Is that a bomb in your pants or are you just happy to . . .

Come on! What's happened to you people! One of the most glaring security breeches since 911 and you have nothing to say about it? Say what you want about Bush (and, oh yes, you did) but at least politics was interesting when he was prez. Don't give the current administration a pass just because, well, who knows why.

Ok. I'll go first. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, if he had succeeded, there would have been 72 very disappointed virgins in paradise. One way ticket paid with cash, no luggage, going to Detroit in winter with no warm clothes, and his own father turned him in previously. Sorry. Someone needs to own this one.

I think I heard some expert on the radio yesterday pointing out that to purchase a one-way ticket (even with cash) and to have no luggage are no longer considered red flags. I wonder when THAT decision was made?

Anyway here's a simple proposition: bar passengers from boarding airplanes if they're wearing underwear.
_________________
"If you allow yourself to be offended, then you're a bit of [a] nitwit."
(Christopher Moore)

mllefifi wrote:

Anyway here's a simple proposition: bar passengers from boarding airplanes if they're wearing underwear.

I like it. I like it a lot. I'm going commando style!

but in the meantime, the current administration is taking concrete steps:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/nigerian-underwear-bomber.html

mllefifi wrote:

I think I heard some expert on the radio yesterday pointing out that to purchase a one-way ticket (even with cash) and to have no luggage are no longer considered red flags. I wonder when THAT decision was made?

When it was found to generate 99.99%+ false positives.

sgt_steve wrote:

When it was found to generate 99.99%+ false positives.

And, of course, as we well know, the Bush administration was EXTREMELY facile at finding false positives!
_________________
"If you allow yourself to be offended, then you're a bit of [a] nitwit."
(Christopher Moore)

sgt_steve wrote:

mllefifi wrote: I think I heard some expert on the radio yesterday pointing out that to purchase a one-way ticket (even with cash) and to have no luggage are no longer considered red flags. I wonder when THAT decision was made? When it was found to generate 99.99%+ false positives.

I'd love to see the source for that statistic if you have it.

Tito wrote:

sgt_steve wrote: mllefifi wrote: I think I heard some expert on the radio yesterday pointing out that to purchase a one-way ticket (even with cash) and to have no luggage are no longer considered red flags. I wonder when THAT decision was made? When it was found to generate 99.99%+ false positives. I'd love to see the source for that statistic if you have it.

It was alluded to in one of Bruce Schneier's articles, but I've not been able to track down either the article or the stat.

Sorry we didn't jump on this soon enough for ya-
I can't speak for everybody else but I'm having a very distracting life right now-
eventually, I'll post about it but not in politics so don't keep hiding in your little ghetto!

Tito wrote:

mllefifi wrote: Anyway here's a simple proposition: bar passengers from boarding airplanes if they're wearing underwear. I like it. I like it a lot. I'm going commando style!

I've been doing that for years- does it make me a visionary patriot?

One of my friends is waiting for the day they make us all fly naked-
personally, I think pigs will be flying commercial before I do...

sgt_steve wrote:

Tito wrote: sgt_steve wrote: mllefifi wrote: I think I heard some expert on the radio yesterday pointing out that to purchase a one-way ticket (even with cash) and to have no luggage are no longer considered red flags. I wonder when THAT decision was made? When it was found to generate 99.99%+ false positives. I'd love to see the source for that statistic if you have it. It was alluded to in one of Bruce Schneier's articles, but I've not been able to track down either the article or the stat.

This is the closest I found (but i really didn't look very hard):

http://www.schneier.com/essay-301.html

Here's my proposal: make everyone strip, hose them down, give them government issued jumpsuits for the flight, and send their luggage on a different plane. Everyone treated equally like cattle. A truly egalitarian system.

I did some digging, and think I found the article or a near-target here.

The relevant statement: "Even this unrealistically accurate system will generate 10 million false alarms for every real terrorist plot it uncovers. Every day of every year, the police will have to investigate 270,000 potential plots in order to find the one real terrorist plot per month." To restate his number a bit by actually factoring in the 30 days, that's 8,100,000 checks per month to generate 1 actual terrorist, or a false positive rate of 99.99875%. Mind you, this is based on the assumptions Schneier has set up in his article, which does make one take the number with a grain of salt. On the other hand, this is his field. The man knows whereof he speaks.

I've known Schneier casually for a number of years now, and while I don't much agree with his politics, his knowledge of the field is second to none. For many years he worked for an agency whose name I don't know and have not attempted to learn. In that service he travelled to many places where he got to eat interesting ethnic food - and that's the only thing he's ever said about it.

Re: Is that a bomb in your pants or are you just happy to .

Tito wrote:

. . . One way ticket paid with cash, no luggage, going to Detroit in winter with no warm clothes, and his own father turned him in previously. Sorry. Someone needs to own this one.

mllefifi wrote:

I think I heard some expert on the radio yesterday pointing out that to purchase a one-way ticket (even with cash) and to have no luggage are no longer considered red flags.

To address these points in a bit more detail (oh noes, not facts!):

"No luggage" is pretty common and pretty misleading. I used to travel a lot of business, and about half the time made do with only carry-on. As such, I'd show up as "no luggage." How do you tell the difference between "no luggage" and "only has carry-on"? You don't, especially with a multi-leg flight that starts overseas. Plus as airlines have started charging more and more for every checked bag, more and more passengers travel light enough for carry-on to be all they have.

Paid with cash? Pretty much undetectable when the ticket is purchased overseas, especially in non-European areas.

Going to Detroit with no warm clothes? Again, how would one check for that? Go through everyone's luggage and make value judgments about the appropriateness of their clothes? Hell, somebody coming from a tropical area may not even own a coat. Instead, their brother-in-law is bringing one to the airport for them.

Father turned him in? Yeah, that was a good one. Then again, one of the problems that came up with "report anyone suspicious" was that people were reporting anyone who met their personal criteria for odd. That's soooo effective. I know a number of fathers whose opinions I wouldn't trust.

sgt_steve wrote:

I did some digging, and think I found the article or a near-target here. Mind you, this is based on the assumptions Schneier has set up in his article, which does make one take the number with a grain of salt.

A couple of grains. It seems that he set the parameters up to achieve the results he wanted - in particular the 1,000,000,000 possible terrorist plots to find 1 actual plot per year. And the assumption that all identified possibilities would have to be investigated. There is certainly triage going on in the law enforcement and intelligence communities. And, as far as profiling goes, the main relevant choke point - airports - futher reduces the need for both the number and duration of "investigations".

A combination of data mining, profiling, traditional investigation, and random screening work best in my opinion. Eliminating any or trusting solely in one would be a mistake. The argument should focus on what is the proper combination.

Last edited by Tito on Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:44 am; edited 2 times in total

Re: Is that a bomb in your pants or are you just happy to .

sgt_steve wrote:

Tito wrote: . . . One way ticket paid with cash, no luggage, going to Detroit in winter with no warm clothes, and his own father turned him in previously. Sorry. Someone needs to own this one. mllefifi wrote: I think I heard some expert on the radio yesterday pointing out that to purchase a one-way ticket (even with cash) and to have no luggage are no longer considered red flags. To address these points in a bit more detail (oh noes, not facts!): "No luggage" is pretty common and pretty misleading. I used to travel a lot of business, and about half the time made do with only carry-on. As such, I'd show up as "no luggage." How do you tell the difference between "no luggage" and "only has carry-on"? You don't, especially with a multi-leg flight that starts overseas. Plus as airlines have started charging more and more for every checked bag, more and more passengers travel light enough for carry-on to be all they have. Paid with cash? Pretty much undetectable when the ticket is purchased overseas, especially in non-European areas. Going to Detroit with no warm clothes? Again, how would one check for that? Go through everyone's luggage and make value judgments about the appropriateness of their clothes? Hell, somebody coming from a tropical area may not even own a coat. Instead, their brother-in-law is bringing one to the airport for them. Father turned him in? Yeah, that was a good one. Then again, one of the problems that came up with "report anyone suspicious" was that people were reporting anyone who met their personal criteria for odd. That's soooo effective. I know a number of fathers whose opinions I wouldn't trust.

The thing about a legitimate profile is that it takes into account a number of characteristics, any one of which could be innocent but the combination of which enters into suspicious territory. If I went into a post office and mailed a box with a fictitious return address, way too much postage, and an oily stain or two to a public figure, you can bet that package would be profiled as a possible bomb. Any one of those characteristics by itself has an innocent explanation and would not raise much if any suspicion. But, if I did all that, and my dad called and said he was afraid I was a bomber, well . . .

Bruce. Schneier. Action. Figure. Only $99 here.

Another set of interesting numbers can be found here. It's hard to say what's cause and what's effect, but the numbers are nonetheless interesting. Obligatory quote:

"...In the 2000s, a total of 469 passengers (including crew and terrorists) were killed worldwide as the result of Violent Passenger Incidents, 265 of which were on 9/11 itself. No fatal incidents have occurred since nearly simultaneous bombings of two Russian aircraft on 8/24/2004; this makes for the longest streak without a fatal incident since World War II. The overall death toll during the 2000s is about the same as it was during the 1960s, and substantially less than in the 1970s and 1980s, when violent incidents peaked. The worst individual years were 1985, 1988 and 1989, in that order; 2001 ranks fourth."

I vividly recall the hijackings of the 60s and 70s, but had no idea it went back as far as it does.