Screeners Fail To Catch Bomb Components

[MJS]

Well, hopefully this thread will go a little better than the last 2 I started here, but I guess time will tell.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21795699/

Security was obviously not at its peak on 9/11. Afterwards, changes were made, and things seemed to be pretty strict. Now, it seems like some Govt. investigators were able to smuggle items past screeners. Hopefully this doesn't mean we're going to have issues again.

Thoughts?

 

[tellner]

Take a look at any of Bruce Schneier's takes on the TSA debacle from back issues of Cryptogram to his books on real risk assessment and security. He has it nailed. This is "security theater", not a serious attempt to actually reduce risk. Throwing lots of dumb ignorant people at a problem like this looks impressive. But it's not going to actually make anyone any safer. This and the recent "test" where the higher ups told the screeners exactly what to look for and when to do it just highlight the stupidity.

 

[Tom]

Its all about feeling safer yo. Make the sheeple stand in line for hours that proves to them that someting is being done.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Almost every time I open something, mayo or ketchup or coffee creamer or something, and have to open the lid and peel back the extra layer of stuff designed to keep it tamper-safe, I think to myself "This is all because years ago one wacko decided to spike a few bottle of Tylenol" And I wonder how much time and money has been spent on protecting *everything* since then and I wonder if it's really worth it. Even if the protection would really keep us safe from some hypothetical situation that someone would try that again, is it really worth the cost?

 

[KempoGuy06]

I still think airport security is a joke. It has gotten better since 9/11 but it can be improved. The people are the main problem.

B

 

[morph4me]

:tantrum:I'm so very glad to live in a country that allows the press to advertise the holes in our security, just in case someone wishing to do harm doesn't know about them. Most of us know that no matter how tight security is, if you want to get something past it, you'll find a way. I'm just delighted that if you can't figure it out for yourself, you can turn on the news, or read a newspaper and get good instructions for free. I hate the media

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I have very little faith in airport security. They seem to window dress security rather than take a really hard look at what needs to be done.

 

[CoryKS]

I think what this shows is that air travel is an inherently risky mode of travel. All that's required to take down a commercial liner is to a) penetrate the hull and let decompression and gravity do the rest; or b) disrupt the operation of the machinery i.e., take out the pilots. And we've seen that with option b, there's the potential for weaponizing the plane itself with basic piloting skills.

How any of this is accomplished is limited only to human imagination. The airline industry is in the position of having to predict what people can do to knock their planes down and prevent it without violating their passengers to an unacceptable degree.

I'm not sure that this can be done. Maybe the solution is to look at what we're trying to accomplish and work back. The goal is to get large groups of people from one destination to another in the fastest possible manner without the risks inherent in flight. So what are the options? Bullet trains for domestic flights? Or maybe something we haven't thought of yet.

 

[newGuy12]

Take a look at any of Bruce Schneier's takes on the TSA debacle from back issues of Cryptogram to his books on real risk assessment and security. He has it nailed. This is "security theater", not a serious attempt to actually reduce risk. Throwing lots of dumb ignorant people at a problem like this looks impressive. But it's not going to actually make anyone any safer. This and the recent "test" where the higher ups told the screeners exactly what to look for and when to do it just highlight the stupidity.

This is the best post I'll see today!

Bruce Schneier is The Man, The Security Man! And yes, he nailed it. This is nothing but a show, and, to soften the masses up for more and more control, as well. Oh, keep us safe, we'll do anything to be safe. That kind of thing.

And, oh, for the record, I use the Blowfish algorithm whenever I can, not that RSA/DSA CRAP!!!

 

[newGuy12]

:tantrum:I'm so very glad to live in a country that allows the press to advertise the holes in our security, just in case someone wishing to do harm doesn't know about them. Most of us know that no matter how tight security is, if you want to get something past it, you'll find a way. I'm just delighted that if you can't figure it out for yourself, you can turn on the news, or read a newspaper and get good instructions for free. I hate the media

The best way to make security stronger is to BREAK IT! This exposure will do more than anything else to make airports more secure.

And if you think this is teaching the "bad guys" anything they don't know, its not. You have to assume they are one step ahead.

In the book "Red Cell" by Dick Marcinko (many are not fans of him, but I am, he's a real B.U.D.S. guy, no poser!), he talks about how he and his merry band of marauders would attack Naval facilities. They would go through them like a hot knife through butter! They peed-off a whole lot of Navy brass, but you know, that's the breaks!

This tale of ineptitude needs to be broadcast far and wide!

 

[KempoGuy06]

I think what this shows is that air travel is an inherently risky mode of travel. All that's required to take down a commercial liner is to a) penetrate the hull and let decompression and gravity do the rest; or b) disrupt the operation of the machinery i.e., take out the pilots. And we've seen that with option b, there's the potential for weaponizing the plane itself with basic piloting skills.

How any of this is accomplished is limited only to human imagination. The airline industry is in the position of having to predict what people can do to knock their planes down and prevent it without violating their passengers to an unacceptable degree.

I'm not sure that this can be done. Maybe the solution is to look at what we're trying to accomplish and work back. The goal is to get large groups of people from one destination to another in the fastest possible manner without the risks inherent in flight. So what are the options? Bullet trains for domestic flights? Or maybe something we haven't thought of yet.

I agree with this

My problem is that they are trying to keep the people happy. I dont know about you all but Id rather be pissed off and safe rather than happy and not safe. I dont care what they need to do in airport security. Pat me down, strip search me run a backgroud check I dont care. As long as they get me from point A to point B safe thats whats matters.

What gets me is that a lot of people are pissed off about it saying its a inconveinence. Im think "are you ****ing kidding me". If people are going to get pissed off for then they dont need to fly. If they would have patted every single person on those planes down on 9/11...the story would end with 100's pissed off instead of 1000's dead...which is the better ending

B

 

[MA-Caver]

If I were a terrorist reading this article I'd have hope of achieving Immortality with 70 virgins through the deaths of so many infidels by my hand in the name of Allah!

Sheesh This is not really the sort of thing to keep people's confidence in the security procedures now is it. Letting folks know that it's fairly easy to smuggle component parts on board. Dunno what's worse the fact that these parts got through or letting us know there are holes and gaps in the system.
It makes me want to take the bus or train.

 

[Ping898]

:tantrum:I'm so very glad to live in a country that allows the press to advertise the holes in our security, just in case someone wishing to do harm doesn't know about them. Most of us know that no matter how tight security is, if you want to get something past it, you'll find a way. I'm just delighted that if you can't figure it out for yourself, you can turn on the news, or read a newspaper and get good instructions for free. I hate the media

Any techy will tell you security through obscurity is no security at all, same holds true for airport security. The only way changes occur is when a spot light is shone on the problem and someone is forced to do something...it doesn't mean the changes will be good, but at least the status quo will be moved

 

[Big Don]

So, federalizing all the screeners was more about socialism, paying people more for doing less, than security? I'm shocked, shocked.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

So let me get this straight. My rights are gradually vanishing, plane travel isn't nearly as much fun anymore, but at least I'm not any safer than before this nonsense started.

Well done, GWB

 

[Bigshadow]

All that's required to take down a commercial liner is to a) penetrate the hull and let decompression and gravity do the rest; or

Gravity is an integral force of flight. Decompression will not bring an airliner down. There are 4 components of flight (thrust, lift, gravity, and drag). Significantly interrupting any of these can turn an otherwise normal flight into a free fall.


I don't think highly of the TSA.

 

[morph4me]

The best way to make security stronger is to BREAK IT! This exposure will do more than anything else to make airports more secure.

And if you think this is teaching the "bad guys" anything they don't know, its not. You have to assume they are one step ahead.

In the book "Red Cell" by Dick Marcinko (many are not fans of him, but I am, he's a real B.U.D.S. guy, no poser!), he talks about how he and his merry band of marauders would attack Naval facilities. They would go through them like a hot knife through butter! They peed-off a whole lot of Navy brass, but you know, that's the breaks!

This tale of ineptitude needs to be broadcast far and wide!

Any techy will tell you security through obscurity is no security at all, same holds true for airport security. The only way changes occur is when a spot light is shone on the problem and someone is forced to do something...it doesn't mean the changes will be good, but at least the status quo will be moved

No argument with either point, except that unless the changes are immediate and radical it doesn't help. If your going to advertise the problem you should also advertise the solution except that the solutions will cost money, and that means that any solution that the powers that be come up with will be half assed and take considerable amounts of time. In the meantime the problem still exists and is well publicized, so anybody with a screw loose and an agenda, who hadn't thought of it, could take advantage.

 

[CoryKS]

Gravity is an integral force of flight. Decompression will not bring an airliner down. There are 4 components of flight (thrust, lift, gravity, and drag). Significantly interrupting any of these can turn an otherwise normal flight into a free fall.


I don't think highly of the TSA.

True, but it's hard to fly a plane when there's no oxygen, no?

 

[Bigshadow]

True, but it's hard to fly a plane when there's no oxygen, no?

Aircraft that fly about roughly 10K feet and below about 14K feet are required by the FAA to have supplemental oxygen on-board. I believe that above roughly 14K feet supplemental oxygen is to be used. The pilots have supplemental oxygen at the ready and I believe the pressure altitude inside the cabin is around 8K feet and oxygen is being pumped in.

If there were a pressure loss there are supplemental oxygen masks immediately available to the pilots. In fact there was an airliner enroute to Hawaii about 10 years ago that had structural failure of the fuselage and lost a large section and a stewardess, I believe the altitude was around 20K feet. Certainly well within the altitude for hypoxia to quickly set in. The jet safely landed in Hawaii.

 

[Bigshadow]

True, but it's hard to fly a plane when there's no oxygen, no?

yes, if there is no oxygen. But that isn't the case for the pilots.