5 ms·

If you want an even better example, try the Istanbul attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_

If you want an even better example, try the Istanbul attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_atta... 3 Terrorists total. The attack went as follows : 2 terrorists queue up in an Xray machine line, and suddenly start shooting people. One of the terrorists is shot down and a few seconds later he detonated a suicide vest. What does an airport security line do at that point ? Well, of course it fails open. Security abandoned their posts and none of the security guards responded for minutes to the second attacker in the line walking around and shooting people. He walked right through, got on an escalator and continued shooting people for ~2 minutes. Eventually a security officer (one wandering around by himself, not identified) shot him from a distance, looked up close at the attacker, and ran away (the terrorist exploded shortly after that, I hope the guy made it out). A third terrorist blew himself up in what was essentially a security pre-check line outside the airport. Any chokepoint, of course, is a terrorist target at an airport. I've been to Istanbul airport. It's big, but not that big. In this attack 45 people died and 230 were wounded. There are plenty of far bigger airports where that number would have been way up. Thankfully I do think security personnel would not just immediately abandon their posts in the US when something like this happens. That of course means that TSA makes things worse in some ways and provides a target for terrorists unless they avoid making lines. Heh. "Somehow" that doesn't seem to be the conclusion they're drawing from this. In fact I am unaware of any official responses to these attacks.

saluki 10y ago
The choke points are definitely an issue at airports but also at sporting events, where masses of hundreds of people are crowded around a gate getting in to the stadium. I think they need to setup a maze system where passengers/fans queue in to a system where can be scanned as they go through and directed to lower and higher risk areas something bullet/blast resistant where people can be physically isolated from each other (and from gaining access) as they pass through security and everyone can be locked down (or automatically directed to exit the facility) if an event happens so there isn't a free run through security. And make it large enough where people can get in to the system quickly so you don't have large groups of people standing waiting outside. Something with lots of angled areas as you enter and get you isolated, scanned directed in to the facility or over to higher security area for further processing.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  You can't engineer away this problem. Too many places humans gather in large numbers. This is just throwing away money. Can every church and store and mall and stadium in the world do this? If not it won't do anything. And if so, then we move on to other ways.
leesalminen 10y ago
> Thankfully I do think security personnel would not just immediately abandon their posts in the US when something like this happens. I hope you don't mean the unarmed minimally trained TSA staff that earn next to minimum wage. I highly doubt they'll protect you over themselves. Hell, many of them are obese (this is America) and physically unable to engage in such a scenario.
- huffmsa 10y ago
  The ones who idley stood by while that guy attacked people with a machete last year? To be fair they don't even have non-lethal armaments, but it does again point to how useless the operation is in the face of a person who isn't just mad because their flight is delayed.
  - zdkl 10y ago
    Core problem: how do you measure effectiveness of deterrent methods. Actual or avoided incidents? Feeling of safety of the public? Most likely how happy the insurance companies are afaict
    - huffmsa 10y ago
      Well us who like the scientific approach would have incrementally added layers to the security onion, but in the real world, that kind of trial and error costs human lives. Makes testing expensive
ep103 10y ago
The way I heard it, the TSA was created by an accenture proposal. GWB's administration told the airline companies they needed to step up security for people admitted into airports, in response to 9/11. The airlines used the aforementioned proposal to suggest that instead of the airlines paying for individual security, the government do so for everyone, standardized, and pay for it as well. For god knows what reason, the government agreed. The end result, is the airlines have no desire to improve the process. If you get angry at the security theatre, you think to blame the government, not the airline. The government and DHS has no desire to improve the process, they just want to keep costs down, while simultaneously making sure they are publicly notable to justify their existence. Want to fix it? What if we: made the airlines pay for and run their own security. And make the DHS audit those security practices, instead of implementing them. Just one of many possible ideas.
- dantheman 10y ago
  If the government is setting the requirements and doing the implementation then it would seem appropriate to blame them.
- knz 10y ago
  > The end result, is the airlines have no desire to improve the process. That is not entirely true. Delta have spent money to improve the TSA process in Atlanta (I believe mostly by adding automation and more areas for people to unload their belongings) and have also spent money at other airports to relieve TSA congestion. I work for an airport and have heard many times that the airlines have considerable frustration with the process - it's not uncommon to hear people say that they would rather drive than fly due to the hassle of security. Airlines are usually very aware of lost revenue due to these kinds of factors. I completely agree re where the blame lays.... my understanding is that the TSA have actually asked for additional funding to have more staff on the lines but Congress has denied this. The TSA is not actually a requirement either - airports can run their own security but my understanding is that they would still require TSA oversight so any cost savings are negligible.
  - gcb0 10y ago
crooked-v 10y ago
Calling most TSA workers "security personnel" is fundamentally inaccurate. They aren't hired to provide security; they're hired to organize queues and identity things in X-ray scans.
godelski 10y ago
This has been the thing that always confuses me about the TSA. They create bottle necks that essentially concentrate people to a small area. Forget a major airport like LAX or LaGuardia, medium sized airports have more people in those lines than on a flight. If the threat level was anywhere above basically nil this would have to change. Plus if you want to get in it's easier to fly a small plane in. All I can think is that TSA in its current form has caused more danger than it has prevented. It's security theater if red team almost always wins.
cmurf 10y ago
The bottleneck being a top target is the elephant in the room, that's why they don't mention it. And it's a grossly classist system that makes most people sitting ducks by virtue of being in that line much longer, than people who are willing to pay to be trusted more and spend less time in line.

saluki 10y ago

The choke points are definitely an issue at airports but also at sporting events, where masses of hundreds of people are crowded around a gate getting in to the stadium. I think they need to setup a maze system where passengers/fans queue in to a system where can be scanned as they go through and directed to lower and higher risk areas something bullet/blast resistant where people can be physically isolated from each other (and from gaining access) as they pass through security and everyone can be locked down (or automatically directed to exit the facility) if an event happens so there isn't a free run through security. And make it large enough where people can get in to the system quickly so you don't have large groups of people standing waiting outside. Something with lots of angled areas as you enter and get you isolated, scanned directed in to the facility or over to higher security area for further processing.

brianwawok 10y ago
You can't engineer away this problem. Too many places humans gather in large numbers. This is just throwing away money. Can every church and store and mall and stadium in the world do this? If not it won't do anything. And if so, then we move on to other ways.

leesalminen 10y ago

> Thankfully I do think security personnel would not just immediately abandon their posts in the US when something like this happens. I hope you don't mean the unarmed minimally trained TSA staff that earn next to minimum wage. I highly doubt they'll protect you over themselves. Hell, many of them are obese (this is America) and physically unable to engage in such a scenario.

huffmsa 10y ago
The ones who idley stood by while that guy attacked people with a machete last year? To be fair they don't even have non-lethal armaments, but it does again point to how useless the operation is in the face of a person who isn't just mad because their flight is delayed.
- zdkl 10y ago
  Core problem: how do you measure effectiveness of deterrent methods. Actual or avoided incidents? Feeling of safety of the public? Most likely how happy the insurance companies are afaict
  - huffmsa 10y ago
    Well us who like the scientific approach would have incrementally added layers to the security onion, but in the real world, that kind of trial and error costs human lives. Makes testing expensive

ep103 10y ago

The way I heard it, the TSA was created by an accenture proposal. GWB's administration told the airline companies they needed to step up security for people admitted into airports, in response to 9/11. The airlines used the aforementioned proposal to suggest that instead of the airlines paying for individual security, the government do so for everyone, standardized, and pay for it as well. For god knows what reason, the government agreed. The end result, is the airlines have no desire to improve the process. If you get angry at the security theatre, you think to blame the government, not the airline. The government and DHS has no desire to improve the process, they just want to keep costs down, while simultaneously making sure they are publicly notable to justify their existence. Want to fix it? What if we: made the airlines pay for and run their own security. And make the DHS audit those security practices, instead of implementing them. Just one of many possible ideas.

dantheman 10y ago
If the government is setting the requirements and doing the implementation then it would seem appropriate to blame them.
knz 10y ago
> The end result, is the airlines have no desire to improve the process. That is not entirely true. Delta have spent money to improve the TSA process in Atlanta (I believe mostly by adding automation and more areas for people to unload their belongings) and have also spent money at other airports to relieve TSA congestion. I work for an airport and have heard many times that the airlines have considerable frustration with the process - it's not uncommon to hear people say that they would rather drive than fly due to the hassle of security. Airlines are usually very aware of lost revenue due to these kinds of factors. I completely agree re where the blame lays.... my understanding is that the TSA have actually asked for additional funding to have more staff on the lines but Congress has denied this. The TSA is not actually a requirement either - airports can run their own security but my understanding is that they would still require TSA oversight so any cost savings are negligible.
- gcb0 10y ago

crooked-v 10y ago

Calling most TSA workers "security personnel" is fundamentally inaccurate. They aren't hired to provide security; they're hired to organize queues and identity things in X-ray scans.

godelski 10y ago

This has been the thing that always confuses me about the TSA. They create bottle necks that essentially concentrate people to a small area. Forget a major airport like LAX or LaGuardia, medium sized airports have more people in those lines than on a flight. If the threat level was anywhere above basically nil this would have to change. Plus if you want to get in it's easier to fly a small plane in. All I can think is that TSA in its current form has caused more danger than it has prevented. It's security theater if red team almost always wins.

cmurf 10y ago

The bottleneck being a top target is the elephant in the room, that's why they don't mention it. And it's a grossly classist system that makes most people sitting ducks by virtue of being in that line much longer, than people who are willing to pay to be trusted more and spend less time in line.