O O Ø O O O O
How (not) to Hijack a Plane
It’s not very often I get called into the principal’s office nowadays. And then this little gem showed up on the departmental fax machine:
December 06, 2006
Dr. Warren Veale
Dean, Graduate Studies
University of CalgaryDr. LaFlamme
Department Head, Mathematics and Statistics
University of CalgaryRe: Mathematics Ph.D. Student: Mr. Kjell Wooding
As a member of the public and a former senior employee of Canada’s major airline corporation, I felt it was my duty to inform the University of Calgary with respect to issues arising from a certain Mr. Kjell Wooding, one of your doctoral students in Mathematics.
I am very concerned about Mr. Wooding’s blog article on his website: www.pintday.org which he published on November 11, 2005: “How to Hijack a Plane ” . Mr. Wooding explicitly provides details on the internet on various means for passengers to hijack aircraft and kill Flight Crew members, including using computer cords to strangle Flight Attendants. Even more shocking is the tone of the article, and other articles that are intending to harm people and their reputations.
I do not know this certain Mr Wooding, but his conduct is actionable independent of his status as a graduate student. This is a sick and potentially dangerous individual. In view of the very serious nature of his conduct on the internet, I would recommend that the University (and our Major Airline Carriers) investigate Mr. Wooding’s website, and arrive at some security decisions.
Anonymous for security reasons
(Yes, it is actually signed “Anonymous for security reasons”)
Normally, I would dissect this reply, line by line. Normally, I would point out such imporant points as: pintday.org is not a blog, and that its actual URL is just http://pintday.org; that Canada has more than one major airline corporation (one is actually based here in Calgary); that I do not provide instructions on how to hijack a plane (specifically, I explain with a single sentence how to prevent a 9-11 style attack from ever occuring again); and that it is unbelievably ironic for someone who would send anonymous, libellous faxes far and wide (though not actually to the person (s)he is libelling), to complain that it is I who seek to harm people and their reputations.
Most notably, I would point out to the complainant that sending the aforementioned anonymous fax to high-ranking members of an academic institution (founded upon the principals of, among other things, academic freedom to publish) isn’t actually going to accomplish anything—they are perfectly capable of reading and understanding the piece in question, and determining that:
- Postings on pintday.org have absolutely nothing to do with the University, and
- The anonymous complainant utterly missed the point.
The reason I’m not going to do any of that is simple: I want the Canadian airlines to be safe. Since my anonymous complainant (hereafter referred to as AC) utterly missed the thrust of what I was saying, I will attempt to say it again, in plainer language.
The illusion of security is not security. It is far, far worse. Keeping nail clippers and butter knives out of the hands of airline passengers does nothing to alleviate the threat of terrorism. It does, however, lull the public into a sense of complacency where security is concerned.
If our goal is to ensure that an airplane is never again used as a weapon against the public, it must be made impossible for a would-be hijacker to gain access to the cockpit. This means that the threat of violence against people on the plane must never result in acquiescence—ever.
Since just about anything can be used as an impromptu weapon (including bits of string, ballpoint pens, and bare hands), the only way to mitigate these threats of violence is to adopt a policy of never complying. If there is no way that threatening to kill a passenger or crew member will result in control of the plane, it ceases to be a viable option for the bad guys.
Mr. (or Ms.) AC, your implication that my rant of November 11th has somehow made the world any more insecure is utterly ludicrous. The “explicit details” that you claim I provide (where not stolen from such terrorist training materials as the movies “Die Hard 2,” or “Twelve Monkeys“) are obvious with more than a few seconds of thought. The links I provide are the result of a few microseconds worth of Google searches.
What is truly dangerous is shutting out all dialogue when national (or airline) security is concerned, as you would seem to favor. A would-be terrorist is a determined attacker, and has spent much more time thinking about the problem than you or I ever will. To combat this particular evil requires that we spend time pondering and discussing the problem of real security, and not merely the perception of it.
To truly combat terrorism, we need to lift the veil of fear. That means we need be able to talk about the issues at hand. We need open dialog about the motivations and countermeasures of the enemy. We need honest perceptions of public safety, and safety measures. We don’t have that now. If you have your way, AC, we never will. We need to eliminate this type of thinking. We need to open a dialogue.
And to do that? Sometimes you need a punchy title to get peoples’ attention. Something crazy like: “How to Hijack a Plane.” Because even though most people won’t read any farther than the title, at least you’ll get people talking. Even if it is anonymously.
Kjell Wooding
December 13, 2005
OOØOOOODCCXXXIV
December 14th, 2005 at 12:31 am
Thank you. In the midst of finals and research papers, that just made my day.
December 14th, 2005 at 7:58 am
Whoa. That captures it perfectly.
Bravo, kj.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Have you faxed your rebuttal to the AC that faxed the Dean?
December 14th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
I guess we know why this individual is formerly a senior employee.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Ya know, I bet Bruce Schneier would be interested in the response you got…
December 14th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
lol! funniest thing in a while! thanks!
did s/he really put Calgay? :)
December 14th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Whoops. Calgay is my typo. Funny. But mine.
To the AC’s credit, the anonymous fax was actually sent anonymously (well, from the Hallmark store in Banker’s Hall).
December 14th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
“Even more shocking is the tone of the article, and other articles that are intending to harm people”
Which other articles, I wonder?
December 14th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
AC should have read your rant twice before knee-jerking out of his/her/its seat to write a fax. Stupid people make me laugh though.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Considering all the crap you couldn’t take on a plane in recent years did that ever include lapel pins and broaches that women typically wear that have the 2.5 - 3 inch long pin/needle? That has to be one of the most dangerous implements out there! Oh wait am I stating the obvious or incriminating myself because I had an idea?
#######
## : )
#######
December 17th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
Having just spent 2 days traveling to and from Europe one must wonder why in hell would they ask anyone to remove their socks ? I went through this in Miami airport and now in Warsaw. Are they checking if my feet are clean? I mean what the fark could I possibly hide in a thin cotton sock? Can someone enlighten me here ???
December 18th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Two words. Sock bombs.
Of course, after two days travelling, a person’s socks may already be classifyable as chemical warfare.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Good thing you’re not in the States, though. One of those faxes to Homeland Security, and they’d be round like a shot…
January 12th, 2006 at 1:16 am
are u kidding?
October 16th, 2006 at 3:55 am
please keep posting more on this subject(how to hijack ***). Actually there is a more simple way to hijack a plane than everyone else have thought of, that is to book a plane and make every passenger a hijacker. Remember the recent movie Insider man? You don’t need hidden guns or knives in this way.