5 ms·

Serious question: if there is a 16 minute queue for "security", why wouldn't a potential terrorist just wheel up a carry on sized bomb and detonate it in the mi

by gorena 11y ago

Serious question: if there is a 16 minute queue for "security", why wouldn't a potential terrorist just wheel up a carry on sized bomb and detonate it in the middle of the "security" line? Is this something that the TSA addresses (I assume not), or do they just ignore the possibility? All they've done is move the soft target further out.

mpeg 11y ago
Airport security is there to protect the planes, not the passengers.
- bosdev 11y ago
  * Airport security is there to protect the airline industry, not the planes or passengers
saryant 11y ago
Sort of like how they take those super-dangerous bottles of water and toiletries and place them in a secure receptacle AKA a trash can.
- pyre 11y ago
  I thought the idea wasn't that they were volatile on their own, but components that could be assembled into a bomb once on-plane.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    That might have helped if they actually caught fluids in the carry on. In my experience (accidentally left bottles in carry-on several times; always found out myself after passing through security with no problems) they don't seem to do that.
    - pyre 11y ago
      It's inconsistent. I've had various things denied in carry-on (e.g. jar of jam, snow globe, etc). A TSA agent even told me that snow globes were not allowed even in checked luggage, which I found out later is false. I had to find some way to mail the snow globe to myself from the airport.
matthewmacleod 11y ago
Setting aside the effectiveness arguments for the moment, the point of preventing weapons on aircraft is now less about 'a terrorist might blow up an aircraft' and more about 'a terrorist might hijack an aircraft and turn it into a gigantic missile'. Obviously any place where there are large groups of people would be a target for attacks of this kind.
harmegido 11y ago
I think they're concern is not foremost for the safety of the passengers. The main concern is airplanes going into buildings. Of course, this is definitely an example of fighting the last war. On a separate note, the TSA really pisses me off. Consider that UPS saves millions by not taking left turns. Removing or adding very small inefficiencies at a very large scale has tremendous cost implications. I don't think these security lines add much security and I think they do that task at a much higher cost than most people think.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  IF you look at airport security, it is always about fighting the last war. The limitation on liquids comes a lone bomber bringing a liquid binary explosive onboard in the toiletry. the issue with shoes, again another bomber. matching luggage to passengers i believe is because of Lockerbie. And the list goes on and on.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    If you're in a position to make these decisions, your career will be wrecked if an attack is repeated successfully, but you'll probably be just fine if a new attack gets through.
    - digi_owl 11y ago
      Sounds somewhat like a inverse Lucas Critique...
- MBlume 11y ago
  I agree that planes going into buildings is the major security concern, but we fixed it. We've reinforced the cockpit doors and we've taught passengers not to cooperate with hijackers (the latter we managed within hours of the first attack)
  - UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
    Plus panic buttons & guns in the cockpit, new procedures for aircraft leaving their scheduled route, and passenger's reaction to a hijacking (e.g. one "bad guy" with a switchblade is nothing against 300 people who fear NOT doing anything will endanger their lives).
smackfu 11y ago
At a lot of more risky countries, they do x-ray / metal detector every passenger at the airport entrance. I assume that's to prevent targeting concentrations of foreign tourists.
- remarkEon 11y ago
  This just moves the target from the indoor TSA queue to curbside.
- molotv 11y ago
  In Newark, past the TSA checkpoints, the Tel Aviv gate has its own secondary screening with barricades, wands & pat-downs for everyone. I suspect that is because of actual threats and a desire for real security.
remarkEon 11y ago
-> ...why wouldn't a potential terrorist just wheel up a carry on sized bomb and detonate it in the middle of the "security" line? I have no idea. To me, by far the most dangerous part of flying is the queue at the TSA checkpoints, especially at airports with particularly large checkpoints (I'm thinking EWR and probably ORD). I think some airports address this (SEA, MSP, JFK...maybe) by spreading out the checkpoints among smaller groups of gates to keep the volume of people at those checkpoints down. This is just my speculation, however. I'd be curious to see how checkpoints have evolved over the last 14 years in terms of design and efficiency.
6d0debc071 11y ago
I imagine the reasoning goes somewhat to the effect of: If a plane goes down, it's reasonable to expect that everyone on board will die. It's less reasonable to expect that the blast radius of a device that was sufficient to down an aircraft would be sufficient to encompass an equivalent number of people in the security line.
forgottenpass 11y ago
When it comes to designing airport safety, instilling the feeling of safety in travelers is a more important goal than actual safety. This is a sorta-open-secret. We can sit around and come up with thousands of possible attacks scenarios with less than 1% of the security that goes into preventing airplane hijackings. But that doesn't really matter. Airport security is primarily a political item, both responding to political pressures and fears, while generating entirely new ones.

by gorena 11y ago

mpeg 11y ago

Airport security is there to protect the planes, not the passengers.

bosdev 11y ago
* Airport security is there to protect the airline industry, not the planes or passengers

saryant 11y ago

Sort of like how they take those super-dangerous bottles of water and toiletries and place them in a secure receptacle AKA a trash can.

pyre 11y ago
I thought the idea wasn't that they were volatile on their own, but components that could be assembled into a bomb once on-plane.
- vidarh 11y ago
  That might have helped if they actually caught fluids in the carry on. In my experience (accidentally left bottles in carry-on several times; always found out myself after passing through security with no problems) they don't seem to do that.
  - pyre 11y ago
    It's inconsistent. I've had various things denied in carry-on (e.g. jar of jam, snow globe, etc). A TSA agent even told me that snow globes were not allowed even in checked luggage, which I found out later is false. I had to find some way to mail the snow globe to myself from the airport.

matthewmacleod 11y ago

Setting aside the effectiveness arguments for the moment, the point of preventing weapons on aircraft is now less about 'a terrorist might blow up an aircraft' and more about 'a terrorist might hijack an aircraft and turn it into a gigantic missile'. Obviously any place where there are large groups of people would be a target for attacks of this kind.

harmegido 11y ago

I think they're concern is not foremost for the safety of the passengers. The main concern is airplanes going into buildings. Of course, this is definitely an example of fighting the last war. On a separate note, the TSA really pisses me off. Consider that UPS saves millions by not taking left turns. Removing or adding very small inefficiencies at a very large scale has tremendous cost implications. I don't think these security lines add much security and I think they do that task at a much higher cost than most people think.

digi_owl 11y ago
IF you look at airport security, it is always about fighting the last war. The limitation on liquids comes a lone bomber bringing a liquid binary explosive onboard in the toiletry. the issue with shoes, again another bomber. matching luggage to passengers i believe is because of Lockerbie. And the list goes on and on.
- mikeash 11y ago
  If you're in a position to make these decisions, your career will be wrecked if an attack is repeated successfully, but you'll probably be just fine if a new attack gets through.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    Sounds somewhat like a inverse Lucas Critique...
MBlume 11y ago
I agree that planes going into buildings is the major security concern, but we fixed it. We've reinforced the cockpit doors and we've taught passengers not to cooperate with hijackers (the latter we managed within hours of the first attack)
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  Plus panic buttons & guns in the cockpit, new procedures for aircraft leaving their scheduled route, and passenger's reaction to a hijacking (e.g. one "bad guy" with a switchblade is nothing against 300 people who fear NOT doing anything will endanger their lives).

smackfu 11y ago

At a lot of more risky countries, they do x-ray / metal detector every passenger at the airport entrance. I assume that's to prevent targeting concentrations of foreign tourists.

remarkEon 11y ago
This just moves the target from the indoor TSA queue to curbside.
molotv 11y ago
In Newark, past the TSA checkpoints, the Tel Aviv gate has its own secondary screening with barricades, wands & pat-downs for everyone. I suspect that is because of actual threats and a desire for real security.

remarkEon 11y ago

-> ...why wouldn't a potential terrorist just wheel up a carry on sized bomb and detonate it in the middle of the "security" line? I have no idea. To me, by far the most dangerous part of flying is the queue at the TSA checkpoints, especially at airports with particularly large checkpoints (I'm thinking EWR and probably ORD). I think some airports address this (SEA, MSP, JFK...maybe) by spreading out the checkpoints among smaller groups of gates to keep the volume of people at those checkpoints down. This is just my speculation, however. I'd be curious to see how checkpoints have evolved over the last 14 years in terms of design and efficiency.

6d0debc071 11y ago

I imagine the reasoning goes somewhat to the effect of: If a plane goes down, it's reasonable to expect that everyone on board will die. It's less reasonable to expect that the blast radius of a device that was sufficient to down an aircraft would be sufficient to encompass an equivalent number of people in the security line.

forgottenpass 11y ago

When it comes to designing airport safety, instilling the feeling of safety in travelers is a more important goal than actual safety. This is a sorta-open-secret. We can sit around and come up with thousands of possible attacks scenarios with less than 1% of the security that goes into preventing airplane hijackings. But that doesn't really matter. Airport security is primarily a political item, both responding to political pressures and fears, while generating entirely new ones.