6 ms·

If a terrorist wanted to kill a lot of people confined into too small space to run away, what better target than these densely packed zig-zag queues? Really, wh

by Hondor 10y ago

If a terrorist wanted to kill a lot of people confined into too small space to run away, what better target than these densely packed zig-zag queues? Really, what's the point of protecting a plane carrying hundreds of people by putting those same people into harm's way like that? It already happened in China - Muslim terrorists killed dozens of people waiting in a ticket hall a couple of years ago.

danieltillett 10y ago
Isn't that exactly what happened in Belgium.
- bglazer 10y ago
  Yes, and in Moscow as well. If the actual mission of the TSA was preventing terrorist acts, then they would have done something about this massive and completely obvious vulnerability. My opinion, however, is that the TSA has become an arm of the DEA and the "war on drugs". They make a big security theater production in the name of stopping terrorists but 99% of their daily activities are centered on seizing drugs.
  - spdustin 10y ago
    You stated a fact alongside your opinion, that a large portion of the TSA's operation includes seizing drugs. Do you have a source for this?
    - mikey_p 10y ago
      Not sure about other places, but who do you think is enforcing this in Portland? http://kptv.images.worldnow.com/images/8324399_G.jpg http://kptv.images.worldnow.com/images/8324399_G.jpg
      - spdustin 10y ago
        I wouldn't think they'd have the authority to seize the drugs themselves, since the warning sign is from the Port of Portland, the governmental authority that oversees PDX as well as marine ports. My feeling is that they would be obligated to attempt to hold the bag (less likely) or flag the bag and passenger (more likely) for a Port Authority Police officer to handle. EDIT: According to one story [0], the TSA cooperated as, essentially, an "informant" for the DEA, flagging those with large quantities of cash, for the DEA to then seize or investigate. EDIT 2: In fact, the TSA policy is to keep dangerous materials off aircraft, but they have no real enforcement authority. Law enforcement gets involved when, for example, narcotics are found. "While TSA works to keep dangerous items off of commercial aircraft, when contraband is found, it must be reported to local law enforcement. Here are a few of the more notable narcotics discoveries:" [1]. 0: http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/21/how-the-tsa-and-drug-enforcement-administration-joined-forces-to-seize-cash-at-airports/ http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/21/how-the-tsa-and-drug-enfor... 1: http://blog.tsa.gov/2015/01/tsa-2014-year-in-review.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2015/01/tsa-2014-year-in-review.html
        mikey_p 10y ago
        True, but they wouldn't be able to alert authorities if they weren't actively looking for the items, which gets back to the original issue of speed of inspection.
    - bglazer 10y ago
      Well, now that I've looked for some sources to back this up, it seems that the fact that I stated above is either difficult to prove or just not true. The TSA is not very forthcoming with statistics on drug seizures. I'll admit that the original statement was basically a guess. If the TSA isn't stopping terrorism, or making reasonable steps to prevent it, then what exactly are they doing? In the US, it has seemed that if you can't immediately tell the source or purpose of a law enforcement effort, then "drugs" is a pretty good guess.
  - spdustin 10y ago
    I would go further to suggest that, simply, more people attempt to carry contraband such as illegal drugs, than attempt to carry "dangerous" items, such as those that "terrorists" would ostensibly try to bring on board. Since the TSA is obligated to report such finds to local law enforcement, and that law enforcement is routinely a radio call and 45 seconds away, it appears that the TSA is responsible for arrests and seizures when, in fact, they have no authority to do so themselves, but rather the obligation to report illegal goods. Don't get me wrong, the TSA's involvement in the "war on drugs" isn't in question. They're an informant. But when they find a gun in your bag, they're still an informant. They inform law enforcement, who comes to question and/or arrest the passenger. Other than the deflection of liability should something dangerous get through the screening checkpoints, I personally think we could do without the TSA.
coldcode 10y ago
They have no plan what to do when that happens? Do you start the line at your house, pick you up in a prison van and deposit you in the airplane after 24hours? Anything that creates a choke point creates an incentive point.
- sixothree 10y ago
  I think you just answered your question. Remove choke points.
jerf 10y ago
There are a large number of places with densely packed people. The unique thing about airports is their access to airplanes and their capacity to be used as weapons. (I'm taking a broad view of "weapon" here; even old-school hijack-and-divert is still a political "weapon".) If it weren't for that, they wouldn't be particularly interesting and wouldn't need special security. If someone blows up the line, well, they didn't get control over a plane. Thoughtful terrorists... and thank goodness, a lot of them really aren't... would not choose an airport line, just because it's an airport. It's also why when we hear about the TSA claiming they need to secure trains, it's a sign that politics has 100% overtaken their supposedly-core mission; trains don't have any of these characteristics that make them any more dangerous than any other large groups of people.
- ibejoeb 10y ago
  I know what you're saying, but disagree that the point of these operations is to weaponize vehicles. The airport itself is a distinct target. A successful attack at an airport would disrupt travel and commerce for weeks, as we just saw in Belgium. Nothing immediately comes to mind to mitigate this. We can only push so far upstream. We can move the screening to empty fields a mile away from airport structures and require that passengers walk themselves over lest the shuttle bus be appropriated...
  - bsder 10y ago
    Actually, there is a very good solution. Process people instantly. If there are no lines at all, then there is no target. If people are used to effectively walking straight onto the plane, they aren't hanging around for several hours clogging up the system. And, anyone hanging around automatically becomes suspicious and worth a casual conversation.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > The unique thing about airports is their access to airplanes and their capacity to be used as weapons. That problem was solved on 9/11 the instant the public realized the possibility. Before people wouldn't fight back because they would rather be ransomed than killed. Now that everyone knows their choices are fight or die, every person on the plane would fight to the death to prevent a terrorist from taking control over it, which solves the problem more effectively than anything the TSA could ever hope to do. It actually makes everything the TSA does entirely counterproductive, because it's no longer possible to hijack a plane using a knife, but allowing all the other passengers to have knives would make it easier for them to fight back. The entire TSA is a farce that should be disbanded and replaced with nothing.
rbobby 10y ago
Half a dozen bad guys with a couple of grenades each and it would be bedlam. They'd even stand a good chance of escaping.
mindcrime 10y ago
Exactly. The goal of a terrorist isn't to "blow up an airplane" per-se, it's to, well, cause terror. The TSA lines do NOTHING to fix the problem, they only move the problem. Any terrorist with half a brain can see that you now just blow your bomb up in the security line. So what do you do, put a security checkpoint in front of the security checkpoint? It's TSA checkpoints all the way down...
- mac01021 10y ago
  > The TSA lines do NOTHING to fix the problem, they only move the problem. Detonating a makeshift suitcase bomb in a security line, you'd be lucky to kill 10 people. Crashing an airliner in the proper fashion, you can kill hundreds or thousands.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Detonating a makeshift suitcase bomb in a security line, you'd be lucky to kill 10 people. Maybe. I feel like you're underestimating how many people a bomb in the security line could take out. But, I'm no explosives expert, so you may be correct. And yes, the worst-case scenario is worse for the airplane, but if you're Joe Terrorist, you don't have to achieve the worst-case scenario to be successful. Terrorists commit all sorts of acts that only kill / maim 10s of people. Apparently terrorists believe those acts further their agenda nonetheless.
  - aquadrop 10y ago
    You can't crash airliner because you can't get into cabin anymore. So most terrorists can do is kill everyone on board, which is the same as to blow a bomb elsewhere (you underestimated potential harm of bomb in security line), and they already are doing that. So those rigorous checkings in airports only hurt normal people, and do nothing for security.
rhino369 10y ago
Maybe it'll start happening more, but a single bomb on a filled 747 you can kill 350 people. The same bomb on the ground might kill a dozen or two. A plane with a hole in it crashes and kills all on board.
- simoncion 10y ago
  > A plane with a hole in it crashes and kills all on board. God no, that's far from certain. [0] Aircraft are designed to function in the face of all sorts of failures. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_bombing

by Hondor 10y ago

danieltillett 10y ago

Isn't that exactly what happened in Belgium.

bglazer 10y ago
Yes, and in Moscow as well. If the actual mission of the TSA was preventing terrorist acts, then they would have done something about this massive and completely obvious vulnerability. My opinion, however, is that the TSA has become an arm of the DEA and the "war on drugs". They make a big security theater production in the name of stopping terrorists but 99% of their daily activities are centered on seizing drugs.
- spdustin 10y ago
  You stated a fact alongside your opinion, that a large portion of the TSA's operation includes seizing drugs. Do you have a source for this?
  - mikey_p 10y ago
    Not sure about other places, but who do you think is enforcing this in Portland? http://kptv.images.worldnow.com/images/8324399_G.jpg http://kptv.images.worldnow.com/images/8324399_G.jpg
    - spdustin 10y ago
      I wouldn't think they'd have the authority to seize the drugs themselves, since the warning sign is from the Port of Portland, the governmental authority that oversees PDX as well as marine ports. My feeling is that they would be obligated to attempt to hold the bag (less likely) or flag the bag and passenger (more likely) for a Port Authority Police officer to handle. EDIT: According to one story [0], the TSA cooperated as, essentially, an "informant" for the DEA, flagging those with large quantities of cash, for the DEA to then seize or investigate. EDIT 2: In fact, the TSA policy is to keep dangerous materials off aircraft, but they have no real enforcement authority. Law enforcement gets involved when, for example, narcotics are found. "While TSA works to keep dangerous items off of commercial aircraft, when contraband is found, it must be reported to local law enforcement. Here are a few of the more notable narcotics discoveries:" [1]. 0: http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/21/how-the-tsa-and-drug-enforcement-administration-joined-forces-to-seize-cash-at-airports/ http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/21/how-the-tsa-and-drug-enfor... 1: http://blog.tsa.gov/2015/01/tsa-2014-year-in-review.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2015/01/tsa-2014-year-in-review.html
      - mikey_p 10y ago
        True, but they wouldn't be able to alert authorities if they weren't actively looking for the items, which gets back to the original issue of speed of inspection.
  - bglazer 10y ago
    Well, now that I've looked for some sources to back this up, it seems that the fact that I stated above is either difficult to prove or just not true. The TSA is not very forthcoming with statistics on drug seizures. I'll admit that the original statement was basically a guess. If the TSA isn't stopping terrorism, or making reasonable steps to prevent it, then what exactly are they doing? In the US, it has seemed that if you can't immediately tell the source or purpose of a law enforcement effort, then "drugs" is a pretty good guess.
- spdustin 10y ago
  I would go further to suggest that, simply, more people attempt to carry contraband such as illegal drugs, than attempt to carry "dangerous" items, such as those that "terrorists" would ostensibly try to bring on board. Since the TSA is obligated to report such finds to local law enforcement, and that law enforcement is routinely a radio call and 45 seconds away, it appears that the TSA is responsible for arrests and seizures when, in fact, they have no authority to do so themselves, but rather the obligation to report illegal goods. Don't get me wrong, the TSA's involvement in the "war on drugs" isn't in question. They're an informant. But when they find a gun in your bag, they're still an informant. They inform law enforcement, who comes to question and/or arrest the passenger. Other than the deflection of liability should something dangerous get through the screening checkpoints, I personally think we could do without the TSA.

coldcode 10y ago

They have no plan what to do when that happens? Do you start the line at your house, pick you up in a prison van and deposit you in the airplane after 24hours? Anything that creates a choke point creates an incentive point.

sixothree 10y ago
I think you just answered your question. Remove choke points.

jerf 10y ago

There are a large number of places with densely packed people. The unique thing about airports is their access to airplanes and their capacity to be used as weapons. (I'm taking a broad view of "weapon" here; even old-school hijack-and-divert is still a political "weapon".) If it weren't for that, they wouldn't be particularly interesting and wouldn't need special security. If someone blows up the line, well, they didn't get control over a plane. Thoughtful terrorists... and thank goodness, a lot of them really aren't... would not choose an airport line, just because it's an airport. It's also why when we hear about the TSA claiming they need to secure trains, it's a sign that politics has 100% overtaken their supposedly-core mission; trains don't have any of these characteristics that make them any more dangerous than any other large groups of people.

ibejoeb 10y ago
I know what you're saying, but disagree that the point of these operations is to weaponize vehicles. The airport itself is a distinct target. A successful attack at an airport would disrupt travel and commerce for weeks, as we just saw in Belgium. Nothing immediately comes to mind to mitigate this. We can only push so far upstream. We can move the screening to empty fields a mile away from airport structures and require that passengers walk themselves over lest the shuttle bus be appropriated...
- bsder 10y ago
  Actually, there is a very good solution. Process people instantly. If there are no lines at all, then there is no target. If people are used to effectively walking straight onto the plane, they aren't hanging around for several hours clogging up the system. And, anyone hanging around automatically becomes suspicious and worth a casual conversation.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> The unique thing about airports is their access to airplanes and their capacity to be used as weapons. That problem was solved on 9/11 the instant the public realized the possibility. Before people wouldn't fight back because they would rather be ransomed than killed. Now that everyone knows their choices are fight or die, every person on the plane would fight to the death to prevent a terrorist from taking control over it, which solves the problem more effectively than anything the TSA could ever hope to do. It actually makes everything the TSA does entirely counterproductive, because it's no longer possible to hijack a plane using a knife, but allowing all the other passengers to have knives would make it easier for them to fight back. The entire TSA is a farce that should be disbanded and replaced with nothing.

rbobby 10y ago

Half a dozen bad guys with a couple of grenades each and it would be bedlam. They'd even stand a good chance of escaping.

mindcrime 10y ago

Exactly. The goal of a terrorist isn't to "blow up an airplane" per-se, it's to, well, cause terror. The TSA lines do NOTHING to fix the problem, they only move the problem. Any terrorist with half a brain can see that you now just blow your bomb up in the security line. So what do you do, put a security checkpoint in front of the security checkpoint? It's TSA checkpoints all the way down...

mac01021 10y ago
> The TSA lines do NOTHING to fix the problem, they only move the problem. Detonating a makeshift suitcase bomb in a security line, you'd be lucky to kill 10 people. Crashing an airliner in the proper fashion, you can kill hundreds or thousands.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Detonating a makeshift suitcase bomb in a security line, you'd be lucky to kill 10 people. Maybe. I feel like you're underestimating how many people a bomb in the security line could take out. But, I'm no explosives expert, so you may be correct. And yes, the worst-case scenario is worse for the airplane, but if you're Joe Terrorist, you don't have to achieve the worst-case scenario to be successful. Terrorists commit all sorts of acts that only kill / maim 10s of people. Apparently terrorists believe those acts further their agenda nonetheless.
- aquadrop 10y ago
  You can't crash airliner because you can't get into cabin anymore. So most terrorists can do is kill everyone on board, which is the same as to blow a bomb elsewhere (you underestimated potential harm of bomb in security line), and they already are doing that. So those rigorous checkings in airports only hurt normal people, and do nothing for security.

rhino369 10y ago

Maybe it'll start happening more, but a single bomb on a filled 747 you can kill 350 people. The same bomb on the ground might kill a dozen or two. A plane with a hole in it crashes and kills all on board.

simoncion 10y ago
> A plane with a hole in it crashes and kills all on board. God no, that's far from certain. [0] Aircraft are designed to function in the face of all sorts of failures. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_bombing