Kip Hawley: "No, the TSA is Necessary Because This is War!"

re: Kip Hawley: "No, the TSA is Necessary Because This is War!"

Yuri — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:00:24 GMT

Hey Jesper,

Have you and Steve thought about updating your "Protect your windows network" book? It is one of the best Windows Network books on security that I have ever read, and I just thought that an update would be awesome.

Please post a blog if so. = )

I will buy the book for sure!

Blessings,

Yuri

re: Kip Hawley: "No, the TSA is Necessary Because This is War!"

jersey — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:54:25 GMT

I agree and disagree.

I think the statement "The TSA, single-handedly, created this vulnerability" is completely bogus. The TSA, as a side effect, created another line in an airport. If we're looking for a huge group of people in an airport forget the security line. Instead look at the check-in counters, especially on bad weather days.

Having said that, I agree 100% that an easier (and just as terror-generating) attack would be to simply blow up bombs on the "insecure" side of the airport.

Aaron is correct. Nobody here is an expert in air security. While things could certainly be more efficient and likely safer, to call it "security theatre" is incorrect and insulting.

re: Kip Hawley: "No, the TSA is Necessary Because This is War!"

Neal — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:18:05 GMT

You just know that the TSA will now create a security check to check you aren't carrying a bomb before you get into the security check line right?

re: Kip Hawley: "No, the TSA is Necessary Because This is War!"

Aaron Margosis — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:48:45 GMT

Schneier and Johansson (and I) know some stuff about computer security. To my knowledge, none of us have any *real* experience in anti-terrorism. He might be right about shoe removal and liquids, but I wouldn't consider him an authority. In CS, we continually defend against yesterday's attacks and today's attacks, and try to have some defenses to mitigate or even prevent what might happen tomorrow. I've seen video demos of what the radicals in the UK intended to do to those trans-atlantic flights, so I don't object to any of the screening I have to go through. It might not be the most efficient process. Oh, and believe it or not I always make a point to THANK the TSA people after they're done going through my stuff. (No emoticon here because I am serious.)

re: Kip Hawley: "No, the TSA is Necessary Because This is War!"

Jeff Martin — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:44:39 GMT

I'm no expert so possibly I am wrong, but I doubt anyone could strap on enough explosives to kill 145+ people in line at the airport. Wound maybe, but not kill. They got that ratio before by flying an airplane into a building, not from a strap-on explosion. Look at the suicide bombers in the mideast now, I can't credit that there aren't crowds in the middle east that bombers in Iraq or Israel could target. But the numbers of dead per attack that we see are 10, maybe 30. But it is still a good point. The numbers of dead aren't really that important, the real attack is from the terror such an attack would cause. Hence the term 'terrorist.' But why should they bother attacking an airport, we are already doing exactly what they want: bankrupting and oppressing our own country for a ridiculous "war" against a tactic used by a small gang of criminals.

re: Kip Hawley: "No, the TSA is Necessary Because This is War!"

Micah — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:20:48 GMT

Great article, that asks great questions. "Security Theater;" is the best way to describe it too. We are sitting ducks just waiting to get attacked again and there is nothing we can do about it. Next time we get attacked we will just run to uncle Sam for more protection and he will take away more of our rights.

- Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result Albert Einstein