Laptop Ban a Reaction to X-Ray Equipment Stolen by ISIS
professional-troublemaker.com
professional-troublemaker.com
The classic military view of secrecy is time-limited. "Where the ship was last week is unclassified. Where the ship was yesterday is confidential. Where the ship is now is secret. Where the ship will be tomorrow is top secret." The opposition will eventually find out what you're planning on doing. The goal is for them to find out the hard way, when incoming fire starts hitting them.
The intelligence community has a longer-term view. "We know, and they know. We think they don't know that we know they know. We hope they don't know how we found out that they know." This protection of sources mindset leads to things being kept secret long after all involved parties know.
The anti-terrrorism community has adopted the intelligence community mindset. This is a problem.
Wonder how much that has to do with overlap between the two.
Today's terrorist may well have been yesterday's informat, and may well be an informant again tomorrow.
After all, the CIA was deeply involved in Afghanistan back when the USSR was fighting there. And many of the people that the CIA supported then later turned against USA.
And round and round it goes. Too bad the public is made a to be a sucker every time.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that we are being primed for the CIA getting into bed with Islamist terrorists, in order to combat Russian influence in the Middle East. Again.
Substantiate your claim.
"CIA getting into bed with Islamist terrorists"
This is tiresome, just because US govt allies with Muslims that Russia calls terrorists doesn't make them so. In fact, last time I checked Russia works on the ground with Hezbollah, a designated terrorist group. This argument can easily go sideways for people hoisting it up as a mantra.
Right. They aren't bad dudes like ISIS, they are just, ah, al-Qaeda's Syrian arm. They are totally on the level.
> This is tiresome, just because US govt allies with Muslims that Russia calls terrorists doesn't make them so.
That's true. Just because Russia says they are terrorists doesn't make them terrorists. And, perhaps, using car bombs, suicide attacks, assassinations, and forced conscription of child soldiers doesn't make them terrorists either.
Strangely enough, all of this seems to be sufficient for the the United States to also designate them to be an islamic terrorist organization. [2] (And then issue diplomatic protests when Russia bombs them.)
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-seeks-parliaments-approva...
US has literally never complained when Russia has bombed Nusra. People complain when Russia bombs people then calls them ISIS/AQ. Inanimate grain silos? IS oil facilities according to RU MoD. Hospitals? Nusra strongholds according to RU MoD.
This is what people complain about. If you want to say otherwise please substantiate your claim.
Even Trump is beginning to understand some of this. It's just a shame so many people in Khan Sheikhoun had to die first.
"Too bad the public is made a to be a sucker"
Who is the sucker here?
The classification level of information is determined by confidentiality of the information's source. This is done to protect deeply embedded or highly technical means of information gathering.
For example, information that could have only come from the second in command of some organization would require the highest of security classifications whereas information that could have come from any dozens of members of that organization would only require a confidential or secret classification.
Information is required to be classified at the lowest possible level, a guideline that is both taught and enforced throughout most if not all of the Intelligence Community.
source: I was an intelligence analyst for 6+ years.
Kind of ironic, because I've already stopped flying - not because I'm afraid, but because these sorts of measures have gotten to the point where traveling through an airport is an awful experience that I actively avoid.
If I absolutely must travel, I take a train or drive. The only reason I ever fly is if I have to cross an ocean or if I face an emergency that requires me to be present somewhere far away, very quickly.
And in the case of an ocean, honestly, renting a stateroom on a cargo ship seems like a very relaxing way to go if you have the time. I've got a HUGE backlog of books and games and writing and projects to design and you get the idea.
Availability is probably limited though, as each ship can only take a few passangers: "Cargo ships can carry a maximum of 12 passengers although most vessels only have accommodation for 4 to 6 passengers" [2].
And that describes what the whole TSA thing is about. It is a theatre. There was no need to put laptop ban either because it is just as useless. One has to only check Quora answers on all sort of things people have taken through security which includes 2 full size Katana Swords, loaded guns, Fire starters, Ethanol bottles and various other items.
I understand government can not admit TSA is ineffective. But they can surely reduce the pain for us.
But all you have achieved is a hole in the fuselage. That sucks but it's nowhere near enough to take a plane down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_812 for example.
[1] Yes, you can find examples where it worked. But you can also find examples where most passengers survive even extensive damage to the aircraft, like Aloha Airlines Flight 243 (not a bomb, but still). Or Daallo Airlines Flight 159, where the bomber only killed himself.
As far as I can tell, DHS are the ones not properly managing risks here, not the mom traveling to Disney.
I think the implication that he or she was trying to make is that statistically, those on the coasts travel by air more frequently. As someone with a mom who was very afraid of flying and terror related risks thereto, I know that fear largely dissipated when I finally got her to fly a few times. It's not an allegation of ignorance but that of relative inexperience (was my take, anyway).
The frequency argument is an interesting one. This recent survey seems to indicate that travel maps pretty closely (within a percent or three) to population of the area which I wasn't actually expecting (sure, lobbying group doing the research caveat caveat): http://airlines.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016Survey.pd...
It also looks like there's a pretty significant difference between Midwest and Plains states in terms of numbers - less people, many fewer airports.
I totally get why the stereotype kinda makes sense given a certain view of a large swath of the country (though I've generally found these to be poor guides) but the statement would've worked without the regional or gender modifier :)
This is also a bit raw for me because I JUST flew my kids to Disney haha
Clearly you've never been in a storm at sea. Or did I mis-interpret your meaning of 'to go'?
The problem with train is it is expensive and time consuming in the States. I could take a train from Chicago to Orlando and it would take around 30 hours and cost just as much, if not more, than a plane ticket. Not only that, the 19 hour second leg of the ride has no food car.
On the plus side, the seats were large and comfortable, and the food was surprisingly good.
I've looked into taking the train a couple of times and balked each time at the idea of paying the same price for 10-15x the transit time. 40 hours in transit is going to be a non-starter for so many kinds of trips, unless you're specifically doing something like [1] where the transit is the whole point of the trip.
[1]: http://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/roc...
This is why high speed rail is so good: it can actually really decrease operational costs Vs normal rail as your train, crew, station etc does 2-3x the volume of passengers, and therefore revenue, compared to slower alternatives.
From Louisville, KY you get to factor in the greyhound bus to Chicago, as the nearest passenger train station, because the passenger trains haven't run to Louisville in more than a decade. So far as I can tell, that's the most direct route via train: northwest by bus to go southeast by train, eventually.
You could do it somewhat more directly using a sequence of bus transfers instead, but that's also entirely inconvenient in its own way.
And, thanks for the support... HN is always one of the first communities to upvote my work and help me share it with the world. As a computer scientist turned almost-lawyer, I definitely appreciate!
I mean are the people that operate daily these machines vetted to a level where you can totally exclude that they (in ALL airports wordwide) can be affiliated to whatever evil organization and do some tests after hours?
Does the same happen for all technicians that maintain/repair these devices?
Does the same happen for all designers of these devices?
Or if you prefer, do you believe that such a scanning machine cannot be re-built from commercial parts by someone who knows their innards?
Are ALL purchases of new scanners subject to governemnet approval (and even if yes, which government)?
> I mean are the people that operate daily these machines vetted to a level where you can totally exclude that they (in ALL airports wordwide) can be affiliated to whatever evil organization and do some tests after hours?
No, although after-hours testing may set off some alarms. I'm sure their on-hours experience would be useful, though.
> Does the same happen for all technicians that maintain/repair these devices?
No.
> Does the same happen for all designers of these devices?
Nope.
> Or if you prefer, do you believe that such a scanning machine cannot be re-built from commercial parts by someone who knows their innards?
Yes, I do believe that rebuilding a modern, advanced x-ray system from scrap components is beyond the capabilities of ISIS at the moment.
> Are ALL purchases of new scanners subject to governemnet approval (and even if yes, which government)?
The modern, advanced x-ray systems are not available to the general public. As to how exactly they are controlled, I'm not sure.
See also my comments to other users regarding the differences between modern x-rays and old school ones.
What about any other country, for the sake of the example, Wherevereristan?
Do they have the same rules?
So in that sense, if Whereveristan wants to sell the airport X-ray equipment they can get, it isn't going to be useful in determining what can pass US screening.
How common is such an arrangement? I've only ever flown to the US from Australia, and while there was a pre-boarding security check at the gate, after the main security screening at the entrance to the airside of the terminal, the staff carrying it out appear to be Australian private security guards, not US citizens. (I haven't done it for about two years now, so someone who has done it more recently would have to tell me if anything has changed.)
Sure they are not something that you can buy at the market around the corner, and surely they would not be cheap, but they can surely be bought by (say) financial institutions, banks, etc. (i.e. not only by airports, and public/international airports).
Now, if you can be sure that no bank (or other private financial institution) nor privately owned airport or port (or similar) worldwide may have some connections with the "bad guys" it's all fine and dandy, otherwise my previous note still stands.
I don't doubt that - as you report - the alarm may have been "triggered" by the stealing (or however vanishing) of the said machine, but from this to consider it "logic" there is a huge step.
At least the last few times I have flown (not to the US that may well have much different and more sophisticated devices) here in Europe I saw everywhere Gilardoni scanners (said to be among the best at least in Europe), like the ones published on their pages:
http://www.gilardoni.it/en_scanner-a-raggi-x.asp
And are you really sure-sure that all the scanners you can find on alibaba are tat much oudated?
https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?SearchText=x-ray+scanne...
It doesn't seem to me like shopping for cruise missiles or the like ...
If you have a confederate operating the machine, it would seem easier to arrange to pass through their security line than to use the knowledge to make an X-ray look-alike bomb-laden laptop.
If you want to simply put a bomb on a single given flight from that particular airport surely yes (and with the risk that your accomplice is caught in the ensuing investigations), but having a general method is - allow me - more elegant, you can in theory embark as many such devices on as many flight as you have suicide volunteers available, leaving from any airport at any date/time.
We need better methods for detecting energetic materials (and not just suspicious shapes) in luggage (detecting it concealed inside humans is harder and would require transmission x-ray which is not currently acceptable for airport security screening) that don't crumble when the adversary has unlimited access to the security scanner to test concealment methods.
Concealing knives is kinda easier than concealing energetic materials -- it is, for example, possible to machine a blade that fits perfectly inside a blunt, innocuous "sheath" so precisely (hi, wire EDM) that they appear as a single piece of metal. However, this is not so much of an issue nowadays, as no amount of threatening or stabbing with a knife will make a pilot open the cockpit door.
Bruce Schneier observed, like you did, that the heavily secured cockpit door is one of the only real improvements made to airplane security in the last few decades.
Uh, yeah, they do. Have read anything about backscatter xray machines?
The real way to defeat these machines is to hide things in folds of your flesh. It can see through clothes, but not too much skin. In staged demonstrations, fat people have gotten a metal pistol through, no problem.
Quick examples: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/study-shows-how-easily-weapons...
A gun(!) is basically invisible in the scan. Is teflon tape enough to defeat these stupid machines?
Yes, but not more so on aircraft. Passengers (who tend to not want to die in a suicide hijacking) will fight for their lives against hijackers who use knives. Sometimes the attempted hijackers die from the injuries sustained by the passengers fighting back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianjin_Airlines_Flight_7554
I really don't worry about knives on airplanes, what's scary is energetic materials (explosives or gunpowder) or someone tampering with electrical/avionics equipment.
https://securitytoday.com/articles/2008/07/30/tsa-to-expand....
"Advantages of AT X-ray include a greatly enhanced image with the ability to target novel threat items resulting in fewer bag checks and faster throughput, and the ability to upgrade the system with enhanced algorithms."
...and that article describes the 2008 edition of the technology!
For a more technically-specific perspective, I can say that the newer machines take images from multiple angles and are closer to a medical CT scan than a old-school x-ray. Owning one would allow you to practice placing your items in a direction and location that would be least able to be seen by the operator.
No matter where you are, the U.S.government cannot force you to speak as a condition of flying home. Just be quiet rather than deceitful.
The plane is a private property so you can be taken of for any reason.
I actually filed suit over the former back in 2015. AA told me they wouldn't let me fly home unless I answered their "security questions." The case was resolved quickly when everyone (AA and DHS) did an about-face and said whoever told me I wouldn't be allowed to fly was mistaken.
https://professional-troublemaker.com/2015/02/23/corbett-sue...
The US may not refuse entry to its own citizens, even if they insist on remaining silent. They can detain you to be searched on arrival, but they must, after completing that search, admit you to the country.
They have more guns than you do. That means that any statement beginning with the words above is wrong, no matter what comes after those words.
edit- and push to get a standard for battery pack sizes to reduce the number of form factors, then implement a service where you give your used one at departure and get a new one at arrival.
Regulations like that one stink badly, but necessities drive progress and I see an opportunity here.
Or we could implement the Indian system, where you turn in your new batteries at departure and are given used ones on arrival. (Mysteriously, despite the assurance that they are the same batteries, they have sometimes changed brand, too.)
Read more: https://professional-troublemaker.com/2017/05/22/update-newe...
Also, the "turn on your device" thing they sometimes do offers some mitigation against this. Obviously, you can think of ways that may defeat this too, but to defeat all of the security, accurately, in one small package that doesn't look sketchy, is not easy. Fortunately, most terrorists are not the brightest people in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffer_machine
> The machine operates by releasing multiple puffs of air at a passenger who is standing upright within the machine. This will flush out any particles on the person inside the machine then analyze and identify them in seconds.[6] According to an article in the 16 June, 2005, New York Times, it is capable of screening up to 180 passengers an hour.[7] This sample is then analyzed using IMS or MS technology to search for specific explosive or narcotic compounds. If a substance of concern is detected, the security personnel are notified by a visible and/or audible alarm.
From the article: "since lithium batteries are completely opaque to x-rays"
Everyone can go around with battery-less laptops so they can't use them in the few planes that get retrofit, and no other place without plugs.
Everyones always been telling me that if I want to bring down a plane I should set the cabin on fire, not the cargo hold. Have I been living a lie?