Per Schneier's point, focusing on "threat scenarios" is useless if you have a diffuse threat and unlimited targets.<p>As an aside, try to look at the history of the definition of terrorism: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism</a> . It's quite difficult to find an all-encompasing term that does not include the US or her allies.
I agree that you should fight terrorism using intelligence, but I don't agree with this statement:<p>"If a passenger plane blows up, it affects a couple of hundred people"<p>What about the scenario where a cargo plane is blown up over a highly populated area or the centre of a major city? I think he is forgetting that on 9-11 the planes were used as weapons, and the lives lost on the planes were a fraction of the overall total on that tragic day.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I do find it strange that this new type of threat comes days after the BA chief complained about overly-strict US security measures.<p>This response says, "See, we do need them! And we probably should add a few more measures too!"
The crazy thing about this is that this type of terrorism is completely pointless. There are no demands, no hostages, no agenda, it's just let's blow something up in America. At best someone is just trying to score some points back home by having managed to kill some Americans, but are they really terrifying anyone? Is there anything we could do to in terms of policy to end this "threat"? If there was would we ever? The answers are no.<p>The only way to end terrorism is to bring education and prosperity to the middle east, to all of them, not just the few already rich from oil money. To give them something to do other than blow themselves up.
<i>[this is a repeat of my post on his blog]</i><p>From what I've read, the devices were wired to detonate via cell phone, and some speculated that the devices were to be triggered when the flights were over major cities. This raises three questions in my mind:<p>1. Did the flight paths of these planes actually go over major cities? Or just on the periphery?<p>2. Will cell phone signals reach flight altitude?<p>3. (Although Bruce advocates doing nothing) Would cell phone signal jammers on cargo planes be a cheap deterrent in this case?
<i>Cargo that is loaded on to passenger planes should be subjected to the same level of security as passenger luggage.</i><p>It should be more. It's more costly for a terrorist organization to put a bomb on a plane they also have to ride on. You have to find, train and forfeit one "martyr" per bomb.<p>After 9/11 I seem to remember something about not allowing people to put luggage on a flight they weren't going to be on. As in, if you didn't show up at the gate to get on, they would remove your luggage too. What happened to that?
I've heard report that attack was actually revealed by whistleblower from Saudi Arabia. Good job unknown US and UK secret agencies for taking credit for saving the World, again!