News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Hitchens: The truth about airplane security measures by blhack on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @12:29PM (#1020808)
Not so fast...

Some of the people criticizing the TSA (like Bruce Schneier) are absolutely experts on security.

You're also right, the analogy of IT vs the users is a valid one. In this case, the IT department has told the users that they are no longer allowed to browse the web between the hours of 3:30 and 3:38 because it was during this time that somebody downloaded and installed a virus.

Instead of actually addressing the root of the problem (our users can download and install viruses), the IT department has put a band-aid over it so that they can say that it has been fixed.

Re:Hitchens: The truth about airplane security measures by gfodor on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @08:05PM (#1021687)
Why should I care what Bruce Schneier, an expert on computer security, thinks about airline security?

Should I care what the head of the TSA has to say about RockYou's password data theft, too?

Re:Hitchens: The truth about airplane security measures by dugmartin on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @12:37PM (#1020827)
Not that I'm disagreeing with you but I wonder what the TSA could do to address the root of the problem?
Re:Hitchens: The truth about airplane security measures by CWuestefeld on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @01:39PM (#1020985)
Why ought the TSA do anything? (or really, why ought we to have a TSA?)

There are scads of targets that ought to be attractive to terrorists: sports arenas, various tunnels and bridges, power generation and transmission, etc. None of these get anything like the security attention, despite their potential to cause far greater harm than the WTC attacks did.

I have the mental picture of a building with many doors. We're putting solid steel doors, deadbolts, triple padlocks, etc., on one door, while the other entries are nothing but screen doors. This is ridiculously ineffective in cost and freedom.

Re:Hitchens: The truth about airplane security measures by roc on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @12:58PM (#1020885)
That's easy. Terrorists seize/destroy planes with weapons or explosives.

So to the extent that the TSA can efficiently and effectively scan for weapons, explosives and known terrorists, they should. To the extent that they can't detect certain explosives (the theoretical binary liquid concern), it's reasonable to take measures to mitigate risk. (E.g. limit quantities when feasible)

Beyond that? Nothing.

Re:Hitchens: The truth about airplane security measures by ori_b on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @12:49PM (#1020858)
What can the TSA do? Nothing short of measures that would normally be considered draconian would be any sort of reasonable solution.

Screen everyone carefully. Careful tests of everything brought aboard, if any is allowed at all. Require background checks upon passport application (or application for plane tickets). Also, have a security officer on board, with orders to shoot to kill if anyone tries any funny stuff.

Of course, organizations like local police forces are in a far better position to make a difference. Better detective work, with the goal of breaking up terrorist rings and locating individuals, would certainly be an effective step to combat terrorism. As this article points out - these people are often already suspects.

A reasonable solution would be to give up on complete security. Put in the obvious deterrents - a security officer on board the plane, and reinforced cabin doors that don't open for the duration of the flight. Other than that, don't worry about it. When you look at other threats like drunk driving or heart disease you should realize that our panic is misplaced.

Re:Hitchens: The truth about airplane security measures by sabat on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @12:38PM (#1020830)
Good point about Schneier, although with a caveat: he's actually an expert in cryptography, and he has opinions about more generalized subjects in security. Quite often he's right, but I don't consider him to be an actual "security expert" in any general sense. I don't think it's actually possible; "security" is a blanket term.

Bruce is dead-on right in this case. Fighting the previous war won't prevent the next one.