TSA Master Keys

[Sylvia Else]

Copied from comp.misc, originally posted by Rich

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/tsa_master_keys.html

Quoting from the URL above:

Someone recently noticed a Washington Post story on the TSA that
originally contained a detailed photograph of all the TSA master keys.
It's now blurred out of the Washington Post story, but the image is
still floating around the Internet. The whole thing neatly illustrates
one of the main problems with backdoors, whether in cryptographic
systems or physical systems: they're fragile.

...

[Paul Saccani]

Travel Sentry locks aren't intended to be high security locks, and for
anyone capable of copying the keys from a photo, it isn't just as easy
to buy some luggage and locks to recreate the 7 master keys - it's
easier. You should, as a matter of course, either have a search
indicator version of the lock, or use some form of seal so you know
that someone has been at your luggage. Unlawful things do happen to
luggage airside, things get added and removed.

If someone has had a go at your luggage, it's useful to let customs
know that your luggage has been tampered with quick smart. If going
to or from the USA, you might want to check inside for a printed
notice from the TSA before doing that. Or not.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

The images have already been used to design 3D models which can be 3D
printed as working keys:
http://www.3ders.org/articles/20150910-leaked-photo-of-tsa-master-luggage-keys-leads-to-3d-printed-copies-of-them.html

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[Petzl]

When they first came out someone here suggested to wrap a electric
cable tie around suitcase it has to be cut to get suitcase opened.
Easy to increase lenght by clicking ties together
http://www.cableties.com.au/
--
Petzl
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid."

[F Murtz]

Most available cable ties are easily undone without cutting.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Or a really bright bloke might put a new cable tie on after opening
the bag.

Best way would be to use some indicator that isn't obvious to the
person opening the bag. This is really a different problem to the
TSA locks though, they're meant to make it difficult for anyone
unauthorised from opening the bag in the first place. Granted
they're usually too weak to really do this.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>
> Best way would be to use some indicator that isn't obvious to the
> person opening the bag. This is really a different problem to the
> TSA locks though, they're meant to make it difficult for anyone
> unauthorised from opening the bag in the first place. Granted
> they're usually too weak to really do this.

What you really want is a combination lock, and you tell the
airport authorities the combination, which they put on a database
that only the authorised personel are able to access. Then you
change your combination after the flight.

I guess they might have to break open more bags because people
got their combinations wrong, but it would offer more security
combined with a well designed bag lock.

[F Murtz]

Probably one of the good ideas is when asked if you know what is in the
bag, say no as you have not had control of it.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:mt50cr$eua$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Unlikely to be able to find a match and completely trivial to
make it unique in a way that no one could easily match anyway.

> Best way would be to use some indicator that
> isn't obvious to the person opening the bag.

And it would be completely trivial to do that.

[keithr0]

Last time the TSA opened my bag fitted with a TSA lock, they kept the
bloody thing! I check on whether my bags have been tampered with by
putting small zip ties on all the fasteners. Its unlikely that anybody
up to mischief will have a supply of small coloured ties.

[keithr0]

A small zip tie put between the zip sliders, pulled tight and the excess
cut off is almost impossible to remove and replace.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mt50cr$eua$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Most available cable ties are easily undone without cutting.
>>
>> Or a really bright bloke might put a new cable tie on after opening
>> the bag.
>
> Unlikely to be able to find a match and completely trivial to
> make it unique in a way that no one could easily match anyway.

Yes I suppose, if you're paranoid enough to intricately study cable
ties as your first task upon arriving at your destination.

>> Best way would be to use some indicator that
>> isn't obvious to the person opening the bag.
>
> And it would be completely trivial to do that.

Yep, it would.

>> This is really a different problem to the TSA locks
>> though, they're meant to make it difficult for anyone
>> unauthorised from opening the bag in the first place.
>> Granted they're usually too weak to really do this.

[Peter]

The pen is mightier than the sword.

http://youtu.be/G5mvvZl6pLI

--
:-P

[Rod Speed]

Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote

>>> F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>> Most available cable ties are easily undone without cutting.

>>> Or a really bright bloke might put a
>>> new cable tie on after opening the bag.

>> Unlikely to be able to find a match and completely trivial to
>> make it unique in a way that no one could easily match anyway.

> Yes I suppose, if you're paranoid enough to intricately study
> cable ties as your first task upon arriving at your destination.

Don’t need to intricately study anything if you have
enough of a clue about the cable tie you use.

[Petzl]

Even before TSA locks QANTAS filmed (hidden CAM) baggage handlers
opening suitcases to pilfer. It was claimed they could get around any
lock.
Still think the cable ties are the go, even if only through the
fasteners. Not seen any that are "easily" untied/unzipped, require
cutting.

[Rod Speed]

Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote

> n...@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote
>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

>>> Best way would be to use some indicator that isn't obvious to the
>>> person opening the bag. This is really a different problem to the
>>> TSA locks though, they're meant to make it difficult for anyone
>>> unauthorised from opening the bag in the first place. Granted
>>> they're usually too weak to really do this.

>> What you really want is a combination lock,

Much too easy to get into.

>> and you tell the airport authorities the combination,
>> which they put on a database that only the authorised
>> personel are able to access.

Pity that has to be all the goons who check for
illegal stuff, so any of those can loot your bag.

>> Then you change your combination after the flight.

Much too expensive to have that sort of lock.

>> I guess they might have to break open more bags because
>> people got their combinations wrong, but it would offer
>> more security combined with a well designed bag lock.

> Even before TSA locks QANTAS filmed (hidden CAM) baggage handlers
> opening suitcases to pilfer. It was claimed they could get around any
> lock.

I don't believe that last.

> Still think the cable ties are the go,

Yep.

> even if only through the fasteners.

No thanks after seeing how easy it is to get thru the zip in that video.

> Not seen any that are "easily" untied/unzipped, require cutting.

And easy to avoid using those that are.

[keithr0]

My suitcase has a ring that you can zip tie the tabs to. That wouldn't
stop anybody breaking in, but thats not the point. The point is to
detect whether the bag has been tampered with and it would stop them
from closing the zip again. If you really want to make breaking in as
difficult as possible then you can use the bag wrapping service
available at most airports.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>> n...@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote
>>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> Best way would be to use some indicator that isn't obvious to the
>>>> person opening the bag. This is really a different problem to the
>>>> TSA locks though, they're meant to make it difficult for anyone
>>>> unauthorised from opening the bag in the first place. Granted
>>>> they're usually too weak to really do this.
>
>>> What you really want is a combination lock,
>
> Much too easy to get into.

If you wanted to make a bag and lock difficult to get into,
you could. With a TSA lock, any bag is now easy to get into
quickly.

>>> and you tell the airport authorities the combination,
>>> which they put on a database that only the authorised
>>> personel are able to access.
>
> Pity that has to be all the goons who check for
> illegal stuff, so any of those can loot your bag.
>
>>> Then you change your combination after the flight.
>
> Much too expensive to have that sort of lock.

It depends what's in your bag. At least allowing passengers to
use combination locks this way, they would have the option of
increased security.

>>> I guess they might have to break open more bags because
>>> people got their combinations wrong,

>>> but it would offer
>>> more security combined with a well designed bag lock.

Hence, one that isn't "much too easy to get into".

>> Still think the cable ties are the go,
>
> Yep.

A different solution to a different problem as I see it. I wouldn't
care if someone had been in my bag and hadn't done anything to it
or its contents. If they took something, that would be the indication
in itself.

I would however like to deter anyone from getting in there in the
first place, and with TSA keys now easy to get a hold of, not having
a TSA lock seems a good way to do that (assuming there's no reason to
target my bag specifically).

If I carried something I didn't want anyone else to SEE (documents
perhaps), then it might be different.

[Petzl]

It happened to me returning from Japan years ago (2002?)
Japan customs checked my luggage on boarding and glued two stickers as
seals to show if broken my luggage would of been opened.
The suitcase aside from latches being locked (did in front of Jap
customs) had a combination hidden by suitcase strap. Took ages for
luggage to appear in Sydney, thought nothing of it, getting home I
noticed both latches unlocked and stickers not removed but both were
not stuck to bottom half of suitcase. I don't think they got past
combination lock and think the thieves didn't think one was there
until they moved the strap.

About a week later saw this "middle eastern" types exposed on a QANTAS
cam opening luggage.

>> Still think the cable ties are the go,
>
>Yep.
>

Do it all the time and the type of ties I use I just cut, VERY time
consuming to loosen and once loosened can't be tightened.

>> even if only through the fasteners.
>
>No thanks after seeing how easy it is to get thru the zip in that video.
>

I always buy the Oyster suit case type no zip.

>> Not seen any that are "easily" untied/unzipped, require cutting.
>
>And easy to avoid using those that are.

Yeah. in fact harder to find any that are easy to untie, just cut them
open myself

[Rod Speed]

Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> n...@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote
>>>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> Best way would be to use some indicator that isn't obvious to the
>>>>> person opening the bag. This is really a different problem to the
>>>>> TSA locks though, they're meant to make it difficult for anyone
>>>>> unauthorised from opening the bag in the first place. Granted
>>>>> they're usually too weak to really do this.

>>>> What you really want is a combination lock,

>> Much too easy to get into.

> If you wanted to make a bag and lock difficult to get into, you could.

Yes, but a COMBINATION LOCK isn't the way to make it difficult to get into.

> With a TSA lock, any bag is now easy to get into quickly.

And trivial to wrap the bag or use ties to make it much harder.

>>>> and you tell the airport authorities the combination,
>>>> which they put on a database that only the authorised
>>>> personel are able to access.

>> Pity that has to be all the goons who check for
>> illegal stuff, so any of those can loot your bag.

>>>> Then you change your combination after the flight.

>> Much too expensive to have that sort of lock.

> It depends what's in your bag.

Few carry gold bars or even expensive phones in their bag.

> At least allowing passengers to use
> combination locks this way, they would
> have the option of increased security.

They do now with wrapping the bag and with ties.

>>>> I guess they might have to break open more bags
>>>> because people got their combinations wrong,

>>>> but it would offer more security combined
>>>> with a well designed bag lock.

> Hence, one that isn't "much too easy to get into".

They all are when they have zips that are as
easy to get into as was shown in that video.

>>> Still think the cable ties are the go,

>> Yep.

> A different solution to a different problem as I see it.

Then you need new glasses, BAD.

> I wouldn't care if someone had been in my bag
> and hadn't done anything to it or its contents.

That’s unlikely unless there was nothing worth stealing in it.

> If they took something, that would be the indication in itself.

But its much better to make it hard to steal anything than
to know that its been stolen and not be able to get it back.

> I would however like to deter anyone from getting in there
> in the first place, and with TSA keys now easy to get a hold of,

And easy to wrap the bag or use a tie to make it much harder.

> not having a TSA lock seems a good way to do that

Yes.

> (assuming there's no reason to target my bag specifically).

> If I carried something I didn't want anyone else to SEE
> (documents perhaps), then it might be different.

And only a fool would do that today.

[Rod Speed]

Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote

No it didn't. You have no idea what locks they couldn't get into.

> Japan customs checked my luggage on boarding and glued two
> stickers as seals to show if broken my luggage would of been opened.
> The suitcase aside from latches being locked (did in front of Jap
> customs) had a combination hidden by suitcase strap. Took ages
> for luggage to appear in Sydney, thought nothing of it, getting
> home I noticed both latches unlocked and stickers not removed
> but both were not stuck to bottom half of suitcase. I don't think
> they got past combination lock and think the thieves didn't
> think one was there until they moved the strap.

> About a week later saw this "middle eastern" types
> exposed on a QANTAS cam opening luggage.

Sure, but that doesn't show that they can get around any lock.

>>> Still think the cable ties are the go,

>> Yep.

> Do it all the time and the type of ties I use I just cut, VERY time
> consuming to loosen and once loosened can't be tightened.

Yeah, and trivially easy to ensure that they can't just replace the tie.

>>> even if only through the fasteners.

>> No thanks after seeing how easy it is to get thru the zip in that video.

> I always buy the Oyster suit case type no zip.

Yeah, that is certainly a much better approach.

I got the other way, don't have anything worth stealing in it.

Even my clothes aren't worth stealing, I stick to jeans
and T shirts and done even have a proper sports
coat etc anymore, let alone stupid stuff like suits.

Never bothered with jewellery and don't bother with
a watch or camera anymore, have that capability
in the phone and don't keep the phone in the bag.

>>> Not seen any that are "easily" untied/unzipped, require cutting.

>> And easy to avoid using those that are.

> Yeah. in fact harder to find any that are
> easy to untie, just cut them open myself

Yeah, they are so cheap its not worth farting
around even when it is possible and makes it
impossible for a thief to get in that way without
making it obvious what they have done.

All you ever have to do is like with your house
or car, just make it harder to get into yours so
they will go and loot someone else's.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> n...@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote
>

>>>>> What you really want is a combination lock,
>
>>> Much too easy to get into.
>
>> If you wanted to make a bag and lock difficult to get into, you could.
>
> Yes, but a COMBINATION LOCK isn't the way to make it difficult to get into.

It's impossible to design a good combination lock?

>> With a TSA lock, any bag is now easy to get into quickly.
>
> And trivial to wrap the bag or use ties to make it much harder.

OK, maybe I'm missing something here. You put cable ties over a
bag so that they have to be cut to get in. A theif has side
cutters. How does this theif have a problem?

>>>>> and you tell the airport authorities the combination,
>>>>> which they put on a database that only the authorised
>>>>> personel are able to access.
>
>>> Pity that has to be all the goons who check for
>>> illegal stuff, so any of those can loot your bag.
>
>>>>> Then you change your combination after the flight.
>
>>> Much too expensive to have that sort of lock.
>
>> It depends what's in your bag.
>
> Few carry gold bars or even expensive phones in their bag.

Expensive laptops, expensive cameras, expensive clothes...

>> At least allowing passengers to use
>> combination locks this way, they would
>> have the option of increased security.
>
> They do now with wrapping the bag and with ties.
>
>>>>> I guess they might have to break open more bags
>>>>> because people got their combinations wrong,
>
>>>>> but it would offer more security combined
>>>>> with a well designed bag lock.
>
>> Hence, one that isn't "much too easy to get into".
>
> They all are when they have zips that are as
> easy to get into as was shown in that video.

Then use a bag that doesn't have zips.

>>>> Still think the cable ties are the go,
>
>>> Yep.
>
>> A different solution to a different problem as I see it.
>
> Then you need new glasses, BAD.
>
>> I wouldn't care if someone had been in my bag
>> and hadn't done anything to it or its contents.
>

> That?s unlikely unless there was nothing worth stealing in it.

>
>> If they took something, that would be the indication in itself.
>
> But its much better to make it hard to steal anything than
> to know that its been stolen and not be able to get it back.

Now we're making the same point, but how do cable ties defeat
a theif armed with a cutting instrument?

[Rod Speed]

Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> n...@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote

>>>>>> What you really want is a combination lock,

>>>> Much too easy to get into.

>>> If you wanted to make a bag and lock difficult to get into, you could.

>> Yes, but a COMBINATION LOCK isn't the way to make it difficult to get
>> into.

> It's impossible to design a good combination lock?

Impossible to stop someone trying all the combinations.

>>> With a TSA lock, any bag is now easy to get into quickly.

>> And trivial to wrap the bag or use ties to make it much harder.

> OK, maybe I'm missing something here. You put cable
> ties over a bag so that they have to be cut to get in. A
> theif has side cutters. How does this theif have a problem?

Its obvious that the thief has got into the bag so one
of the apes who is paid to move the bags around has
a problem when its obvious one of them has done that.

>>>>>> and you tell the airport authorities the combination,
>>>>>> which they put on a database that only the authorised
>>>>>> personel are able to access.

>>>> Pity that has to be all the goons who check for
>>>> illegal stuff, so any of those can loot your bag.

>>>>>> Then you change your combination after the flight.

>>>> Much too expensive to have that sort of lock.

>>> It depends what's in your bag.

>> Few carry gold bars or even expensive phones in their bag.

> Expensive laptops, expensive cameras, expensive clothes...

>>> At least allowing passengers to use
>>> combination locks this way, they would
>>> have the option of increased security.

>> They do now with wrapping the bag and with ties.

>>>>>> I guess they might have to break open more bags
>>>>>> because people got their combinations wrong,

>>>>>> but it would offer more security combined
>>>>>> with a well designed bag lock.

>>> Hence, one that isn't "much too easy to get into".

>> They all are when they have zips that are as
>> easy to get into as was shown in that video.

> Then use a bag that doesn't have zips.

Most do.

>>>>> Still think the cable ties are the go,

>>>> Yep.

>>> A different solution to a different problem as I see it.

>> Then you need new glasses, BAD.

>>> I wouldn't care if someone had been in my bag
>>> and hadn't done anything to it or its contents.

>> That?s unlikely unless there was nothing worth stealing in it.

>>> If they took something, that would be the indication in itself.

>> But its much better to make it hard to steal anything than
>> to know that its been stolen and not be able to get it back.

> Now we're making the same point, but how do cable
> ties defeat a theif armed with a cutting instrument?

Just as true of a thief with an angle grinder or a multipurpose tool.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> n...@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote
>
>>>>>>> What you really want is a combination lock,
>
>>>>> Much too easy to get into.
>
>>>> If you wanted to make a bag and lock difficult to get into, you could.
>
>>> Yes, but a COMBINATION LOCK isn't the way to make it difficult to get
>>> into.
>
>> It's impossible to design a good combination lock?
>
> Impossible to stop someone trying all the combinations.

Yes, very impossible. But it could be made to take a very, very
long time.

>>>> With a TSA lock, any bag is now easy to get into quickly.
>
>>> And trivial to wrap the bag or use ties to make it much harder.
>
>> OK, maybe I'm missing something here. You put cable
>> ties over a bag so that they have to be cut to get in. A
>> theif has side cutters. How does this theif have a problem?
>
> Its obvious that the thief has got into the bag so one
> of the apes who is paid to move the bags around has
> a problem when its obvious one of them has done that.

How do they know which ones had cable ties on them?

How do they know what was inside originally so that they know
what has been taken?

What if security have already taken off the cable ties to look
inside themselves? Would they replace them?

>>>>>>> and you tell the airport authorities the combination,
>>>>>>> which they put on a database that only the authorised
>>>>>>> personel are able to access.
>
>>>>> Pity that has to be all the goons who check for
>>>>> illegal stuff, so any of those can loot your bag.
>
>>>>>>> Then you change your combination after the flight.
>
>>>>> Much too expensive to have that sort of lock.
>
>>>> It depends what's in your bag.
>
>>> Few carry gold bars or even expensive phones in their bag.
>
>> Expensive laptops, expensive cameras, expensive clothes...
>
>>>> At least allowing passengers to use
>>>> combination locks this way, they would
>>>> have the option of increased security.
>
>>> They do now with wrapping the bag and with ties.
>
>>>>>>> I guess they might have to break open more bags
>>>>>>> because people got their combinations wrong,
>
>>>>>>> but it would offer more security combined
>>>>>>> with a well designed bag lock.
>
>>>> Hence, one that isn't "much too easy to get into".
>
>>> They all are when they have zips that are as
>>> easy to get into as was shown in that video.
>
>> Then use a bag that doesn't have zips.
>
> Most do.

Some don't.

>>>>>> Still think the cable ties are the go,
>
>>>>> Yep.
>
>>>> A different solution to a different problem as I see it.
>
>>> Then you need new glasses, BAD.
>
>>>> I wouldn't care if someone had been in my bag
>>>> and hadn't done anything to it or its contents.
>
>>> That?s unlikely unless there was nothing worth stealing in it.
>
>>>> If they took something, that would be the indication in itself.
>
>>> But its much better to make it hard to steal anything than
>>> to know that its been stolen and not be able to get it back.
>
>> Now we're making the same point, but how do cable
>> ties defeat a theif armed with a cutting instrument?
>
> Just as true of a thief with an angle grinder or a multipurpose tool.

Certainly, but if one's bag isn't being targeted specifcally,
wouldn't it be easier and more discrete for a theif to simply
skip to the next bag?

Cable tie + side cutters is quick and easy enough that it would
do no more to the theif than to indicate your will for the bag
not to be opened.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:mti4b7$rlu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> n...@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote
>>
>>>>>>>> What you really want is a combination lock,
>>
>>>>>> Much too easy to get into.
>>
>>>>> If you wanted to make a bag and lock difficult to get into, you could.
>>
>>>> Yes, but a COMBINATION LOCK isn't the way to make it difficult to get
>>>> into.
>>
>>> It's impossible to design a good combination lock?
>>
>> Impossible to stop someone trying all the combinations.
>
> Yes, very impossible. But it could be
> made to take a very, very long time.

Not without making it a complete pain in the arse to use.

>>>>> With a TSA lock, any bag is now easy to get into quickly.
>>
>>>> And trivial to wrap the bag or use ties to make it much harder.
>>
>>> OK, maybe I'm missing something here. You put cable
>>> ties over a bag so that they have to be cut to get in. A
>>> theif has side cutters. How does this theif have a problem?
>>
>> Its obvious that the thief has got into the bag so one
>> of the apes who is paid to move the bags around has
>> a problem when its obvious one of them has done that.
>
> How do they know which ones had cable ties on them?

When the owner of the bag chucks a tantrum about what
has happened to their bag and they are forced to track it
on their CCTV records that they have so they can work out
who checked the bag they later find has a bomb in it when
they check the bags for bombs and drugs etc.

> How do they know what was inside originally
> so that they know what has been taken?

Same way, the owner of the bag tells them.

> What if security have already taken off the cable ties
> to look inside themselves? Would they replace them?

They obviously label the bags as having been opened by
security, just like happens with unaccompanied parcels etc.

>>>>>>>> and you tell the airport authorities the combination,
>>>>>>>> which they put on a database that only the authorised
>>>>>>>> personel are able to access.
>>
>>>>>> Pity that has to be all the goons who check for
>>>>>> illegal stuff, so any of those can loot your bag.
>>
>>>>>>>> Then you change your combination after the flight.
>>
>>>>>> Much too expensive to have that sort of lock.
>>
>>>>> It depends what's in your bag.
>>
>>>> Few carry gold bars or even expensive phones in their bag.
>>
>>> Expensive laptops, expensive cameras, expensive clothes...
>>
>>>>> At least allowing passengers to use
>>>>> combination locks this way, they would
>>>>> have the option of increased security.
>>
>>>> They do now with wrapping the bag and with ties.
>>
>>>>>>>> I guess they might have to break open more bags
>>>>>>>> because people got their combinations wrong,
>>
>>>>>>>> but it would offer more security combined
>>>>>>>> with a well designed bag lock.
>>
>>>>> Hence, one that isn't "much too easy to get into".
>>
>>>> They all are when they have zips that are as
>>>> easy to get into as was shown in that video.
>>
>>> Then use a bag that doesn't have zips.
>>
>> Most do.
>
> Some don't.

The word most was used for a reason.

>>>>>>> Still think the cable ties are the go,
>>
>>>>>> Yep.
>>
>>>>> A different solution to a different problem as I see it.
>>
>>>> Then you need new glasses, BAD.
>>
>>>>> I wouldn't care if someone had been in my bag
>>>>> and hadn't done anything to it or its contents.
>>
>>>> That?s unlikely unless there was nothing worth stealing in it.
>>
>>>>> If they took something, that would be the indication in itself.
>>
>>>> But its much better to make it hard to steal anything than
>>>> to know that its been stolen and not be able to get it back.
>>
>>> Now we're making the same point, but how do cable
>>> ties defeat a theif armed with a cutting instrument?
>>
>> Just as true of a thief with an angle grinder or a multipurpose tool.
>
> Certainly, but if one's bag isn't being targeted specifcally,
> wouldn't it be easier and more discrete for a theif to simply
> skip to the next bag?

Or they may well decide that a bag done like that is
more likely to have something worth stealing in it.

> Cable tie + side cutters is quick and easy enough
> that it would do no more to the theif than to
> indicate your will for the bag not to be opened.

And if the bag has been designed to scream its head off
when the cable tie is cut off by other than the owner, the
baggage handling thief clearly has some explaining to
do and why he happens to have side cutters on him at
the time.

[Petzl]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:48:09 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
(Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:

>> Just as true of a thief with an angle grinder or a multipurpose tool.
>
>Certainly, but if one's bag isn't being targeted specifcally,
>wouldn't it be easier and more discrete for a theif to simply
>skip to the next bag?
>
>Cable tie + side cutters is quick and easy enough that it would
>do no more to the theif than to indicate your will for the bag
>not to be opened.

The QANTAS video cam taken inside the cargo hold showed the gang
targeted good looking posh suitcases (like mine) they claimed there
was no lock they could not get passed.

Found mine opened and security stamps not removed but they must of
used a razor to lift the bottom halves. Seemed the got stumped by my
combination lock that was hidden by suitcase strap.

I use and like the cable tie approach.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2gqvadcre6523lnq...@4ax.com...

But its very much an after the looting approach.

Better to prevent your suitcase from being looted in the first place.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mti4b7$rlu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> n...@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>> What you really want is a combination lock,
>>>
>>>>>>> Much too easy to get into.
>>>
>>>>>> If you wanted to make a bag and lock difficult to get into, you could.
>>>
>>>>> Yes, but a COMBINATION LOCK isn't the way to make it difficult to get
>>>>> into.
>>>
>>>> It's impossible to design a good combination lock?
>>>
>>> Impossible to stop someone trying all the combinations.
>>
>> Yes, very impossible. But it could be
>> made to take a very, very long time.
>
> Not without making it a complete pain in the arse to use.

Almost as bad as messing around with cable ties before and
after every flight.

>>>>>> With a TSA lock, any bag is now easy to get into quickly.
>>>
>>>>> And trivial to wrap the bag or use ties to make it much harder.
>>>
>>>> OK, maybe I'm missing something here. You put cable
>>>> ties over a bag so that they have to be cut to get in. A
>>>> theif has side cutters. How does this theif have a problem?
>>>
>>> Its obvious that the thief has got into the bag so one
>>> of the apes who is paid to move the bags around has
>>> a problem when its obvious one of them has done that.
>>
>> How do they know which ones had cable ties on them?
>
> When the owner of the bag chucks a tantrum about what
> has happened to their bag and they are forced to track it
> on their CCTV records that they have so they can work out
> who checked the bag they later find has a bomb in it when
> they check the bags for bombs and drugs etc.

So the owner has to spend the first day of their trip messing
about at the airport in order to alert them of the theft. If
I was said owner, I'd be inclined to deter the theif in the
first place instead.

>> How do they know what was inside originally
>> so that they know what has been taken?
>
> Same way, the owner of the bag tells them.

So I'll just say five gold bars and the Mona Lisa then.

>> What if security have already taken off the cable ties
>> to look inside themselves? Would they replace them?
>
> They obviously label the bags as having been opened by
> security, just like happens with unaccompanied parcels etc.

Yes, but how would that make it obvious that someone opened a
bag again after security?

I'm sure it was.
Some don't.

>>>>>>>> Still think the cable ties are the go,
>>>
>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>>>> A different solution to a different problem as I see it.
>>>
>>>>> Then you need new glasses, BAD.
>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't care if someone had been in my bag
>>>>>> and hadn't done anything to it or its contents.
>>>
>>>>> That?s unlikely unless there was nothing worth stealing in it.
>>>
>>>>>> If they took something, that would be the indication in itself.
>>>
>>>>> But its much better to make it hard to steal anything than
>>>>> to know that its been stolen and not be able to get it back.
>>>
>>>> Now we're making the same point, but how do cable
>>>> ties defeat a theif armed with a cutting instrument?
>>>
>>> Just as true of a thief with an angle grinder or a multipurpose tool.
>>
>> Certainly, but if one's bag isn't being targeted specifcally,
>> wouldn't it be easier and more discrete for a theif to simply
>> skip to the next bag?
>
> Or they may well decide that a bag done like that is
> more likely to have something worth stealing in it.

They might, but worth setting up an angle grinder and spending
a few minutes making a lot of noise and leaving clear damage on
the bag?

Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner also clearly
doesn't want to be opened, but where they've only bothered to put a
little cable tie over it.

>> Cable tie + side cutters is quick and easy enough
>> that it would do no more to the theif than to
>> indicate your will for the bag not to be opened.
>
> And if the bag has been designed to scream its head off
> when the cable tie is cut off by other than the owner, the
> baggage handling thief clearly has some explaining to
> do and why he happens to have side cutters on him at
> the time.

Yeah, you could have that make even more noise than an angle
grinder. But it's not really the same as just putting a cable
tie on is it?

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a2gqvadcre6523lnq...@4ax.com...
>>

>> The QANTAS video cam taken inside the cargo hold showed the gang
>> targeted good looking posh suitcases (like mine) they claimed there
>> was no lock they could not get passed.
>>
>> Found mine opened and security stamps not removed but they must of
>> used a razor to lift the bottom halves. Seemed the got stumped by my
>> combination lock that was hidden by suitcase strap.
>>
>> I use and like the cable tie approach.
>
> But its very much an after the looting approach.

But you said it's harder to get into a bag with cable ties:

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
# Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
## With a TSA lock, any bag is now easy to get into quickly.
#
# And trivial to wrap the bag or use ties to make it much harder.

> Better to prevent your suitcase from being looted in the first place.

Here here! Now, how to still allow security to open it....

I know! A combination lock.

[Petzl]

Just read about "TSA" locks and it is for a American system where your
luggage is tagged then monitored by electronic sensors once it is
placed on conveyor belts to your aircraft.

If at any time your suitcase comes off that conveyor belt it triggers
security, who in turn and only then open your luggage and place a note
advising TSA have opened inspected it.

These sensors may not be used in Australia (or Uganda, etc) so if one
is not traveling through or too USA does one have to use TSA locks?

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mtkq3h$5r4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:mti4b7$rlu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> n...@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What you really want is a combination lock,
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Much too easy to get into.
>>>>
>>>>>>> If you wanted to make a bag and lock difficult to get into, you
>>>>>>> could.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but a COMBINATION LOCK isn't the way to make it difficult to get
>>>>>> into.
>>>>
>>>>> It's impossible to design a good combination lock?
>>>>
>>>> Impossible to stop someone trying all the combinations.
>>>
>>> Yes, very impossible. But it could be
>>> made to take a very, very long time.
>>
>> Not without making it a complete pain in the arse to use.
>
> Almost as bad as messing around with cable ties before and
> after every flight.

Nothing like it in fact. It takes no time
at all to put one one and to cut it off.

>>>>>>> With a TSA lock, any bag is now easy to get into quickly.
>>>>
>>>>>> And trivial to wrap the bag or use ties to make it much harder.
>>>>
>>>>> OK, maybe I'm missing something here. You put cable
>>>>> ties over a bag so that they have to be cut to get in. A
>>>>> theif has side cutters. How does this theif have a problem?
>>>>
>>>> Its obvious that the thief has got into the bag so one
>>>> of the apes who is paid to move the bags around has
>>>> a problem when its obvious one of them has done that.
>>>
>>> How do they know which ones had cable ties on them?
>>
>> When the owner of the bag chucks a tantrum about what
>> has happened to their bag and they are forced to track it
>> on their CCTV records that they have so they can work out
>> who checked the bag they later find has a bomb in it when
>> they check the bags for bombs and drugs etc.

> So the owner has to spend the first day of their trip messing
> about at the airport in order to alert them of the theft.

Doesn’t take anything like a day to tell them your bag has been looted.

> If I was said owner, I'd be inclined to
> deter the theif in the first place instead.

Easier said than done with a bag that doesn’t loose
quite a bit of your baggage allowance in the process.

>>> How do they know what was inside originally
>>> so that they know what has been taken?
>>
>> Same way, the owner of the bag tells them.
>
> So I'll just say five gold bars and the Mona Lisa then.

Pointless, they wont be compensating you for that loss.

>>> What if security have already taken off the cable ties
>>> to look inside themselves? Would they replace them?
>>
>> They obviously label the bags as having been opened by
>> security, just like happens with unaccompanied parcels etc.

> Yes, but how would that make it obvious that
> someone opened a bag again after security?

Because they wont have the proper labels, stupid.

What I said.

>>>>>>>>> Still think the cable ties are the go,
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>>>>> A different solution to a different problem as I see it.
>>>>
>>>>>> Then you need new glasses, BAD.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't care if someone had been in my bag
>>>>>>> and hadn't done anything to it or its contents.
>>>>
>>>>>> That?s unlikely unless there was nothing worth stealing in it.
>>>>
>>>>>>> If they took something, that would be the indication in itself.
>>>>
>>>>>> But its much better to make it hard to steal anything than
>>>>>> to know that its been stolen and not be able to get it back.
>>>>
>>>>> Now we're making the same point, but how do cable
>>>>> ties defeat a theif armed with a cutting instrument?
>>>>
>>>> Just as true of a thief with an angle grinder or a multipurpose tool.
>>>
>>> Certainly, but if one's bag isn't being targeted specifcally,
>>> wouldn't it be easier and more discrete for a theif to simply
>>> skip to the next bag?
>>
>> Or they may well decide that a bag done like that is
>> more likely to have something worth stealing in it.

> They might,

They will.

> but worth setting up an angle grinder

Doesn’t take any setting up.

> and spending a few minutes making a lot of noise

Not if you use a multitool.

> and leaving clear damage on the bag?

Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are gone.

> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.

Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.

>>> Cable tie + side cutters is quick and easy enough
>>> that it would do no more to the theif than to
>>> indicate your will for the bag not to be opened.
>>
>> And if the bag has been designed to scream its head off
>> when the cable tie is cut off by other than the owner, the
>> baggage handling thief clearly has some explaining to
>> do and why he happens to have side cutters on him at
>> the time.
>
> Yeah, you could have that make even more noise than an angle grinder.

The difference is that the thief doesn’t know that its going to do that.

They do know how much noise the tool is going to
make and so will only use it where that doesn’t matter.

> But it's not really the same as just putting a cable tie on is it?

Never said anything about just.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:mtkr1t$8l9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a2gqvadcre6523lnq...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> The QANTAS video cam taken inside the cargo hold showed the gang
>>> targeted good looking posh suitcases (like mine) they claimed there
>>> was no lock they could not get passed.
>>>
>>> Found mine opened and security stamps not removed but they must of
>>> used a razor to lift the bottom halves. Seemed the got stumped by my
>>> combination lock that was hidden by suitcase strap.
>>>
>>> I use and like the cable tie approach.
>>
>> But its very much an after the looting approach.
>
> But you said it's harder to get into a bag with cable ties:

It is in the sense that when the owner of the bag can see
that its been looted just by glancing at the bag, its MUCH
more likely that they will report that has happened at the
baggage carousel etc and the thief is much more likely to
have the authoritys check the CCTV records and see who
did that and shaft them for doing that.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:k6srva96r8qb081bg...@4ax.com...

Nope, and you don't have to when travelling thru or to the US either,
you are welcome to allow them to cut your lock instead if they want to.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Nor does it take any time to put in a combination, an electronic
lock can have a delay after so many failed attempts, which
wouldn't be triggered normally.

>>>>>>>> With a TSA lock, any bag is now easy to get into quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And trivial to wrap the bag or use ties to make it much harder.
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, maybe I'm missing something here. You put cable
>>>>>> ties over a bag so that they have to be cut to get in. A
>>>>>> theif has side cutters. How does this theif have a problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> Its obvious that the thief has got into the bag so one
>>>>> of the apes who is paid to move the bags around has
>>>>> a problem when its obvious one of them has done that.
>>>>
>>>> How do they know which ones had cable ties on them?
>>>
>>> When the owner of the bag chucks a tantrum about what
>>> has happened to their bag and they are forced to track it
>>> on their CCTV records that they have so they can work out
>>> who checked the bag they later find has a bomb in it when
>>> they check the bags for bombs and drugs etc.
>
>> So the owner has to spend the first day of their trip messing
>> about at the airport in order to alert them of the theft.
>

> Doesn?t take anything like a day to tell them your bag has been looted.

>
>> If I was said owner, I'd be inclined to
>> deter the theif in the first place instead.
>

> Easier said than done with a bag that doesn?t loose

> quite a bit of your baggage allowance in the process.

True.

>>>> How do they know what was inside originally
>>>> so that they know what has been taken?
>>>
>>> Same way, the owner of the bag tells them.
>>
>> So I'll just say five gold bars and the Mona Lisa then.
>
> Pointless, they wont be compensating you for that loss.

If you can't prove what was in the bag, how can you be sure
of compensation for anything? Better to deter the theif in
the first place.

>>>> What if security have already taken off the cable ties
>>>> to look inside themselves? Would they replace them?
>>>
>>> They obviously label the bags as having been opened by
>>> security, just like happens with unaccompanied parcels etc.
>
>> Yes, but how would that make it obvious that
>> someone opened a bag again after security?
>
> Because they wont have the proper labels, stupid.

Yes it will, because the bag would be opened a second
time by the theif and the labels from security left on
or reattached.

So this is what it takes to have you agree on something.

>>>>>>>>>> Still think the cable ties are the go,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A different solution to a different problem as I see it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you need new glasses, BAD.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wouldn't care if someone had been in my bag
>>>>>>>> and hadn't done anything to it or its contents.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That?s unlikely unless there was nothing worth stealing in it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If they took something, that would be the indication in itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But its much better to make it hard to steal anything than
>>>>>>> to know that its been stolen and not be able to get it back.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now we're making the same point, but how do cable
>>>>>> ties defeat a theif armed with a cutting instrument?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as true of a thief with an angle grinder or a multipurpose tool.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly, but if one's bag isn't being targeted specifcally,
>>>> wouldn't it be easier and more discrete for a theif to simply
>>>> skip to the next bag?
>>>
>>> Or they may well decide that a bag done like that is
>>> more likely to have something worth stealing in it.
>
>> They might,
>
> They will.
>
>> but worth setting up an angle grinder
>

> Doesn?t take any setting up.

Battery powered angle grinder eigh?

>> and spending a few minutes making a lot of noise
>
> Not if you use a multitool.

Less noise, more minutes.

>> and leaving clear damage on the bag?
>
> Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are gone.

That's what I said about the cable ties. Won't it all show up
on CCTV?...

>> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
>> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
>> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.
>
> Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
> those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
> go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.

So make it difficult enough for them that it still isn't worth
their while compared to all the unprotected bags with average
value items inside.

>>>> Cable tie + side cutters is quick and easy enough
>>>> that it would do no more to the theif than to
>>>> indicate your will for the bag not to be opened.
>>>
>>> And if the bag has been designed to scream its head off
>>> when the cable tie is cut off by other than the owner, the
>>> baggage handling thief clearly has some explaining to
>>> do and why he happens to have side cutters on him at
>>> the time.
>>
>> Yeah, you could have that make even more noise than an angle grinder.
>

> The difference is that the thief doesn?t know that its going to do that.

>
> They do know how much noise the tool is going to

> make and so will only use it where that doesn?t matter.

True.

>> But it's not really the same as just putting a cable tie on is it?
>
> Never said anything about just.

Oh, right. So all I need to say for you to agree with me is that
everyone should use a combination lock AND put a cable tie over
their bag. Completely protected against all eventualities!

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mtkr1t$8l9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>

>>>> I use and like the cable tie approach.
>>>
>>> But its very much an after the looting approach.
>>
>> But you said it's harder to get into a bag with cable ties:
>
> It is in the sense that when the owner of the bag can see
> that its been looted just by glancing at the bag, its MUCH
> more likely that they will report that has happened at the
> baggage carousel etc and the thief is much more likely to
> have the authoritys check the CCTV records and see who
> did that and shaft them for doing that.

Ah, so harder in the long run you figure.

Fair enough, but:

[F Murtz]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Copied from comp.misc, originally posted by Rich
>
> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/tsa_master_keys.html
>
> Quoting from the URL above:
>
> Someone recently noticed a Washington Post story on the TSA that
> originally contained a detailed photograph of all the TSA master keys.
> It's now blurred out of the Washington Post story, but the image is
> still floating around the Internet. The whole thing neatly illustrates
> one of the main problems with backdoors, whether in cryptographic
> systems or physical systems: they're fragile.
>
> ...

Every one seems worried about theft I would be worried about the much
rarer circumstance of someone putting something in.

[Gordon Levi]

I know it was used by Schapelle Corby as a failed defence against drug
importing charges but has it ever actually happened?

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mtl8m1$hng$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

It does if you want a combination that isn't trivial
to break by just trying all the combinations.

> an electronic lock can have a delay after so many failed
> attempts, which wouldn't be triggered normally.

But few of them are electronic locks.

>>>>>>>>> With a TSA lock, any bag is now easy to get into quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And trivial to wrap the bag or use ties to make it much harder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, maybe I'm missing something here. You put cable
>>>>>>> ties over a bag so that they have to be cut to get in. A
>>>>>>> theif has side cutters. How does this theif have a problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its obvious that the thief has got into the bag so one
>>>>>> of the apes who is paid to move the bags around has
>>>>>> a problem when its obvious one of them has done that.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do they know which ones had cable ties on them?
>>>>
>>>> When the owner of the bag chucks a tantrum about what
>>>> has happened to their bag and they are forced to track it
>>>> on their CCTV records that they have so they can work out
>>>> who checked the bag they later find has a bomb in it when
>>>> they check the bags for bombs and drugs etc.
>>
>>> So the owner has to spend the first day of their trip messing
>>> about at the airport in order to alert them of the theft.
>>
>> Doesn?t take anything like a day to tell them your bag has been looted.
>>
>>> If I was said owner, I'd be inclined to
>>> deter the theif in the first place instead.
>>

>> Easier said than done with a bag that doesn't loose

>> quite a bit of your baggage allowance in the process.
>
> True.
>
>>>>> How do they know what was inside originally
>>>>> so that they know what has been taken?
>>>>
>>>> Same way, the owner of the bag tells them.
>>>
>>> So I'll just say five gold bars and the Mona Lisa then.
>>
>> Pointless, they wont be compensating you for that loss.
>
> If you can't prove what was in the bag, how can
> you be sure of compensation for anything?

We aren't discussing compensation.

And even you should be able to work out how to take a
few photos of what you have in your bag so you can claim
on your travel insurance if the bag does get lost etc.

> Better to deter the theif in the first place.

But easier said than done with a bag.

>>>>> What if security have already taken off the cable ties
>>>>> to look inside themselves? Would they replace them?
>>>>
>>>> They obviously label the bags as having been opened by
>>>> security, just like happens with unaccompanied parcels etc.
>>
>>> Yes, but how would that make it obvious that
>>> someone opened a bag again after security?
>>
>> Because they wont have the proper labels, stupid.
>
> Yes it will, because the bag would be opened a second
> time by the theif and the labels from security left on
> or reattached.

Fantasy with a baggage handling thief.

I said that right from the start.

>>>>>>>>>>> Still think the cable ties are the go,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A different solution to a different problem as I see it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you need new glasses, BAD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't care if someone had been in my bag
>>>>>>>>> and hadn't done anything to it or its contents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That?s unlikely unless there was nothing worth stealing in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If they took something, that would be the indication in itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But its much better to make it hard to steal anything than
>>>>>>>> to know that its been stolen and not be able to get it back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now we're making the same point, but how do cable
>>>>>>> ties defeat a theif armed with a cutting instrument?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just as true of a thief with an angle grinder or a multipurpose tool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly, but if one's bag isn't being targeted specifcally,
>>>>> wouldn't it be easier and more discrete for a theif to simply
>>>>> skip to the next bag?
>>>>
>>>> Or they may well decide that a bag done like that is
>>>> more likely to have something worth stealing in it.
>>
>>> They might,
>>
>> They will.
>>
>>> but worth setting up an angle grinder
>>
>> Doesn?t take any setting up.
>
> Battery powered angle grinder eigh?

Yep, plenty of them around. Multitools in spades.

>>> and spending a few minutes making a lot of noise
>>
>> Not if you use a multitool.
>
> Less noise, more minutes.

Less noise less minutes in fact.

>>> and leaving clear damage on the bag?
>>
>> Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are gone.
>
> That's what I said about the cable ties. Won't it all show up
> on CCTV?...

Not if you have a clue about how you get into the bag.

>>> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
>>> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
>>> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.
>>
>> Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
>> those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
>> go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.
>
> So make it difficult enough for them that it still isn't worth
> their while compared to all the unprotected bags with average
> value items inside.

Again, easier said than done.

>>>>> Cable tie + side cutters is quick and easy enough
>>>>> that it would do no more to the theif than to
>>>>> indicate your will for the bag not to be opened.
>>>>
>>>> And if the bag has been designed to scream its head off
>>>> when the cable tie is cut off by other than the owner, the
>>>> baggage handling thief clearly has some explaining to
>>>> do and why he happens to have side cutters on him at
>>>> the time.
>>>
>>> Yeah, you could have that make even more noise than an angle grinder.
>>
>> The difference is that the thief doesn?t know that its going to do that.
>>
>> They do know how much noise the tool is going to
>> make and so will only use it where that doesn?t matter.
>
> True.
>
>>> But it's not really the same as just putting a cable tie on is it?
>>
>> Never said anything about just.
>
> Oh, right. So all I need to say for you to agree with me is that
> everyone should use a combination lock AND put a cable tie
> over their bag. Completely protected against all eventualities!

Nope, it makes a lot more sense to have a cable tie system
that shouts its fucking head off when some thief cuts it so
someone can grab the thief and frog march him off to jail.

Don’t need a combination lock in that case,
any decent lock will do fine and can't be
defeated by trying all the combinations.

And obviously no zips because they are trivially easy to open.

Tho it wouldn’t be hard to have the zipped bag howl its
head off if the zip is opened without the alarm being
disarmed first. And use a fingerprint sensor on the
phone instead of a dinosaur combination lock.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mtl9db$jt8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

The owner opens it for them, stupid.

>>I know! A combination lock.

Completely useless because anyone can get thru it.

[Rod Speed]

"F Murtz" <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55fe4244$0$62604$c3e8da3$dbd...@news.astraweb.com...

Why would anyone want to put anything in ?

[Rod Speed]

"Gordon Levi" <gor...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:iaktva53ic9k28v1m...@4ax.com...

Yes, there have been some examples of that approach being used.

And presumably its worked quite a bit of the time too.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Do the maths on a four digit combination. Anyway, I meant that
statement to relate to the rest of the sentence which says
the difficulty is introduced by a delay on failed attempts.

>> an electronic lock can have a delay after so many failed
>> attempts, which wouldn't be triggered normally.
>
> But few of them are electronic locks.

Then get one of the few. Why do more than 50% of the population have
to do something before you'll do it too?

Indeed, but it can be done, or at least attempted with a high
probability of success.

>>>>>> What if security have already taken off the cable ties
>>>>>> to look inside themselves? Would they replace them?
>>>>>
>>>>> They obviously label the bags as having been opened by
>>>>> security, just like happens with unaccompanied parcels etc.
>>>
>>>> Yes, but how would that make it obvious that
>>>> someone opened a bag again after security?
>>>
>>> Because they wont have the proper labels, stupid.
>>
>> Yes it will, because the bag would be opened a second
>> time by the theif and the labels from security left on
>> or reattached.
>
> Fantasy with a baggage handling thief.

Why?

Well go shoot a video of yourself comparing tools against a range of
bag designs and we'll see which comes out on top. Anything else is
just endless speculation. AKA your aim in life.

>>>> and leaving clear damage on the bag?
>>>
>>> Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are gone.
>>
>> That's what I said about the cable ties. Won't it all show up
>> on CCTV?...
>
> Not if you have a clue about how you get into the bag.

You can get into a well designed bag with an angle grinder and not
leave enough damage to equal the visual impact of a cable tie? That
would be a good video.

Yes, yes, "soopa multitool skilz" instead. Show me the time
comparison Vs an angle grinder. With a hard cased bag, no zip.

>>>> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
>>>> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
>>>> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.
>>>
>>> Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
>>> those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
>>> go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.
>>
>> So make it difficult enough for them that it still isn't worth
>> their while compared to all the unprotected bags with average
>> value items inside.
>
> Again, easier said than done.

Again, but it can be done, or at least attempted with a high
probability of success.

>>>>>> Cable tie + side cutters is quick and easy enough
>>>>>> that it would do no more to the theif than to
>>>>>> indicate your will for the bag not to be opened.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if the bag has been designed to scream its head off
>>>>> when the cable tie is cut off by other than the owner, the
>>>>> baggage handling thief clearly has some explaining to
>>>>> do and why he happens to have side cutters on him at
>>>>> the time.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, you could have that make even more noise than an angle grinder.
>>>
>>> The difference is that the thief doesn?t know that its going to do that.
>>>
>>> They do know how much noise the tool is going to
>>> make and so will only use it where that doesn?t matter.
>>
>> True.
>>
>>>> But it's not really the same as just putting a cable tie on is it?
>>>
>>> Never said anything about just.
>>
>> Oh, right. So all I need to say for you to agree with me is that
>> everyone should use a combination lock AND put a cable tie
>> over their bag. Completely protected against all eventualities!
>
> Nope, it makes a lot more sense to have a cable tie system
> that shouts its fucking head off when some thief cuts it so
> someone can grab the thief and frog march him off to jail.

Or so that he can learn to open bags in a place that's out of the
way, like where he was going to use that angle grinder.

> Don?t need a combination lock in that case,

> any decent lock will do fine and can't be
> defeated by trying all the combinations.

Like the zip tie can be defeated by simply cutting the bag around
it. Equally impractical to trying all the combinations.

> And obviously no zips because they are trivially easy to open.
>

> Tho it wouldn?t be hard to have the zipped bag howl its

> head off if the zip is opened without the alarm being
> disarmed first.
>
> And use a fingerprint sensor on the
> phone instead of a dinosaur combination lock.

A pointless attempt to get this off-topic. The phone wasn't in
the bag anyway, remember.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mtl9db$jt8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:mtkr1t$8l9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I use and like the cable tie approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> But its very much an after the looting approach.
>>>>
>>>> But you said it's harder to get into a bag with cable ties:
>>>
>>> It is in the sense that when the owner of the bag can see
>>> that its been looted just by glancing at the bag, its MUCH
>>> more likely that they will report that has happened at the
>>> baggage carousel etc and the thief is much more likely to
>>> have the authoritys check the CCTV records and see who
>>> did that and shaft them for doing that.
>>
>> Ah, so harder in the long run you figure.
>>
>> Fair enough, but:
>>
>>>> Better to prevent your suitcase from being looted in the first place.
>>>
>>>Here here! Now, how to still allow security to open it....
>
> The owner opens it for them, stupid.

So there was no point to the TSA locks anyway?

>>>I know! A combination lock.
>
> Completely useless because anyone can get thru it.

Given a day or two.

[Petzl]

QANTAS/Customs CCTV showed it happened with Corby?

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mtnarb$bra$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

No thanks, I'll get one that screams at the top of its
lungs when someone else other than me opens it
and wont put anything that matters in checked bags.

> Why do more than 50% of the population have
> to do something before you'll do it too?

Nothing even remotely like 50% of the population brews
their own beer, distils their own grog, makes their own
marmalade, relish, bread etc or even grows their own tomatoes.

And nothing even remotely like even 5% builds their own house
from scratch on a bare block of land or flys their own plane either.

Bullshit on that first.

>>>>>>> What if security have already taken off the cable ties
>>>>>>> to look inside themselves? Would they replace them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They obviously label the bags as having been opened by
>>>>>> security, just like happens with unaccompanied parcels etc.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but how would that make it obvious that
>>>>> someone opened a bag again after security?
>>>>
>>>> Because they wont have the proper labels, stupid.
>>>
>>> Yes it will, because the bag would be opened a second
>>> time by the theif and the labels from security left on
>>> or reattached.
>>
>> Fantasy with a baggage handling thief.
>
> Why?

Because that is the way it is.

Don’t need to. Anyone with even half a clue knows that
an angle grinder is much slower than a multitool.

> Anything else is just endless speculation.

Nope, fact.

>>>>> and leaving clear damage on the bag?
>>>>
>>>> Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are gone.
>>>
>>> That's what I said about the cable ties. Won't it all show up
>>> on CCTV?...
>>
>> Not if you have a clue about how you get into the bag.
>
> You can get into a well designed bag with an angle grinder and not
> leave enough damage to equal the visual impact of a cable tie?

Yep.

> Yes, yes, "soopa multitool skilz" instead. Show me the time
> comparison Vs an angle grinder. With a hard cased bag, no zip.

Go and fuck yourself, again.

>>>>> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
>>>>> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
>>>>> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.
>>>>
>>>> Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
>>>> those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
>>>> go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.
>>>
>>> So make it difficult enough for them that it still isn't worth
>>> their while compared to all the unprotected bags with average
>>> value items inside.
>>
>> Again, easier said than done.
>
> Again, but it can be done, or at least attempted with a high
> probability of success.

Easy to claim.

>>>>>>> Cable tie + side cutters is quick and easy enough
>>>>>>> that it would do no more to the theif than to
>>>>>>> indicate your will for the bag not to be opened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if the bag has been designed to scream its head off
>>>>>> when the cable tie is cut off by other than the owner, the
>>>>>> baggage handling thief clearly has some explaining to
>>>>>> do and why he happens to have side cutters on him at
>>>>>> the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, you could have that make even more noise than an angle grinder.
>>>>
>>>> The difference is that the thief doesn?t know that its going to do
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> They do know how much noise the tool is going to
>>>> make and so will only use it where that doesn?t matter.
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>>>> But it's not really the same as just putting a cable tie on is it?
>>>>
>>>> Never said anything about just.
>>>
>>> Oh, right. So all I need to say for you to agree with me is that
>>> everyone should use a combination lock AND put a cable tie
>>> over their bag. Completely protected against all eventualities!
>>
>> Nope, it makes a lot more sense to have a cable tie system
>> that shouts its fucking head off when some thief cuts it so
>> someone can grab the thief and frog march him off to jail.

> Or so that he can learn to open bags in a place that's out of the way,

Not even possible to know which bags will go off like that.

>> Don?t need a combination lock in that case,
>> any decent lock will do fine and can't be
>> defeated by trying all the combinations.
>
> Like the zip tie can be defeated by simply cutting the bag around it.

But which howls its head off when that happens so the
cutter is frog marched off to jail.

>> And obviously no zips because they are trivially easy to open.
>>
>> Tho it wouldn?t be hard to have the zipped bag howl its
>> head off if the zip is opened without the alarm being
>> disarmed first.
>>
>> And use a fingerprint sensor on the
>> phone instead of a dinosaur combination lock.
>
> A pointless attempt to get this off-topic.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> The phone wasn't in the bag anyway, remember.

Of course it isn't, fuckwit. Its what talks to what is in the fucking bag,
fuckwit.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mtnb0a$bra$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

Precisely.

>>>>I know! A combination lock.
>>
>> Completely useless because anyone can get thru it.
>
> Given a day or two.

Doesn’t need a day or two.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:hqcuvape7ligj2vlg...@4ax.com...

Like hell they did.

[F Murtz]

Drugs when they had a way to get them back after passing customs.

[Rod Speed]

"F Murtz" <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:55ff6de0$0$4238$c3e8da3$12bc...@news.astraweb.com...

I don’t believe that enough have a way to get
them back after passing customs to worry about.

[Peter]

I never heard anything mentioned about a weight discrepancy from check in
to when the drugs were found.


--
:-P

[Peter]

Everything is weighed when checked in.
It should be when unloaded or if there is a problem.

--
:-P

[Gordon Levi]

Can you provide them?

>
>And presumably its worked quite a bit of the time too.

Why do you assume that?

[Rod Speed]

"Gordon Levi" <gor...@address.invalid> wrote in message

news:gi7vvadetgljcpa4j...@4ax.com...

I remember now, someone in here said that they
had found some drugs in their bag and believed
that the cops had put them there so they could
put their hands out for a bribe to let the victim
off. In Indonesia from memory.

He was asking whether it would be better to tell
the cops here about it or to just flush them etc.

>> And presumably its worked quite a bit of the time too.

> Why do you assume that?

Because like all that sort of thing, they only catch a subset of those doing
it.

No detection of criminal activity is ever 100% effective
and can never be when there isn't 100% searching of all
bags and when even 100% searching wont find everything.

[Paul Saccani]

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 09:42:08 +1000, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Just read about "TSA" locks and it is for a American system where your
>luggage is tagged then monitored by electronic sensors once it is
>placed on conveyor belts to your aircraft.

It isn't specifically for that. Not sure where you get your ideas
from.

>If at any time your suitcase comes off that conveyor belt it triggers
>security, who in turn and only then open your luggage and place a note
>advising TSA have opened inspected it.

TSA are not in any way so limited.

>These sensors may not be used in Australia (or Uganda, etc) so if one
>is not traveling through or too USA does one have to use TSA locks?

You don't have to use TSA locks anywhere. All they do is remove the
need for the TSA or other security partners (including Australia) to
*forcibly* open luggage for inspection. Instead, they use a key.

It's for your benefit, not theirs. They don't mind forcing your
luggage open and/or using bolt cutters on padlocks.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

[Rod Speed]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d69o2o...@mid.individual.net...

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-man-claims-he-found-drugs-in-his-bag-after-returning-from-bali-20150903-gje82l.html

[Paul Saccani]

I thought you were more of a thinker than this.

What has happened in the past is airside smuggling operations, where
baggage handlers have inserted items into luggage, which are then
removed airside at the other end by other baggage handlers, before
customs. With a notable example being at Sydney airport and involving
official corruption in the Police.

Explosives are placed in the luggage of innocent travelers for
training purposes. Sometimes, they fail to remove them, and
passengers arrive at foreign airports, finding that they have more to
explain than to declare.

[Paul Saccani]

Usually not. What happens is the total luggage under a check in is
weighed, not the individual pieces.

>It should be when unloaded or if there is a problem.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to force airlines to retain check in baggage
data, but that data still wouldn't be of much help in the typical
multiple person multiple item baggage check. The other thing is, with
only a small cost of rewriting programs, or even with just a changed
procedure, the total weight of baggage could be included in the
baggage check. It might be helpful for some from time to time.

[Rod Speed]

Paul Saccani <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote

>>>>>> Copied from comp.misc, originally posted by Rich

>>>>>> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/tsa_master_keys.html

>>>>>> Quoting from the URL above:

>>>>>> Someone recently noticed a Washington Post story on the TSA that
>>>>>> originally contained a detailed photograph of all the TSA master
>>>>>> keys.
>>>>>> It's now blurred out of the Washington Post story, but the image is
>>>>>> still floating around the Internet. The whole thing neatly
>>>>>> illustrates
>>>>>> one of the main problems with backdoors, whether in cryptographic
>>>>>> systems or physical systems: they're fragile.

>>>>> Every one seems worried about theft I would be worried about
>>>>> the much rarer circumstance of someone putting something in.

>>>> Why would anyone want to put anything in ?

>>> Drugs when they had a way to get them back after passing customs.

>> I don't believe that enough have a way to get
>> them back after passing customs to worry about.

> I thought you were more of a thinker than this.

We'll see...

> What has happened in the past is airside smuggling operations,
> where baggage handlers have inserted items into luggage, which
> are then removed airside at the other end by other baggage
> handlers, before customs. With a notable example being at
> Sydney airport and involving official corruption in the Police.

No news.

> Explosives are placed in the luggage of innocent travelers
> for training purposes. Sometimes, they fail to remove
> them, and passengers arrive at foreign airports,
> finding that they have more to explain than to declare.

Doesn't happen often enough to worry about.

Much more likely to be struck by lightning walking to the plane.

[Gordon Levi]

Thanks Rod. We now have a new mystery. How were the people who put the
drugs in the suitcase going to make a profit?

>
>> I remember now, someone in here said that they
>> had found some drugs in their bag and believed
>> that the cops had put them there so they could
>> put their hands out for a bribe to let the victim
>> off. In Indonesia from memory.
>>
>> He was asking whether it would be better to tell
>> the cops here about it or to just flush them etc.
>>
>>>> And presumably its worked quite a bit of the time too.
>>
>>> Why do you assume that?
>>
>> Because like all that sort of thing, they only catch a subset of those
>> doing it.

True, but until this post of yours I had not heard of anybody doing
it.

[snip]

[keithr0]

http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/video-3d-printed-tsa-travel-sentry-keys-really-do-open-tsa-locks/

[Rod Speed]

"Gordon Levi" <gor...@address.invalid> wrote in message

news:9gjvvahndkaghium8...@4ax.com...

They appear to have been corrupt cops who put the
drugs in his bag planning to 'discover' the drugs in
his bag as he was leaving Bali and then attempt to
extort bribes so that he would be allowed to leave.

And that the cops fucked up and didn't manage to
intercept him as he left the country.

>>> I remember now, someone in here said that they
>>> had found some drugs in their bag and believed
>>> that the cops had put them there so they could
>>> put their hands out for a bribe to let the victim
>>> off. In Indonesia from memory.
>>>
>>> He was asking whether it would be better to tell
>>> the cops here about it or to just flush them etc.
>>>
>>>>> And presumably its worked quite a bit of the time too.
>>>
>>>> Why do you assume that?
>>>
>>> Because like all that sort of thing, they only catch a subset of those
>>> doing it.
>
> True, but until this post of yours I
> had not heard of anybody doing it.

Not very surprising that those scammed that
way don't say anything about it in public.

There was another in that 'locked/banged up abroad'
series who ended up being shafted by the Indonesian
legal system. In that case someone who had gone to
Bali on holiday from Nepal had the fella he was
associated with attempt to move drugs in a statue
out of Indonesia. The cops did catch him, but fucked
up checking the fingerprints on the drugs and put the
wrong person in jail because of that and the Indonesian
legal system refused to admit to the fuckup and let the
crim go and jailed the wrong person for almost a decade.
http://www.christophervvparnell.com/locked-up-abroad.html

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mtnarb$bra$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote

OK, I expect you'd prefer to disrupt the theif's operations than
simply deter them. That's fine if it works, and it may well do.

>> Why do more than 50% of the population have
>> to do something before you'll do it too?
>
> Nothing even remotely like 50% of the population brews
> their own beer, distils their own grog, makes their own
> marmalade, relish, bread etc or even grows their own tomatoes.
>
> And nothing even remotely like even 5% builds their own house
> from scratch on a bare block of land or flys their own plane either.

Great, so with such an understanding of the benefits of individuality
you needn't reply to my posts noting that they don't apply if someone
chooses the most common option.

Why?

> Don?t need to. Anyone with even half a clue knows that

> an angle grinder is much slower than a multitool.

When opening hard cased bags? I obviously don't have half a clue,
care to point me to where you got yours?

>> Anything else is just endless speculation.
>
> Nope, fact.

OK, anything else is just fact without evidence.

>>>>>> and leaving clear damage on the bag?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are gone.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I said about the cable ties. Won't it all show up
>>>> on CCTV?...
>>>
>>> Not if you have a clue about how you get into the bag.
>>
>> You can get into a well designed bag with an angle grinder and not
>> leave enough damage to equal the visual impact of a cable tie?
>
> Yep.
>
>> Yes, yes, "soopa multitool skilz" instead. Show me the time
>> comparison Vs an angle grinder. With a hard cased bag, no zip.
>
> Go and fuck yourself, again.

And we've resorted to the insults. Insults don't equal proof.

>>>>>> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
>>>>>> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
>>>>>> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
>>>>> those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
>>>>> go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.
>>>>
>>>> So make it difficult enough for them that it still isn't worth
>>>> their while compared to all the unprotected bags with average
>>>> value items inside.
>>>
>>> Again, easier said than done.
>>
>> Again, but it can be done, or at least attempted with a high
>> probability of success.
>
> Easy to claim.

So we've got to the recursive stage of this debate then. You say
something that I ask you to prove and you don't, then I say
something that you ask me to prove and I don't.

I'm not going to do an international study on bag theft so that
I can provide valid statistics to support my claim, just like
you're not going to video an extensive test of luggage bags
being broken into with an angle grinder and multitool so that
the practicality of breaking into a hard cased bag can be
assessed from a theif's perspective.

It's a shame, but that's how it is.

>>>>>>>> Cable tie + side cutters is quick and easy enough
>>>>>>>> that it would do no more to the theif than to
>>>>>>>> indicate your will for the bag not to be opened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if the bag has been designed to scream its head off
>>>>>>> when the cable tie is cut off by other than the owner, the
>>>>>>> baggage handling thief clearly has some explaining to
>>>>>>> do and why he happens to have side cutters on him at
>>>>>>> the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, you could have that make even more noise than an angle grinder.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is that the thief doesn?t know that its going to do
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do know how much noise the tool is going to
>>>>> make and so will only use it where that doesn?t matter.
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>>> But it's not really the same as just putting a cable tie on is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Never said anything about just.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, right. So all I need to say for you to agree with me is that
>>>> everyone should use a combination lock AND put a cable tie
>>>> over their bag. Completely protected against all eventualities!
>>>
>>> Nope, it makes a lot more sense to have a cable tie system
>>> that shouts its fucking head off when some thief cuts it so
>>> someone can grab the thief and frog march him off to jail.
>
>> Or so that he can learn to open bags in a place that's out of the way,
>
> Not even possible to know which bags will go off like that.

So he would have to assume every bag would.

>>> Don?t need a combination lock in that case,
>>> any decent lock will do fine and can't be
>>> defeated by trying all the combinations.
>>
>> Like the zip tie can be defeated by simply cutting the bag around it.
>
> But which howls its head off when that happens so the
> cutter is frog marched off to jail.

So a zip tie on its own isn't an adequate deterrent after all then?

>>> And obviously no zips because they are trivially easy to open.
>>>
>>> Tho it wouldn?t be hard to have the zipped bag howl its
>>> head off if the zip is opened without the alarm being
>>> disarmed first.
>>>
>>> And use a fingerprint sensor on the
>>> phone instead of a dinosaur combination lock.
>>
>> A pointless attempt to get this off-topic.
>
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> The phone wasn't in the bag anyway, remember.
>
> Of course it isn't, fuckwit. Its what talks to what is in the fucking bag,
> fuckwit.

Oh, I see you use the phone to unlock the bag, I thought you meant
to deter the theif from taking a phone from inside the bag.

You can't change your fingerprint though, and a built-in bypass code
would just be a software version of a TSA key, with the same security
issue. So how does this stop security needing to break into your bag
while providing increased security to a TSA key?

[Computer Nerd Kev]

So security don't break into bags if there isn't a TSA lock?

>>>>>I know! A combination lock.
>>>
>>> Completely useless because anyone can get thru it.
>>
>> Given a day or two.
>

> Doesn?t need a day or two.

Alright, how long does it take on average, in minutes, to
break a four character numeric combination manually on a
bag lock?

[Petzl]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:07:37 +0800, Paul Saccani <sac...@omen.net.au>
wrote:

The sensors I read somewhere? Googled it now and it's repeated.
http://wapo.st/1OMtP11
Sensors placed on the belt every few feet track the progress of a bag,
setting off an alarm if a bag goes missing in the second or two that
elapses between one sensor and the next.

Although I noted Channel Sunrise "5 countries in 5 days" who would
have had "posh" looking luggage had all of it disappear between Sydney
and Dubai?

[Petzl]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:57:21 +1000, "Rod Speed"

Happened to Sir Edmund Hillary's son in Thailand.
NZ sent a investigative team and found their was a scam going by Thai
police (all police vanished before they got arrested).

That was way before TSA locks though

>>> And presumably its worked quite a bit of the time too.
>
>> Why do you assume that?
>
>Because like all that sort of thing, they only catch a subset of those doing
>it.
>
>No detection of criminal activity is ever 100% effective
>and can never be when there isn't 100% searching of all
>bags and when even 100% searching wont find everything.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Actually, I'm getting confused between sub-threads, in my
mind that last post was talking about an electronic lock
with a built in delay (yes, unlike most bag locks).

To make up, here are some maths, but note that I may
have forgotten something important in probability
calculations:

Probability of getting combination right in one try:
(1/9)^4 = 0.0001524

Number of tries to get right combination:
1 / 0.0001524 = 6561

So a simple 2 second delay while showing "incorrect" on
the screen of an electronic combination lock would mean
an average (or whatever mathematical term is right here)
time to "brute force" the combination of:
6561 * 2 = 13122s / 60 = 218.7m / 60 = 3.645h = 3h 39m

And that's assuming each new combination can be enered
in 0 seconds, in reality this may well be another 2s
with an electronic keypad.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Alright, how long does it take on average, in minutes, to
>> break a four character numeric combination manually on a
>> bag lock?
>
> Actually, I'm getting confused between sub-threads, in my
> mind that last post was talking about an electronic lock
> with a built in delay (yes, unlike most bag locks).
>
> To make up, here are some maths, but note that I may
> have forgotten something important in probability
> calculations:
>
> Probability of getting combination right in one try:
> (1/9)^4 = 0.0001524
>
> Number of tries to get right combination:
> 1 / 0.0001524 = 6561

Ah, yes sure enough I did get that wrong. 6561 is just the
maximum possible number to combinations. And in any case I
forget "0", which makes it 1/10. Pah, I'll go back to letting
you work it out.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Or because 0.0001524 * (6561 / 2) = 0.5, it's half the total
number of combinations (I must be slow today).

So, 10^4 = 10000 combinations
10000 / 2 = 5000 * 2s = 10000s
10000s / 60 = 166.67m / 60 = 2.78h = 2h 47m

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mtq3ib$luq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Because its just not feasible to ensure
that the bag can not be ever looted.

> OK, I expect you'd prefer to disrupt the
> theif's operations than simply deter them.

Wrong. I have enough of a clue to realise that it just
isn't feasible to do more than have the bag howl at
the top of its lungs that its being broken into and
to tell me when that is happening, so that the
thief is deterred from looting the bag that way.

And that it makes no sense to have stuff that is
valuable in a checked bag, that should obviously
be in what isn't checked instead if you really do
need to have something valuable with you.

> That's fine if it works,

Corse its possible to make sure it works.

> and it may well do.

>>> Why do more than 50% of the population have
>>> to do something before you'll do it too?
>>
>> Nothing even remotely like 50% of the population brews
>> their own beer, distils their own grog, makes their own
>> marmalade, relish, bread etc or even grows their own tomatoes.
>>
>> And nothing even remotely like even 5% builds their own house
>> from scratch on a bare block of land or flys their own plane either.

> Great, so with such an understanding of the benefits of individuality
> you needn't reply to my posts noting that they don't apply if someone
> chooses the most common option.

I did nothing of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Yep. And angle grinder is hopeless for that.

> I obviously don't have half a clue,

Yes.

> care to point me to where you got yours?

By using both, fuckwit.

>>> Anything else is just endless speculation.
>>
>> Nope, fact.

> OK, anything else is just fact without evidence.

Wrong, as always. There is plenty of evidence.

>>>>>>> and leaving clear damage on the bag?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are gone.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what I said about the cable ties. Won't it all show up
>>>>> on CCTV?...
>>>>
>>>> Not if you have a clue about how you get into the bag.
>>>
>>> You can get into a well designed bag with an angle grinder and not
>>> leave enough damage to equal the visual impact of a cable tie?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> Yes, yes, "soopa multitool skilz" instead. Show me the time
>>> comparison Vs an angle grinder. With a hard cased bag, no zip.
>>
>> Go and fuck yourself, again.

> And we've resorted to the insults.

Just how many of you are there between those ears ?

> Insults don't equal proof.

You want proof ? Get off your lard arse and prove it yourself.

>>>>>>> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
>>>>>>> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
>>>>>>> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
>>>>>> those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
>>>>>> go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.
>>>>>
>>>>> So make it difficult enough for them that it still isn't worth
>>>>> their while compared to all the unprotected bags with average
>>>>> value items inside.
>>>>
>>>> Again, easier said than done.
>>>
>>> Again, but it can be done, or at least attempted with a high
>>> probability of success.
>>
>> Easy to claim.
>
> So we've got to the recursive stage of this debate then.

Wrong, as always.

And there is no debate, just you making
a complete fool of yourself, as always.

> You say something that I ask you to prove and you don't,

Because you are free to prove it yourself.

> then I say something that you ask me to prove

Everyone can see for themselves that I did nothing
of the sort, you silly little pathological liar.

> and I don't.

> I'm not going to do an international study on bag theft so
> that I can provide valid statistics to support my claim, just
> like you're not going to video an extensive test of luggage
> bags being broken into with an angle grinder and multitool
> so that the practicality of breaking into a hard cased bag
> can be assessed from a theif's perspective.

Because it makes no sense whatever to be spending
anything like that sort of money to prove what I
already know to be a fact. You don’t like that ?

Your problem, as always.

> It's a shame,

Nope.

> but that's how it is.

Nope.

That assumption gets him nowhere.

>>>> Don?t need a combination lock in that case,
>>>> any decent lock will do fine and can't be
>>>> defeated by trying all the combinations.
>>>
>>> Like the zip tie can be defeated by simply cutting the bag around it.
>>
>> But which howls its head off when that happens so the
>> cutter is frog marched off to jail.
>
> So a zip tie on its own isn't an adequate deterrent after all then?

Never said that. It clearly does deter some criminal activity
because the owner of the bag may well demand that the
system checks the CCTV records to see who do the looting
when they can see that the bag has been looted right there
at the baggage carousel where its easy to report the theft.

>>>> And obviously no zips because they are trivially easy to open.
>>>>
>>>> Tho it wouldn?t be hard to have the zipped bag howl its
>>>> head off if the zip is opened without the alarm being
>>>> disarmed first.
>>>>
>>>> And use a fingerprint sensor on the
>>>> phone instead of a dinosaur combination lock.
>>>
>>> A pointless attempt to get this off-topic.
>>
>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>
>>> The phone wasn't in the bag anyway, remember.
>>
>> Of course it isn't, fuckwit. Its what talks to what is in the fucking
>> bag,
>> fuckwit.
>
> Oh, I see you use the phone to unlock the bag, I thought you meant
> to deter the theif from taking a phone from inside the bag.

More fool you.

> You can't change your fingerprint though,

Don’t need to.

> and a built-in bypass code

Never said anything about any built in bypass code.

> would just be a software version of a TSA key,

Wrong, as always. It can be unique and so can not escape
so that any thief who wants one can make their own.

> with the same security issue.

Wrong, as always. The owner of the bag can actually
authorise the authoritys to open the bag and essentially
unlock the bag for the authoritys remotely if that is
required by the authoritys with no risk of theft of
the TSA master key whatever.

> So how does this stop security needing to break into your
> bag while providing increased security to a TSA key?

See above. Same way its done now with
electronic high security locks for houses etc.

Leaves the stupid dinosaur TSA lock system for dead.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mtq3qm$me4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Never said that.

>>>>>>I know! A combination lock.
>>>>
>>>> Completely useless because anyone can get thru it.
>>>
>>> Given a day or two.
>>
>> Doesn?t need a day or two.
>
> Alright, how long does it take on average, in minutes, to
> break a four character numeric combination manually on a
> bag lock?

[Paul Saccani]

None of which supports your contentions about TSA examinations and

[Paul Saccani]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:32:52 +1000, Gordon Levi
<gor...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>Yes, there have been some examples of that approach being used.
>>>
>>>> Can you provide them?
>>
>>http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-man-claims-he-found-drugs-in-his-bag-after-returning-from-bali-20150903-gje82l.html
>
>Thanks Rod. We now have a new mystery. How were the people who put the
>drugs in the suitcase going to make a profit?

You just answered your own question....

[Petzl]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:06:58 +0800, Paul Saccani <sac...@omen.net.au>

I think you are confusing me with someone else?

The TSA locks are meant to work in conjunction with electronic tags!

It seems this is a USa system, not AFAIK a Australian system (or
Uganda's) which does not use the same electronic tagging and detection
methods.

"Transportation Security Administration" (TSA) never get to examine
any luggage unless you are in USa air space/territory

Where I have zero problem with TSA locks,
In USa, after a initial inspection (x-ray & sniffed for explosives)
which if suspicious may only then require opening suit case!

I know in the USa my suit case is electronically watched, if taken out
of sensor path security are alerted within 2 seconds, then it's
actually looked for, as well as the person who took it.

As ALL suitcases nowadays tend to have a TSA key bypass, even those
with combination locks!

I do use as extra security (if not passing through USa), cable ties,
which have to be broken to be opened. But would not bother to do so
in USa, where missing luggage is no longer a problem (except in
movies).
--
Petzl
Islam is of course synonymous with terrorism
Islam is not a religion. It is a violent totalitarian ideology with elements
of an religion that allow it to masquerade as an religion. It should
not be treated as a religion.

Islam is just a form of Arab Imperialism.

Always Moslems blame their murder sprees on everyone but themselves!
Like Schizophrenics, they need therapy. Not confirmation of their delusions and as refugees made leave their delusions where they created them.
For around 1,400 years Islam has produced the major majority of the worlds refugees! Always fleeing from what they created!
Still the same today!
Time to address the fact the problem is Islam.

The ONLY Nations mistakenly welcoming Moslems have a Christian history, not a Sharia history!

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mtq3ib$luq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote

I wasn't talking about _your_ bag, we've been discussing a
general alternative to the current TSA system. Some
people want to put valueable things in their bags, yet
still don't want them to be stolen. Hence locks.

>> OK, I expect you'd prefer to disrupt the
>> theif's operations than simply deter them.
>
> Wrong. I have enough of a clue to realise that it just
> isn't feasible to do more than have the bag howl at
> the top of its lungs that its being broken into and
> to tell me when that is happening, so that the
> thief is deterred from looting the bag that way.
>
> And that it makes no sense to have stuff that is
> valuable in a checked bag, that should obviously
> be in what isn't checked instead if you really do
> need to have something valuable with you.

It surely depends how many valuable things a person
wants or needs to take with them, and their definition
of "valueable".

>> That's fine if it works,
>
> Corse its possible to make sure it works.

To deter theifs in the long term? Yes, by doing it and
studying the results.

>> and it may well do.
>
>>>> Why do more than 50% of the population have
>>>> to do something before you'll do it too?
>>>
>>> Nothing even remotely like 50% of the population brews
>>> their own beer, distils their own grog, makes their own
>>> marmalade, relish, bread etc or even grows their own tomatoes.
>>>
>>> And nothing even remotely like even 5% builds their own house
>>> from scratch on a bare block of land or flys their own plane either.
>
>> Great, so with such an understanding of the benefits of individuality
>> you needn't reply to my posts noting that they don't apply if someone
>> chooses the most common option.
>
> I did nothing of the sort,

What was they purpose of saying "most do" then?

>you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Ah, the insults again. I win.

I win.

Then I'll have half a clue as well. I'm not going to buy a bunch
of bags myself just to disprove something you've said.

>, fuckwit.

Oh well, never mind.
I win.

>>>> Anything else is just endless speculation.
>>>
>>> Nope, fact.
>
>> OK, anything else is just fact without evidence.
>
> Wrong, as always. There is plenty of evidence.

Then you'd better show it, or someone might go thinking it doesn't
exist.

>>>>>>>> and leaving clear damage on the bag?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are gone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I said about the cable ties. Won't it all show up
>>>>>> on CCTV?...
>>>>>
>>>>> Not if you have a clue about how you get into the bag.
>>>>
>>>> You can get into a well designed bag with an angle grinder and not
>>>> leave enough damage to equal the visual impact of a cable tie?
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> Yes, yes, "soopa multitool skilz" instead. Show me the time
>>>> comparison Vs an angle grinder. With a hard cased bag, no zip.
>>>
>>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>
>> And we've resorted to the insults.
>
> Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
>
>> Insults don't equal proof.
>
> You want proof ? Get off your lard arse and prove it yourself.

So your lard arse is permanently rooted where it is then?

>>>>>>>> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
>>>>>>>> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
>>>>>>>> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
>>>>>>> those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
>>>>>>> go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So make it difficult enough for them that it still isn't worth
>>>>>> their while compared to all the unprotected bags with average
>>>>>> value items inside.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, easier said than done.
>>>>
>>>> Again, but it can be done, or at least attempted with a high
>>>> probability of success.
>>>
>>> Easy to claim.
>>
>> So we've got to the recursive stage of this debate then.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
> And there is no debate, just you making
> a complete fool of yourself, as always.

So what are you doing?

>> You say something that I ask you to prove and you don't,
>
> Because you are free to prove it yourself.

Just like you are.

>> then I say something that you ask me to prove
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that I did nothing
> of the sort, you silly little pathological liar.

What was the point of saying "easy to claim" then?

>> and I don't.
>
>> I'm not going to do an international study on bag theft so
>> that I can provide valid statistics to support my claim, just
>> like you're not going to video an extensive test of luggage
>> bags being broken into with an angle grinder and multitool
>> so that the practicality of breaking into a hard cased bag
>> can be assessed from a theif's perspective.
>
> Because it makes no sense whatever to be spending
> anything like that sort of money to prove what I
> already know to be a fact.

Same here, hence no international study. Like I say, recursive
point of the debate. Noteably indicated by the rapid increase
in the frequency of insults coming from you.

>You don?t like that ?

>
> Your problem, as always.
>
>> It's a shame,
>
> Nope.
>
>> but that's how it is.
>
> Nope.

Oh, so you are going to video an extensive test of luggage

bags being broken into with an angle grinder and multitool
so that the practicality of breaking into a hard cased bag
can be assessed from a theif's perspective.

Doesn't it get him into that out of earshot place where he was
going to use the angle grinder?

>>>>> Don?t need a combination lock in that case,
>>>>> any decent lock will do fine and can't be
>>>>> defeated by trying all the combinations.
>>>>
>>>> Like the zip tie can be defeated by simply cutting the bag around it.
>>>
>>> But which howls its head off when that happens so the
>>> cutter is frog marched off to jail.
>>
>> So a zip tie on its own isn't an adequate deterrent after all then?
>
> Never said that. It clearly does deter some criminal activity
> because the owner of the bag may well demand that the
> system checks the CCTV records to see who do the looting
> when they can see that the bag has been looted right there
> at the baggage carousel where its easy to report the theft.

Deters some, but you still think you need more for it to be an
adequate deterrent. Your alarm solution requires trusted
supervision by the airport staff for it to be an additional
deterrent.

>>>>> And obviously no zips because they are trivially easy to open.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tho it wouldn?t be hard to have the zipped bag howl its
>>>>> head off if the zip is opened without the alarm being
>>>>> disarmed first.
>>>>>
>>>>> And use a fingerprint sensor on the
>>>>> phone instead of a dinosaur combination lock.
>>>>
>>>> A pointless attempt to get this off-topic.
>>>
>>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>
>>>> The phone wasn't in the bag anyway, remember.
>>>
>>> Of course it isn't, fuckwit. Its what talks to what is in the fucking
>>> bag,
>>> fuckwit.
>>
>> Oh, I see you use the phone to unlock the bag, I thought you meant
>> to deter the theif from taking a phone from inside the bag.
>
> More fool you.
>
>> You can't change your fingerprint though,
>

> Don?t need to.

>
>> and a built-in bypass code
>
> Never said anything about any built in bypass code.
>
>> would just be a software version of a TSA key,
>
> Wrong, as always. It can be unique and so can not escape
> so that any thief who wants one can make their own.

Just like a combination for a combination lock.

>> with the same security issue.
>
> Wrong, as always. The owner of the bag can actually
> authorise the authoritys to open the bag and essentially
> unlock the bag for the authoritys remotely if that is
> required by the authoritys with no risk of theft of
> the TSA master key whatever.

So now you have to subscribe to a mobile internet connection
just for your bag to comunitace to your phone. Would all
require much more development and technology than a
combination lock and local database at each airport.

>> So how does this stop security needing to break into your
>> bag while providing increased security to a TSA key?
>
> See above. Same way its done now with
> electronic high security locks for houses etc.

Why would you want to let someone you've never met (to set
their fingerprint) into your house remotely with your phone?

> Leaves the stupid dinosaur TSA lock system for dead.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

But isn't that a point to having a TSA lock?

>>>>>>>I know! A combination lock.
>>>>>
>>>>> Completely useless because anyone can get thru it.
>>>>
>>>> Given a day or two.
>>>
>>> Doesn?t need a day or two.
>>
>> Alright, how long does it take on average, in minutes, to
>> break a four character numeric combination manually on a
>> bag lock?
>
> Go and fuck yourself, again.

Insults again.
I win.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mtsn7v$ccj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

So was I.

> Some people want to put valueable things in their bags,

Makes more sense to not put the valuable stuff in check bags.

> yet still don't want them to be stolen. Hence locks.

Makes a lot more sense to use a decent modern electronic
lock which uses the fingerprint system on the phone to
ensure that the lock can't be trivially defeated by
a thief with a 3D printed TSA key and which howls
its head off at the top of its lungs if someone
does cut the lock and get into the bag that way.

If security decide that they need to cut the lock
to get into it without you being present, it doesn’t
matter if they go deaf when it blows their ears out.

>>> OK, I expect you'd prefer to disrupt the
>>> theif's operations than simply deter them.
>>
>> Wrong. I have enough of a clue to realise that it just
>> isn't feasible to do more than have the bag howl at
>> the top of its lungs that its being broken into and
>> to tell me when that is happening, so that the
>> thief is deterred from looting the bag that way.
>>
>> And that it makes no sense to have stuff that is
>> valuable in a checked bag, that should obviously
>> be in what isn't checked instead if you really do
>> need to have something valuable with you.

> It surely depends how many valuable things a person
> wants or needs to take with them, and their definition
> of "valueable".

Of course it does, but only a fool would have
the most valuable stuff in a checked bag.

>>> That's fine if it works,

>> Corse its possible to make sure it works.

> To deter theifs in the long term?
> Yes, by doing it and studying the results.

Not even possible to be sure its properly
exposed to the thieves that matter.

>>> and it may well do.
>>
>>>>> Why do more than 50% of the population have
>>>>> to do something before you'll do it too?
>>>>
>>>> Nothing even remotely like 50% of the population brews
>>>> their own beer, distils their own grog, makes their own
>>>> marmalade, relish, bread etc or even grows their own tomatoes.
>>>>
>>>> And nothing even remotely like even 5% builds their own house
>>>> from scratch on a bare block of land or flys their own plane either.
>>
>>> Great, so with such an understanding of the benefits of individuality
>>> you needn't reply to my posts noting that they don't apply if someone
>>> chooses the most common option.
>>
>> I did nothing of the sort,
>
> What was they purpose of saying "most do" then?

Just stating that fact, stupid.

>>you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>
> Ah, the insults again.

Corse you never ever do anything like that, eh,
you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.

> I win.

Nope, you lose, as always.

Nope, you lose, as always.

Losers don’t qualify.

> I'm not going to buy a bunch of bags myself
> just to disprove something you've said.

You have always been, and always will be,
completely and utterly irrelevant. What
you might or might not do in spades.

>>, fuckwit.

> Oh well, never mind.
> I win.

Nope, you've lost, as always.

>>>>> Anything else is just endless speculation.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, fact.
>>
>>> OK, anything else is just fact without evidence.
>>
>> Wrong, as always. There is plenty of evidence.

> Then you'd better show it,

Go and fuck yourself, again.

> or someone might go thinking it doesn't exist.

Only completely irrelevant fools like you.

>>>>>>>>> and leaving clear damage on the bag?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are
>>>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what I said about the cable ties. Won't it all show up
>>>>>>> on CCTV?...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not if you have a clue about how you get into the bag.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can get into a well designed bag with an angle grinder and not
>>>>> leave enough damage to equal the visual impact of a cable tie?
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, yes, "soopa multitool skilz" instead. Show me the time
>>>>> comparison Vs an angle grinder. With a hard cased bag, no zip.
>>>>
>>>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>
>>> And we've resorted to the insults.
>>
>> Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
>>
>>> Insults don't equal proof.
>>
>> You want proof ? Get off your lard arse and prove it yourself.

> So your lard arse

Don’t have one.

> is permanently rooted where it is then?

Wrong, as always.

>>>>>>>>> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
>>>>>>>>> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
>>>>>>>>> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
>>>>>>>> those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
>>>>>>>> go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So make it difficult enough for them that it still isn't worth
>>>>>>> their while compared to all the unprotected bags with average
>>>>>>> value items inside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, easier said than done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, but it can be done, or at least attempted with a high
>>>>> probability of success.
>>>>
>>>> Easy to claim.
>>>
>>> So we've got to the recursive stage of this debate then.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>> And there is no debate, just you making
>> a complete fool of yourself, as always.
>
> So what are you doing?

Pissing on you from a great height, as always.

>>> You say something that I ask you to prove and you don't,
>>
>> Because you are free to prove it yourself.
>
> Just like you are.

I wasn’t the one demanding anyone prove anything.

>>> then I say something that you ask me to prove
>>
>> Everyone can see for themselves that I did nothing
>> of the sort, you silly little pathological liar.
>
> What was the point of saying "easy to claim" then?

Statement of fact, fuckwit.

>>> and I don't.
>>
>>> I'm not going to do an international study on bag theft so
>>> that I can provide valid statistics to support my claim, just
>>> like you're not going to video an extensive test of luggage
>>> bags being broken into with an angle grinder and multitool
>>> so that the practicality of breaking into a hard cased bag
>>> can be assessed from a theif's perspective.
>>
>> Because it makes no sense whatever to be spending
>> anything like that sort of money to prove what I
>> already know to be a fact.
>
> Same here, hence no international study.
> Like I say, recursive point of the debate.

Wrong, as always.

> Noteably indicated by the rapid increase in
> the frequency of insults coming from you.

Another lie. There has only ever been statements
of fact. You have always been a pathetic excuse
for a lying bullshit artist and a fuckwit and a loser.

>>You don?t like that ?
>>
>> Your problem, as always.
>>
>>> It's a shame,
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> but that's how it is.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Oh, so you are going to video an extensive test of luggage
> bags being broken into with an angle grinder and multitool
> so that the practicality of breaking into a hard cased bag
> can be assessed from a theif's perspective.

Nope.

Nope, because there is no such place the baggage handler can do that.

>>>>>> Don?t need a combination lock in that case,
>>>>>> any decent lock will do fine and can't be
>>>>>> defeated by trying all the combinations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like the zip tie can be defeated by simply cutting the bag around it.
>>>>
>>>> But which howls its head off when that happens so the
>>>> cutter is frog marched off to jail.
>>>
>>> So a zip tie on its own isn't an adequate deterrent after all then?
>>
>> Never said that. It clearly does deter some criminal activity
>> because the owner of the bag may well demand that the
>> system checks the CCTV records to see who do the looting
>> when they can see that the bag has been looted right there
>> at the baggage carousel where its easy to report the theft.

> Deters some, but you still think you need
> more for it to be an adequate deterrent.

Wrong, as always.

> Your alarm solution requires trusted supervision by
> the airport staff for it to be an additional deterrent.

Wrong, as always.

Nope.

> Would all require much more development and technology
> than a combination lock and local database at each airport.

Which would be completely useless given that the local
database would have to be accessible to all the apes
that check whether there is anything illegal in the bags.

>>> So how does this stop security needing to break into your
>>> bag while providing increased security to a TSA key?
>>
>> See above. Same way its done now with
>> electronic high security locks for houses etc.
>
> Why would you want to let someone you've never met (to set
> their fingerprint) into your house remotely with your phone?

Because you want to allow them to go into your house
to check that everything is fine, or to deliver something,
or to fix something that has stopped working, etc etc etc.

And you don’t know that you have never met them.

And you can obviously remotely monitor what they do
when you have allowed them to go into your house too
and call the cops if they start looting the place etc.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mtsnc2$ccj$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

Nope. A TSA lock allows them to open the
bag WITHOUT breaking the lock, stupid.

>>>>>>>>I know! A combination lock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Completely useless because anyone can get thru it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given a day or two.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn?t need a day or two.
>>>
>>> Alright, how long does it take on average, in minutes, to
>>> break a four character numeric combination manually on a
>>> bag lock?
>>
>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>
> Insults again.

Nope, that’s an order, fuckwit.

[matt1995]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 23:29:44 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
(Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:

>Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Best way would be to use some indicator that isn't obvious to the
>> person opening the bag. This is really a different problem to the
>> TSA locks though, they're meant to make it difficult for anyone
>> unauthorised from opening the bag in the first place. Granted
>> they're usually too weak to really do this.
>
>What you really want is a combination lock, and you tell the

>airport authorities the combination, which they put on a database

>that only the authorised personel are able to access. Then you

>change your combination after the flight.
>

>I guess they might have to break open more bags because people
>got their combinations wrong, but it would offer more security
>combined with a well designed bag lock.

Given the propsensity for Government systems for being hacked, I
have to question how secure such an arrangement would be. Time and
time again we have seen such systems successfuly hacked into. Any time
you have 'authorized personel', you are always going to end up with
unauthorized access. It is a fact of life.

One of the reasons I am opposed to the Government Collection of
material even for use on supposedly secure computer systems is time
and time again we have discovered there is no such thing as a secure
computer system that is connected to the outside world.

The Chinese get blamed for most of the hacking of Goverment sites in
the USA. However I suspect the USA security services are at least
as good at it, and engage in it at least as much.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

That sounds like a good point for having a TSA lock to me.

I didn't mean to imply that security _do_ break into bags _with_
a TSA lock in my second last reply. Read it again.

>>>>>>>>>I know! A combination lock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Completely useless because anyone can get thru it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given a day or two.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn?t need a day or two.
>>>>
>>>> Alright, how long does it take on average, in minutes, to
>>>> break a four character numeric combination manually on a
>>>> bag lock?
>>>
>>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>
>> Insults again.
>

> Nope, that?s an order, fuckwit.

You'd be a hell of a commanding officer.

>> I win.
>
> Nope, you lose, as always.

OK, if you insist. (I'm going to restrain myself from following
up to this one).


P.S. You'll have to wait to tomorrow for a reply to the
super-sub-thread, I'm otherwise occupied this morning.

[Paul Saccani]

You are quoted directly, above.

>The TSA locks are meant to work in conjunction with electronic tags!

That is not the case.

>It seems this is a USa system, not AFAIK a Australian system (or
>Uganda's) which does not use the same electronic tagging and detection
>methods.

That is unrelated to travel sentry locks.

>"Transportation Security Administration" (TSA) never get to examine
>any luggage unless you are in USa air space/territory

Travel sentry master keys are distributed to foreign security partners
for aircraft flying into the USA.

>Where I have zero problem with TSA locks,
>In USa, after a initial inspection (x-ray & sniffed for explosives)
>which if suspicious may only then require opening suit case!

TSA also do random examinations.

>I know in the USa my suit case is electronically watched, if taken out
>of sensor path security are alerted within 2 seconds, then it's
>actually looked for, as well as the person who took it.

You may think this. That doesn't make it true. It depends on which
airports you are going through. This is not a TSA matter.

>As ALL suitcases nowadays tend to have a TSA key bypass, even those
>with combination locks!

That's rather a muddled message.

>I do use as extra security (if not passing through USa), cable ties,
>which have to be broken to be opened. But would not bother to do so
>in USa, where missing luggage is no longer a problem (except in
>movies).

It's improving, but;

The annual amount of lost luggage in the USA is currently around 4
million pieces per year (The total goes up to 22 million if you
include that which goes astray for up to 90 days). This suggests
that your confidence is misplaced. US airlines paid more than US$12
billion in the last year in compensation for lost luggage. The most
recent loss rate is around 3 per 1,000 pieces. That sounds like it
happens a lot outside of movies.

The TSA don't supply annualised figures, but over the last five years,
they paid US$3 million in compensation for stealing from luggage,
losing luggage or breaking luggage. About a third of complaints
lodged were compensated for in the last year. It isn't a lot
considering the volume of screening that they do. These are just
cases where their internal investigation found that they were
responsible.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mtv7in$v7c$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Only in the sense of being better than no lock at
all as far as SOME of the thieves are concerned.

But if you are actually stupid enough to put
valuables in checked bags, it makes a lot more
sense to have the bag wrapped as well and
even more sense to have a much more secure
lock and a decent alarm system that can howl
its head off about the bag being opened with
a good chance that the thief wont have the
balls to keep looting the bag when it goes off.

> I didn't mean to imply that security _do_ break into bags
> _with_ a TSA lock in my second last reply. Read it again.

It stays mindless silly shit no matter how often its read.

>>>>>>>>>>I know! A combination lock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Completely useless because anyone can get thru it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given a day or two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn?t need a day or two.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alright, how long does it take on average, in minutes, to
>>>>> break a four character numeric combination manually on a
>>>>> bag lock?
>>>>
>>>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>>
>>> Insults again.
>>
>> Nope, that?s an order, fuckwit.
>
> You'd be a hell of a commanding officer.

I'd have you shot.

>>> I win.
>>
>> Nope, you lose, as always.
>
> OK, if you insist. (I'm going to restrain
> myself from following up to this one).

Best do that with a rope around you neck
while teetering on something very unstable
with the rope tied to something immovable.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Correct.

> But if you are actually stupid enough to put
> valuables in checked bags, it makes a lot more
> sense to have the bag wrapped as well and
> even more sense to have a much more secure
> lock and a decent alarm system that can howl
> its head off about the bag being opened with
> a good chance that the thief wont have the
> balls to keep looting the bag when it goes off.

Or use a combination lock and tell the airport the combination.

>> I didn't mean to imply that security _do_ break into bags
>> _with_ a TSA lock in my second last reply. Read it again.
>
> It stays mindless silly shit no matter how often its read.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>I know! A combination lock.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Completely useless because anyone can get thru it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given a day or two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn?t need a day or two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alright, how long does it take on average, in minutes, to
>>>>>> break a four character numeric combination manually on a
>>>>>> bag lock?
>>>>>
>>>>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>>>
>>>> Insults again.
>>>
>>> Nope, that?s an order, fuckwit.
>>
>> You'd be a hell of a commanding officer.
>
> I'd have you shot.

And miss all the entertainment?

>>>> I win.
>>>
>>> Nope, you lose, as always.
>>
>> OK, if you insist. (I'm going to restrain
>> myself from following up to this one).
>
> Best do that with a rope around you neck
> while teetering on something very unstable
> with the rope tied to something immovable.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

matt1995 <matth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 23:29:44 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>
>>What you really want is a combination lock, and you tell the
>>airport authorities the combination, which they put on a database
>>that only the authorised personel are able to access. Then you
>>change your combination after the flight.
>>
>>I guess they might have to break open more bags because people
>>got their combinations wrong, but it would offer more security
>>combined with a well designed bag lock.
>
> Given the propsensity for Government systems for being hacked, I
> have to question how secure such an arrangement would be. Time and
> time again we have seen such systems successfuly hacked into. Any time
> you have 'authorized personel', you are always going to end up with
> unauthorized access. It is a fact of life.

Yep I agree. As long as there needs to be physical access to the
contents of a bag without the presence of its owner, the security
of the bag is compromised.

However at least with the approach I outlined, the code is changed
after each trip so that security of the bag is only compromised by
a hack for the time of the flight that involved the hacked airport
system. It is much better than having universal keys which have
already effectively been permanently hacked, and were designed for
locks that were probably easy to pick anyway.

> One of the reasons I am opposed to the Government Collection of
> material even for use on supposedly secure computer systems is time
> and time again we have discovered there is no such thing as a secure
> computer system that is connected to the outside world.

Yes. Although if I was designing an airport network, I would want to
have things like the bag code database only accessible from a local
network that's not connected to the outside world. Given the physical
security measures employed at airports, I'd hope this was already the
case for many systems, but then I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

> The Chinese get blamed for most of the hacking of Goverment sites in
> the USA. However I suspect the USA security services are at least
> as good at it, and engage in it at least as much.

Quite likely, their teams of hackers must be employed to do something.

Actually, I think I heard the yanks got a virus installed on some
Iranian nuclear reactor's systems at one point. No time to look
it up now, but I'm sure it's just one of many cases.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Unless you have too much valuable stuff.

>> yet still don't want them to be stolen. Hence locks.
>
> Makes a lot more sense to use a decent modern electronic
> lock which uses the fingerprint system on the phone to
> ensure that the lock can't be trivially defeated by
> a thief with a 3D printed TSA key and which howls
> its head off at the top of its lungs if someone
> does cut the lock and get into the bag that way.
>
> If security decide that they need to cut the lock

> to get into it without you being present, it doesn?t

> matter if they go deaf when it blows their ears out.

Or a combination lock.

>>>> OK, I expect you'd prefer to disrupt the
>>>> theif's operations than simply deter them.
>>>
>>> Wrong. I have enough of a clue to realise that it just
>>> isn't feasible to do more than have the bag howl at
>>> the top of its lungs that its being broken into and
>>> to tell me when that is happening, so that the
>>> thief is deterred from looting the bag that way.
>>>
>>> And that it makes no sense to have stuff that is
>>> valuable in a checked bag, that should obviously
>>> be in what isn't checked instead if you really do
>>> need to have something valuable with you.
>
>> It surely depends how many valuable things a person
>> wants or needs to take with them, and their definition
>> of "valueable".
>
> Of course it does, but only a fool would have
> the most valuable stuff in a checked bag.

Or someone with a lot of valuable stuff.

>>>> That's fine if it works,
>
>>> Corse its possible to make sure it works.
>
>> To deter theifs in the long term?
>> Yes, by doing it and studying the results.
>
> Not even possible to be sure its properly
> exposed to the thieves that matter.

Oh right, so it's _not_ possible to make sure it works.

>>>> and it may well do.
>>>
>>>>>> Why do more than 50% of the population have
>>>>>> to do something before you'll do it too?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing even remotely like 50% of the population brews
>>>>> their own beer, distils their own grog, makes their own
>>>>> marmalade, relish, bread etc or even grows their own tomatoes.
>>>>>
>>>>> And nothing even remotely like even 5% builds their own house
>>>>> from scratch on a bare block of land or flys their own plane either.
>>>
>>>> Great, so with such an understanding of the benefits of individuality
>>>> you needn't reply to my posts noting that they don't apply if someone
>>>> chooses the most common option.
>>>
>>> I did nothing of the sort,
>>
>> What was they purpose of saying "most do" then?
>
> Just stating that fact, stupid.

And why, of all the facts you could have stated, did you choose that
one?

>>>you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>
>> Ah, the insults again.
>
> Corse you never ever do anything like that, eh,
> you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.

At least I try to keep my language civil, and relevant to the
topic.

>> I win.
>
> Nope, you lose, as always.

OK, if you insist.

OK, if you insist.

> Losers don?t qualify.

>
>> I'm not going to buy a bunch of bags myself
>> just to disprove something you've said.
>
> You have always been, and always will be,
> completely and utterly irrelevant.

Well seemingly not to you, given all the text you're devoting to me.

> What you might or might not do in spades.

Mainly what I won't.

>>>, fuckwit.
>
>> Oh well, never mind.
>> I win.
>
> Nope, you've lost, as always.

OK, if you insist.

>>>>>> Anything else is just endless speculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, fact.
>>>
>>>> OK, anything else is just fact without evidence.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always. There is plenty of evidence.
>
>> Then you'd better show it,
>
> Go and fuck yourself, again.

Insults again,
I win.

>> or someone might go thinking it doesn't exist.
>
> Only completely irrelevant fools like you.

So who _is_ relevant?
You?

>>>>>>>>>> and leaving clear damage on the bag?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are
>>>>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's what I said about the cable ties. Won't it all show up
>>>>>>>> on CCTV?...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not if you have a clue about how you get into the bag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can get into a well designed bag with an angle grinder and not
>>>>>> leave enough damage to equal the visual impact of a cable tie?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, yes, "soopa multitool skilz" instead. Show me the time
>>>>>> comparison Vs an angle grinder. With a hard cased bag, no zip.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>>
>>>> And we've resorted to the insults.
>>>
>>> Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
>>>
>>>> Insults don't equal proof.
>>>
>>> You want proof ? Get off your lard arse and prove it yourself.

It's your point, you prove it.

>> So your lard arse
>
> Don?t have one.

>
>> is permanently rooted where it is then?
>
> Wrong, as always.

Great! Where's the video then?

>>>>>>>>>> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
>>>>>>>>>> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
>>>>>>>>>> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
>>>>>>>>> those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
>>>>>>>>> go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So make it difficult enough for them that it still isn't worth
>>>>>>>> their while compared to all the unprotected bags with average
>>>>>>>> value items inside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, easier said than done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, but it can be done, or at least attempted with a high
>>>>>> probability of success.
>>>>>
>>>>> Easy to claim.
>>>>
>>>> So we've got to the recursive stage of this debate then.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>> And there is no debate, just you making
>>> a complete fool of yourself, as always.
>>
>> So what are you doing?
>
> Pissing on you from a great height, as always.

So urination upon fellow Usenet users is a perfectly respectable
passtime then?

>>>> You say something that I ask you to prove and you don't,
>>>
>>> Because you are free to prove it yourself.
>>
>> Just like you are.
>

> I wasn?t the one demanding anyone prove anything.

Easy to claim.

>>>> then I say something that you ask me to prove
>>>
>>> Everyone can see for themselves that I did nothing
>>> of the sort, you silly little pathological liar.
>>
>> What was the point of saying "easy to claim" then?
>
> Statement of fact, fuckwit.

And why did you choose that particular fact to state?

>>>> and I don't.
>>>
>>>> I'm not going to do an international study on bag theft so
>>>> that I can provide valid statistics to support my claim, just
>>>> like you're not going to video an extensive test of luggage
>>>> bags being broken into with an angle grinder and multitool
>>>> so that the practicality of breaking into a hard cased bag
>>>> can be assessed from a theif's perspective.
>>>
>>> Because it makes no sense whatever to be spending
>>> anything like that sort of money to prove what I
>>> already know to be a fact.
>>
>> Same here, hence no international study.
>> Like I say, recursive point of the debate.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> Noteably indicated by the rapid increase in
>> the frequency of insults coming from you.
>
> Another lie. There has only ever been statements
> of fact. You have always been a pathetic excuse
> for a lying bullshit artist and a fuckwit and a loser.

Yeah, yeah, sure Rod.

>>>You don?t like that ?
>>>
>>> Your problem, as always.
>>>
>>>> It's a shame,
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> but that's how it is.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Oh, so you are going to video an extensive test of luggage
>> bags being broken into with an angle grinder and multitool
>> so that the practicality of breaking into a hard cased bag
>> can be assessed from a theif's perspective.
>
> Nope.

So that _is_ how it is.

Finally backing down from your angle grinder suggestion then. But how
can you be sure that there isn't a suitable spot that's out of earshot
at some airports?

>>>>>>> Don?t need a combination lock in that case,
>>>>>>> any decent lock will do fine and can't be
>>>>>>> defeated by trying all the combinations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like the zip tie can be defeated by simply cutting the bag around it.
>>>>>
>>>>> But which howls its head off when that happens so the
>>>>> cutter is frog marched off to jail.
>>>>
>>>> So a zip tie on its own isn't an adequate deterrent after all then?
>>>
>>> Never said that. It clearly does deter some criminal activity
>>> because the owner of the bag may well demand that the
>>> system checks the CCTV records to see who do the looting
>>> when they can see that the bag has been looted right there
>>> at the baggage carousel where its easy to report the theft.
>
>> Deters some, but you still think you need
>> more for it to be an adequate deterrent.
>
> Wrong, as always.

So the alarm is pointless then, a cable tie on its own is already
adequate.

>> Your alarm solution requires trusted supervision by
>> the airport staff for it to be an additional deterrent.
>
> Wrong, as always.

So if there's nobody about during the theft, or those around are "in
on the deal", how does the alarm deter the theft?

So what, WiFi? Modulation of supersonic pressure waves from nearby
jet engines (joke)? How does the phone communicate with the bag?

Whatever the system, it enevitably is much more complicated and
expensive than the combination lock and database.

>> Would all require much more development and technology
>> than a combination lock and local database at each airport.
>
> Which would be completely useless given that the local
> database would have to be accessible to all the apes
> that check whether there is anything illegal in the bags.

Yep, it could be designed so that only the security officials
already trusted to open the bags can read entries on the
database, and only from specific computers located in the room
where they work. If there aren't already measures there to stop
them taking stuff there, then all this is irrelevant.

>>>> So how does this stop security needing to break into your
>>>> bag while providing increased security to a TSA key?
>>>
>>> See above. Same way its done now with
>>> electronic high security locks for houses etc.
>>
>> Why would you want to let someone you've never met (to set
>> their fingerprint) into your house remotely with your phone?
>
> Because you want to allow them to go into your house
> to check that everything is fine, or to deliver something,
> or to fix something that has stopped working, etc etc etc.
>

> And you don?t know that you have never met them.

>
> And you can obviously remotely monitor what they do
> when you have allowed them to go into your house too
> and call the cops if they start looting the place etc.

Alright, some people are crazy. There should already be enough
evidence here for me to know that.

[F Murtz]

You research and find out, but it does not require manually trying all
combinations until you hit it.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mu1tsa$sj9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

No thanks, that approach would be completely useless
because even the most stupid clowns that are used to check
the bags for drugs etc would have to have access to that.

With a wrapped bag and a decent alarm, the worst that
would happen when they need to open the bag without
you being that is some fool ends up deaf etc and all the
thieves would fuck off without looting the bag because it
would be very hard to explain why they have valuables so
obviously with them when the bag is howling its head off.
With a wrapped bag they can't even try claiming that the
bag got wrecked by the bag moving machinery and they
just happened to be next to the bag when it happened.

>>> I didn't mean to imply that security _do_ break into bags
>>> _with_ a TSA lock in my second last reply. Read it again.
>>
>> It stays mindless silly shit no matter how often its read.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I know! A combination lock.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Completely useless because anyone can get thru it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given a day or two.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn?t need a day or two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alright, how long does it take on average, in minutes, to
>>>>>>> break a four character numeric combination manually on a
>>>>>>> bag lock?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Insults again.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that?s an order, fuckwit.
>>>
>>> You'd be a hell of a commanding officer.
>>
>> I'd have you shot.

> And miss all the entertainment?

Nothing to miss.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:mu1ur6$uk9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Just not feasible, because any checked bag has to go thru more than
one local environment, that’s the whole point of air travel, stupid.

> Given the physical security measures employed at airports,
> I'd hope this was already the case for many systems,

More fool you given that any checked bag or passenger
is by definition going to move thru more than one local
environment.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:mu20va$2g8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

You're completely stupid if you have that
much valuable stuff with you on a plane trip.

>>> yet still don't want them to be stolen. Hence locks.
>>
>> Makes a lot more sense to use a decent modern electronic
>> lock which uses the fingerprint system on the phone to
>> ensure that the lock can't be trivially defeated by
>> a thief with a 3D printed TSA key and which howls
>> its head off at the top of its lungs if someone
>> does cut the lock and get into the bag that way.
>>
>> If security decide that they need to cut the lock
>> to get into it without you being present, it doesn?t
>> matter if they go deaf when it blows their ears out.

> Or a combination lock.

Completely useless at preventing a thief from breaking it.

>>>>> OK, I expect you'd prefer to disrupt the
>>>>> theif's operations than simply deter them.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. I have enough of a clue to realise that it just
>>>> isn't feasible to do more than have the bag howl at
>>>> the top of its lungs that its being broken into and
>>>> to tell me when that is happening, so that the
>>>> thief is deterred from looting the bag that way.
>>>>
>>>> And that it makes no sense to have stuff that is
>>>> valuable in a checked bag, that should obviously
>>>> be in what isn't checked instead if you really do
>>>> need to have something valuable with you.
>>
>>> It surely depends how many valuable things a person
>>> wants or needs to take with them, and their definition
>>> of "valueable".
>>
>> Of course it does, but only a fool would have
>> the most valuable stuff in a checked bag.

> Or someone with a lot of valuable stuff.

You're completely stupid if you have that
much valuable stuff with you on a plane trip.

>>>>> That's fine if it works,
>>
>>>> Corse its possible to make sure it works.
>>
>>> To deter theifs in the long term?
>>> Yes, by doing it and studying the results.
>>
>> Not even possible to be sure its properly
>> exposed to the thieves that matter.

> Oh right, so it's _not_ possible to make sure it works.

Wrong, as always. That is just one way of making sure it works.

>>>>> and it may well do.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do more than 50% of the population have
>>>>>>> to do something before you'll do it too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing even remotely like 50% of the population brews
>>>>>> their own beer, distils their own grog, makes their own
>>>>>> marmalade, relish, bread etc or even grows their own tomatoes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And nothing even remotely like even 5% builds their own house
>>>>>> from scratch on a bare block of land or flys their own plane either.
>>>>
>>>>> Great, so with such an understanding of the benefits of individuality
>>>>> you needn't reply to my posts noting that they don't apply if someone
>>>>> chooses the most common option.
>>>>
>>>> I did nothing of the sort,
>>>
>>> What was they purpose of saying "most do" then?
>>
>> Just stating that fact, stupid.
>
> And why, of all the facts you could
> have stated, did you choose that one?

I didn’t.

>>>>you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>>
>>> Ah, the insults again.
>>
>> Corse you never ever do anything like that, eh,
>> you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>
> At least I try to keep my language civil,

Obvious lie.

> and relevant to the topic.

Obvious lie.

Wrong, as always.

>> What you might or might not do in spades.

> Mainly what I won't.

Ditto.

>>>>, fuckwit.
>>
>>> Oh well, never mind.
>>> I win.
>>
>> Nope, you've lost, as always.
>
> OK, if you insist.
>
>>>>>>> Anything else is just endless speculation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, fact.
>>>>
>>>>> OK, anything else is just fact without evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always. There is plenty of evidence.
>>
>>> Then you'd better show it,
>>
>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>
> Insults again,
> I win.

Nope, you've lost, as always.

>>> or someone might go thinking it doesn't exist.
>>
>> Only completely irrelevant fools like you.
>
> So who _is_ relevant?

That shit of yours isn't.

And neither are you.

>>>>>>>>>>> and leaving clear damage on the bag?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are
>>>>>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's what I said about the cable ties. Won't it all show up
>>>>>>>>> on CCTV?...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not if you have a clue about how you get into the bag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can get into a well designed bag with an angle grinder and not
>>>>>>> leave enough damage to equal the visual impact of a cable tie?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, yes, "soopa multitool skilz" instead. Show me the time
>>>>>>> comparison Vs an angle grinder. With a hard cased bag, no zip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>>>
>>>>> And we've resorted to the insults.
>>>>
>>>> Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
>>>>
>>>>> Insults don't equal proof.
>>>>
>>>> You want proof ? Get off your lard arse and prove it yourself.

> It's your point, you prove it.

You want proof ? Get off your lard arse and prove it yourself.

>>> So your lard arse
>>
>> Don?t have one.
>>
>>> is permanently rooted where it is then?
>>
>> Wrong, as always.

> Great! Where's the video then?

You want the video ? Get off your lard arse and make it yourself.

>>>>>>>>>>> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
>>>>>>>>>>> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
>>>>>>>>>>> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
>>>>>>>>>> those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
>>>>>>>>>> go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So make it difficult enough for them that it still isn't worth
>>>>>>>>> their while compared to all the unprotected bags with average
>>>>>>>>> value items inside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, easier said than done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, but it can be done, or at least attempted with a high
>>>>>>> probability of success.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Easy to claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we've got to the recursive stage of this debate then.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>> And there is no debate, just you making
>>>> a complete fool of yourself, as always.
>>>
>>> So what are you doing?
>>
>> Pissing on you from a great height, as always.

> So urination upon fellow Usenet users
> is a perfectly respectable passtime then?

When its fools like you, yep.

>>>>> You say something that I ask you to prove and you don't,
>>>>
>>>> Because you are free to prove it yourself.
>>>
>>> Just like you are.
>>
>> I wasn?t the one demanding anyone prove anything.

> Easy to claim.

Can't even manage its own lines, or anything else at all either.

>>>>> then I say something that you ask me to prove
>>>>
>>>> Everyone can see for themselves that I did nothing
>>>> of the sort, you silly little pathological liar.
>>>
>>> What was the point of saying "easy to claim" then?
>>
>> Statement of fact, fuckwit.
>
> And why did you choose that particular fact to state?

I didn’t.

>>>>> and I don't.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not going to do an international study on bag theft so
>>>>> that I can provide valid statistics to support my claim, just
>>>>> like you're not going to video an extensive test of luggage
>>>>> bags being broken into with an angle grinder and multitool
>>>>> so that the practicality of breaking into a hard cased bag
>>>>> can be assessed from a theif's perspective.
>>>>
>>>> Because it makes no sense whatever to be spending
>>>> anything like that sort of money to prove what I
>>>> already know to be a fact.
>>>
>>> Same here, hence no international study.
>>> Like I say, recursive point of the debate.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> Noteably indicated by the rapid increase in
>>> the frequency of insults coming from you.
>>
>> Another lie. There has only ever been statements
>> of fact. You have always been a pathetic excuse
>> for a lying bullshit artist and a fuckwit and a loser.
>
> Yeah, yeah, sure Rod.

Fraid so.

>>>>You don?t like that ?
>>>>
>>>> Your problem, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> It's a shame,
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>> but that's how it is.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Oh, so you are going to video an extensive test of luggage
>>> bags being broken into with an angle grinder and multitool
>>> so that the practicality of breaking into a hard cased bag
>>> can be assessed from a theif's perspective.
>>
>> Nope.

> So that _is_ how it is.

Nope.

Nope.

> But how can you be sure that there isn't a suitable
> spot that's out of earshot at some airports?

By knowing how they work.

>>>>>>>> Don?t need a combination lock in that case,
>>>>>>>> any decent lock will do fine and can't be
>>>>>>>> defeated by trying all the combinations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like the zip tie can be defeated by simply cutting the bag around
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But which howls its head off when that happens so the
>>>>>> cutter is frog marched off to jail.
>>>>>
>>>>> So a zip tie on its own isn't an adequate deterrent after all then?
>>>>
>>>> Never said that. It clearly does deter some criminal activity
>>>> because the owner of the bag may well demand that the
>>>> system checks the CCTV records to see who do the looting
>>>> when they can see that the bag has been looted right there
>>>> at the baggage carousel where its easy to report the theft.
>>
>>> Deters some, but you still think you need
>>> more for it to be an adequate deterrent.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.

> So the alarm is pointless then,

Wrong, as always.

> a cable tie on its own is already adequate.

Wrong, as always.

>>> Your alarm solution requires trusted supervision by
>>> the airport staff for it to be an additional deterrent.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.

> So if there's nobody about during the theft,

There always is with a loud enough alarm.

> or those around are "in on the deal",
> how does the alarm deter the theft?

By being loud enough to ensure that that isn't the case.

Nope.

> Modulation of supersonic pressure waves from nearby jet
> engines (joke)? How does the phone communicate with the bag?

> Whatever the system, it enevitably is much more complicated
> and expensive than the combination lock and database.

Wrong, as always. Much simpler and cheaper in fact.

>>> Would all require much more development and technology
>>> than a combination lock and local database at each airport.
>>
>> Which would be completely useless given that the local
>> database would have to be accessible to all the apes
>> that check whether there is anything illegal in the bags.

> Yep, it could be designed so that only the security officials already
> trusted to open the bags can read entries on the database,

Trouble is that that’s all the goons that check for drugs etc.

> and only from specific computers located in the room where they work.

That isn't going to be viable.

> If there aren't already measures there to stop
> them taking stuff there, then all this is irrelevant.

Wrong, as always.

>>>>> So how does this stop security needing to break into your
>>>>> bag while providing increased security to a TSA key?
>>>>
>>>> See above. Same way its done now with
>>>> electronic high security locks for houses etc.
>>>
>>> Why would you want to let someone you've never met (to set
>>> their fingerprint) into your house remotely with your phone?
>>
>> Because you want to allow them to go into your house
>> to check that everything is fine, or to deliver something,
>> or to fix something that has stopped working, etc etc etc.
>>
>> And you don?t know that you have never met them.
>>
>> And you can obviously remotely monitor what they do
>> when you have allowed them to go into your house too
>> and call the cops if they start looting the place etc.
>
> Alright, some people are crazy.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I've actually been in that situation myself. Ended up in hospital,
got one of the trusted neighbours to get some stuff from the
house and bring it to me in the hospital. She managed to
forget to lock the main entrance door as she left. Fortunately
another trusted visitor discovered that the door was unlocked
with me nowhere to be found with the car returned from the
hospital parked there, reported that to another neighbour
when they wondered what had happened to me, and that
neighbour knew what had happened and secured the house.

None of that would have been necessary if I had
had a decent remote security system like that.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mu1ur6$uk9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> matt1995 <matth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 23:29:44 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
>>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>
>>> One of the reasons I am opposed to the Government Collection of
>>> material even for use on supposedly secure computer systems is time
>>> and time again we have discovered there is no such thing as a secure
>>> computer system that is connected to the outside world.
>>
>> Yes. Although if I was designing an airport network, I would want to
>> have things like the bag code database only accessible from a local
>> network that's not connected to the outside world.
>
> Just not feasible, because any checked bag has to go thru more than

> one local environment, that?s the whole point of air travel, stupid.

>
>> Given the physical security measures employed at airports,
>> I'd hope this was already the case for many systems,
>
> More fool you given that any checked bag or passenger
> is by definition going to move thru more than one local
> environment.

Yes and said passenger could inform the airport at their destination
of the combination. Or they could have the code encrypted code and
printed on their boarding pass that is presented at their destination.
Or their bag could have the encrypted code printed on a sticker affixed
to it. Or all the codes could be encrypted and stored on a memory stick
kept with other important information on the plane and handed over to a
trusted official upon arrival.

Just some different methods with varying levels of security and
disruption. Though as I say, that's if I was designing it, and I wouldn't
be surprised if many airports didn't bother. However even in that case
it would still offer better security to the current TSA key system.

>> but then I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

If the security officials who check the bags are the ones
stealing things, then all is lost, nothing can be done as
they are the ones all this is _designed_ to all entry to.

> With a wrapped bag and a decent alarm, the worst that
> would happen when they need to open the bag without
> you being that is some fool ends up deaf etc and all the
> thieves would fuck off without looting the bag because it
> would be very hard to explain why they have valuables so
> obviously with them when the bag is howling its head off.
> With a wrapped bag they can't even try claiming that the
> bag got wrecked by the bag moving machinery and they
> just happened to be next to the bag when it happened.

If the security officials are corrupt, then why should they
care how much noise a bag is making? It would make that same
noise whether they were genuinely looking for illegal items,
or stealing things.

Same with the wrapping, it would be opened whether the intention
was honest or not.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alright, how long does it take on average, in minutes, to
>>>> break a four character numeric combination manually on a
>>>> bag lock?
>
> You research and find out, but it does not require manually trying all
> combinations until you hit it.

Research what? The owner? That would take a lot of work.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mu4hms$ls9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:mu1ur6$uk9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> matt1995 <matth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 23:29:44 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
>>>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One of the reasons I am opposed to the Government Collection of
>>>> material even for use on supposedly secure computer systems is time
>>>> and time again we have discovered there is no such thing as a secure
>>>> computer system that is connected to the outside world.
>>>
>>> Yes. Although if I was designing an airport network, I would want to
>>> have things like the bag code database only accessible from a local
>>> network that's not connected to the outside world.
>>
>> Just not feasible, because any checked bag has to go thru more than
>> one local environment, that?s the whole point of air travel, stupid.
>>
>>> Given the physical security measures employed at airports,
>>> I'd hope this was already the case for many systems,
>>
>> More fool you given that any checked bag or passenger
>> is by definition going to move thru more than one local
>> environment.

> Yes and said passenger could inform the
> airport at their destination of the combination.

The system would have to be connected to the outside
world to do that before the passenger shows up there.

If the pax has already showed up there, there is no need
for it to be in any database there, they can just ask the
passenger what it is when they open it to inspect it.

> Or they could have the code encrypted code and printed
> on their boarding pass that is presented at their destination.

Ditto.

> Or their bag could have the encrypted
> code printed on a sticker affixed to it.

If its encrypted, there is no point in not allowing the system
to not be able to communicate with the outside world.

> Or all the codes could be encrypted and stored on a
> memory stick kept with other important information on the
> plane and handed over to a trusted official upon arrival.

See above.

> Just some different methods with varying
> levels of security and disruption.

None of it makes any sense at all.

> Though as I say, that's if I was designing it,

No one will ever be stupid enough to let you design anything.

> and I wouldn't be surprised if many airports didn't
> bother. However even in that case it would still
> offer better security to the current TSA key system.

And would still be completely pathetic compared with
something much better and cheaper to implement.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mu4i3g$mm8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Nope, not when they can only check the bag
when the owner of the bag is present and can
see when they help themselves to something
in the bag.

> nothing can be done as they are the
> ones all this is _designed_ to all entry to.

But only with the owner of the bag watching them.

>> With a wrapped bag and a decent alarm, the worst that
>> would happen when they need to open the bag without
>> you being that is some fool ends up deaf etc and all the
>> thieves would fuck off without looting the bag because it
>> would be very hard to explain why they have valuables so
>> obviously with them when the bag is howling its head off.
>> With a wrapped bag they can't even try claiming that the
>> bag got wrecked by the bag moving machinery and they
>> just happened to be next to the bag when it happened.

> If the security officials are corrupt, then why
> should they care how much noise a bag is making?

Because someone will notice what is going
on and record it using the phone, stupid.

> It would make that same noise whether they were
> genuinely looking for illegal items, or stealing things.

Nope, because when the owner is there, the owner
disarms the system when requested and watches
what the goon does with the contents of their bag.

> Same with the wrapping, it would be opened
> whether the intention was honest or not.

But when the alarm howls when that happens,
the thief can't try claiming that the machinery
malfunctioned and opened the bag.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:mu4i9g$mm8$3...@speranza.aioe.org...

> F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alright, how long does it take on average, in minutes, to
>>>>> break a four character numeric combination manually on a
>>>>> bag lock?
>>
>> You research and find out, but it does not require manually trying all
>> combinations until you hit it.
>
> Research what? The owner?

Nope, how to open a combination lock without
trying every possible combination.

> That would take a lot of work.

Nope, completely trivial.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

So the wealthy must live a life of poverty abroard?

>>>> yet still don't want them to be stolen. Hence locks.
>>>
>>> Makes a lot more sense to use a decent modern electronic
>>> lock which uses the fingerprint system on the phone to
>>> ensure that the lock can't be trivially defeated by
>>> a thief with a 3D printed TSA key and which howls
>>> its head off at the top of its lungs if someone
>>> does cut the lock and get into the bag that way.
>>>
>>> If security decide that they need to cut the lock
>>> to get into it without you being present, it doesn?t
>>> matter if they go deaf when it blows their ears out.
>
>> Or a combination lock.
>
> Completely useless at preventing a thief from breaking it.

But if it and the bag are designed to be difficult to break into,
it would be a significant deterrent compared to other bags.

>>>>> And that it makes no sense to have stuff that is
>>>>> valuable in a checked bag, that should obviously
>>>>> be in what isn't checked instead if you really do
>>>>> need to have something valuable with you.
>>>
>>>> It surely depends how many valuable things a person
>>>> wants or needs to take with them, and their definition
>>>> of "valueable".
>>>
>>> Of course it does, but only a fool would have
>>> the most valuable stuff in a checked bag.
>
>> Or someone with a lot of valuable stuff.
>
> You're completely stupid if you have that
> much valuable stuff with you on a plane trip.
>
>>>>>> That's fine if it works,
>>>
>>>>> Corse its possible to make sure it works.
>>>
>>>> To deter theifs in the long term?
>>>> Yes, by doing it and studying the results.
>>>
>>> Not even possible to be sure its properly
>>> exposed to the thieves that matter.
>
>> Oh right, so it's _not_ possible to make sure it works.
>
> Wrong, as always. That is just one way of making sure it works.

If you can't test it on theifs, how can you tell if it works as a
deterrent?

>>>>>> and it may well do.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do more than 50% of the population have
>>>>>>>> to do something before you'll do it too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing even remotely like 50% of the population brews
>>>>>>> their own beer, distils their own grog, makes their own
>>>>>>> marmalade, relish, bread etc or even grows their own tomatoes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And nothing even remotely like even 5% builds their own house
>>>>>>> from scratch on a bare block of land or flys their own plane either.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Great, so with such an understanding of the benefits of individuality
>>>>>> you needn't reply to my posts noting that they don't apply if someone
>>>>>> chooses the most common option.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did nothing of the sort,
>>>>
>>>> What was they purpose of saying "most do" then?
>>>
>>> Just stating that fact, stupid.
>>
>> And why, of all the facts you could
>> have stated, did you choose that one?
>

> I didn?t.

So your typing of "most do" was involuntary then?

>>>>>you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the insults again.
>>>
>>> Corse you never ever do anything like that, eh,
>>> you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>
>> At least I try to keep my language civil,
>
> Obvious lie.
>
>> and relevant to the topic.
>
> Obvious lie.

You can't even be bothered trying to proove _that_.

So why are you devoting all this text to me?

>>> What you might or might not do in spades.
>
>> Mainly what I won't.
>
> Ditto.

That's what I've already said.

>>>>>, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> Oh well, never mind.
>>>> I win.
>>>
>>> Nope, you've lost, as always.
>>
>> OK, if you insist.
>>
>>>>>>>> Anything else is just endless speculation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, anything else is just fact without evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is plenty of evidence.
>>>
>>>> Then you'd better show it,
>>>
>>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>
>> Insults again,
>> I win.
>
> Nope, you've lost, as always.
>
>>>> or someone might go thinking it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> Only completely irrelevant fools like you.
>>
>> So who _is_ relevant?
>
> That shit of yours isn't.
>
> And neither are you.

So who/what _is_ relevant?
You? (this part notably snipped from my last response, I thought you
didn't like that Rod?)

>>>>>>>>>>>> and leaving clear damage on the bag?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why should they care ? The owner will notice the contents are
>>>>>>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's what I said about the cable ties. Won't it all show up
>>>>>>>>>> on CCTV?...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not if you have a clue about how you get into the bag.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can get into a well designed bag with an angle grinder and not
>>>>>>>> leave enough damage to equal the visual impact of a cable tie?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, yes, "soopa multitool skilz" instead. Show me the time
>>>>>>>> comparison Vs an angle grinder. With a hard cased bag, no zip.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And we've resorted to the insults.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Insults don't equal proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> You want proof ? Get off your lard arse and prove it yourself.
>
>> It's your point, you prove it.
>
> You want proof ? Get off your lard arse and prove it yourself.
>
>>>> So your lard arse
>>>
>>> Don?t have one.
>>>
>>>> is permanently rooted where it is then?
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>> Great! Where's the video then?
>
> You want the video ? Get off your lard arse and make it yourself.

Well with your fine arse in its perfectly mobile state, you seem to
be in a much better position to prove your own points than I am.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Not when there's another bag next to it that the owner
>>>>>>>>>>>> also clearly doesn't want to be opened, but where
>>>>>>>>>>>> they've only bothered to put a little cable tie over it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or they might well have enough of a clue to realise that
>>>>>>>>>>> those with the most valuable stuff in their bags might well
>>>>>>>>>>> go for a bag that is harder to get into than with a cable tie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So make it difficult enough for them that it still isn't worth
>>>>>>>>>> their while compared to all the unprotected bags with average
>>>>>>>>>> value items inside.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, easier said than done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, but it can be done, or at least attempted with a high
>>>>>>>> probability of success.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Easy to claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we've got to the recursive stage of this debate then.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>> And there is no debate, just you making
>>>>> a complete fool of yourself, as always.
>>>>
>>>> So what are you doing?
>>>
>>> Pissing on you from a great height, as always.
>
>> So urination upon fellow Usenet users
>> is a perfectly respectable passtime then?
>
> When its fools like you, yep.

I'm sure the world of Usenet thanks you for your service.

>>>>>> You say something that I ask you to prove and you don't,
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you are free to prove it yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Just like you are.
>>>
>>> I wasn?t the one demanding anyone prove anything.
>
>> Easy to claim.
>
> Can't even manage its own lines, or anything else at all either.

So that's the best you can say then? Go on, gimme me a real
anwser.

>>>>>> then I say something that you ask me to prove
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone can see for themselves that I did nothing
>>>>> of the sort, you silly little pathological liar.
>>>>
>>>> What was the point of saying "easy to claim" then?
>>>
>>> Statement of fact, fuckwit.
>>
>> And why did you choose that particular fact to state?
>

> I didn?t.

What's this then, up there in the quotes:
>>>>>>> Easy to claim.
More involuntary typing?

So why couldn't the theif open the bag with the siren in the same place
he might open it using an angle grinder?

>> But how can you be sure that there isn't a suitable
>> spot that's out of earshot at some airports?
>
> By knowing how they work.

Then explain it to this willing audience.

>>>>>>>>> Don?t need a combination lock in that case,
>>>>>>>>> any decent lock will do fine and can't be
>>>>>>>>> defeated by trying all the combinations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like the zip tie can be defeated by simply cutting the bag around
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But which howls its head off when that happens so the
>>>>>>> cutter is frog marched off to jail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So a zip tie on its own isn't an adequate deterrent after all then?
>>>>>
>>>>> Never said that. It clearly does deter some criminal activity
>>>>> because the owner of the bag may well demand that the
>>>>> system checks the CCTV records to see who do the looting
>>>>> when they can see that the bag has been looted right there
>>>>> at the baggage carousel where its easy to report the theft.
>>>
>>>> Deters some, but you still think you need
>>>> more for it to be an adequate deterrent.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>> So the alarm is pointless then,
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> a cable tie on its own is already adequate.
>
> Wrong, as always.

But you don't need any more for it to be an adequate deterrent.

>>>> Your alarm solution requires trusted supervision by
>>>> the airport staff for it to be an additional deterrent.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>> So if there's nobody about during the theft,
>
> There always is with a loud enough alarm.
>
>> or those around are "in on the deal",
>> how does the alarm deter the theft?
>
> By being loud enough to ensure that that isn't the case.

In which case nobody would know what or where the alarm was coming
from, quite possibly from where the bags are supposed to be opened
by security.

How?

>>>> Would all require much more development and technology
>>>> than a combination lock and local database at each airport.
>>>
>>> Which would be completely useless given that the local
>>> database would have to be accessible to all the apes
>>> that check whether there is anything illegal in the bags.
>
>> Yep, it could be designed so that only the security officials already
>> trusted to open the bags can read entries on the database,
>

> Trouble is that that?s all the goons that check for drugs etc.

Like the ones you would be opening your bag for remotely using your
phone?

>> and only from specific computers located in the room where they work.
>
> That isn't going to be viable.

Why wouldn't it be viable to install computers where they work, if they
aren't there already. If the computers can be there, network cables can
be installed running to the server on a closed network. The server would
only accept requests for reading the database from computers on that
closed network, optionally with other additional security measures also
required like passwords.

>> If there aren't already measures there to stop
>> them taking stuff there, then all this is irrelevant.
>
> Wrong, as always.

How am I wrong?

Or if your trusted neighbour was more careful. You really think
it makes sense to have a system as complicated as that, and
requiring you to monitor everything that happens in your house
via video, just to make sure a door gets locked in such an unusual
situation.

Get a dead lock.


>
>

This article posted in 2015.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

The bag owner can choose a combination lock that doesn't have any known
security weaknesses.

>> That would take a lot of work.
>
> Nope, completely trivial.

Trivial to "research" the owner to the extent that one can determine
the code they would use on their combination lock for that flight?

[F Murtz]

don't know why I need to explain,everybody else would realise I meant
research how long it takes to pick a lock and did not bring any owners
in to the discussion.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote

>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But if you are actually stupid enough to put
>>>>> valuables in checked bags, it makes a lot more
>>>>> sense to have the bag wrapped as well and
>>>>> even more sense to have a much more secure
>>>>> lock and a decent alarm system that can howl
>>>>> its head off about the bag being opened with
>>>>> a good chance that the thief wont have the
>>>>> balls to keep looting the bag when it goes off.
>>>
>>>> Or use a combination lock and tell the airport the combination.
>>>
>>> No thanks, that approach would be completely useless
>>> because even the most stupid clowns that are used to check
>>> the bags for drugs etc would have to have access to that.
>>
>> If the security officials who check the bags
>> are the ones stealing things, then all is lost,
>
> Nope, not when they can only check the bag
> when the owner of the bag is present and can
> see when they help themselves to something
> in the bag.
>
>> nothing can be done as they are the
>> ones all this is _designed_ to all entry to.
>
> But only with the owner of the bag watching them.

Which isn't what the TSA key system is about. If the owner is there,
they can provide the key or combination at the time of inspection,
or have their bag broken into by security if they refuse.

>>> With a wrapped bag and a decent alarm, the worst that
>>> would happen when they need to open the bag without
>>> you being that is some fool ends up deaf etc and all the
>>> thieves would fuck off without looting the bag because it
>>> would be very hard to explain why they have valuables so
>>> obviously with them when the bag is howling its head off.
>>> With a wrapped bag they can't even try claiming that the
>>> bag got wrecked by the bag moving machinery and they
>>> just happened to be next to the bag when it happened.
>
>> If the security officials are corrupt, then why
>> should they care how much noise a bag is making?
>
> Because someone will notice what is going
> on and record it using the phone, stupid.
>
>> It would make that same noise whether they were
>> genuinely looking for illegal items, or stealing things.
>
> Nope, because when the owner is there, the owner
> disarms the system when requested and watches
> what the goon does with the contents of their bag.

But read the original Washington Post article that started all this,
the owner isn't there.

>> Same with the wrapping, it would be opened
>> whether the intention was honest or not.
>
> But when the alarm howls when that happens,
> the thief can't try claiming that the machinery
> malfunctioned and opened the bag.

Wouldn't need to if nobody who hears it cares.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Didn't make much sense if you were talking about the lock. There are
plenty of different types of combination lock out there, and an
electronic type couldn't be "picked" in any physical way.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Why? If the passenger doesn't supply a combination, then the
bag is forced open.

> If the pax has already showed up there, there is no need
> for it to be in any database there, they can just ask the
> passenger what it is when they open it to inspect it.

But they might do the inspections away from passengers, hence
the need for the TSA keys.

>> Or they could have the code encrypted code and printed
>> on their boarding pass that is presented at their destination.
>
> Ditto.
>
>> Or their bag could have the encrypted
>> code printed on a sticker affixed to it.
>
> If its encrypted, there is no point in not allowing the system
> to not be able to communicate with the outside world.

No encryption system is perfect. Minimising the exposure of the data
to the outside world minimises the risk of someone getting said data
and decrypting it.

>> Or all the codes could be encrypted and stored on a
>> memory stick kept with other important information on the
>> plane and handed over to a trusted official upon arrival.
>
> See above.
>
>> Just some different methods with varying
>> levels of security and disruption.
>
> None of it makes any sense at all.
>
>> Though as I say, that's if I was designing it,
>
> No one will ever be stupid enough to let you design anything.
>
>> and I wouldn't be surprised if many airports didn't
>> bother. However even in that case it would still
>> offer better security to the current TSA key system.
>
> And would still be completely pathetic compared with
> something much better and cheaper to implement.
>
>>>> but then I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.
>
>