Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

Maybe it's time (either in this thread or a new thread... which is best?) for folk to have something i encourage once in a while... a "if i were in charge it would be this way" session. As with all things (and i'm certain CotMan will keep a watchful eye on this) be mindful of the tenor of your discussion if we opt for that mental exercise. Getting into matters of "such and such system should be in place" can tread very close to "there outta be a law!" which is a hair's breath away from too political if people get fired up in their words.

Still... like a two-year-old with the Playmobil TSA Screener Set, how would you arrange all the various pieces of the airport security system for maximum efficacy with minimum cost and intrusion?

Heh, the above example is often really helpful... imagine yourself with little modular "people" and "technologies" that you could spread out on the kitchen table, and arrange a path for the little Playmobil traveler to get through to his or her plane. How does the Playmobil terrorist get stopped? How should it all work, in your ideal world?

[sintax_error]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

Great, now the next big trend will be female terrorists with exploding tampons

Well, this dipshit is being referred to as "The Crotch Bomber"... Seriously, restricting carry on luggage has a null effect on safety in any way shape or form. Look at it like an ongoing network audit; a hole is discovered and exploited. Hole gets plugged, what do you do? You find an alternate hole (go ahead, giggle). So what happens now? If carry on bags, electronics, water, my damn shampoo, etc. are banned, what's to stop the next bunghole from sneaking something on board in as Deviant mentioned in a coat, cargo pants, purse, etc? Will I have to check my wallet next time I fly? What about my watch? I'm sure one could MacGyver something out of a small amount of material and an average sized time piece. These restrictions are simply reactionary, and will do no good at protecting anyone, they will simply cause people to only fly when absolutely needed.

What these new, and past restrictions are doing is plugging a small hole with a large patch every time a new one is exploited. Rather than blowing every breach way out of proportion, would it not be more economical to simply patch holes before they are exploited? Both infrastructure and business wise, thinking of and securing vulnerabilities in airline security before some ass monkey finds it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than this after the fact, cover our ass and hope people believe we're doing something worth while shit.

[streaker69]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

Great, now the next big trend will be female terrorists with exploding tampons

Nah, not enough mass there to cause damage unless you're hauling an entire case of them.

But to quote one of my favorite parts of Fight Club:

Narrator: Was it ticking?
Airport Security Officer: Actually throwers don't worry about ticking 'cause modern bombs don't tick.
Narrator: Sorry, throwers?
Airport Security Officer: Baggage handlers. But, when a suitcase vibrates, then the throwers gotta call the police.
Narrator: My suitcase was vibrating?
Airport Security Officer: Nine times out of ten it's an electric razor, but every once in a while...
[whispering]
Airport Security Officer: it's a dildo. Of course it's company policy never to, imply ownership in the event of a dildo... always use the indefinite article a dildo, never your dildo.
Narrator: I don't own...

I'd be more concerned about exploding dildos.

[AgentDarkApple]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

What is kinda funny here is that they are still allowing "purses"

Great, now the next big trend will be female terrorists with exploding tampons

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

It is now confirmed... on a number of international flights inbound to the US there are restrictions limiting passengers to NO carry-on luggage... puke-inducing link

(side note - do we want to consider renaming this topic to something more general, like "New Air Travel Security Measures" since it's becoming a really broad topic with a lot of important discussion?)

What is kinda funny here is that they are still allowing "purses" and fuck knows i'm plenty confident in my manliness to call just about anything a "purse" if i can have my laptop, headphone case (which has my MP3 player), and a few books with me on the flight.

There's also the issue of cargo pants and/or coats. I mean, a heavy winter coat is just too goddamn bulky to pack in most luggage and, what's more, you need it with you in cold climates (for boarding flights via a tarmac staircase or just in case of emergency evacuation of an airport). One can easily store just about as much in all those pockets as would be possible in a typical carry-on bag, i'd think.

As Bruce Schneier pointed out on The Rachel Maddow Show last night, these newest measures are going to punch square in the gut of airlines' real bread and butter... business travelers. And that has the potential to finally kick some of the stupid out of the system. But i wouldn't count on it right away.

Heh, my "Flying With Fireams as a Way to Lock Your Bags" talk is looking all the more relevant, eh? (I'll be presenting an updated and even more info-packed version of this talk at QuahogCon in late April... who else is coming to that event in Rhode Island?

[shrdlu]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

shrdlu:
You want to be safe? Build a room, line it with cotton batting, and hire someone to spoon feed you baby food for the rest of your life. Just quit trying to protect ME. I don't want it.

i love you and i love this statement. may i quote you on it at some time in the future?

Aw, I love you too.

Go right ahead, and thanks for the compliment. I've been saying this for fifty years. Yes, seriously. Fifty. Since I was twelve.

[Chris]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

I've looked into AmTrak to go to Defcon because of AC power, food car, and laptop friendly spaces, but it pretty much sucks. AmTrak service in the West doesn't include rail service to Las Vegas. You pretty much have to take an AmTrak bus to a railroad station or terminal, and then move to a train, and then move back to a bus to get to Las Vegas.

Add to this, the financial cost of tickets being about 3 to 4 times the cost to fly, and you see you are paying more for worse service, and a large amount of time stuck in a bus, which is like an airplane as far as seating, but with no food service.

If there was train service to Las Vegas on rail, without buses, and the price was close to flying (no more than 20% more) I'd be willing to spend more time traveling to Defcon on a train, where I could get data phone service, Internet access for my laptop, and AC power for the duration.

Some jets provide AC power for laptops and other electronic devices, and tests to provide Internet on-board flights were run.

Too bad AmTrak doesn't have rail service to/from major cities in the US.

This is the problem for most of us. There is no legitimate alternative to flying commercially. Especially for work related travel. We find ourselves in the position of having to suck it up and do what we're told. Amtrak isn't a viable option. Driving is fine if the trip is less than 8 hours or so, but cross country? Forget it. Even if you were willing to drive 3-4 days to get from NY or DC to Vegas or LA, no way your employer would be willing to foot the bill for that (paying you for 6-8 days driving time, plus paying mileage, etc).

[charliex]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

The only changes listed on BA.com and air canada are the one carry per customer, they're also saying that they're waiving the excess baggage fee in case you have to check in.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/news/trav_adv/091226_3.html
http://www.britishairways.com/travel...b?p_faqid=3939

[beakmyn]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

Looks like Lifehacker is following up with some linky goodness:

http://lifehacker.com/5435342/the-ne...y-rules-so-far

Gizmodo's leaked TSA directive
http://gizmodo.com/5435188/leaked-ho...airplane-rules

[renderman]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

my own side note #1 - can anyone tell me for certain right now what the policies are on most major airlines regarding electronics now? reports in the press are sketchy. in this thread there was mention at least once of no electronics in carryons at all and also some discussion of first hour/last hour/whole flight. anyone have hard details there as to what's actually going down?

That's been part of the problem, making matters worse. I'm guessing that key people were off for the holidays and as such, no one was around to make quick decisive decisions and it fell to some underling on the graveyard shift to make a decision. I would expect some clarification this week once everyone is back in place but expect the final result to be more stupidity.

my own side note #2 - i feel that something which has been lost a lot in recent conversations is the fact that it's really fucking hard to bring down a modern, commercial airliner. Hell, even Aloha 243 (which ripped apart in mid-air 20 years ago) was able to land safely. The amount of typical explosive necessary to actually bring down a modern aircraft is far, far more than an individual could smuggle aboard and assemble surreptitiously.

I am interested as well what the results would be for both shoe boy and underwear boy's devices without the media hyperbole. Real science vs breathless flapping as to the effects on a plane at cruising speed and altitude. Such as the way that the liquid bombers plot was shown to be bupkiss since the chemistry they were attempting could not have, in any stretch of the imagination, been pulled off successfully in a plane.

I think the cheaper and easier solution to the problem of airplane security and safety is one of education of the public. As was noted earlier, it's a classic problem that you have to make sure 100% of all flights are secure. There is no fiesable way to accomplish that. What would be more effective is to educate the public that, it's the *most* secure and safe way to travel and that there is risk in everything. Hell if they have drugs and weapons in maximum security prisons, what hope in hell do you have of securing an airplane. Building a realistic expectation within the public and in decision makers is the only way all this could end in any sort of sane manner.

As George Carlin said very well when talking about Airline security almost 20 years ago, "take a fucking chance in your life" and accept that 500 miles an hour at 36,000 feet is not a natural habitat for a human being. A lot can go wrong in that situation, on even the best of days, to remind you that gravity is a bitch. You can remove as much of the risk as possible, but it is fundamentally impossible for it ever to be 100%. If you can't deal with that, then walk.

EDIT: Found this in my blog rounds and it makes some sense: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...ce_cream_cone/

anytime you create a large bureaucracy to deal with a specific problem, it is not in the interest of said bureaucracy for the root problem to go away. It always seeks to aggregate more power and funding so it in the end becomes a self licking ice cream cone. Prime examples are the DEA and TSA.

The rest of the post goes on to explain that there is no downside to overestimating the situation and over reacting, but there's big downsides to underestimating, so no one will do so or step up because of the 'just in case' scenario.

[g3k_]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

Too bad AmTrak doesn't have rail service to/from major cities in the US.

Going offtopic: It is really a shame that we don't have a larger passenger train presence here in America, because a large part of our country was built on trains. In European (also Japan) countries, you can basically hop on a train to go anywhere, here it is much more difficult. I'm originally from NY, so we rode trains to the city and all over, but now I'm here in Florida, I've never actually seen a passenger train station. They are trying again for a bullet train system, but I think it is going to flop again.

[TheCotMan]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Amtrak is looking appealing?

I've looked into AmTrak to go to Defcon because of AC power, food car, and laptop friendly spaces, but it pretty much sucks. AmTrak service in the West doesn't include rail service to Las Vegas. You pretty much have to take an AmTrak bus to a railroad station or terminal, and then move to a train, and then move back to a bus to get to Las Vegas.

Add to this, the financial cost of tickets being about 3 to 4 times the cost to fly, and you see you are paying more for worse service, and a large amount of time stuck in a bus, which is like an airplane as far as seating, but with no food service.

If there was train service to Las Vegas on rail, without buses, and the price was close to flying (no more than 20% more) I'd be willing to spend more time traveling to Defcon on a train, where I could get data phone service, Internet access for my laptop, and AC power for the duration.

Some jets provide AC power for laptops and other electronic devices, and tests to provide Internet on-board flights were run.

Too bad AmTrak doesn't have rail service to/from major cities in the US.

[theprez98]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

see... how is that possible? federal regulations specify (i thought) when and how electronics can be used, which ones are allowed, etc. of course, you can be "ordered" to turn something off for a whole flight... but people often forget that with flight attendants, as well as even police officers, etc... you are only criminally liable to be charged if you disobey a legitimate order. Both a cop on the street and a flight attendant at 40,000 feet could "order" me to put on a clown suit and sing the Barney theme song, but i'm not facing criminal charges if i refuse... because that order has no bearing on the business they are charged with conducting.

I do not know the exact regulations (although I suspect I'll be looking them up), but I believe that federal law/regulations give flight attendants some latitude in what they can ask/demand of passengers, and those same regulations probably require you to follow their requests/demands. All in the name of safety, of course.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but do you want to be make a scene/be arrested/detained/taken of the plane so that you can have your day in court to talk about the legitimate nature of the flight attendant's request?

I'm as fired up about this as anyone, but making a scene in front of a flight attendant would not be my way of protesting these asinine policies. As I stated in my post above, the flight attendants are going to catch the brunt of the criticism for these new policies, and I think, wrongly so.

(I'm not suggesting that you would do this, just sayin'...)

However, I would like to see Deviant don a clown suit and sing the Barney theme song. Anyone else?

Edit: FAR Sec. 91.517 is a start, but not exactly what I'm looking for, yet, as it only applies to a few specific circumstances.

[Melesse]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

There is no official word. It's up the airline's discretion. The buzzword is unpredictable. If they rules are unpredictable then a terrorist won't take the chance. At least that's what the government wants us to think.

Yea, I've seen several articles this morning that specifically mentioned that SOME airlines were implementing these policies domestically, since it was at their discretion. I'm struggling to find one now, there's so many articles listed now that they're lost in the Morass. Info-DOS.

In addition, the unpredictable rules part sounds very much like an excuse for airport security to do pretty much anything they want. This is one of those "Spider-man" great power moments. And somehow I don't think it's going to go the right way. It never seems to.

EDIT: Deviant, I saw in a couple places he had 80 grams of PETN on him. I started to attempt to look up detonation velocities and try and figure out approx. how much damage that would do, but then I realized after my search results came back with articles on how to MAKE PETN I shouldn't be doing that at work ><

Mel

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Recent Events - Airplane Bathroom Cameras

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Amtrak is looking appealing?

especially since they are going to allow us to carry our guns like airlines have for ages and ages now. of course, however, they are trying to implement it in the exact same manner as airports... which makes no damn sense. you can't hijack a train like you can a plane, nor disrupt its operational reliability by shooting holes in a window or anything. it should be a simple matter of keeping something locked and unloaded, like driving state to state... being forced to "declare" the firearm to someone makes no sense at all to me.

You want to be safe? Build a room, line it with cotton batting, and hire someone to spoon feed you baby food for the rest of your life. Just quit trying to protect ME. I don't want it.

i love you and i love this statement. may i quote you on it at some time in the future?

Actually, it was reported today it's at the discretion of the airline to ban use of all electronic devices during the entire flight. I'm sure that will make everyone safer.

see... how is that possible? federal regulations specify (i thought) when and how electronics can be used, which ones are allowed, etc. of course, you can be "ordered" to turn something off for a whole flight... but people often forget that with flight attendants, as well as even police officers, etc... you are only criminally liable to be charged if you disobey a legitimate order. Both a cop on the street and a flight attendant at 40,000 feet could "order" me to put on a clown suit and sing the Barney theme song, but i'm not facing criminal charges if i refuse... because that order has no bearing on the business they are charged with conducting.

being ordered to not use electronics when the plane is in a territory that the Fed and the FAA have declared safe for electronics smacks of an "illegitimate" order to me. then again, maybe i just sound like a whiny teenager.

They've already apparently shut off the audio/video system since it shows the GPS location of the airplane.

yeah, because knowing where the plane is in the sky really gives a lot of good intel to a potential threat actor. are they afraid of people using this data to plan when to rush the cockpit? the cockpits that nobody can actually open, anymore?

you might have warned me that it would go in the toilet

i, for one, thank you for starting this thread. i feel there has been a lot of good info here and good opinions being shared. if discussions like this were broadcast on C-Span once in a while, maybe the public could wise up a bit more about security matters.


my own side note #1 - can anyone tell me for certain right now what the policies are on most major airlines regarding electronics now? reports in the press are sketchy. in this thread there was mention at least once of no electronics in carryons at all and also some discussion of first hour/last hour/whole flight. anyone have hard details there as to what's actually going down?

my own side note #2 - i feel that something which has been lost a lot in recent conversations is the fact that it's really fucking hard to bring down a modern, commercial airliner. Hell, even Aloha 243 (which ripped apart in mid-air 20 years ago) was able to land safely. The amount of typical explosive necessary to actually bring down a modern aircraft is far, far more than an individual could smuggle aboard and assemble surreptitiously.

i'd personally like to see advances striven for in sniffer technology to detect explosive residue and other indicators of bombs, etc. loads and loads of that sort of screening, coupled with behavioral monitoring and no ID checks... that's my formula for security in the friendly skies.