Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Object Lessons: Evan Booth's Post-Checkpoint Airport Weapons

timothy posted about a year ago | from the millwall-brick dept.

Government 208

Jah-Wren Ryel writes "In early-2013, independent security researcher, Evan 'treefort' Booth, began working to answer one simple question: Can common items sold in airports after the security screening be used to build lethal weapons? As it turns out, even a marginally 'MacGyver-esque' attacker can breeze through terminal gift shops, restaurants, magazine stands and duty-free shops to find everything needed to wage war on an airplane." We mentioned Evan's work several months back; now his not-just-a-thought-experiment exploration of improvised weapons has been cleaned up and organized, so you don't have to watch his (fascinating) talks to experience the wonders of the Chucks of Liberty (video) or the Fragguccino (video).

cancel ×

208 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wondering (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45441701)

After watching the videos... did I just put myself on a list somewhere?

Re:Wondering (5, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 10 months ago | (#45442461)

I'm not sure if you noticed, but at this point I think it's safe to say that we're ALL on the list.

Who cares, that shit wont happen again. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45441703)

Who cares, that shit wont happen again.

So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (2)

mike555 (2843511) | about 10 months ago | (#45441717)

So, airport security checks are useless and no more than a waste of taxpayers' money. Time to scrap TSA and the likes around the world.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0, Flamebait)

Camembert (2891457) | about 10 months ago | (#45441741)

So, airport security checks are useless and no more than a waste of taxpayers' money. Time to scrap TSA and the likes around the world.

A popular opinion on slashdot. But naive.
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without. Honestly, what would be your preference?
You can bet that terrorists would find it an easy attack vector if there were no checks anymore.
It is true that they may now start to resort to tactics that were not imaginable just a few years ago, like implanting in their body - but no security checks would make their attempts so much easier.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45441765)

There are so few terrorists its irrelevant.

When hundreds of people are dying daily from terrorist attacks involving airplanes there might be some argument. There aren't and there isn't any evidence to suggest that the TSA has ever even prevented an attack.

What there is evidence of is economic harm as the result of our decisions to scrutinize every passenger boarding a flight.

Terrorism has an insignificant impact compared to the costs of fighting it. Compare it to any other risk and we're much better spending our money on curing cancer, reducing vehicular accidents, etc.

Flying is the safest method of travel with or without the TSA. That's the truth of the matter and man kind just can't see beyond the emotional aspects of threats. As a result we do the most illogical thing possible passing bad rules/polices/laws and accept the most illogical thing in accepting the legislation (society).

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1, Troll)

Zumbs (1241138) | about 10 months ago | (#45441893)

Let me quote wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

Between 1948 and 1957, there were 15 hijackings worldwide, an average of a little more than one per year. Between 1958 and 1967, this climbed to 48, or about five per year. The number dropped to 38 in 1968, but grew to 82 in 1969, the largest number in a single year in the history of civil aviation; in January 1969 alone, eight airliners were hijacked to Cuba.[5] Between 1968 and 1977, the annual average jumped to 41.

Now, how many aircrafts have you heard being hijacked over the last decade? Do you think that the heightened security level has nothing to do with that?

Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45441917)

High jacking was much easier then. The door to the cockpit was not locked and secured.

Apples. Oranges.

And don't forget the different politic climate and the different goals of the high jackers.

In a nutshell you can't derive potential high jacking cases from the past.

Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (4, Funny)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 10 months ago | (#45442147)

High jacking was much easier then. The door to the cockpit was not locked and secured.

Apples. Oranges.

And don't forget the different politic climate and the different goals of the high jackers.

In a nutshell you can't derive potential high jacking cases from the past.

Really it was the crackdown on drugs on airplanes that put paid to the high jackers. Now the best they can manage are drunk jackers.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (3, Informative)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 10 months ago | (#45441941)

I think the singular rule that stopped hijackings of substantial significance was enacted [cbsnews.com] far later than the other provisions that represent a significant step backwards for freedom.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (4, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 10 months ago | (#45442027)

Actually some credit should go to the x-ray scanners and walk-through metal detectors as well. With those two in place it is basically impossible to sneak a viable bomb aboard an aircraft now. Sure, you can get explosives through, but not the types that are easy to detonate. The shoe bomber and pants bomber both managed to get explosives on board but were unable to detonate them because the process was so involved other passengers noticed and stopped them.

Even without locked cockpit doors hijacking would be almost impossible now anyway, since passengers don't assume they will be safe if they co-operate any more. They assume the hijacker might be planning to crash the aircraft into a building and kill them anyway, so will keep fighting them no matter what.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 10 months ago | (#45442467)

They assume the hijacker might be planning to crash the aircraft into a building and kill them anyway, so will keep fighting them no matter what.

I know this is the popular opinion, but I really have a hard time buying into this notion.

Yes, we have the example of Flight 93 but I think that's an exception to the rule as a direct result of the passengers learning of the three other attacks. In this case, there was direct evidence that the terrorists were very likely to destroy the airplane and this prodded the passengers into action.

However, barring similar circumstances I do not see a repetition of these events, especially if the hijackers have even a modicum of common sense. People are not generally prone to putting themselves in harms way unless the threat is dire and imminent. They are also very likely to believe any lies told convincing them that there is no imminent threat. I believe that all the hijackers need do to prevent another revolt is 1) appear appropriately menacing, 2) assure their prisoners that the ultimate goal is /not/ to immolate themselves and everyone else on the plane in some fiery statement of defiance, 3) prevent the passengers from learning the lie behind point no. 2. Given these circumstances, the passengers will remain in their seats rather than attempting to re-take the vehicle. I'd even wager that in these circumstances that any would-be heroes would be as likely restrained by their fellow passengers as by the criminals themselves.

I would in no way depend on the passengers to protect the plane as any sort of security measure.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442729)

That's silly. The hi-jackers are not going to be able to get to the point of trying to convince the passengers of anything.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 10 months ago | (#45442763)

You have a point, but it would only work once or twice before no one would believe them (or at least a sufficiently large fraction of the population would not believe them).

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45442587)

Has any hijacking been attempted since? I can't really recall any. Besides, aircraft high jackings have been out of fashion since the late 1980s.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

bitt3n (941736) | about 10 months ago | (#45442393)

I think the singular rule that stopped hijackings of substantial significance was enacted [cbsnews.com] far later than the other provisions that represent a significant step backwards for freedom.

What stopped hijackings is the fact that the 9/11 hijackers crashed their planes.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442693)

THANK YOU.

As proven in flight 93 (the 4th plane). Once you know or assume you are going to die, the crowd overtakes (attempts to) the high jackers.

IIRC there was some idiot who tried it in Africa about 3 months after 9/11 and the whole plane took turns beating the shit out of him.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (5, Informative)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 10 months ago | (#45441951)

"In 1973, the Nixon Administration ordered the discontinuance by the CIA of the use of hijacking as a covert action weapon against the Castro regime. Cuban intelligence followed suit. "

You oh so conveniently missed that bit out.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | about 10 months ago | (#45442753)

Again, quoting wikipedia:

However, the situation has not returned to the pre-1968 level and the number of successful hijackings continues to be high - an average of 18 per annum during the 10-year period between 1988 and 1997, as against the pre-1968 average of five.[2]

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45441971)

Now, how many aircrafts have you heard being hijacked over the last decade?

That's awful logic, because you're ignoring all the other things that changed as well. Secured cockpit doors. The willingness of passengers to fight back. Etcetera.

Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 10 months ago | (#45442355)

How do passengers fight back against explosives again? Hijacking isn't the only threat anymore, in case you haven't noticed.

Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442487)

You can kill far more people by just blowing up the airport instead of a single airplane.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (4, Interesting)

terryducks (703932) | about 10 months ago | (#45442009)

Do you think that the heightened security level has ...

Nope, it doesn't. Hardened locked cockpits and passengers will to aprehend and beat the shit of of scoflaws will do that.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | about 10 months ago | (#45442727)

Are you seriously arguing that making it much more difficult to bring firearms and explosives on board has no effect on aircraft hijackings!? And that, say, a few machine guns will not deter passengers?

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442019)

Those are worldwide hijackings, and we're talking about a US measure. Try stats for US domestic flights vs US domestic policy (we could always do invasive checking just for international if that's warranted, but honestly international flights to/from the US probably don't warrant it either). Also, lumping all hijackings is silly as well. Many of those early hijackings were more to do with small criminals and there was no real intent to destroy a plane or kill the passengers. We didn't have 48x 9/11-level incidents between 1958 and 1967. Most of those were pretty benign "re-route us to this airport please" hijackings.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442015)

ive thought exactly this for a while but never heard it put out so clearly
whoever you are you are my new hero

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 10 months ago | (#45442079)

Terrorism has an insignificant impact compared to the costs of fighting it. Compare it to any other risk and we're much better spending our money on curing cancer, reducing vehicular accidents, etc.

Flying is the safest method of travel with or without the TSA. That's the truth of the matter and man kind just can't see beyond the emotional aspects of threats. As a result we do the most illogical thing possible passing bad rules/polices/laws and accept the most illogical thing in accepting the legislation (society).

You are being totally static in your assumptions, as though terrorism were the weather or something.

As well say something like "our town has such low crime that we should disband the police department. Much better to spend that money on pig feed inspections."

That certainly doesn't mean that the TSA is the best approach ... something like Israel's methodology would make more sense.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (3, Interesting)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 10 months ago | (#45442155)

That certainly doesn't mean that the TSA is the best approach ... something like Israel's methodology would make more sense.

Bulldozing the houses of anyone committing anything that could remotely be interpreted as an act of terror, with their elderly relatives still inside, would surely strike sufficient fear into other 'terrorists' that they wouldn't dare do anything!

(yeah I'm aware you are talking about the Israeli airport screening, which is demonstrably effective, just pointing out that the Israeli 'follow through' is nowhere near effective as a deterrent, just makes their opponents angrier).

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 10 months ago | (#45442699)

There are so few terrorists its irrelevant.

When hundreds of people are dying daily from terrorist attacks involving airplanes there might be some argument. There aren't and there isn't any evidence to suggest that the TSA has ever even prevented an attack.

To add a little perspective. 3000 people died in the attacks on 9-11-01. A tragedy to be sure. Almost that many people died ever

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45441781)

Taking the TSA's money and donating it to faith healers would be roughly equally effective at saving lives. Why don't we do that? I'm sure it would make people feel all warm and fuzzy as well.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45441783)

Terrorist can already own a commerce inside the terminal after the security screening, pass weapon among all the unchecked goods and hand it over to a accomplish that has passed security. In fact, i am pretty sure that how secret services of every nation are doing it.

Security check point are theatre to scare peoples into submission. It does noting to improve safety of anyone. National security is not the security of the peoples from harm, but the security of the individual in power from losing that power. In a democracy the elected member of the government are expandable. We can LITERALLY, replace them over night. They do no need extra 'security'. This is the strength of democracy; for as long as there are citizens we can find, among ourselves, a new leader to replace the previous one.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

mathew42 (2475458) | about 10 months ago | (#45441833)

In a democracy the elected member of the government are expandable. We can LITERALLY, replace them over night. They do no need extra 'security'. This is the strength of democracy; for as long as there are citizens we can find, among ourselves, a new leader to replace the previous one.

I'd suggest it is wise to provide elected members with an appropriate income and protection because theoretically it should reduce the ability of others to corrupt them. However I use the word theoretically because in many countries the influencers have become very sophisticated at manipulation.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (3, Funny)

gomiam (587421) | about 10 months ago | (#45442245)

In a democracy the elected member of the government are expandable.

They are usually quite inflated on their own, I don't think they are that expandable.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 10 months ago | (#45441789)

Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without.

You much prefer having people's rights violated? The land of the free and the home of the brave indeed.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45441831)

Again, a popular opinion but again, naive.

What 'rights' are you violating making a search. Nothing is being violated here. There are ways to make a proper search, people have been doing it for years, it's an accepted method of protection.

Go and do even a modicum of international air travel then imagine what it would be like if there were no checks.

While I abhor the reports for TSA (I won't fly to the USA because of this nonsense) and I agree that most of the way the checks are done by them is 'theatre', having professionally trained, and accountable 'agents' (or whatever you want to call them) making appropriate searches at borders of countries is sensible. We do not have such shrill protestations (at least as far as I can tell) in Europe where frankly many of those countries have had a far more thorough search regimen than the USA (and still do) but without all the stupidity of what the TSA have done.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (4, Interesting)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 10 months ago | (#45441871)

Again, a popular opinion but again, naive.

What's naive is your blind trust in the government. I find it so naive that it disgusts me throughly.

What 'rights' are you violating making a search.

Your privacy, and it also violates the fourth amendment; those are the obvious violations. Where in the US constitution does it give the government the power to molest people who want to get on a plane? Nowhere.

I don't want to be harassed by worthless government (or private) thugs just because I want to get on a plane.

There are ways to make a proper search

You can't violate everyone's rights just because some people may be terrorists. I don't even think you can selectively violate people's rights. Just leave people alone.

people have been doing it for years, it's an accepted method of protection.

I don't care how long it has been around or how accepted it is; I think it's absolutely immoral and disgusting. If you cared about freedom at all, I dare say you'd feel the same way.

Go and do even a modicum of international air travel then imagine what it would be like if there were no checks.

I think freedom is more important than security to anyone with a brain. With that said, the terrorist bogeymen are largely nonexistent; you've been duped.

While I abhor the reports for TSA (I won't fly to the USA because of this nonsense) and I agree that most of the way the checks are done by them is 'theatre', having professionally trained, and accountable 'agents' (or whatever you want to call them) making appropriate searches at borders of countries is sensible.

I disagree that randomly searching people can ever be appropriate or sensible. Freedom is simply more important to me than your or my ability to feel safe.

We do not have such shrill protestations (at least as far as I can tell) in Europe

That sounds like a problem to me.

where frankly many of those countries have had a far more thorough search regimen than the USA

Yeah, definitely sounds like a problem.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442101)

thank you, a sheeple who stands on their hind legs and bares their fangs at Empire, all too rare these days...

  we need more citizens who think more of their inalienable rights than pearl-clutching pantywaists who have been ascairt by propaganda...

we need to take back OUR country and stop this nonsense:
the price of freedom is eternal vigilance (not stop-and-frisking)...

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442169)

The correct term for people like him is 'Good American'. The just love following orders.

Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

trylak (935041) | about 10 months ago | (#45442343)

He said he lives in Europe so how is he a good American?

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

Z34107 (925136) | about 10 months ago | (#45441823)

You and people like you have done far more damage to this country than any terrorist could ever hope to achieve.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 10 months ago | (#45441837)

What is a "naive" opinion ? If you check the luggage, terrorist will find another way to scare you, and you will give up more of your freedom. TSA checkpoints are a show to make you feel safe while you're truly scared to death. The only rational way to answer a terror attack is not to change anything, continue living as if nothing happened.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 10 months ago | (#45441997)

I agree the rational thing is not to overreact. Doing nothing though is not always the answer either. When something bad happens its always worth trying to understand why and how and what it would take to prevent it or reduce the risk. Then you way your options.

Re-enforced cockpit doors locked during flight are a good response. They don't infringe on freedoms in a way much of anyone would find objectionable. Little Timmy can't get his cockpit tour anymore on a long flight but that is about it. The cost is low in the context of commercial aircraft maintenance. The risk of and potential consequences from a terrorist being on an aircraft are drastically reduced by this. Its a good response.

The rest of it however is a waste of money and time, and if we read our Constitution honestly not legal. A private company running an airport or airline could implement whatever security they want but government is runs up against the first and fourth amendment or should.

I have the right to peacefully assemble, which implies a right to travel to the assembly and my fourth amendment rights to be secure in my person and effects. If I want to assemble with people in California and I am in New York, air travel my be my only option for getting there in time, since it isn't a choice government should be barred from expecting my to waive my fourth amendment rights to exercise my first amendment rights.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (4, Insightful)

penix1 (722987) | about 10 months ago | (#45442307)

its always worth trying to understand why and how and what it would take to prevent it or reduce the risk.

Dealing with risk and mitigating against it is my primary job. So lets examine your comments from a mitigation point of view and see where it leads us...

To mitigate the risk you have to go to the root cause. Namely our foreign policy. The US has been building its empire trying to think of itself as the world's police. We meddle in other countries affairs both political and economic whether they asked for our help or not. We have supported dictatorial regimes as well as provide blind support for allies, especially Israel, whether they were right or wrong. We have invaded countries for natural resources and have economically sanctioned countries that refused to cooperate with the corporate interests of the US. Our belief in American Exceptionalism (the belief that we are somehow superior to everyone else) leads to an attitude that other countries see as arrogance. Our largest export isn't food or energy, it is weapons both advanced and deadly accurate.

So far, all our mitigation efforts have been reactionary to the incident as your comment points out without addressing the root causes. Our reaction to a terrorist with explosives in his shoes? Require everyone to take off their shoes for deep inspection. Our reaction to another terrorist with explosives in his drawers? Invasive pat downs and explicit x-ray machines that display everything under the clothing. Our reaction to the possibility of liquid explosives? Ban liquids on flights.

To truly mitigate this, we need to change our foreign policy to leave other countries alone to fight their own battles. We need to scale back our consumption of resources dramatically and ditch the attitude that we are the best thing since sliced bread. We need to stop the empire building and support of dictators that we use as proxies for that empire building. We need to stifle our corporate overlords in their quest for world domination and exploitation in the "global economy".

Lastly, we need to stop exporting weapons to everyone especially to those same regimes that are committing the worst atrocities whether they are allies or not.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (4, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | about 10 months ago | (#45442421)

My job is also mostly about risk identification and mitigation as well. I am not a believer in root cause analysis. Proximate cause analysis is more interesting and more useful, which is why its what the legal system usually aims for. Your root cause analysis may be correct. We might indeed prevent a considerable portion of future international terrorism by dealing with the military industrial complex and putting in some cooler heads to run the CIA.

That would not do anything to address all the other crazy reasons someone might decide to use an airliner as guided missile. Root cause analysis fallaciously assumes there is some single point up a decision tree that lead to branch where the event was possible. In the real world there is often more than one way to get somewhere.

The proximate cause of the towers getting hit on the other hand was "passengers were able to gain the ability to alter the flight path of the aircraft" A secured cockpit door addresses that. It addresses it no matter if the would be perp does it because the CIA install an oppressive regime that denies him his freedom in east whocaresisatan or because the voices in my head tell me to smash things.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about 10 months ago | (#45441843)

Don't need the whole TSA to screen for guns or bombs. The airlines were doing mostly OK before, except for the locked re-inforced cockpit doors. I don't know when air marshals stopped being used; in any case, their selection and training could likely use improvement; I'm not sure they're needful anyway.

Detectors ought to be at terminal entrances, not each airlines' booth. Check your guns at the door, pick 'em up on the way out.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 10 months ago | (#45441901)

Logan airport was infamous for poor security. It's why they the 9/11 attackers selected that airport.

And if you think surrendering your weapons at a door to a public area is safety enhancing, you've perhaps not thought out how those weapons will be stored and released only to the original owner. They _will_ be stolen.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#45441959)

May I recommend not bringing your weapons with you?
If you cannot trust handing them off to a sworn officer when you enter a secured area, maybe you should keep them at home.

As a matter of fact, should your weapon indeed get stolen, you can be pretty sure that it's unlikely to be by a foreign terrorist threatening a plane (since the personnel gets background checks), therefore the goal of protecting planes has been accomplished.
It will just, like most weapons stolen from homes and cars, be used for some illegal activity and likely be used to threaten others, but your Precious will clearly not land in the hands of foreign terrorists until at least the second black-market resale.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about 10 months ago | (#45441875)

I would prefer one without checks. It would make absolutely no difference to security. The bus to the airport would still be by far the most dangerous part of the journey, and it would take about 2 hours off the journey time.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 10 months ago | (#45441947)

Two hours? I've flown to and from (and within) the US quite a few times over the past year, and I don't think security has taken more than 10 minutes at any airport. Immigration took far longer on the way into the US, because the fingerprint scan and photo plus the passport check and the sequence of questions all take a long time per person.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#45442229)

You can't count on a swift passage through security. I believe it is still recommended that one arrives at a US airport a couple hours early just in case.

Having said that, there are other reasons to arrive early at an airport. So I don't believe that two hours would be saved, even if there was no security checks.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (5, Interesting)

cffrost (885375) | about 10 months ago | (#45441877)

Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without. Honestly, what would be your preference?

Honestly, I'd prefer that to travel without being subject to a warrantless search with no probable cause. I'd rather take a statistically insignificant risk and retain my Constitutional and human rights, as opposed to existing as an insignificantly-safer coward. I can't see the bogeymen in the shadows that the ruling class want me to fear; I only fear for our liberty.

If there were an airline that allowed passengers to board after passing through an old-style, cursory weapons check — the type of security that's still used at small municipal courts — or even no security, other than a reinforced cockpit door, I would have kept flying during the past seven years. The feelings I experience when my rights are violated are such that it isn't worth it for me to fly anywhere, for any reason. Until the Fourth Amendment and all-around sanity returns to US airports, I'll have no part in that degrading and unconstitutional display of cowardice.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45442625)

You obviously don't make any long distance trips.

If you ever consider crossing the Atlantic, you will find out that there are no ships available that take you. Planes are the only option.

Or if you occasionally want to travel between say Europe and the Far East, you can choose either a plane, or a 14-day train trip (plus a lot of hassle for the various transit visa).

Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45441881)

Some start a no security airline for fuck's sake. Tickets will cheaper boarding times will be shorter and I won't have to feel like a criminal because I brought nail clippers in my hand luggage. I'll take my chances just the same as I do when I get on a train or a bus or get in a elevator in a crowded building.

It is all horseshit that serves only the bottom line for airports and gives our intellectually bankrupt politicians something to "save us" from...

Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45441905)

"Someone start..." Damn autocorrect

A Textbook False Dichotomy (5, Insightful)

Dialecticus (1433989) | about 10 months ago | (#45441903)

Oh, please. Don't pretend that that only options are TSA or no security at all. Back in the day, before the TSA, the airlines were handling security on their own and doing a fine job. It was a measured response, where the level of security suited the contemporary threat level. As a result, the inconvenience to travelers was less, the cost was less, and it was only paid for by people who were actually traveling by plane. Now, with the TSA, you've got airport nudity scanners and inefficient security theater all on the taxpayer dime, so you have to pay for it whether you travel by plane or not. It's worse now by every measure I can think of.

Re: A Textbook False Dichotomy (4, Interesting)

HeadlessNotAHorseman (823040) | about 10 months ago | (#45441937)

I am flying from Australia to South America for a holiday. Because of all this TSA nonsense, I paid extra to fly via Chile rather than USA. This also means I flew using LAN rather than a USA airline (which is money lost for the USA economy).

Re: A Textbook False Dichotomy (3, Insightful)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 10 months ago | (#45442167)

I am flying from Australia to South America for a holiday. Because of all this TSA nonsense, I paid extra to fly via Chile rather than USA. This also means I flew using LAN rather than a USA airline (which is money lost for the USA economy).

A lot of people are doing this as well. I for one would do whatever it took to avoid travelling to or even OVER the USA now. They may as well build a big fucking wall, with razor wire on top of it, all around their country, around all their museums, monuments and anything a tourist might be interested in.

Travel to the USA? Just no way. Travel VIA the USA? FUCK NO.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (5, Interesting)

F34nor (321515) | about 10 months ago | (#45441925)

It is not naive the TSA is naive. If you want security you can have it by doing real security screening and not "security theater." Ask the Israelis about it some time. I flew out of Amsterdam the day after a scare, it was the first security screening I have ever had. Someone looked me dead in the eye and asked my why half of my passport was in Arabic. He looked at me, listened to me, and made a real judgment. It is all bullshit anyway post 9/11 everyone knows that even if the terrorists are able to kill 90% of the people of the plane they are still not going to be able to kill all the passengers plus the external target. By making the risk=damage*likelihood equation infinite they have closed that door for ever. Someone tries to hijack the plane I am on and I am reciting "we few, we happy few" and the then going to stomp those fuckers to death with evey other top level predator on the plane. I will feel bad if they cut the stewardess' throat but that is not going to stop me wrapping my coat around my forearm and pulling the handle out of my luggage and reminding him has he dies that I will bury him in pigskin with his feet pointing to Mecca.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 10 months ago | (#45441955)

Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without.

Because the only two choices are TSA and nothing?

Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 10 months ago | (#45441965)

It is not about terrorists, but population control. If they were serious about terrorism they would put the control just before boarding, as this shows.

A control is better than no control, but an abusive and intrusive control like TSA's one provides little extra protection, a lot of false positives, and keeping population scared and so in control.

Re: So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 10 months ago | (#45442241)

It's far more basic than that. It's being seen to be doing something, pointless busywork really, and then a pile of opportunists that see it as a chance to push their own personal agendas (eg. lining up a job with the supplier of the xray machines). It's turned into welfare for the vast number of people that are consuming the TSA budget - from greeters dressed as security to silicon snake oil salesmen.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (5, Interesting)

gilgongo (57446) | about 10 months ago | (#45442021)

It is true that they may now start to resort to tactics that were not imaginable just a few years ago, ...

The sooner you realise that your attitude to a minuscule terrorist threat is actually the problem here, the better.

I would suggest you are suffering from a form of mental illness similar to that of obsessive compulsives who refuse to touch door handles for fear of picking up "germs". You cannot see the obvious facts for what they are: there is no significant threat from terrorism, and there never was one. The fact that you are willing to drive around in cars, or ride on the subway when a) there is a far higher risk of you dying from non-terrorist causes doing that (and pretty preventable causes too, given TSA-like funding) and b) terrorists could just as easily attack those as well, is plainly deluded when the price you pay in return for "safety" on a plane is so utterly disproportionate.

The sheer Owellian nature of what is going on in the minds of Americans like you is amazing. Land of the free? Don't make me laugh.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (5, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | about 10 months ago | (#45442107)

>You can bet that terrorists would find it an easy attack vector if there were no checks anymore.

False dichotomy. We can go back to the old security measures (i.e. metal detector). It's not an all or nothing situation.

>Honestly, what would be your preference?

I'd prefer to do away with the new "security" measures. I'll gladly take the risk of a terrorist slipping through. I live in this country, I fly semi-regularly. I'm agreeing to assume as much risk as anyone else under my preference. There are two, and only two, things that have made air travel safer since 9/11":
1. Reinforced cockpit doors. If the hijackers can't get to the cockpit then they cannot take the plane by force. Even if they kill all the passengers, they cannot gain control of the airplane and use it as a weapon.
2. Passengers now know to resist hijackers. The old logic used to be that you should obey the hijackers, don't be a hero, and keep your head down. The hijackers wanted money, political stuff (e.g. prisoners released), or free travel to $country_without_extradition_treaty. If you shut up and did what they said then no one would get hurt. The plane would land, SWAT (or equivalent) would negotiate with them. The hijackers would either surrender or SWAT would storm the plane with minimal innocent casualties. But now we know that the hijackers might want to use the plane with a weapon. Thus, passengers now know to dogpile anyone who tries to take over the plane. Even with a fully-loaded, fully-automatic rifle, no hijacker could possibly take over an aircraft. Have you seen pictures of recent would-be terrorists? The passengers beat those fuckers to within an inch of their lives!

TL;DR: We're safer now, but not thanks to the TSA.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 10 months ago | (#45442389)

I agree; I also am not completely opposed to a security check prior to boarding airplanes. I am, however, opposed to the excessive and pointless checks we are now forced to endure.

A pre-9/11 walk through a metal detector looking for recognizably metallic items - guns, large knives - is fine. It's quick and non-intrusive. It gets rid of all the low-hanging fruit; the idiots who haven't given much thought before giving in to their violent tendencies. Sure it won't catch the "professionals" but - as TFA indicates - if you are truly committed to the cause /nothing/ will stop you from that. Anything can be a deadly weapon in the right (or wrong, as the case may be) hands.

Forcing people to remove their shoes, or preventing people from boarding because they're carrying a big bottle of lotion or have the same name as a freedom fighter in some far off land, or any of the dozens of other inconveniences we put up with in the name of security are pointless hassles that do nothing to actually protect us. It is nothing more than bad theater to distract from the insolubility of the actual problem and to inculcate mindless obedience to authority.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#45442439)

A popular opinion on slashdot. But naive.

A popular rebuttal on slashdot. But based on a logical fallacy.

Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without. Honestly, what would be your preference?
You can bet that terrorists would find it an easy attack vector if there were no checks anymore.

Your logical fallacy is attacking a straw man. Nobody is calling for the elimination of security checks. We are calling for the elimination of the TSA, and the placement of security checks back in the hands of airlines and airports. The TSA has been shown to be more effective at being criminal than at catching them, and as such should be abolished as a cure worse than the disease.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about 10 months ago | (#45442521)

Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without. Honestly, what would be your preference?

Checkpoints that actually work. If they were serious about stopping acts of terror, they'd go back to metal detectors (which had a *much* higher catch rate than the current backscatter x-ray machines, Google for the number of times people have gotten stuff past the backscatter x-rays, it's kinda scary), and make everybody in line have a once-over from bomb sniffing dogs. Much cheaper, much less of an invasion of privacy, and much more effective.

You can bet that terrorists would find it an easy attack vector if there were no checks anymore.

Actually, the checkpoint itself is probably going to be the next attack vector. A large group of people waiting in line to be screened, who haven't had to go through any checkpoints/security to get to that point? Perfect place for a suicide bomber. Has already been attempted in Russia, actually. Anything that gets people through the security faster is a good thing, which brings us back to my suggestion about a metal detector and bomb-sniffing dogs... more effective, and faster.

It is true that they may now start to resort to tactics that were not imaginable just a few years ago, like implanting in their body - but no security checks would make their attempts so much easier.

Nobody's seriously suggesting no security. Getting rid of the TSA and going back to what we had before 9/11 would be the right step. The existing fortifications that are required for the cockpit are effective enough, and would prevent another 9/11 from happening.

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442063)

That is not the problem. The checks are extremely useful.

Airport checks are there to make the entry level of highjackings and other attacks harder. You're a frustrated dentist or busdriver and want to make a plane drop? The check prevents you from doing that.
You want to be a terrorist and make bad things with a plane? You are dumb and are caught.
You are some sort of other freedom fighter and want to press your buddies free? You surely cannot just walk on the plane with your assault rifles anymore.

Security checks are there to pose a psycological barrier as well as an actually pragmatic one.

It's there to catch all those spontaneous attackers as well as the stupid ones as well as to make it much more risky for the smart ones. They have to know they are at risk of getting discovered so if they face the choice of doing it or not doing it, the thought of the check is supposed to make them think it's not worth the risk.

The big question is: How much sacrifice of time, money, personal freedom, freedom of the society has to get put into the security checks to achive an acceptable high barrier. And I think the issues we see is not with the checks in general but that they are vastly overdone in many places these days.

No matter the check, you'll never stop a smart, creative person or someone who has a network of smart, creative people who train him well. You simply won't. But you can catch all attackers below that level. Currently, we're just overestimating what is necessary for that. Or get overtold by companies who sell that stuff and anxious politicans of whom no one wants to get told later "We had a bigger plan, but you cut it back! All those people are on your hands now". When you deal with Other People's Money, it's easy to take the safe route for yourself and just throw it at the companies who promise you a solution. A Rock that Scares Lions. It's bought because who wants to be guilty if a child gets eaten in your town by a lion?

Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 10 months ago | (#45442463)

So, airport security checks are useless and no more than a waste of taxpayers' money.

Your logic does not apply. Let me demonstrate why.

Say, you need perfume A, toothpaste B, and battery C to make an explosive.
Now, it is known that the TSA builds a profile of you even before you enter the plane.
This profile, combined with the information about stuff you bought post-checkin, can set off some alarm bells.
Even if you buy stuff with several people.

Hence, while you can build an explosive with post-checkin materials, it is NOT CERTAIN you can buy them AND enter a plane.
There is just one step missing in the logic.

tazer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45441745)

How about chaining lithium batteries together to make a tazer or device to overload the planes circuits? Laptops contain plenty of sharp metal pieces too.

Re:tazer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442277)

How about chaining lithium batteries together to make a tazer or device to overload the planes circuits? Laptops contain plenty of sharp metal pieces too.

Just bring one of the Apple devices with exploding batteries.

Re:tazer (1)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about 10 months ago | (#45442321)

How about chaining lithium batteries together to make a tazer or device to overload the planes circuits?

Tasers have an open-circuit voltage of 50kV IIRC. Combining seventeen thousand CR123 cells seems like it might result in a slightly unwieldy weapon.

As for overloading the plane's circuits... which circuits? As a passenger, you have access to the inflight entertainment system, maybe some power outlets (28VDC or 110VAC), and that's about it. This isn't Star Trek, where an overload in holodeck 5 causes an explosion of sparks from the navigation console -- if you plug 90V or so into the headphone jack, you might fry your seat's electronics only, or you might take out the whole entertainment system (and get your ass whupped shoebomber-style), but you won't take out anything essential for flight.

Re:tazer (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#45442443)

if you plug 90V or so into the headphone jack, you might fry your seat's electronics only, or you might take out the whole entertainment system (and get your ass whupped shoebomber-style),

I see a whole lot of ego on slashdot. This post is a great example. How the fuck would you even know if someone plugged 90V into the headphone jack, to get up and kick their ass like the supreme badass you believe yourself to be?

tazer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45441751)

How about chaining lithium batteries together to make a tazer or device to overload the planes circuitry?

Crap (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 10 months ago | (#45441755)

All the weapons would be notices and the shooter disarmed before they went off. Even if they could get one shot off reload time would allow other passengers to take the hijacker down before he re-loaded. After 911 passengers are more proactive in dealing with hijackers. These things are toys at best. Sure one may be able to start a fire in a luggage compartment but even they have fire suppression equipment. Even if the aerosol cans went off it would not bring down an aircraft. The ones that explode are a lot of flash and sound without much damage. Even of a couple of people are hurt the hijacker would have to deal with the remaining passengers.

Re:Crap (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 10 months ago | (#45441809)

You can easily imagine the feasibility of a remotely triggered IED. He did not go for concealability but for demonstration. You can easily think of a multiple attack vectors. During a night flight, people are more relaxed, you use the blow-gun to injure the pilot when he's going take a leak, then blow one or two grenade, while putting a luggage on fire and generate a few more small explosion. This is all about terror, you just need to frighten people, not kill them.

Re:Crap (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 10 months ago | (#45442363)

That's going to frighten the people on the plane for about 5 minutes. Everyone else will be amused by it, especially when they see what's left of the attacker's face on the news.

Pretty poor terrorism, that.

Re:Crap (1)

symes (835608) | about 10 months ago | (#45441817)

I remember when the shoe bomber [wikipedia.org] got arrested - it was the other passengers that first apprehended him on the plan. By the looks of his face I don't think they were particularly pleased with his botched attempt.

Re:Crap (3, Insightful)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 10 months ago | (#45442173)

I remember when the shoe bomber [wikipedia.org] got arrested - it was the other passengers that first apprehended him on the plan. By the looks of his face I don't think they were particularly pleased with his botched attempt.

That wasn't just a botched attempt; the guy was totally set up to fail from the very beginning and his 'bomb' was virtually fake. He was fucked by his muslim pals.

Re:Crap (1)

Sara Chan (138144) | about 10 months ago | (#45442401)

the [shoe bomber] was totally set up to fail from the very beginning and his 'bomb' was virtually fake

Do you have references for that?

Re:Crap (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 10 months ago | (#45442557)

the [shoe bomber] was totally set up to fail from the very beginning and his 'bomb' was virtually fake

Do you have references for that?

Do I look like Google? I remember reading that the 'bomb' was plastic explosive and he tried to detonate it by lighting a fuse with a match. So far as I'm aware thats not how plastic explosives work.

Re:Crap (1)

mishehu (712452) | about 10 months ago | (#45442733)

And if I had a child that was born on that day, that child would be preparing for his Bar Mitsvah by now. That's how many years they've been making us take off our shoes to go through insecurity. How many more years will we be made to do this nonsensical action, let alone get groped and have hands stuck in our pants by strangers who are no more than the equivalent of mall security?

Re:Crap (2)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | about 10 months ago | (#45442057)

Sure, but isn't that true of damn near *any* weapon that could pass through a metal detector (i.e. the old security measures)? The question you should be asking is: what can bypass the old system that can't bypass the new system as well? Because no one is arguing against airport security in general, we're arguing against the more absurd rules the TSA has implemented.

Re:Crap (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#45442431)

All the weapons would be notices and the shooter disarmed before they went off.

Bullshit. You take them to the bathroom with you. Tell anyone who asks about the bag that you shit yourself. You're about to exit polite society anyway.

Inspiring! (1)

wirefall (309232) | about 10 months ago | (#45441759)

I saw Evan give this presentation at HouSecCon last month and I've been telling everyone to watch it since. I'm not a rah-rah kind of person, but after Evan finished, I wanted to save the world...but I didn't know what was attacking it...so I felt like attacking it and saving it from myself. Oh, and I had an odd urge to plagiarize Hoyt Axton.

good news, bad news (3, Interesting)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 10 months ago | (#45441845)

the good news is that he's made and excellent point. the bad news is that a shortsighted authority figure is going to loose his shit over this and evan is going to need a lawyer.

welcome to the dystopian present.

Re:good news, bad news (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 10 months ago | (#45441861)

just fyi, the improper use of words and the lack of an [edit post] button is part of the dystopian present.

Thanks a lot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45441883)

All he's doing is getting batteries, deodorant and patriotic tchotchkes banned from airports. Besides, a dental floss rope garrote or a soda-can knife would be far more effective and easy to make if you could ever find the privacy in an airport to do something like this.

Re:Thanks a lot (3, Interesting)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | about 10 months ago | (#45442085)

Agreed. Most of these "weapons" are useless at best. The "grenades" aren't powerful enough to do more than singe some eyebrows, the crossbow-like devices are obvious as fuck and you wouldn't be able to make them without someone noticing (nor are they any more effective than stabbing someone with a pencil), the "reloadable" shotgun isn't reloadable and takes *considerable* time to go off, the fire-making device would be entirely contained if in luggage (planes are *designed* to tolerate a fire in luggage) or quickly put out by a crew member if inside the cabin, the "remote detonator" is just a flint wheel and couldn't detonate anything, etc. They're all entirely worthless. This experiment doesn't really prove a damn thing other than that current security measures are such that ineffective gadgets like this can be fashioned.

What he *should* have tested is whether or not the TSA's security rules are more effective than the old security rules. That is to say, could you construct a better weapon, one that's actually effective, under the old rules but not the new rules? I don't think so, but that isn't what he tested.

No no no (0, Troll)

korbulon (2792438) | about 10 months ago | (#45441907)

Evan, you stupid stupid fuck. Don't make it worse that in already is. This is an invitation to escalation - because the US security apparatus is run by paranoid, unimaginative, and autocratic morons. Cop at a traffic stop x 100. Most of the technically-minded among us who have to endure air travel have already thought about this sort of shit ad nauseam, and you know what? It would be extremely easy to put something together. Some matches and deodorant/hairspray and you've got a mini-flamethrower. Metal cans can easily be fashioned into a very sharp blade. Glass fragments too. But you had to go ahead and show us all how very clever you are, you stupid, smug fuck.

Everybody can now look forward to two security screenings and the occasional body cavity search, and we'll have assholes like Evan to thank for it.

Re:No no no (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 10 months ago | (#45441991)

and we'll have assholes like Evan to thank for it.

The people who are actually violating your rights? They have absolutely nothing to do with any of that!

It's not about security itself (2)

Loïc Lacombe (3391125) | about 10 months ago | (#45442035)

Security checks are not about security. It's meant to show off an impression of security and to make it feel risky to bring lethal when boarding a plane.
It's the same principle with police patrols. They spend a huge amount of time doing nothing, but it's useful. You see the policeman, you know you can get caught, you abide law.

Re:It's not about security itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442485)

Does zero to stop hardcore guys, and no milquetoast criminal was ever going to decide to blow up a plane anyways. Blowing up a plane != a parking ticket.

What's the use? (0)

nospam007 (722110) | about 10 months ago | (#45442303)

Even with announced tests, TSA agents let through grenades, explosives, guns and ammo while they were busy taking apart granny's wheelchair.
So I fail to see how a Molotov cocktail made with eau de cologne and a bit of toilet paper or these 'weapons' of TFA is going to make a difference.

Unless the goal is to close the shops.

Lest we forget (2)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | about 10 months ago | (#45442333)

Who needs "chux'o'liberty" when the Security Theater is lax enough to permit 12" steel razor blades [youtube.com] on a flight?

Re:Lest we forget (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45442665)

That is old. Try this again, and I may be impressed.

Silly premise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442373)

Putting a project together in a field is one thing; sit down at a departure gate and start
assembling your weapon. Be sure to let us know how far you get it they let you use
internet from your cell.

There are knives within the sterile zone!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442403)

During a stop-over in Philadelphia a few months back, I was overlooking the eateries scattered amongst the gates. Right there in front of me was a "Philly Cheese Steak" kinda place and the cook was using two cleavers to chop up the steak for the sandwiches.

It suddenly occurred to me that there were sharps within the supposed "sterile zone" of the airport terminal. Sharps like razor blades, knives, and cleavers that can be taken onto an aircraft perhaps. How can this be allowed?

The sharps could be taken by force and then rushed onto an airplane or I could have a fellow conspirator working at these eateries that could pass me a knife so I could take it onto my flight. Once you are inside the sterile zone there are no metal detectors between you and the airplane.

TSA is not going anywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45442537)

We (The People) let disgusting things happen in the past 100 years and turned away from taking corrective action.
We are at a point, the People have no teeth to do anything and any elected representative will be assassinated (character or physical) IF
they dare to stand FOR the people.

Starting with Hoover (and possibly before that), The People turned away from taking action and various agencies since only built more
of their existence on that model and have everyone in pockets. Dare anyone try to take that away.

Fascism to protect current power structures (0)

brxndxn (461473) | about 10 months ago | (#45442567)

Almost every major change in US government over the past 15 years can be attributed to a move towards fascism in order to protect current power structures that are increasingly threatened by transparency and a new generation that is looking for something real. Both the Democrats and Republicans are moving the same direction. The Democrats will do it by trying to take away guns. The Republicans will do it by an ever-increasing police state against the non-existent terrorists. If after reading every news article, the average American would ask, "How is this moving us towards fascism?" - we might have an awakening to see that this is exactly what is happening.

Our mainstream news and political leaders never question the state. They will never mention fascism. They will continue to move us towards this idea by demagoguing individual civil liberty as a security threat.

The idea that we can sell items that can be turned into weapons after airport security checkpoints shows that the claimed threat of terrorism is non-existent. I feel I should not even have to argue this point - it should be apparent to all by now. We didn't ban steak knives on airplanes to prevent stabbings - we banned them to continue to crack down on the responsible human behavior of asking, "Is this necessary?" The same can be applied to making us take our jackets, belts, and shoes off.

Also, for the recent event at LAX, instead of responding by arming only the TSA agents, we should be asking ourselves, "why couldn't anyone there just shoot back?" And also, "what the fuck is the point of a security agent that is unarmed?"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?