

The Things He Carried - stretchwithme
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057

======
ben1040
It's worth noting that since this article was published (2008) the TSA has
begun scanning boarding passes at the checkpoint (at least at some airports)
and confirming the name that appears on their screen is also the name on the
boarding pass and the ID. The 2D barcode on the pass is encrypted to prevent
the Photoshop trickery.

But, it's only taken them years to even attempt to plug this gap. Schneier
wrote about the issue in 2003[1] and a kid got his house raided by the FBI in
2006[2] for making a fake boarding pass generator. I wonder why they didn't
raid Adobe's headquarters, I hear they produce a wonderful tool for forgery
too...

[1]<http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0308.html#6>

[2][http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/28/fbi_returns_to_fake_.ht...](http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/28/fbi_returns_to_fake_.html)

~~~
pmichaud
It's not really a fix. It's nothing a convincing fake ID couldn't fix--then
everything matches.

------
sudont
The worst part is that George Carlin's rants from the '90s can be taken, copy-
pasted verbatim and still not lose poignancy.

" _Airport security is a stupid idea, it's a waste of money, and it's there
for only one reason: to make white people feel safe!_ "

------
watchandwait
There's a growing protest against the TSA's unconstitutional new searches:

Check out <http://www.wewontfly.com>

~~~
jdp23
excellent point. there was also a revolt against the TSA back in 2004/2005 and
i think this one is shaping up even louder. airlines, pilots, flight
attendants, passengers, parents, and seniors are all on the same side here.
and politically, beating up on the TSA is going to be popular on both sides of
the aisle.

------
thisduck
There's a reason this article could only be written by a Jeffery Goldberg and
not an Ahmed Jalaluddin.

~~~
83457
Please elaborate

~~~
jdp23
My guess is that he meant that the TSA typically treats _certain people_
differently because they're threats, and adult white guys somewhat more
deferentially than everybody else.

Goldberg has continued to blog and write about this topic. here's his most
recent: "The War on Terror Meets the War on Pedophilia; Terror Wins"
[http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-
war-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-war-on-
terror-meets-the-war-on-pedophilia-terror-wins/66515/)

------
stretchwithme
Its probably articles like this one that pushed TSA to go to its current
extreme.

What I don't understand is that they are screening pilots for weapons, who
once they pass the screening, are then given control of the plane, which
itself can be used as a weapon.

Some have said we can trust those working at the airport not to place
dangerous things on planes because they get background checks. But apparently
the ones entrusted with a very big weapon, the pilots, have to be checked for
small objects.

And, of course, these scanners don't do cavity checks, another way things can
get on the plane. Are those coming next?

I'm just glad they have those bomb-proof plastic bags to contain exploding
liquids that do get through security.

Of course, the real problem is that we are afraid to give more attention and
ask a lot of questions of passengers that certain criteria. Seems all we know
how to do is look up names on a list. Anything more complex is too much to
handle.

As I understand it, Israeli security asks suspicious passengers a lot of
questions about their trip and background. And they've had very few problems
considering the hostile situation they're in.

[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel...](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_airport_security)

~~~
stcredzero
_What I don't understand is that they are screening pilots for weapons, who
once they pass the screening, are then given control of the plane, which
itself can be used as a weapon._

Because there are often two or three crewmembers in the cockpit. If one of
them is subverted and can carry weapons aboard, they can establish control
over the cockpit by killing the other crew. By preventing weapons from
entering the cockpit, one is preventing this scenario. The problem is that
searches of the pilots are easy to circumvent. Simply have a terminal worker
sneak in a weapon and give it to the pilot. If this ever happened, the
reinforced cockpit doors would very much work against us. This is a very good
reason to pay pilots much more than $19,000 a year!

~~~
stretchwithme
Yes, one pilot could kill the other. Or they could just do the deed while the
other pilot is in the bathroom.

~~~
stcredzero
This only works if that pilot leaves behind the keys to the reinforced door,
or if there's a way of disabling/jamming the lock.

------
oh_no_my_eyes
From the article.. \-- I once asked Michael Chertoff, the secretary of
Homeland Security, about this. "We actually ultimately do have a vision of
trying to move the security checkpoint away from the gate, deeper into the
airport itself, but there’s always going to be some place that people
congregate. So if you’re asking me, is there any way to protect against a
person taking a bomb into a crowded location and blowing it up, the answer is
no." \--

The implications of this reality have to be considered. The TSA does not exist
to protect passengers on the planes. The TSA exists to prevent terrorists from
getting the planes themselves and using them as weapons. If terrorists wanted
to kill you, the passenger, then they would indeed do so as you waited to be
screened through security. I guess you can take some comfort in the fact that
they don't hate you, personally, for your freedoms...

~~~
tesseract
> We actually ultimately do have a vision of trying to move the security
> checkpoint away from the gate, deeper into the airport itself

Like at Schiphol?

~~~
frossie
Or CDG or ATH or many other (if not most) European airports.

Screening at the gates makes a lot of sense in terms of traffic flow, as you
don't get huge queues, and airline personnel hold the plane if there are
security hold-ups. Also if there is a breach, you only have to shut down a few
gates rather than the whole airport.

The problem is that this will br very difficult to retrofit in many existing
US airports because they weren't designed with that in mind.

