The article makes passing reference at the end, but isn't forcing these devices to be in checked bags actually more dangerous than some vague terrorist threat?

The article makes passing reference at the end, but isn't forcing these devices to be in checked bags actually more dangerous than some vague terrorist threat? While still relatively rare, it seems that Li-ion batteries catching fire in the cargo hold is still a bit more risky than the likelihood of what they're trying to address happening. (I suspect they are acting on some more credible intelligence in this matter, but clearly not so specific that they can target their actions and have to come up with something that itself poses a risk.)