8 ms·

The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

185 points by ojbyrne 17y ago

johnl 17y ago
High security, little bother, totally worthless. Pick another country that doesn't have the services or pick a different target that is as spectacular and your security becomes worthless. Put in place a consistent security system that is consistent with the threat.
dazzawazza 17y ago
The bigger tragedy is that Israel has been living in a state of war for 50 years. A little more effort toward peace and less toward locking down society and we'd all be better off.
- hkr 17y ago
  Unfortunately, world peace has never been attainable. Ask History.
- nir 17y ago
  I was born in Israel and lived there all my life till 2006. Ironically, it was often the efforts towards peace that escalated violence: The 1992 Oslo Accords were followed by the suicide bus bombings of the 90s, the 2000 Camp David summit resulted in the suicide cafe/mall/club/etc bombings of the early 00s, the withdrawal from Gaza facilitated Hamas' rise to power and so on. All this isn't to turn this to a yet another online Mid East flame war, nor to claim that Israel doesn't share the blame for what's happening or that Palestinians aren't suffering at least as badly - just to note that anyone from a conflict area will tell you life are much more complicated than "a little more effort towards peace" ;)
- endtime 17y ago
  Your comment is completely irrelevant. Did you even read the article? "Israelification" is being presented as a goal, not as a criticism.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
    It's sad that you think the two are mutually exclusive.
- intellectronica 17y ago
  I couldn't agree more, but this comment isn't relevant to this discussions at all. You should have avoided adding it.
hkr 17y ago
Too much talk, too little action. Airport security is to be treated seriously by all countries.
grayhacker 17y ago
The procedural aspects of this sound good - multiple rings of security, compartmentalization of risk, etc. - but I have to wonder how well systems so dependent on the intelligence and intuition of individual screeners would work in North America.
- tptacek 17y ago
  It wouldn't. How many planes is El Al actually flying? How many planes do the majors in the US fly? This idea does not scale. It puts society on the wrong end of the cost equation.
  - ghshephard 17y ago
    Also note that Shin Bet security levels require El Al to spend on the order of $100million/year to secure those 37 airplanes - and, when you are subjected to "Selective Screening" - you aren't dealing with the TSA and their seeming reluctance to actually _search_ you during a pat down. [edit: I'd love to know what percentage of Muslims are subjected to "Selective Screening" on El Al flights. The TSA/United States can't get away with the same type of behavior that Israel can get away with. We have to treat everyone the same to avoid the taint of "Profiling"]
    - BRadmin 17y ago
      "The TSA/United States can't get away with the same type of behavior that Israel can get away with. We have to treat everyone the same to avoid the taint of "Profiling"]" The TSA operating procedure manual specifies that ALL citizens of 12 countries (almost exclusively Muslim-populated ones) are automatically selected for secondary screening. Even my American citizen friends with Arabic names get "random screening" the majority of times they fly.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        For what it's worth, I don't think decorum is the problem with duplicating El Al for, say, UAL and AA. The problem is that we can't staff enough competent people to execute at El Al levels of sophistication against our passenger load. TSA screeners are close to the bottom of the law enforcement and homeland security food chain, and the people we need to do this job require more skills than the average metro police officer.
intellectronica 17y ago
The problem with the Israelification goal is that while Israel's airport security method is second to none, it is not scalable, and therefore not applicable to the US (or many other countries), at least not without major restructuring. The problem of scale is manifested twice: 1. Manpower - Israel has a huge pool of very talented young men and women who already received very good training in the army and the security services. It also budgets paying them well. Make no mistake, airport security in Israel is no McJob, it is a prestigious, well-paid position, manned by the top classes of society. America is relying on cheap, unskilled labour for these jobs, and transitioning to an Israeli employment profile will bankrupt the system. 2. Volume - Israel has only one major international airport (and even that one is quite small). As far as airport security is concerned, it is a very local problem which can benefit from focused attention. The US has to protect hundreds of very busy airports, and they all have their unique weaknesses.
- andrewcooke 17y ago
  one way to fix 1 would be to shift us spending from israel to internal security. 2 isn't clearly an issue; you need to consider something more like the ratio of airport / population.
  - intellectronica 17y ago
    It is an issue, because the marginal cost of analysing an Airport for vulnerabilities and devising ways to defend against them doesn't decrease when you cover more airports. You have to Israelificate each and every airport by developing techniques and training a workforce which is not easily transferable.
    - Eliezer 17y ago
      Whaa? R&D on techinques and machinery should have economy of scale, not diseconomy of scale. And the Israelis would be happy to tell us how to do it.
      - 17y ago
mrav 17y ago
hi i think about 2000 ameriacns die every day from heart disease righ why bother with the airlines? just eat right... and btw i'm from israel
Zarathu 17y ago
Oh, yes, because the Israelis totally have their shit together. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihXtbB-4GWw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihXtbB-4GWw
- djcapelis 17y ago
  This seems like a relevant comment, why is it downmodded? Clearly if Israeli security forces are putting bullet holes through laptops as part of standard procedure, that's not exactly the hassle-free friendly security process the article implies.
  - mdasen 17y ago
    I didn't vote either way on it. That said, I can see a few reasons why it might be downmodded. On the surface side, its use of profanity and the attitude that I read from the comment aren't useful for criticism. A more useful way of phrasing it might have been along the lines of, "Focusing on the intent of the traveler may help sometimes, but it can also lead to events such as this one where an innocent person's laptop is destroyed based on a feeling." NOTE: I can't actually watch the video because my laptop has no sound right now. The way one phrases something matters and, at least to me, it seemed like more of an emotional attack than a response to procedures that may or may not be good. On the deeper side, one event does not a trend make. The comment author provided a video about an event. It's somewhat like linking to a video of an NFL game where the Chief's won and saying they're a good football team - or linking to a video of the Saint's loss and saying they're a bad team. Sure, it is evidence of badness, but it's one piece among 15 this season and the majority of evidence points the other way. Now, going back to Israel, I'm not making a claim that the majority of evidence goes either way. I am trying to say that Israeli security deals with hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people every year and to judge whether they have their act together or not cannot hinge on one piece of evidence. And, to be frank, that's part of the problem with your reading of the comment: it isn't part of Israeli standard procedure. If one has reports of it happening in a systemic way, that's important. Heck, it's important that it happened even once. However, an isolated incident can be tragic without being indicative of anything. It was a bad thing that happened. It was good that it got press (as I heard she got monetary compensation from the government). However, a report from an organization that looks into this stuff and spots trends is a more persuasive thing than one incident. Although, if it were phrased more pleasantly, the author might not have been downmodded. Then it might be seen as someone offering alternative evidence arguing that the situation isn't as rosy as the original article implied and that it's a more complex situation. However, the phrasing makes it seem like the original author wishes for us to throw out all other evidence because of one piece they have chosen to present and have that one piece preferenced over others. If I had wanted to bring that video into the discussion, I would have said something like: "The article paints a rosy picture of the situation, but it's one that turns on human intellect and 'gut feelings' which isn't a great way to run a security system. People sometimes have gut feelings (conscious or not) that are biased on things like race, religion, gender, etc. and might single out people not because of what's in their eyes, but something else. Likewise, it could mean that sometimes people have gut feelings that are wrong - people might be legitimately nervous not because they are planning something bad - and that can lead to situations like [the video]. . ."
amichail 17y ago
Why not put close relatives of those who attempt terrorist acts on the "no fly" list?
- jonknee 17y ago
  Are relatives of terrorists commonly terrorists themselves? I thought they are typically outcasts. For example, the Christmas Detroit bomber was such an outcast his own father reported that he may be dangerous.
  - amichail 17y ago
    If someone is considering a terrorist act, he/she would need to consider the effect of it on his/her close relatives. And close relatives would have a greater incentive to report him/her if they suspect something. Of course, you could consider a different sort of penalty such as fines that would bankrupt his/her close relatives.
    - jonknee 17y ago
      That would never fly in America as it's wholly unconstitutional. I can't be held accountable for a relative's crime if I had nothing at all to do with it. I'm OK with the parents of John Walker Lindh not being bankrupted and being able to fly--anything else would be a trampling of rights.
- intellectronica 17y ago
  That's a wrong thing to do for two reasons. 1. It's collective punishment. Unethical unless absolutely necessary. 2. It would be ineffective. In most cases in the west the relatives of people who ended up blowing themselves up didn't know about their involvement in terrorist organizations and didn't condone their actions.
  - amichail 17y ago
    Collective punishment with close relatives is better than racial profiling, massive inconvenience for everyone, etc. And it would encourage people to be more alert about suspicious terrorist activity within their family.
jonknee 17y ago
That only works when you have a tiny number of flights at a handful of locations are willing to spend through the roof. It would never scale. Their largest international airport is tiny by US size--it wouldn't even make the top 20. And that's just the US. Not to mention that the US public would never put up with it. Update: this puts it into perspective--El Al (the largest and most well known Israeli airline) operates only 37 planes which would make it the size of a small regional airline in the states. Allegiant Air is unheard of to much of the US and operates 49 jets. Delta has a cool 449 and flies to more countries than El Al has flights per day. Ben Gurion International Airport, the airport mentioned and the largest in Israel, is roughly the size of Kansas City International Airport. There's simply not a valid comparison.
- pyre 17y ago
  What about the isolation of the suspected luggage in a bomb-proof area or container? All that would seem to require is investment in the containers and/or blast-proof shell. Why instead is the 'best idea' to try and evacuate a bustling airport terminal with 100's or 1000's of people?
  - jonknee 17y ago
    The part that wouldn't scale and that we would never put up with is the personal interrogations, highly armed guards covering entry points and all the searches. Go ahead and put some blast containers in place, but it would likely be a waste since there are so few evacuations.
    - pyre 17y ago
      If these airports handle so much traffic that these methods won't scale than how in the world is "evacuate the entire airport" even seriously considered as a solution to any problem?
      - jonknee 17y ago
        It's much more work to have half hour interviews with every passenger than it is to evacuate a terminal every couple years.
fjabre 17y ago
A sensitive subject to say the least. I find it mind boggling that anyone would want to emulate Israel in any capacity concerning security. They've had suicide bombers in cafes, night clubs, school buses, etc.. and no matter what side of the fence you're on it's pretty obvious that whatever they're doing is not working.
- shpxnvz 17y ago
  Not I am in favor of emulating the security model for other reasons, but when it comes to air travel security, is there anyone more effective than El Al? According to the timeline on Wikipedia, there hasn't been even a semi-successful terrorist attack on one of their airliners in 40 years. I really am curious if there is any contrary information out there, as I've been unable to find any.
- sorbus 17y ago
  But not in airports, so clearly they're doing something right there. At the very least, blast-proof glass and bomb-proof boxes for suspected bombs are a great idea - making the airport more modular, so only tiny areas of it have to be evacuated, instead of the entire thing, if something does go wrong.
- quizbiz 17y ago
  You are wrong, it is working. The controversy is over the cost. There are countless instances of identified and disabled devices. Who knows how many deaths the metal detectors/security check at the entrance to nearly every point of public gathering (malls, movie theaters, parking decks, etc.) have prevented. Their inconvenience would not be acceptable in the US but I'm just saying it does make a difference. Just last week, an explosive device made from a gas canister and fireworks was found on Highway 443. Its a major road between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, a road I have used several times since my arrival here for my winter break. Despite the record of suicide bombings in clubs et al, the Ben Gurion airport has experienced no such acts of terror. None. Israel is a technology hub, it attracted Warren Buffet's first investment outside of the US, and its citizens live everyday normally despite the threats. Israel's defense forces do what they deem as necessary. It is working. But many ask at what cost.
Flemlord 17y ago
Interesting article but it doesn't address the root issue. Israel has real threats to deal with on a weekly if not daily basis. They're forced to take security seriously and it shows in their procedures. Their security employees deal with regular, serious threats and one would assume numerous close calls have made them self-motivated. On the other hand, North American countries only have one real threat every 10-odd years or so. In fact, the most recent attempt didn't even go through North American screening. Since we don't have real terrorists often enough to matter, I doubt American security will ever come close to the Israeli model. What if you were building a software package that you knew would never have any users? Could you motivate your team to care enough to make the software great? Could you yourself be motivated to do a good job, or would you just go through the motions?
eplanit 17y ago
Yes, let's embrace the idea: adopting the stance of a country at constant war since its beginnings, a focal point of worldwide disagreement. A country which (from any perspective) seems nowhere near achieving stability or peace. Not such a great model, on second thought? Or, maybe we should go further at "Israeli-fying" our borders: more walls and more military machines. Perhaps 'settlements' (er, um, neighborhoods) just inside Mexico's and Canada's borders...!? This statement is what is so alarming to me: "Do you know why Israelis are so calm? We have brutal terror attacks on our civilians and still, life in Israel is pretty good. The reason is that people trust their defence forces, their police, their response teams and the security agencies. They know they're doing a good job. Do we have such sweeping trust of our gov't/authority figures? Should we? Should anyone? If this is "Israeli-fication" of thought, then please count me out. Israel is a model of a worst-case security scenario (way of life) -- it's not an ideal.
- tkahn6 17y ago
  I believe this is a DH1 argument. You are not refuting or event attempting to refute the main point at all.
dstorrs 17y ago
Here's a question: how many terrorism attempts have there been against US airlines since 9/11? For that matter, what is the total number of US flights that have EVER been attacked by terrorists? I'm including both successful attacks and ones where the attack was foiled. This is a serious question--perhaps this is a much bigger threat than I'm aware. But according to my risk assessment, airline terrorism is such a low-order threat that it's just not worth getting exercised about. I agree that the TSA accomplishes little or nothing, but I feel perfectly safe--the odds that I will be on a plane that is attacked by a hijacker are almost infinitesimal.
- psyklic 17y ago
  I agree. There is absolutely no security on buses in the US, and there are virtually no attacks/hijackings. However, hijacking a plane: (1) requires very few terrorists, (2) can destroy major landmarks, and (3) has a huge impact on the nation. If hijacking is nontrivial, terrorists will clearly just do it over and over again. The cost to prevent it is high, but the US has little choice unless it wants to appear weak ...
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  > But according to my risk assessment, airline terrorism is such a low-order threat that it's just not worth getting exercised about. Let me introduce you to a pair of concepts I like to call "symbolism" and "morale." Americans like to feel safe, and up until about 2001 they felt pretty safe flying in a plane. Then in a vast, symbolic gesture, terrorists flew the planes into buildings. The American people's morale was so damaged by this gesture that we subsequently allowed our government to drag us into two wars that will do us no good and only harm in the long run. It will be exciting to find out what we allow or even demand it to do next time. So yes, it is a much bigger threat than you're apparently aware. Or are you asking if the percentage chances of you being harmed are high? Probably not. In fact, even if there were no security you'd probably still be safer than you are driving along America's roads. But that's not all you have to worry about.
cool-RR 17y ago
I just want to note that flights to/from Israel happen to be more expensive than in other countries.

185 points by ojbyrne 17y ago

johnl 17y ago

High security, little bother, totally worthless. Pick another country that doesn't have the services or pick a different target that is as spectacular and your security becomes worthless. Put in place a consistent security system that is consistent with the threat.

dazzawazza 17y ago

The bigger tragedy is that Israel has been living in a state of war for 50 years. A little more effort toward peace and less toward locking down society and we'd all be better off.

hkr 17y ago
Unfortunately, world peace has never been attainable. Ask History.
nir 17y ago
I was born in Israel and lived there all my life till 2006. Ironically, it was often the efforts towards peace that escalated violence: The 1992 Oslo Accords were followed by the suicide bus bombings of the 90s, the 2000 Camp David summit resulted in the suicide cafe/mall/club/etc bombings of the early 00s, the withdrawal from Gaza facilitated Hamas' rise to power and so on. All this isn't to turn this to a yet another online Mid East flame war, nor to claim that Israel doesn't share the blame for what's happening or that Palestinians aren't suffering at least as badly - just to note that anyone from a conflict area will tell you life are much more complicated than "a little more effort towards peace" ;)
endtime 17y ago
Your comment is completely irrelevant. Did you even read the article? "Israelification" is being presented as a goal, not as a criticism.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  It's sad that you think the two are mutually exclusive.
intellectronica 17y ago
I couldn't agree more, but this comment isn't relevant to this discussions at all. You should have avoided adding it.

hkr 17y ago

Too much talk, too little action. Airport security is to be treated seriously by all countries.

grayhacker 17y ago

The procedural aspects of this sound good - multiple rings of security, compartmentalization of risk, etc. - but I have to wonder how well systems so dependent on the intelligence and intuition of individual screeners would work in North America.

tptacek 17y ago
It wouldn't. How many planes is El Al actually flying? How many planes do the majors in the US fly? This idea does not scale. It puts society on the wrong end of the cost equation.
- ghshephard 17y ago
  Also note that Shin Bet security levels require El Al to spend on the order of $100million/year to secure those 37 airplanes - and, when you are subjected to "Selective Screening" - you aren't dealing with the TSA and their seeming reluctance to actually _search_ you during a pat down. [edit: I'd love to know what percentage of Muslims are subjected to "Selective Screening" on El Al flights. The TSA/United States can't get away with the same type of behavior that Israel can get away with. We have to treat everyone the same to avoid the taint of "Profiling"]
  - BRadmin 17y ago
    "The TSA/United States can't get away with the same type of behavior that Israel can get away with. We have to treat everyone the same to avoid the taint of "Profiling"]" The TSA operating procedure manual specifies that ALL citizens of 12 countries (almost exclusively Muslim-populated ones) are automatically selected for secondary screening. Even my American citizen friends with Arabic names get "random screening" the majority of times they fly.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      For what it's worth, I don't think decorum is the problem with duplicating El Al for, say, UAL and AA. The problem is that we can't staff enough competent people to execute at El Al levels of sophistication against our passenger load. TSA screeners are close to the bottom of the law enforcement and homeland security food chain, and the people we need to do this job require more skills than the average metro police officer.

intellectronica 17y ago

The problem with the Israelification goal is that while Israel's airport security method is second to none, it is not scalable, and therefore not applicable to the US (or many other countries), at least not without major restructuring. The problem of scale is manifested twice: 1. Manpower - Israel has a huge pool of very talented young men and women who already received very good training in the army and the security services. It also budgets paying them well. Make no mistake, airport security in Israel is no McJob, it is a prestigious, well-paid position, manned by the top classes of society. America is relying on cheap, unskilled labour for these jobs, and transitioning to an Israeli employment profile will bankrupt the system. 2. Volume - Israel has only one major international airport (and even that one is quite small). As far as airport security is concerned, it is a very local problem which can benefit from focused attention. The US has to protect hundreds of very busy airports, and they all have their unique weaknesses.

andrewcooke 17y ago
one way to fix 1 would be to shift us spending from israel to internal security. 2 isn't clearly an issue; you need to consider something more like the ratio of airport / population.
- intellectronica 17y ago
  It is an issue, because the marginal cost of analysing an Airport for vulnerabilities and devising ways to defend against them doesn't decrease when you cover more airports. You have to Israelificate each and every airport by developing techniques and training a workforce which is not easily transferable.
  - Eliezer 17y ago
    Whaa? R&D on techinques and machinery should have economy of scale, not diseconomy of scale. And the Israelis would be happy to tell us how to do it.
    - 17y ago

mrav 17y ago

hi i think about 2000 ameriacns die every day from heart disease righ why bother with the airlines? just eat right... and btw i'm from israel

Zarathu 17y ago

Oh, yes, because the Israelis totally have their shit together. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihXtbB-4GWw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihXtbB-4GWw

djcapelis 17y ago
This seems like a relevant comment, why is it downmodded? Clearly if Israeli security forces are putting bullet holes through laptops as part of standard procedure, that's not exactly the hassle-free friendly security process the article implies.
- mdasen 17y ago
  I didn't vote either way on it. That said, I can see a few reasons why it might be downmodded. On the surface side, its use of profanity and the attitude that I read from the comment aren't useful for criticism. A more useful way of phrasing it might have been along the lines of, "Focusing on the intent of the traveler may help sometimes, but it can also lead to events such as this one where an innocent person's laptop is destroyed based on a feeling." NOTE: I can't actually watch the video because my laptop has no sound right now. The way one phrases something matters and, at least to me, it seemed like more of an emotional attack than a response to procedures that may or may not be good. On the deeper side, one event does not a trend make. The comment author provided a video about an event. It's somewhat like linking to a video of an NFL game where the Chief's won and saying they're a good football team - or linking to a video of the Saint's loss and saying they're a bad team. Sure, it is evidence of badness, but it's one piece among 15 this season and the majority of evidence points the other way. Now, going back to Israel, I'm not making a claim that the majority of evidence goes either way. I am trying to say that Israeli security deals with hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people every year and to judge whether they have their act together or not cannot hinge on one piece of evidence. And, to be frank, that's part of the problem with your reading of the comment: it isn't part of Israeli standard procedure. If one has reports of it happening in a systemic way, that's important. Heck, it's important that it happened even once. However, an isolated incident can be tragic without being indicative of anything. It was a bad thing that happened. It was good that it got press (as I heard she got monetary compensation from the government). However, a report from an organization that looks into this stuff and spots trends is a more persuasive thing than one incident. Although, if it were phrased more pleasantly, the author might not have been downmodded. Then it might be seen as someone offering alternative evidence arguing that the situation isn't as rosy as the original article implied and that it's a more complex situation. However, the phrasing makes it seem like the original author wishes for us to throw out all other evidence because of one piece they have chosen to present and have that one piece preferenced over others. If I had wanted to bring that video into the discussion, I would have said something like: "The article paints a rosy picture of the situation, but it's one that turns on human intellect and 'gut feelings' which isn't a great way to run a security system. People sometimes have gut feelings (conscious or not) that are biased on things like race, religion, gender, etc. and might single out people not because of what's in their eyes, but something else. Likewise, it could mean that sometimes people have gut feelings that are wrong - people might be legitimately nervous not because they are planning something bad - and that can lead to situations like [the video]. . ."

amichail 17y ago

Why not put close relatives of those who attempt terrorist acts on the "no fly" list?

jonknee 17y ago
Are relatives of terrorists commonly terrorists themselves? I thought they are typically outcasts. For example, the Christmas Detroit bomber was such an outcast his own father reported that he may be dangerous.
- amichail 17y ago
  If someone is considering a terrorist act, he/she would need to consider the effect of it on his/her close relatives. And close relatives would have a greater incentive to report him/her if they suspect something. Of course, you could consider a different sort of penalty such as fines that would bankrupt his/her close relatives.
  - jonknee 17y ago
    That would never fly in America as it's wholly unconstitutional. I can't be held accountable for a relative's crime if I had nothing at all to do with it. I'm OK with the parents of John Walker Lindh not being bankrupted and being able to fly--anything else would be a trampling of rights.
intellectronica 17y ago
That's a wrong thing to do for two reasons. 1. It's collective punishment. Unethical unless absolutely necessary. 2. It would be ineffective. In most cases in the west the relatives of people who ended up blowing themselves up didn't know about their involvement in terrorist organizations and didn't condone their actions.
- amichail 17y ago
  Collective punishment with close relatives is better than racial profiling, massive inconvenience for everyone, etc. And it would encourage people to be more alert about suspicious terrorist activity within their family.

jonknee 17y ago

That only works when you have a tiny number of flights at a handful of locations are willing to spend through the roof. It would never scale. Their largest international airport is tiny by US size--it wouldn't even make the top 20. And that's just the US. Not to mention that the US public would never put up with it. Update: this puts it into perspective--El Al (the largest and most well known Israeli airline) operates only 37 planes which would make it the size of a small regional airline in the states. Allegiant Air is unheard of to much of the US and operates 49 jets. Delta has a cool 449 and flies to more countries than El Al has flights per day. Ben Gurion International Airport, the airport mentioned and the largest in Israel, is roughly the size of Kansas City International Airport. There's simply not a valid comparison.

pyre 17y ago
What about the isolation of the suspected luggage in a bomb-proof area or container? All that would seem to require is investment in the containers and/or blast-proof shell. Why instead is the 'best idea' to try and evacuate a bustling airport terminal with 100's or 1000's of people?
- jonknee 17y ago
  The part that wouldn't scale and that we would never put up with is the personal interrogations, highly armed guards covering entry points and all the searches. Go ahead and put some blast containers in place, but it would likely be a waste since there are so few evacuations.
  - pyre 17y ago
    If these airports handle so much traffic that these methods won't scale than how in the world is "evacuate the entire airport" even seriously considered as a solution to any problem?
    - jonknee 17y ago
      It's much more work to have half hour interviews with every passenger than it is to evacuate a terminal every couple years.

fjabre 17y ago

A sensitive subject to say the least. I find it mind boggling that anyone would want to emulate Israel in any capacity concerning security. They've had suicide bombers in cafes, night clubs, school buses, etc.. and no matter what side of the fence you're on it's pretty obvious that whatever they're doing is not working.

shpxnvz 17y ago
Not I am in favor of emulating the security model for other reasons, but when it comes to air travel security, is there anyone more effective than El Al? According to the timeline on Wikipedia, there hasn't been even a semi-successful terrorist attack on one of their airliners in 40 years. I really am curious if there is any contrary information out there, as I've been unable to find any.
sorbus 17y ago
But not in airports, so clearly they're doing something right there. At the very least, blast-proof glass and bomb-proof boxes for suspected bombs are a great idea - making the airport more modular, so only tiny areas of it have to be evacuated, instead of the entire thing, if something does go wrong.
quizbiz 17y ago
You are wrong, it is working. The controversy is over the cost. There are countless instances of identified and disabled devices. Who knows how many deaths the metal detectors/security check at the entrance to nearly every point of public gathering (malls, movie theaters, parking decks, etc.) have prevented. Their inconvenience would not be acceptable in the US but I'm just saying it does make a difference. Just last week, an explosive device made from a gas canister and fireworks was found on Highway 443. Its a major road between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, a road I have used several times since my arrival here for my winter break. Despite the record of suicide bombings in clubs et al, the Ben Gurion airport has experienced no such acts of terror. None. Israel is a technology hub, it attracted Warren Buffet's first investment outside of the US, and its citizens live everyday normally despite the threats. Israel's defense forces do what they deem as necessary. It is working. But many ask at what cost.

Flemlord 17y ago

Interesting article but it doesn't address the root issue. Israel has real threats to deal with on a weekly if not daily basis. They're forced to take security seriously and it shows in their procedures. Their security employees deal with regular, serious threats and one would assume numerous close calls have made them self-motivated. On the other hand, North American countries only have one real threat every 10-odd years or so. In fact, the most recent attempt didn't even go through North American screening. Since we don't have real terrorists often enough to matter, I doubt American security will ever come close to the Israeli model. What if you were building a software package that you knew would never have any users? Could you motivate your team to care enough to make the software great? Could you yourself be motivated to do a good job, or would you just go through the motions?

eplanit 17y ago

Yes, let's embrace the idea: adopting the stance of a country at constant war since its beginnings, a focal point of worldwide disagreement. A country which (from any perspective) seems nowhere near achieving stability or peace. Not such a great model, on second thought? Or, maybe we should go further at "Israeli-fying" our borders: more walls and more military machines. Perhaps 'settlements' (er, um, neighborhoods) just inside Mexico's and Canada's borders...!? This statement is what is so alarming to me: "Do you know why Israelis are so calm? We have brutal terror attacks on our civilians and still, life in Israel is pretty good. The reason is that people trust their defence forces, their police, their response teams and the security agencies. They know they're doing a good job. Do we have such sweeping trust of our gov't/authority figures? Should we? Should anyone? If this is "Israeli-fication" of thought, then please count me out. Israel is a model of a worst-case security scenario (way of life) -- it's not an ideal.

tkahn6 17y ago
I believe this is a DH1 argument. You are not refuting or event attempting to refute the main point at all.

dstorrs 17y ago

Here's a question: how many terrorism attempts have there been against US airlines since 9/11? For that matter, what is the total number of US flights that have EVER been attacked by terrorists? I'm including both successful attacks and ones where the attack was foiled. This is a serious question--perhaps this is a much bigger threat than I'm aware. But according to my risk assessment, airline terrorism is such a low-order threat that it's just not worth getting exercised about. I agree that the TSA accomplishes little or nothing, but I feel perfectly safe--the odds that I will be on a plane that is attacked by a hijacker are almost infinitesimal.

psyklic 17y ago
I agree. There is absolutely no security on buses in the US, and there are virtually no attacks/hijackings. However, hijacking a plane: (1) requires very few terrorists, (2) can destroy major landmarks, and (3) has a huge impact on the nation. If hijacking is nontrivial, terrorists will clearly just do it over and over again. The cost to prevent it is high, but the US has little choice unless it wants to appear weak ...
houseabsolute 17y ago
> But according to my risk assessment, airline terrorism is such a low-order threat that it's just not worth getting exercised about. Let me introduce you to a pair of concepts I like to call "symbolism" and "morale." Americans like to feel safe, and up until about 2001 they felt pretty safe flying in a plane. Then in a vast, symbolic gesture, terrorists flew the planes into buildings. The American people's morale was so damaged by this gesture that we subsequently allowed our government to drag us into two wars that will do us no good and only harm in the long run. It will be exciting to find out what we allow or even demand it to do next time. So yes, it is a much bigger threat than you're apparently aware. Or are you asking if the percentage chances of you being harmed are high? Probably not. In fact, even if there were no security you'd probably still be safer than you are driving along America's roads. But that's not all you have to worry about.

cool-RR 17y ago

I just want to note that flights to/from Israel happen to be more expensive than in other countries.