Kind of ironic, because I've already stopped flying - not because I'm afraid, but because these sorts of measures have gotten to the point where traveling through an airport is an awful experience that I actively avoid.
If I absolutely must travel, I take a train or drive. The only reason I ever fly is if I have to cross an ocean or if I face an emergency that requires me to be present somewhere far away, very quickly.
And in the case of an ocean, honestly, renting a stateroom on a cargo ship seems like a very relaxing way to go if you have the time. I've got a HUGE backlog of books and games and writing and projects to design and you get the idea.
The problem with train is it is expensive and time consuming in the States. I could take a train from Chicago to Orlando and it would take around 30 hours and cost just as much, if not more, than a plane ticket. Not only that, the 19 hour second leg of the ride has no food car.
I've looked into taking the train a couple of times and balked each time at the idea of paying the same price for 10-15x the transit time. 40 hours in transit is going to be a non-starter for so many kinds of trips, unless you're specifically doing something like [1] where the transit is the whole point of the trip.
[1]: http://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/roc...
From Louisville, KY you get to factor in the greyhound bus to Chicago, as the nearest passenger train station, because the passenger trains haven't run to Louisville in more than a decade. So far as I can tell, that's the most direct route via train: northwest by bus to go southeast by train, eventually.
You could do it somewhat more directly using a sequence of bus transfers instead, but that's also entirely inconvenient in its own way.
Clearly you've never been in a storm at sea. Or did I mis-interpret your meaning of 'to go'?
As far as I can tell, DHS are the ones not properly managing risks here, not the mom traveling to Disney.
I think the implication that he or she was trying to make is that statistically, those on the coasts travel by air more frequently. As someone with a mom who was very afraid of flying and terror related risks thereto, I know that fear largely dissipated when I finally got her to fly a few times. It's not an allegation of ignorance but that of relative inexperience (was my take, anyway).
And that describes what the whole TSA thing is about. It is a theatre. There was no need to put laptop ban either because it is just as useless. One has to only check Quora answers on all sort of things people have taken through security which includes 2 full size Katana Swords, loaded guns, Fire starters, Ethanol bottles and various other items.
I understand government can not admit TSA is ineffective. But they can surely reduce the pain for us.
[1] Yes, you can find examples where it worked. But you can also find examples where most passengers survive even extensive damage to the aircraft, like Aloha Airlines Flight 243 (not a bomb, but still). Or Daallo Airlines Flight 159, where the bomber only killed himself.
The classic military view of secrecy is time-limited. "Where the ship was last week is unclassified. Where the ship was yesterday is confidential. Where the ship is now is secret. Where the ship will be tomorrow is top secret." The opposition will eventually find out what you're planning on doing. The goal is for them to find out the hard way, when incoming fire starts hitting them.
The intelligence community has a longer-term view. "We know, and they know. We think they don't know that we know they know. We hope they don't know how we found out that they know." This protection of sources mindset leads to things being kept secret long after all involved parties know.
The anti-terrrorism community has adopted the intelligence community mindset. This is a problem.
The classification level of information is determined by confidentiality of the information's source. This is done to protect deeply embedded or highly technical means of information gathering.
For example, information that could have only come from the second in command of some organization would require the highest of security classifications whereas information that could have come from any dozens of members of that organization would only require a confidential or secret classification.
Information is required to be classified at the lowest possible level, a guideline that is both taught and enforced throughout most if not all of the Intelligence Community.
source: I was an intelligence analyst for 6+ years.
Wonder how much that has to do with overlap between the two.
Today's terrorist may well have been yesterday's informat, and may well be an informant again tomorrow.
After all, the CIA was deeply involved in Afghanistan back when the USSR was fighting there. And many of the people that the CIA supported then later turned against USA.
And round and round it goes. Too bad the public is made a to be a sucker every time.
From the article: "since lithium batteries are completely opaque to x-rays"
Everyone can go around with battery-less laptops so they can't use them in the few planes that get retrofit, and no other place without plugs.
And, thanks for the support... HN is always one of the first communities to upvote my work and help me share it with the world. As a computer scientist turned almost-lawyer, I definitely appreciate!
I mean are the people that operate daily these machines vetted to a level where you can totally exclude that they (in ALL airports wordwide) can be affiliated to whatever evil organization and do some tests after hours?
Does the same happen for all technicians that maintain/repair these devices?
Does the same happen for all designers of these devices?
Or if you prefer, do you believe that such a scanning machine cannot be re-built from commercial parts by someone who knows their innards?
Are ALL purchases of new scanners subject to governemnet approval (and even if yes, which government)?
> I mean are the people that operate daily these machines vetted to a level where you can totally exclude that they (in ALL airports wordwide) can be affiliated to whatever evil organization and do some tests after hours?
No, although after-hours testing may set off some alarms. I'm sure their on-hours experience would be useful, though.
> Does the same happen for all technicians that maintain/repair these devices?
No.
> Does the same happen for all designers of these devices?
Nope.
> Or if you prefer, do you believe that such a scanning machine cannot be re-built from commercial parts by someone who knows their innards?
Yes, I do believe that rebuilding a modern, advanced x-ray system from scrap components is beyond the capabilities of ISIS at the moment.
> Are ALL purchases of new scanners subject to governemnet approval (and even if yes, which government)?
The modern, advanced x-ray systems are not available to the general public. As to how exactly they are controlled, I'm not sure.
See also my comments to other users regarding the differences between modern x-rays and old school ones.
If you have a confederate operating the machine, it would seem easier to arrange to pass through their security line than to use the knowledge to make an X-ray look-alike bomb-laden laptop.
We need better methods for detecting energetic materials (and not just suspicious shapes) in luggage (detecting it concealed inside humans is harder and would require transmission x-ray which is not currently acceptable for airport security screening) that don't crumble when the adversary has unlimited access to the security scanner to test concealment methods.
Concealing knives is kinda easier than concealing energetic materials -- it is, for example, possible to machine a blade that fits perfectly inside a blunt, innocuous "sheath" so precisely (hi, wire EDM) that they appear as a single piece of metal. However, this is not so much of an issue nowadays, as no amount of threatening or stabbing with a knife will make a pilot open the cockpit door.
Bruce Schneier observed, like you did, that the heavily secured cockpit door is one of the only real improvements made to airplane security in the last few decades.
Yes, but not more so on aircraft. Passengers (who tend to not want to die in a suicide hijacking) will fight for their lives against hijackers who use knives. Sometimes the attempted hijackers die from the injuries sustained by the passengers fighting back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianjin_Airlines_Flight_7554
I really don't worry about knives on airplanes, what's scary is energetic materials (explosives or gunpowder) or someone tampering with electrical/avionics equipment.
Uh, yeah, they do. Have read anything about backscatter xray machines?
The real way to defeat these machines is to hide things in folds of your flesh. It can see through clothes, but not too much skin. In staged demonstrations, fat people have gotten a metal pistol through, no problem.
https://securitytoday.com/articles/2008/07/30/tsa-to-expand....
"Advantages of AT X-ray include a greatly enhanced image with the ability to target novel threat items resulting in fewer bag checks and faster throughput, and the ability to upgrade the system with enhanced algorithms."
...and that article describes the 2008 edition of the technology!
For a more technically-specific perspective, I can say that the newer machines take images from multiple angles and are closer to a medical CT scan than a old-school x-ray. Owning one would allow you to practice placing your items in a direction and location that would be least able to be seen by the operator.
edit- and push to get a standard for battery pack sizes to reduce the number of form factors, then implement a service where you give your used one at departure and get a new one at arrival.
Regulations like that one stink badly, but necessities drive progress and I see an opportunity here.
Or we could implement the Indian system, where you turn in your new batteries at departure and are given used ones on arrival. (Mysteriously, despite the assurance that they are the same batteries, they have sometimes changed brand, too.)
Read more: https://professional-troublemaker.com/2017/05/22/update-newe...
Everyones always been telling me that if I want to bring down a plane I should set the cabin on fire, not the cargo hold. Have I been living a lie?
