Researcher Evan Booth: How To Weaponize Tax-Free Airport Goods 288
New submitter MickeyF71 writes "At the Hack in the Box security conference security expert Evan Booth shares the results of his two year research on the effectiveness of airport security. He demonstrates how easy it is to produce lethal weapons from goods easily bought from the tax-free section at most airports."
Google's translation of the Dutch in that link isn't ideal. For those who prefer English to Dutch, Booth's presentation at CarolinaCon 2013 (YouTube video) may be a better bet.
First Post (Score:5, Funny)
I'll be reading TFA while standing in the TSA security line at the airport.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they are not there for security. They are there to enforce conformity.
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
If the TSA guys could read they'd probably give you an hard time.
They needed research for this? (Score:5, Funny)
Go into any duty free shop and make a bee line to the liquor section. There's something wonderfully flammable stuff there.
Although, for some of those Scotches, if a terrorist were to use them, you'd see Fark headlines like: "The Horror! 30 year old Scotch murdered in terrorist act! A plane and people died too."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what I was thinking. Some vodka, a lighter, a handkerchief...
Re: (Score:2)
That would certainly be the Fark headline.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Indeed. I have been thinking this since 9/11. The TSA was an obvious scan right from the beginning,
Re: (Score:2)
Go into any duty free shop and make a bee line to the liquor section. There's something wonderfully flammable stuff there.
Booze is actually very difficult to light, you really have to heat it up before you can light it. Go try it if you don't believe me...
Hint: Buy a travel steam iron in the shop and head for the baby changing room to heat your bottle vodka for ten minutes before boarding.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the booze also. Some booze is pretty flammable, but honestly I doubt they sell it in large quantities in an airport, maybe at a semi decent bar if your lucky to find a shot of it. But some booze will light if sprayed from your mouth on a flame, the flame is usually produced by cloth on a stick soaked in said booze already ignited at the appropriate temperatures for ignition. Ive seen it in person.
It wouldn't make an effective weapon though, theres better options. Maybe moderately useful as a d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They needed research for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottle the stuff comes in makes a pretty good weapon. Also, a bit of flaming booze thrown around a plane would cause quite a but of panic even if it didn't hurt anyone much. Certainly a few glass bottles of alcohol are more dangerous than my tube of toothpaste or that old lady's orange juice.
Re:They needed research for this? (Score:5, Interesting)
You've watched too many action movies.
When someone splashes alcohol in your face and lights it, the very last
thing you will be thinking about is beating them up. You WILL be thinking
about you face being on fire.
I think it's you that's watched too many movies--booze does not burn all that well. While splashing alcohol in 1 person's face and lighting it might, possibly, incapacitate that person, it is not any way to incapacitate the entire flight crew and all the other passengers. The end result would be an attacker struggling to not suffocate, because it is actually very hard to breathe when hog-tied, and especially with one or more knees in your back.
Oh, by the way--you do realize there's fire extinguishers on board, and the flight attendants know where they are and how to use them? Right? So what do you think they're going to do with the fire extinguisher after they empty it? ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's you that's watched too many movies--booze does not burn all that well. While splashing alcohol in 1 person's face and lighting it might, possibly, incapacitate that person, it is not any way to incapacitate the entire flight crew and all the other passengers. The end result would be an attacker struggling to not suffocate, because it is actually very hard to breathe when hog-tied, and especially with one or more knees in your back.
You can not "incapacitate the entire flight crew and all the other passengers" with knives either. But planes have been hijacked with knives before.
Re:They needed research for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
But planes have been hijacked with knives before 9/12/2001.
Fixed that for you.
Re:They needed research for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
But planes have been hijacked with knives before 9/12/2001.
Fixed that for you.
Aye. That fact pretty much makes the whole TSA utterly pointless. No one is going to even try hijacking a plane, not anymore. Blowing it up, maybe, but not hijacking. And there are vastly easier targets if you just want to kill a few people with explosives (the queue for the security checkpoint, for example).
Re:They needed research for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I'm obviously not the only one who got that.
9/11 was like the trojan horse (the original one, not the malware). It was a once in a lifetime, actually, once in history stunt. It will never ever work again. The reason it worked was simply cooperation on the side of the attacked. Yes, cooperation. Not in the sense that they actually helped them, but that they didn't resist thinking that it's "only" a simple plane hijacking.
Try it again and at the very least 50% of the people in the plane will be all over you. Quite seriously, if I let you continue, I will die anyway. If I fight you, I have a fighting chance to survive. Cut, bruised and maybe lethally stabbed, but there's a chance.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, many passengers may also have the following thought:
If I do nothing, I can let someone else be cut, bruised and maybe lethally stabbed, but I can come out of this unscathed.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite possibly. But there's a plane of 300 people against you. One PERCENT of them is enough. And all it takes is a father/mother thinking "I may die, but my kid who sits next to me will survive".
Re:They needed research for this? (Score:4, Informative)
It appears that you are very wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings [wikipedia.org]
Re:They needed research for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Count the number of US flags in that list prior to 9/11/2001 (you'll need more than than the standard complement of fingers and toes).
Now count the number of US flags in that list post 9/11/2001 (I'll help here, the answer is 0).
Re: (Score:2)
And the keyword is "before". As we all know, 9/11 changed everything.
Before, a hijacking meant an unplanned trip to Cuba or an inconvenient delay on the tarmac while the hijacker negotiates for ransom money. (And the hijacking situation was probably more convenient than some flight delays [go.com]) . So sit back, relax, and do what they tell you.
Re:They needed research for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
This. 9/11 changed the perception of hijackings. And hell, during 9/11 one plane's passengers did resist successfully.
Re: (Score:2)
And hell, during 9/11 one plane's passengers did resist successfully.
Are you referring to Flight 93? The one that crashed into the ground? If that's your definition of success I'm taking the train.
Re:They needed research for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
They knew they were dead anyways, fight or not. They did save a bunch of other lives...
Re: (Score:3)
Half successful. The plane was rendered unable for use as a weapon against those on the ground. And those people had to debate and make a decision. I think today the decision would be automatic.
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC there have been a few cases since where one guy on a plane starts to set off an explosive and the people around him go medieval on him, trying to disable him and the weapon.
Re: (Score:3)
Both are fine. Though I doubt the US military command was competent enough that particular day to manage with your version.
And we all know that no news company has ever had incorrect garbage entered into their news feed before, so that particular example must have been gospel truth, right?
Re:Flight 93 is a myth (Score:4, Informative)
Not always intentionally incorrect, either. Sometimes they're just prepping two possible stories with different headlines and differing by only a paragraph or two.
Re: (Score:3)
People with young children on the aircraft.
Re:They needed research for this? (Score:4, Funny)
Precisely.
Young children are compact and easily thrown to distract or injure a hijacker.
Re:They needed research for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Beyond the many parents who have chimed in, I'd be running in the front if my wife were on the plane.
I've been in situations like that. And I've run into some really bad things. It's a powerful instinct. Sure your life is valuable: but if you're living it right, it isn't the most valuable thing in your care.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes - and no. It depends on levels of adrenaline, testosterone, somewhat on rational decisions, training, and more. The pain, and the surprise, in the situation you describe will stop almost everyone, almost 100% of the time. Pure shock almost always stops everyone.
But - there are exceptions. Depending on how things developed into a struggle to the death, the guy being sprayed with burning alcohol may well understand that he is dead whether he fights or not. Some really hard core sumbitches will strugg
Re: (Score:2)
I can second this, its not easy to bring down some people. Some people have a blind rage and once you injure them, your response is not shock. Unless that injury is massive and going to kill you in seconds anyway.
Re:They needed research for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've never been around liquor, have you?
It's not really flammable. Yeah, no. Until you start getting to high-proof stuff, it *won't* burn (unless you throw it into a hot skillet and light it, the heat will evaporate it quickly and the alcohol VAPOR will light, but the liquid form? no dice brah, you can't light your shot of bourbon on fire). 151 will burn if lit, and pure grain alcohol obviously burns REALLY well, but 80 proof? 90? That won't burn.
Throw it in my face, go ahead. The only thing that'll hurt is possibly a stinging in my eyes. Now, try to light it, and while you're fumbling with a tiny lighter thinking that just by bringing it near me that I'll combust like in the movies?... haha, well, go ahead, that would be fucking hilarious.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, see Brandy and her many sisters.
Next question.
Re: They needed research for this? (Score:5, Informative)
Molotov cocktail with vodka?
It won't work. Vodka -- and in fact most liquors -- are mostly water. 80-proof beverages are only 40% alcohol, and it needs to be at least 50% (100 proof) alcohol* to burn (strong stuff like 151-proof rum is sold with a flame arrestor built into the top of the bottle.)
(*If the beverage is warmed you can coax a flame off of the alcohol evaporating out of the liquid -- this is how you ignite brandy; it has to be warmed first. But as soon as you splash it or try to spray it, it will cool below the ignition point.)
If the bottle is glass it would make a more dangerous weapon than the liquid inside it.
All I could tell from the link (Score:3)
As far as the article, this is not surprising given that security theater dominates our security policy. Look at school shootings. Evidently from what I have read, professors do not have the ability to lock many university classrooms, so they have to barricade of sacrifice themselves. I read this week that the police are now recommending that we take defensive action when someone tries to shoot us. What were school doing before, opening all the doors and lining the kids in the hallways to be executing? At school the policy is to lock doors, hide, and stay away from windows when a attack is announced. Which is to be done before the administration sacrifices themselves. Good defensive positions saves lives.
Of course the answer is always more guns, which is really going to some good when a truck full of claymores and fertilizer is driven into a school courtyard, or when some explodes their group 1 element on the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidently from what I have read, professors do not have the ability to lock many university classrooms, so they have to barricade of sacrifice themselves.
This is being changed after the Virginia Tech shootings. Where faculty was unable to lock classroom doors, the shooter was able to enter. Where students were taken to lockable offices, they survived. Classroom door locks are now being added to many schools.
I don't know why they were ever removed. Back in my day, classrooms not in use were locked as a matter of policy (when no staff was present). Otherwise, students could enter and utilize them for 'unsanctioned' activities. I have many interesting stories
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why they were ever removed. Back in my day, classrooms not in use were locked as a matter of policy (when no staff was present). Otherwise, students could enter and utilize them for 'unsanctioned' activities. I have many interesting stories from my high scool music department practice rooms.
I had a private smoking lounge in the maintenance space above ours. (Wonder if anyone ever found the bong I think I left up there.) I was in practically every musical group the school had, and so received a key that just so happened to open *that* lock, too, my sophomore year... :)
Nobody ever guessed how I managed never to get busted in the restrooms or trying to sneak out to the far parking lot. Since I wasn't supposed to tell any of the other students that I had what turned out to be a master key to every
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why they were ever removed. Back in my day, classrooms not in use were locked as a matter of policy (when no staff was present). Otherwise, students could enter and utilize them for 'unsanctioned' activities. I have many interesting stories from my high scool music department practice rooms.
I had a private smoking lounge in the maintenance space above ours. (Wonder if anyone ever found the bong I think I left up there.) I was in practically every musical group the school had, and so received a key that just so happened to open *that* lock, too, my sophomore year... :)
Nobody ever guessed how I managed never to get busted in the restrooms or trying to sneak out to the far parking lot. Since I wasn't supposed to tell any of the other students that I had what turned out to be a master key to every room and office in the whole music wing... I of course abided by the conditions under which I'd been given the key, and didn't tell a soul!
No worries, slashdot readers do not have souls.
Over thinking it (Score:5, Interesting)
That guy is over thinking it. A wine bottle and a roll of duct tape can be used to make a good knife - and on international flights they serve wine in glass bottles. Credit cards can have their edges honed to the point of being as sharp as box cutters.
About the only thing worthwhile is using a remote controlled toy to trigger something.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Over thinking it (Score:4, Insightful)
Bar fights are done without the duct tape. Just use any glass or bottle and break the end while holding it.
That's a good way to end up with a handful of blood and broken glass. It's not easy to break the end off of a bottle without breaking the whole bottle. Amateur bottle fighters are little more than business for surgeons. There's a very good reason for the duct tape.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Someday children will have stories about how their parents met while suing each other for sneezing inappropriately. Times are changing.
My daddy's lawyers are bigger than your daddy's lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
Be prepared to find your name on a no-fly list for no real reason. You clearly are a problem to national security. You can think.
Ruining it for everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Who wants to bet that the ultimate outcome of this talk becoming known to the public at large will be to close duty-free stores at international airports? Frankly, while I agree that airport security as it exists is basically theater which provides little-to-no meaningful increase in actual safety, I sort of feel like pointing out what you can do with items you're allowed to purchase on the "secure side of the fence" as it were, is akin to the people who point out that more murders are perpetrated with hand guns than assault rifles: they think they're making a logical point, but all they're doing is creating a causus belli for their opponents to expand their reach to target handguns, too -- NOT providing a rational argument for passing over banning assault weapons.
On the other hand, as a security industry professional, I'm naturally inclined to find things like this kind of cool. But seriously, I don't think anything good will come from this from a policy standpoint.
Re:Ruining it for everyone (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ruining it for everyone (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like Gitmo is the place to be. Lots of educated and devoted people. Would be a good group to work with. Furthermore, I love the Cuban climate and the cigars are to die for.
Sign me up!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plutonium nailclippers? We are not defending against those because we know islamic suicide terrorists are not gay: they want to get their harem of virgins in heaven.
Just to be clear - is this AC suggesting that people who trim their nails are gay?
Re:Ruining it for everyone (Score:4, Informative)
What was the point of seizing them at security?
Aside from the obvious security theater, they also sell [cnn.com] the items [wsj.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Good deals, too. That's where I get all of my discount used nail clippers!
Re:Ruining it for everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
What was the point of seizing them at security?
To make you buy from the duty free store. The stores were losing money, and needed an influx of forced shoppers so that the airports could increase rent fees. I'll bet most of the confiscation rules were suggested by airports and not airlines or security professionals.
Re: (Score:3)
BTW: do they somehow scan all of the merchandise that was brought into the secured area, like the bottled water that you can't bring across security?
No! That's the best part. As I am forced to throw away my water-bottle, I see a random worker bring in a palette of water bottles and go in without so much as a scan (they just open the door).
I am almost certain the airport vendors lobbied for that particular rule. Water/soda prices have almost doubled in the last few years.
Re:Ruining it for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately our security means little compared to the ability of the shops to sell "things" - hence the fact that we can still buy such things in the departures lounge even though it is clearly a security risk. The money they make (and thus the rent the pay to the airport) matters more than absolute security. Indeed some of the shops were no doubt delighted when the 100 ml rule came in, as now they can sell us elementary things like a bottle of water that we are not allowed to take through security.
Uhm, no. (Score:5, Informative)
Antiquated rules on the requirements for how long people need to be there before the flight are maintained to ensure there is a large number of trapped people sitting about who want to buy food/drink and who get bored or are addicted anyway to buying things they don't really need in shops.
There are three sets of rules about when you need to be at the airport:
- Check-in time: Usually 30 minutes. This cutoff is to both give you time to get through security and the airline time to put other people in your seat if you don't show. But, since you can check in online anytime within 24 hours of your flight, this doesn't really put any requirement on you as to when you have to be at the airport.
- Back Check Time: Usually the same as the check-in time, and usually 30 minutes, although at some airports it's more. This is to make sure that the airline has time to get your bag to the plane and loaded on it. 30 minutes is pretty reasonable here (and the airports where it's longer, like Las Vegas, there's a reason.)
- At The Gate time: 15 or 30 minutes prior to departure, depending on whether you're doing domestic or international departure. As a practical matter though, this is really "before they are done boarding the plane". If it's 10 minutes to departure and they've still got a line of people getting on the plane, they won't know you're not there. But if it's 25 minutes before departure on an international flight and you're not on the plane and they are done boarding, they're going to pull your bags from the plane.
Why 30 for international but only 15 for domestic? Because the airlines are not required to fly your bags on the same plane as you domestically, but they are required to do so internationally, so they need the extra 15 minutes to get bags off the plane.
So, yes, there are rules about when you have to be at the airport and at the gate. But they have nothing to do with getting people to shop.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That won't happen, because ultimately airports are only profitable as they are run as giant shops. Antiquated rules on the requirements for how long people need to be there before the flight are maintained to ensure there is a large number of trapped people sitting about who want to buy food/drink and who get bored or are addicted anyway to buying things they don't really need in shops.
Yeah, the airport shops like having people there, but you know what? They don't need "antiquated rules" to force people to come early. You know what would make them even MORE money, get rid of the stupid security checkpoint. BOOM instant customer increase as non passengers would be allowed in the airport.
They already have enough people due to lay overs, and people wanting to come earlier. Throw in non passengers who are waiting for arrivals, or hanging out until departure...
Some of train stations in Eur
Re: (Score:3)
Although I can imagine certain items being banned or screened more careful, I'd suspect that the lobbying of airports / airlines will protect the duty free shops from significant changes. Similarly, I've always suspected that the restrictions on liquids would have been lifted quickly if they were a financial pain (rather than a financial benefit) to the airports / airlines / shops.
Just my opinion, though, it's not like there's (as far as I'm aware!) particularly good insight available into how and what the
So what.. (Score:2)
Why work so hard? (Score:4, Interesting)
While cute, this is really overthinking the problem.
If you want to kill lots of people in an aviation related way, send a suicide bomber to the security checkpoint at Thanksgiving.
If you want to get weapons onto the plane, infiltrate someone into the cleaning staff or maybe the caterers. There are lots of people and vehicles who enter the airport without being rigorously searched. Have them leave a weapon for you in the airplane's bathroom or taped under your seat.
Re: (Score:2)
True. In the end the security checkpoint will be built in the door frame of your home.
Re: (Score:3)
Rubbish weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
The weapons in the photos look scary, but I bet they'd be really rubbish in real life. For example, the club is made from a rolled up magazine and some Liberty statuettes. It is small, not very heavy, not very sharp, and would probably fall apart if it was used.
Really any of these weapons is insignificant compared to what an fit but unarmed human can do. And that's why aeroplanes are safe these days: any hijacker will have to take on a hundred or more strong and highly motivated passengers.
Re: (Score:3)
The weapons in the photos look scary, but I bet they'd be really rubbish in real life. For example, the club is made from a rolled up magazine and some Liberty statuettes. It is small, not very heavy, not very sharp, and would probably fall apart if it was used.
Really any of these weapons is insignificant compared to what an fit but unarmed human can do. And that's why aeroplanes are safe these days: any hijacker will have to take on a hundred or more strong and highly motivated passengers.
+1. The rules have changed - it used to be "submit, avoid confrontation and eventually the hijackers will release you; even if it is after a prolonged period of time." Now it is "Kill the bastards before they can kill you." Whenever I fly I take note of what I can use to protect myself - whether it is my very sharp point all metal pen, my all metal laptop, or the power cord.
Re:Rubbish weapons (Score:5, Informative)
You'd be surprised at how effective seemingly benign things like this are. It sounds akin to a Milwall brick [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Rubbish weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet it can smash a coconut in multiple pieces in one hit according to the article. He did 2 years of research so it would be rather rubbish if he came up with a armory of weapons that fall apart on first use.
Sounds impressive doesn't it. But if you tried you could easily smash a coconut with your bare hands. However it would be very different if the coconut had arms and legs and was defending itself. And if there were a hundred of them, you would soon be overwhelmed.
If your goal is to injure one random person on a plane then nothing and nobody can prevent you. Almost anything will serve as a weapon, and if you are reasonably strong you don't even need a weapon. But that's a preposterous idea, because the remaining passengers will flatten you and you will spend the rest of your life in jail.
If your goal is to take over a plane then a rolled-up magazine laced to a handful of trinkets will not help.
Arbitrariness of airport security (Score:2)
This is one of the reasons airport security has bugged me so much - I've been inconvenienced over trivial things that don't really matter to security, whilst equivalent or greater threats just go unmentioned. I once had a cone spanner confiscated. That's a very small, thin spanner, suitable for adjusting bicycle bearings - and very little else - I'd lost it at the bottom of my bag and hadn't realised it was there (though I had flown the outbound leg successfully without security picking up on it!).
It was
Self defense classes (Score:3)
"That's my purse! I don't know you!" -Bobby Hill
This Is Why (Score:2)
This is why we can't have nice things.
But...will it change anything? (Score:2)
I daresay no one will argue an assertion that the liquor industry, as one example of an airport retailer, likewise has a significant lobbying presence in Washington, D.C...
My Q&D human translation of the Dutch article (Score:5, Informative)
Researcher builds bomb out of articles from airport shops
To demonstrate the futility of current airport security, next week a security expert will demonstrate a remotely controllable bomb. All the materials were bought at the airport once past security.
The detonation mechanism will be presented at security conference Hack in the Box in Amsterdam. It is the result of two years of research by security expert Evan Booth.
“There are all kinds of things we cannot take with us and security checks for those. But it turns out that this doesn’t make much sense,” says Booth.
The detonation mechanism is the result of more than two years of research into deficient security at airports and available materials which are sold the in stores which are located ait airports behind customs.
Drone
To build the mechanism, Booth has used a Zippo lighter, disposable lighters, adhesive tape, dental floss and a remote controlled drone. “Which can be opreated with a mobile phone through a wireless network”, claims Booth.
He used the engine from the drone to operate the zippo lighter. With disposable lighters, it is possible subsequently to create a blowtorch. By doing this, it would be possible to cause a fire, but at the conference Booth will present a more developed concept which even enables the detonation of a bomb.
Simple
“The trick is to prove that you can have dangerous weapons on board without carrying any forbidden items with you”, Booth has stated to NU.nl.
Apart from a bomb, Booth also managed without much effort to create a bow and arrow out of items he had bought in a shop at an airport. For this, he used an umbrella, a hairdryer, socks, a leather belt and condoms. He did not want to further develop things were too obvious, such as using a lighter and deodorant as an alternative gas burner.
Also remarkable is a club he created out of a souvenir, some magazines, dental floss, a leather belt and adhesive tape. During a test, this club turned out to be so solid that a single strike sufficed to break a coconut into several pieces.
Profiling
“Airport security has not been done well for a while now. What annoys me, is that we spend a lot of money on it and, for example, violate people’s privacy with body scanners. In the meantime, it turns out it doesn’t work well”, explains Booth.
“It is a difficult problem, but I don’t know if this security makes any sense at all. I believe more in good intelligence and preventing the wrong people from coming to the airport.”
To pre-empt problems with authorities, Booth has contacted the responsible government agencies in the United States in February. “I have offered to demonstrate my research and provide explanations, but I haven’t received any response. In the meantime, I have continued my research.”
Wait what? (Score:2)
Since when can you buy lighters in airports?
And I wouldn't count making a bow and arrow as being successful at getting a (useful) weapon on a plane. A bow and arrow is a virtually useless device in the close-quarters of an aircraft.
Re: (Score:3)
I've only ever seen "multiple" lighters confiscated.
I've done most of my flying post 9/11, I think one trip before. I had one of two lighters confiscated, after the agent confirmed you're only allowed the one, kinda. That was pre 9/11.
My mother is a lighter kleptomaniac, she took a flight once with a dozen lighters in her handbag, only realised when they got confiscated on the return trip.
Post 9/11 I had an entire computer sans the case in my carry on luggage, including a power supply which just scans as a
Honestly? (Score:2)
Did anyone honestly believe it was the opposite?
Not news: knowledge has always been ... (Score:2, Insightful)
... a more powerful weapon. Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and turn anything into a powerful weapon, including their own body. Anyone with a knowledge of chemistry of physics is more capable of making use of the things that they find around them. Anyone with a knowledge of psychology or security is better able to manipulate the mechanisms that are supposed to keep us safe. And the list could go on.
Next headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Next headline will read:
TSA: How To Eliminate Researcher Evan Booth While Pretending To Be In Line With The Constitution
What this tells us about the scope of the problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
This ought to teach us just how disorganized and scarce these "Al Quaeda" suicidal terrorists are. If there were that many of them, they'd have figured out how to make airplane assault weapons long before this guy's ideas made it into print.
We are being sold a bill of goods by contractors who want the government to buy their overpriced "anti-terrorist" product-of-the-month.
Every damn politician is now afraid of being perceived as "soft on terrorism," and we now have an Antiterrorism Industry intent on perpetuating itself.
This is getting REALLY stupid . . . almost as stupid as the internet bubble.
Great (Score:2)
Just at the moment they were relaxing the regulations requiring mothers to drink their own milk and fathers to drink their urine...
But can it down the aircraft? (Score:4, Insightful)
As evidenced by TSA's recent and uncharacteristically sensible decision to ignore pen knives and other little sharps the agency has reaffirmed that they only care about stuff that can down the aircraft. No one can hijack any more by threatening the life of another passenger or crew member because since 9/11 the response to such threats has shifted from compliance to defiance. Armed with a bow and arrow made from an "umbrella, hair dryer, socks, a leather belt and condoms." a would-be attacker would receive a hearty laugh and a face full of mace. Emergency landing to treat passenger wounded by umbrella shaft? Yes.
I dare you to try to visualize the weapon in question and keep a straight face.
Joking aside, a determined group of attackers could create a lot of chaos with or without crap bought in duty free. In the right hands even a pair of eyeglasses is lethal. Godfather III anyone? But with the flight deck firmly locked the bird is probably safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
I once had a transparent bottle with one finger of liquid left in it (clearly visible) confiscated because the bottle was too big. Even though bigger bottles were available in the shop behind the scanner (also clearly visible).
Re:WTH does tax-free have to do with the subject o (Score:5, Informative)
You missed the point: you can bring in large empty bottles, or small bottles filled with liquid, but not large bottles with a small amount of liquid. The regulations are arbitrary and near-useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTH does tax-free have to do with the subject o (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh, the *boom* will be when you try to compress acetylene above 15psi.
A few liters of acet-oxy mix makes a nice boom but little damage, I've had a quart sandwich bag of mix go off in my hands, not even a tingle.
30 gal trashbag with a nice lean mix will audibly echo in the hudson valley for at least 190 seconds, assuming your ears were plugged for the boom.
Re: WTH does tax-free have to do with the subject (Score:3, Interesting)
I wanna hang out with this guy..
Re: WTH does tax-free have to do with the subject (Score:5, Funny)
I wanna hang out with this guy..
Bring ear protection.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
REALLY? VALIDITY?
aaaghhhh my head.
LIQUID EXPLOSIVES ARE NOT AND WERE NEVER A DANGER, THEY ARE FAR LESS ENERGETIC THAN SOLID EXPLOSIVES AND FAR MORE DANGEROUS TO TRANSPORT.
Anyone trying to blow up a plane with a liquid explosive is either going to blow up on the way to the airport, or do just enough damage to hurt themselves and no one else.
The whole liquid restriction bullshit is just that, bullshit. And furthermore Susan I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that it was encouraged by the vendors
Re: (Score:3)
The cabin is a fairly large area and can take in air from the exterior. The risk isn't nearly what you make it out to be, unless someone's carrying a few gallon jugs onto the plane -- but realistically, without TSA and their liquid restrictions, *someone carrying several gallons of shit would never get on a plane anyway*.
Because it's strange, and someone would ask "why are you carrying 3 gallons of liquid" and the game would be over.
But, yeah. Cabin air isn't enclosed, it's not a tight space. There is ai
Re:WTH does tax-free have to do with the subject o (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA recently changed policies to allow pocket knives, nail clippers, hockey sticks, and box cutters back on planes. Box cutters, you'll remember, were used on 9/11/2001. The reality is, many prohibited items pass through security on a daily basis. You've heard stories about people the TSA failing their own security checks (fake bombs, guns, etc). You probably haven't heard any stories about the TSA actually stopping a terrorist. This is not because they're too modest to tell anyone.
All is not lost, since cockpit doors are still locked during the flight and passengers know a plane hijacking no longer means "free trip to cuba" but "you will die" which changes the dynamic (c.f United Airlines flight 93).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, correct. And people on slashdot continue to post this on every airplane-related story, and continue to mod these posts insightful, and continue to agree with them.
Meanwhile, the TSA continues to get more funding, continues to grow in power, and continues to perpetuate its injusticies against innocent people both inside of and outside of [wikipedia.org] airports.
Pointing out how wrong and wasteful they are, to an audience of geeks, accomplishes nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
This comes up every time we talk about this problem.
Israel is not a good model for the US. It is the size of New Jersey with a single International airport. Their admittedly effective system cannot be used in the US - it just won't scale and it revolves around racial profiling - another no no in America.
Try again.