> But we're at the point in some place where there aren't even enough IPv4 addresses to give to ISP customers even if they're using NAT.
Er, that's a slight exaggeration. It's not uncommon to have 2,000 or more NAT clients behind a single public IP address. 2K * 4B = 8 trillion possible hosts... about 1,000 hosts per living person.
Article author here. There are indeed very few shootings in Europe (excluding Turkey and Russia, of course). But there are plenty of stabbings. And occasional bombings and trucks running down crowds. And let's not forget the Bataclan.
My point is that people find a way to kill each other. We can reduce violence by addressing the root causes of violence better than by trying to take people's weapons.
Hi Everyone, author of post here with an update for you. The most modern x-ray systems in use by the TSA at airports to screen carry-on bags can indeed see through lithium batteries. It also differentiates densities, and it seems to me that the latest tech should therefore be able to indicate the difference between a battery and C4 in a battery-shaped box. So is it that the airports subject to the laptop ban have the older tech? Well...
Respectfully, you are mistaken. Private airlines are "common carriers" and are required to play nice with the public, and you're conflating "whether the private carrier wouldn't want to take you" with "whether US CBP wants to see the contents of your laptop."
I actually filed suit over the former back in 2015. AA told me they wouldn't let me fly home unless I answered their "security questions." The case was resolved quickly when everyone (AA and DHS) did an about-face and said whoever told me I wouldn't be allowed to fly was mistaken.
The US may not refuse entry to its own citizens, even if they insist on remaining silent. They can detain you to be searched on arrival, but they must, after completing that search, admit you to the country.
Well, for whatever reason, they stole more equipment more recently. Could be that the new stuff is more advanced, or maybe we bombed the gear they took from Mosul. I don't have more details that would provide insight.
It is certainly correct that DHS, and to some extent our government generally, is known for over-classifying things either out of laziness, desire to avoid embarrassment, or because they believe that anything remotely security related needs to be hidden. As an intelligence analyst, you likely didn't see the misclassified things (I'd imagine roughly everything you did was classified for good reason). It's the political officials who are more likely to over-classify.
I'm certainly not arguing that DHS uses perfectly sound logic. I'm just explaining their reasoning, however flawed. I agree that this kind of "reactive" security is less than comforting.
They had puffer machines for people in 2006. They stopped using them because they required regular maintenance. Then they replaced them with the body scanners, which cost more than the puffer machine and a full time maintenance person in every airport in the country combined.
I will let my source know your feelings when I next speak with him or her. :)
I think the implication that he or she was trying to make is that statistically, those on the coasts travel by air more frequently. As someone with a mom who was very afraid of flying and terror related risks thereto, I know that fear largely dissipated when I finally got her to fly a few times. It's not an allegation of ignorance but that of relative inexperience (was my take, anyway).
I probably should have been more clear that they are completely opaque to the x-ray systems commonly in use in airports for carry-on screenings at their standard intensity setting(s). But that's a mouthful.
Fuck Elon Musk, can you design a tool that would make airport security better? I bet in 15 minutes, most HN readers could come up with something that would be cheaper, more effective, and faster to use than the current tool set. There's indeed money to be made here (and good to be done), even if the easiest way would be to patent your idea and sell it to the military industrial complex you speak of.
Fun fact: the parent company of the company that makes the TSA body scanners (L-3) also owns the company that made "waterboarding" famous. It is, indeed, the military industrial complex.
It's hard to remove all trace, but yes, in theory you could avoid it by being really careful. Then again, if you work in a "bomb factory," there's trace everywhere, so it may be quite difficult.
Also, the "turn on your device" thing they sometimes do offers some mitigation against this. Obviously, you can think of ways that may defeat this too, but to defeat all of the security, accurately, in one small package that doesn't look sketchy, is not easy. Fortunately, most terrorists are not the brightest people in the world.
Er, that's a slight exaggeration. It's not uncommon to have 2,000 or more NAT clients behind a single public IP address. 2K * 4B = 8 trillion possible hosts... about 1,000 hosts per living person.