, it landed and the hijackers sent a list of demands to the authorities (normally for money and/or prisoners), the authorities either acquiesced or stormed the plane, most deaths in hijackings occurred when the police/militaries botched the storming part. Now since 2001, as Bruce Shneier points out, passengers will fight back so most of the worlds terrorist organisations are now sitting back in their palaces/caves/jungle huts saying "fuck, now we cant hijack planes for fun and profit any more", the law of unintended consequences at work. The vast majority of terrorist organisations (HAMAS, FARC, LTTE, Abu Sayaf and so on) are aiming for a very specific goal (normally land/regime change in their home countries) so killing a plane load of good hostages doesnt get them anywhere.
BTW, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front has to be the best named terrorist organisation in the world.
Re:What about making other things more secure firs (Score:3, Insightful)
First page on a google search;
in 2004; 29,569 total firearm fatalities, including 16,750 suicides, 649 accidents and 235 with unknown intent.
Re:Uh No (Score:3, Insightful)
Now you've gone and done it.
All of the people with *any* history of martial arts training aren't going to be able to fly at all. I'm sure just about every politician out there has seen at least *one* martial arts movie with the hero in it killing dozens of *armed people* without a scratch on him or her.
Chuck Norris is going to be PISSED OFF.
SB
I am not out to prevent the last bombing (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you, but note that Bruce is also suggesting a real change in relationships with middle east so that number eventually could be insignificant.
That aspect though is fantasy, the dream you can kiss and make up with a violent religious cult never works out - it has not in the history of the world. With them you are either subsumed or attacked. He is normally very astute in psychology, so I'm really not sure how he gets so far off kilter that he imagines this will work.
"Experts say the technology would almost certainly find a gun or knife but not necessarily something carried the way the Nigerian carried his explosives."
But unlike the TSA I don't care about preventing the last attack. I care just about making attacks hard in general so that a guy has to store components in his underpants making them harder to re-asssemble, and optimizing air travel greatly without increasing the rate of attempted attacks. With a big old scary scanning box hooked to big scary computers somewhere lots of people will *think* they can't get a bomb on and so won't even try. Or will be nervous enough the behavioral analysts will get them. I mean, the last attack is basically un-preventable unless you want to get pretty damn intimate with every passenger and that just is not practical.
Also, I imagine the scanning device combined with something like a "puffer" they use in airports today, that could pick up chemical scents - that would have a much higher chance of having found something I think. Basically it's all about changing the mindset to "what can we scan for in 10 seconds with a guy on a platform" rather than adding another stage to an already elaborate series of procedures you must follow.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
The real TSA screeners are not the highschoold dropout instructing you to remove your shoes.
In most airports, there is nobody filling that role except the highschool dropout telling you to remove your shoes. If you think there is some hidden screener out there who is REALLY keeping you safe, you are sadly mistaken. There might be a very small number of airports that do this, but even so most people would be able to slip by anyway. Act bored and you win. They won't spot a thing.
It is pretty trivial to get knives past TSA, unless you are being honest about it. A friend of mine accidentally brought a boxcutter (the kind that can extend out to a 4-5" blade) through at least six TSA screenings, and he had simply put it in a pocket and forgotten about it. How's that for security?
You can get explosive rope these days, if you're clever you could probably sneak a half pound of the rope and another four or five pounds of standard plastics on board in a suitcase and nobody would be the wiser. You could do some major damage with that combo. The guy who got caught recently was just dumb as shit, and didn't know what the hell he was doing, and he STILL got explosives past security. They make you stay seated for the last hour and a half of an international flight now, but so what? The guy lit the bomb off in his chair anyway, what's the "remain seated" bullshit supposed to stop?
If you look at what happened on 9/11, the main problem was our attitude about hijackings at the time. Hijackings were supposed to be about ransoming for cash, not blowing up a target, so the standard procedure was do whatever the hijackers say and wait till it is over. Now, standard procedure is subdue the hijacker as soon as possible. Had that been done on 9/11 the news would have been about how 19 hijackers were thwarted in an attempt to hijack four airplanes, and a few passengers were injured in the process. That new policy is what protects us in the sky now, not any of the bullshit security theater which is absolutely worthless at catching all but the most basic and obvious weapons. People see someone with a weapon now, they won't hesitate any more - that guy is going down in a hurry. 9/11 would not happen again today and the TSA has nothing to with that at all.
It's all designed to make us feel safer, since the folks in the know realize they can't actually make us any safer. What we were doing before is as good as what we are doing now as far as airport screenings, the only real changes that can be made are in the background, with inteligence agencings tracking suspected terrorists and such. TSA is just the government saying "Look! aren't you glad we're making you so safe?"
Re:no (Score:2, Insightful)
And as soon as these systems are deployed, the wanna-be-terrorists will switch to carbon-based explosives. And if someone invents a "catch-all-explosives" device, they will resort to biological weapons.
It's pretty much like with the DRM stuff: the only people suffering from that are the innocent travellers.