Epic Fail

[ydoaPs]

On Christmas, a man attempted an act of terrorism on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. His explosive device failed to detonate properly and the assailant succeeded in only harming himself. He was treated for second and third degree burns.

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2009/12/26/nr.bergen.interview.cnn

[Phi for All]

So what aspect of this story did you want to discuss?

[ydoaPs]

Ummm, mainly that it's a fail so epic it's almost a win.

[swansont]

Considering the backlash from security concerns, I'd say there was at least a partial success. Airlines have already announced restrictions on getting up in the last hour of a flight and on what amounts to random, unannounced changes in policy, so what is acceptable to have in your luggage in one airport on one day may not be permitted on your return trip. Not bound to be well-received by passengers.

 

Epic fail will be total, IMO, when a foiled attempt at terrorism results in absolutely no reaction by anyone else.

[ydoaPs]

Epic fail will be total, IMO, when a foiled attempt at terrorism results in absolutely no reaction by anyone else.

 

I guess you have a point there. Where would you place it on the fail spectrum?

[bascule]

As someone about to take an international flight, let me state for the record that these changes blow.

 

I don't get it... if a terrorist is using plastic explosive, what good is it having people remove their shoes or keep things out of their laps? They could just as easily cover their abdomen or cram it up their butt, then do whatever they want as soon as they get to the lavatory.

 

Apparently terrorist bombings only occur during the last hour of a flight? Zuh?

 

I am so sick of security theater... making my flying experience worse just to calm the frazzled nerves of the paranoid.

 

Personally I would love it if I could bring hair gel on an airplane without it being in a tiny bottle and sealed in a plastic baggie.

 

I guess I'll wait and see what changes are enacted, but they're talking about banning you from having anything in your lap for the last hour of the flight... even a book. WTF am I supposed to do to pass the time then?

[iNow]

As someone about to take an international flight, let me state for the record that these changes blow.

 

<...>

 

I am so sick of security theater... making my flying experience worse just to calm the frazzled nerves of the paranoid.

 

+1

 

I've got business travel over the next several weeks, and the response being taken is almost wholly without merit. It's ridiculous that I can't bring my face soap and hair product on to the plane with me if it's 3.5 oz or more. However, if it's 3.4 oz? Yeah... Sure... No problem.

 

Idiots.

 

Btw, Bascule... I was looking at the TSA website this morning, and I'm pretty sure you're not going to be allowed to use the restroom during the final hour of flight, either. Better wear a diaper.

[ydoaPs]

Btw, Bascule... I was looking at the TSA website this morning, and I'm pretty sure you're not going to be allowed to use the restroom during the final hour of flight, either. Better wear a diaper.

Or you could just explode it while it's up there.

 

EDIT:

Mandatory cavity searches(with an optional prostate massage) for all passengers on international flights?

Edited December 27, 2009 by ydoaPs

[insane_alien]

this guy must be related to the guys who tried to blow up glasgow airport. if anything they helped its image by removing the upper layers of chewing gum welded to the pavement and forcing them to clean it up a bit.

[DJBruce]

I have to feel that all of the TSA restrictions are based on some credible data or information. What this information is I have no idea, and have a feeling that the TSA will not release it for doing so would potentially compromise security. Maybe I am just naive, but I like to think that our government has some rationale for their actions, and doesn't just implement security measures willy nilly.

 

That being said I would have to say that I would not so much all the terrorist's plan an epic fail, but instead would call the American security measures an epic fail. The suspected terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, was already on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, and there for should have been placed on the TSA's No Fly list. The suspects father was the one who called attempted to warn the United States about his son's "radicalization". After being able to obtain a plane ticket he was able to smuggle explosives through security. If it had not been for quick reaction by the passengers and crew, and the ineptitude of designer of the device the outcome of this incident could have been much different.

 

I am not sure what the right methods for airport security are, but we currently do not have them. I am not saying that everyone should be cavity search, but the TSA should definitely rethink its approach to security.

 

BTW: I bet that the no blankets or leaving your seat during the last hour of the flight is probably a hasty response to the fact that this last attempt occurred towards the end of the flight. It seems somewhat ridiculous to attempt to stop a terrorist once they are already aboard, instead of focusing on stopping the before the enter the gate.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/27/investigators-cross-globe-looking-details-plane-bombing-suspect/

[swansont]

I have to feel that all of the TSA restrictions are based on some credible data or information. What this information is I have no idea, and have a feeling that the TSA will not release it for doing so would potentially compromise security. Maybe I am just naive, but I like to think that our government has some rationale for their actions, and doesn't just implement security measures willy nilly.

 

I don't. I think a lot of it is knee-jerk security theatre — a reaction to a specific act instead of an overall plan, which makes it look like you're doing something. In reality, though, the passengers are no safer. For example, the no-fly list can be foiled with a fake identity. You can bring multiple bottles on board, as long as they are individually small enough. Multiple people can bring items on board. You can blow the plane up before the last hour.

 

They are chasing the last tactic used. It's a CYA mentality — they check our shoes because that tactic was tried before, and they would be excoriated if it happened again.

 

I agree with this:

 

Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.

 

This week, the second one worked over Detroit. Security succeeded.

 

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_expl.html

[Pangloss]

The aviation industry seems to be almost universally of the same opinion as most of those expressed above. I follow a number of aircraft and aviation sources, including a mailing list with airline and military pilots and aviation writers going back over 15 years, and those guys pretty much to the man/woman think TSA is a very bad joke.

 

But I think these criticisms sometimes miss two key points, which I recently hashed out with a correspondent at Aviation Week who's an old friend:

 

1) There's nothing you can really do to fix the bigger problems without cutting severely into freedom, and if you do that you may simply shift the danger elsewhere. (How many people died on US highways in 2009?)

 

2) Given the way human beings and the media work, is it really conceivable that any democratic government could choose to do nothing and just say "sorry, there's nothing really effective we can do"?

 

One interesting unexpected consequence of the formation of TSA that I think illustrates this point is the frequent story about lax screeners, e.g. screeners "sleeping on the job", etc. These stories used to be the purview of local news services, and we never heard anything about it on the national level unless it was really bad. But now every incident is viewed through a different filter -- the reporter has to ask whether this is a problem in Washington. They're not wrong to ask that question, but it has the effect of lowering our overall opinion of the entire service even though the problem may be local.

 

Maybe the story of TSA isn't so much a reflection on government as it is a reflection on society.

[padren]

Out of curiosity, aren't people still smuggling condoms filled with drugs in their stomachs and all that? I can only assume that since these terrorists utilize such crude and ultimately ineffective mechanisms that it's a lot harder to swallow explosives but I can't imagine why.

[bascule]

I have to feel that all of the TSA restrictions are based on some credible data or information.

 

I agree with Bruce Schneier:

 

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_expl.html

 

Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.

 

Due to the latter alone 9/11 will never happen again. Passengers will not sit complacently as terrorists hijack an airplane. They will resist.

 

The rest is security theater. Despite all the security that has been put in place, this man managed to walk onto an airplane with a bomb.

 

Every single lithium ion battery in every laptop people carry aboard airplanes is a potential bomb.

 

Metal detectors cannot detect plastic explosives. To quote Bruce Schneier again:

 

I don't want to even think about how much C4 I can strap to my legs and walk through your magnetometers.

 

It's all just security theater to assuage the concerns of the paranoid. Few of the changes provide real security.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

One wonders how much the "naked scanners" (the devices that see through clothing to detect hidden objects) would even help. All one needs to devise is some body covering that blocks the radiation like skin does. Not too hard. (Leather?) Then hide whatever you'd like under that covering.

 

The only way you'd stop anyone from causing trouble during flights is by strapping them down or tranquilizing them. Although then Houdini would be able to hijack whatever planes he wished, without the passengers able to retaliate.

[padren]

Due to the latter alone 9/11 will never happen again. Passengers will not sit complacently as terrorists hijack an airplane. They will resist.

 

I have to agree with this and the really interesting thing is, at the time that all four planes on 9/11 were in the air passengers it was business as usual to go along with hijackers, and before flight 93 could be used as a weapon against a building the tactic was already obsolete.

 

In terms of how fast we as a society were able to communicate and adapt organically to a completely new threat under such extreme conditions (while locked in the back of a plane in the air) is in my opinion, pretty impressive.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just an interesting twist on this one:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/northwest-flight-253-al-qaeda-leaders-terror-plot/story?id=9434065

 

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab Says More Bombers On the Way; Al Qaeda Promises to Hit Americans.

 

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

 

Art therapy for terrorist suspects? Can we upgrade this to Legendary Fail yet?

[Phi for All]

Art therapy for terrorist suspects?

 

 

 

OK, Umar, you need work on the pastels and the ink sketches, but you're way above average with oil. Also, we're denying your request for potassium nitrate as a tempera pigment. And once again, NO, there is no extra credit for cutting off other people's ears!

[bascule]

Looks like TSA isn't that dumb after all. They've eased some of the restrictions:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/us/29security.html

[Pangloss]

The ire in the political angle on this story has been surprising to me. Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post today compared Janet Napolitano's appearance on a Sunday talk show with Bush's "you're doing a heck of a job Brownie" comment after Hurricane Katrina. (ouch)

 

Of course much of the criticism applies to practices that were operational well before the current administration took office (or the current party took majority power), but ABC News was reporting tonight that Democrats in Congress stopped the distribution of body scanners last year because of concern over privacy rights. However, I haven't found any confirmation of this yet and most of the stories I've seen seem to be saying that it's a matter of cost and that either 6 or 19 airports (depending on the source) have actually received scanners, which would seem contrary to ABC's story.

 

But any way you cut it I don't know how a full-body scanner in Detroit is supposed to catch PETN in the underwear of a man boarding an airplane in the Middle East. That would have to be one heck of a scanner!

 

I did find one story (forgot to save the link, sorry) that said that the European Union slowed plans to distribute these scanners over privacy concerns.

[swansont]

The ire in the political angle on this story has been surprising to me. Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post today compared Janet Napolitano's appearance on a Sunday talk show with Bush's "you're doing a heck of a job Brownie" comment after Hurricane Katrina. (ouch)

 

Most of us are under the impression that removing our shoes at the airport and limiting ourselves to those tiny, trial-size containers of toothpaste, shaving cream and lotion are enough to ensure a safe flight.

 

Gah. Methinks Eugene Robinson is being disingenuous or, if not, isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

 

 

Of course much of the criticism applies to practices that were operational well before the current administration took office (or the current party took majority power), but ABC News was reporting tonight that Democrats in Congress stopped the distribution of body scanners last year because of concern over privacy rights. However, I haven't found any confirmation of this yet and most of the stories I've seen seem to be saying that it's a matter of cost and that either 6 or 19 airports (depending on the source) have actually received scanners, which would seem contrary to ABC's story.

 

One solution to this is to simply admit that you have no privacy rights if you are going to fly, similar to gaining entry to federal facilities: you must be willing to consent to the search.

 

 

But any way you cut it I don't know how a full-body scanner in Detroit is supposed to catch PETN in the underwear of a man boarding an airplane in the Middle East. That would have to be one heck of a scanner!

 

That's a very good point. This was a failure of foreign security measures. Why is DHS being blamed for it?

[CaptainPanic]

Well, the Dutch seem to be super-enthusiastic to implement some kind of body scan now... Amsterdam Airport (which gets over 50 million passengers / year) is where the guy switched planes - and although you might think that the airport of departure (in the Middle-East?) is responsible for the security, we don't care... we want scanners now!

I believe that some people have really been waiting for a chance like this. This is the first terrorism in the Netherlands in many years. Celebrations!

 

It has been a brilliant move of the security business, which has slowly become a serious industry and a powerful lobby. In the first 24 hrs after some attack (failed or not) nobody will mention and concerns regarding losses of privacy, so they have been quick to get politicians to promise some measures. And the result is millions of additional income for those companies.

 

But in all fairness - Airplanes carry 1.6 billion passengers per year! How secure do you want it?

 

http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=29

[Phi for All]

One solution to this is to simply admit that you have no privacy rights if you are going to fly, similar to gaining entry to federal facilities: you must be willing to consent to the search.

Here's a very cheap solution: amend the warning announcements and signs so they read, "No person may tamper with, disable, or destroy any smoke detector or security camera installed in any airplane lavatory". It only implies there actually *is* a camera, and it would be interesting to see the reaction. If no one minds being surveilled in the loo, you could probably figure they would submit to being searched before boarding next time. If they really object, the pre-boarding search becomes the lesser of two evils.

 

I hate that our reactions to those who threaten our freedom is to restrict our freedom even more. It just proves that our methods for fighting terrorism continue to make terrorism the most cost-effective warfare EVER.

[Pangloss]

One solution to this is to simply admit that you have no privacy rights if you are going to fly, similar to gaining entry to federal facilities: you must be willing to consent to the search.

 

I wondered about this as well, but apparently this is a major policy position by the ACLU, who feels that "naked body" scanners go too far. I don't get it myself -- who cares if some person behind a screen sees you naked? It's not as if they know you, and if they're some deviant who's going to sneak a snapshot and distribute it on the Internet then they're no doubt breaking several laws and employer rules already.

 

But I guess their feeling is that it's a form of privacy, and I think that's a good example of how special interest groups think in absolute terms.

 

 

Here's a very cheap solution: amend the warning announcements and signs so they read, "No person may tamper with, disable, or destroy any smoke detector or security camera installed in any airplane lavatory". It only implies there actually *is* a camera, and it would be interesting to see the reaction. If no one minds being surveilled in the loo, you could probably figure they would submit to being searched before boarding next time. If they really object, the pre-boarding search becomes the lesser of two evils.

 

Wow that's devious! But it would probably be reported on the news pretty quickly and the gig would be up.

[bascule]

That's a very good point. This was a failure of foreign security measures. Why is DHS being blamed for it?

 

For what it's worth, having flown through Schiphol I can attest the security measures are identical to everywhere else, if not more so. For example it was the only place I was asked to remove my laptops, open them up, and demonstrate that they do in fact work. Other than that it's the standard fare you'd expect from TSA, none of which will prevent you from smuggling plastic explosive.

[Phi for All]

Wow that's devious! But it would probably be reported on the news pretty quickly and the gig would be up.

Not if Gale D. Rossides, acting director of TSA, told the press that the cameras *could be* in any airplane, in line with TSA's policy of random unpredictable procedures. It would be very interesting to see what kind of media backlash there would be. After all, some stores put video cameras in dressing rooms to prevent shoplifting.