
Christmas Bomber: Where Airport Security Worked - wglb
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/christmas_bombe.html
======
stse
I think he should stick to writing about cryptography. I read his blog from
time to time because of his expertise, but recent posts has just been filled
with assumptions and speculations.

~~~
ajju
What specific assumptions or speculation in this article do you find
objectionable?

~~~
stse
Mainly that "detonating PETN is actually very hard" and "no security system
[...] on the planet, is designed to catch someone doing this". I remember his
analysis to be more detailed than this, but maybe I remember wrong. There were
also a post about the predator drone about a week ago, which had some good
technical points, but in my opinion was poor from an intelligence perspective.

~~~
houseabsolute
Those statements are both true, and they support his point that the airport
security systems have done some good. I don't see the problem.

~~~
tptacek
I think it's reasonable to point out that almost anyone could have made the
same observations based on media reporting over the past several weeks; it
took no particular skill or experience to note that no security system is
perfect or to note that liquid explosives are hard to detonate.

~~~
houseabsolute
Perhaps it doesn't take much skill, but that observation doesn't really jive
with my not having seen these points in print or on the news since the
incident. Bruce's blurb was the first time I heard anything about either
aspect of the case.

------
Semiapies
It strikes me that most of the complaints on this issue (ignoring the partisan
frothing) center on self-reassurance - a faith that we _can_ stop all
terrorists with reasonable security measures, it's just that someone was slack
on the job in this case. Blame hard enough, and we'll be safe.

~~~
jacquesm
You're very right. I think that stems from the 'we're on the right side'
feeling that people have somehow.

The truth is a determined enough organization with some money to burn will
always, now and forever have the ability to disrupt society to some extent and
murder a bunch of people in the process.

To admit that though means that you're going to be lumped in with the
fatalists instead of with the realists.

Any fool can break a window, it takes lots of effort and knowledge to make a
clear, flat piece of glass. In other words, destruction is so much easier than
creation that we should be happy the terrorists are as incompetent as they
are.

They'd like to destroy the western world (so we're told) and they've managed
to kill < 10,000 people in many years of trying.

They would be more effective if they started cutting brake lines on vehicles
at random.

~~~
Semiapies
"I think that stems from the 'we're on the right side' feeling"

What does that have to do with this?

~~~
jacquesm
It's linked to 'faith' and it's cousin 'fate', the idea that something strong
flows from being on the 'right' side of a conflict and that that in turn can
somehow be used to affect the outcome.

Of course all sides think they're on the 'right' side, and besides that there
is no deity that will intervene with reality to make a difference.

But that does not seem to stop people from thinking that something will work
against the 'bad guys' so that we can 'win' this thing.

As long as the world is structured the way it is there will be an endless
supply of 'bad guys', and some of them will be successful no matter how much
we destroy our own society in order to try to thwart their plans.

Being on the right side literally does not enter in to the equation, except in
the heads of those that believe strongly in good and bad, and most likely in
heaven and hell.

Which is a good part of the cause of all this trouble anyway.

------
jacquesm
Bruce Schneier seems to be very intent to leverage his expertise in computer
security in to getting himself associated with the 'war on terror' gravy
train, the best thing in the security scene since the red scare and the cold
war.

It'll make him a bundle.

~~~
Semiapies
Or maybe it's just been an interest of his over the time that "security" and
associated paranoia have been a part of the public discussion in the US.

------
jimbokun
Do devices that can detect plastic explosives through clothing exist?

~~~
sp332
There are "sniffer" devices that can detect the minutest traces of target
chemicals. Parts-per-million or parts-per-billion detectors are no longer
unusual. [http://www.officer.com/web/online/Investigation/Sniffer-
Devi...](http://www.officer.com/web/online/Investigation/Sniffer-
Devices/18$31675)

~~~
jacquesm
Yay for false positives. They had/have those in the CN tower in Toronto, major
nuisance. But since it is obviously high on the target list of every extremist
organization they can't take chances.

