5 ms·

A (semi-) educated guess: Explosive detectors at airports are fine-tuned to detect a few substances; it is conceivable that some terrorist group have found a m

by lb1lf 10y ago

A (semi-) educated guess: Explosive detectors at airports are fine-tuned to detect a few substances; it is conceivable that some terrorist group have found a multi-component explosive whose ingredients will not trigger the current range of explosive detectors. (However, said components will need to be mixed for it to become an explosive, and this is where the 'We don't care what you put in the cargo hold' bit comes in. That being said, I have a feeling this ban is more about commercial issues than anything else. But, anyway - for the sake of argument, &c. :)

ceejayoz 10y ago
> Explosive detectors at airports are fine-tuned to detect a few substances; it is conceivable that some terrorist group have found a multi-component explosive whose ingredients will not trigger the current range of explosive detectors. If that's the case, having it apply only to certain airlines/airports is criminally stupid - it's quite clear terror groups are capable of getting into Europe.
- castis 10y ago
  What would you have them do instead? edit: I was unaware that asking an honest question was frowned upon. Lesson learned, thanks.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    I'd have us do several things: * Accept that terror attacks will get through sometimes. * Spend a large part of the trillions of dollars spent on ineffective security theater (it's not all security theater - some bits like reinforced cockpit doors are cheap and effective) on preventing stuff like heart disease and car accidents that kill multiple 9/11s worth each day. * Ban laptops from carry-ons across the board if an undetectable laptop bomb (that can't be triggered in the cargo hold) is credible and likely. (Thus far the only incident we know of resulted in minor damage and a dead bomber.)
    - castis 10y ago
      Accept that terror attacks will get through sometimes. I don't disagree with you but this would be difficult for any one person to pass down from wherever it is the person making these decisions sits. They'd have to accept that people are going to die and that by rolling back precautions, they take that on themselves. The other 2 I wholly agree with.
      - lb1lf 10y ago
        > They'd have to accept that people are going to die and that by rolling back precautions, they take that on themselves. -Oh, we already do in other aspects of life, so why not? An example: Driving a car has become ridiculously safe; as long as you don't head-on another car, chances are you'll survive. (As long as you don't do silly stuff like drive at 120mph, skip seatbelts and such). If we had separate lanes all over, there wouldn't be more head-on collisions. Lives saved. Only, we decided it wasn't worth the expense and inconvenience. We only have barriers between opposing lanes on the most accident-prone stretches of road. Personally, I'd be inclined to vote for just about anyone who had the balls to tell the public that bad things happen. Well, if they did it prior to something bad happening, at any rate.
- lb1lf 10y ago
  -Maybe someone just did a risk assessment. If the odds of this happening are marginal at best (well, they are, apparently - airliners don't get blown up every day) and the risk is largest that such an attack will be instigated from a few, known places - then by all means focus your efforts on those places/airlines. After all, nabbing the laptops of, say, a few million people daily or however many people fly because there is a non-zero risk that someone flying from one of a handful airports may be up to shenanigans probably isn't worth it. Terror is exceedingly rare as long as you are not living in, say, the less savory parts of Syria or Afghanistan. We shouldn't spend an unlimited amount of time, money and convenience on a problem which is marginal on the worst of days.
  - tbihl 10y ago
    It might be worth considering that this unwieldy policy could be an obfuscated response to a specific, credible threat. In that case the US government increases the odds that the move will be regarded as getting lucky, rather than necessitating that adversaries look for leaks and adopt better security policies.
- evgen 10y ago
  Perhaps the most likely avenue for such a plan depends on compromise at least one person in the passenger screening process. If you know that they have a plan which has a reasonable probability of working given a compromised person working the carry-on scanner and you know the airports where these groups are most likely to compromise such individuals then it seems logical to start with those locations. Terror groups can get into Europe, but do they have people working airport security a CDG or FRA?

by lb1lf 10y ago

ceejayoz 10y ago

> Explosive detectors at airports are fine-tuned to detect a few substances; it is conceivable that some terrorist group have found a multi-component explosive whose ingredients will not trigger the current range of explosive detectors. If that's the case, having it apply only to certain airlines/airports is criminally stupid - it's quite clear terror groups are capable of getting into Europe.

castis 10y ago
What would you have them do instead? edit: I was unaware that asking an honest question was frowned upon. Lesson learned, thanks.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  I'd have us do several things: * Accept that terror attacks will get through sometimes. * Spend a large part of the trillions of dollars spent on ineffective security theater (it's not all security theater - some bits like reinforced cockpit doors are cheap and effective) on preventing stuff like heart disease and car accidents that kill multiple 9/11s worth each day. * Ban laptops from carry-ons across the board if an undetectable laptop bomb (that can't be triggered in the cargo hold) is credible and likely. (Thus far the only incident we know of resulted in minor damage and a dead bomber.)
  - castis 10y ago
    Accept that terror attacks will get through sometimes. I don't disagree with you but this would be difficult for any one person to pass down from wherever it is the person making these decisions sits. They'd have to accept that people are going to die and that by rolling back precautions, they take that on themselves. The other 2 I wholly agree with.
    - lb1lf 10y ago
      > They'd have to accept that people are going to die and that by rolling back precautions, they take that on themselves. -Oh, we already do in other aspects of life, so why not? An example: Driving a car has become ridiculously safe; as long as you don't head-on another car, chances are you'll survive. (As long as you don't do silly stuff like drive at 120mph, skip seatbelts and such). If we had separate lanes all over, there wouldn't be more head-on collisions. Lives saved. Only, we decided it wasn't worth the expense and inconvenience. We only have barriers between opposing lanes on the most accident-prone stretches of road. Personally, I'd be inclined to vote for just about anyone who had the balls to tell the public that bad things happen. Well, if they did it prior to something bad happening, at any rate.
lb1lf 10y ago
-Maybe someone just did a risk assessment. If the odds of this happening are marginal at best (well, they are, apparently - airliners don't get blown up every day) and the risk is largest that such an attack will be instigated from a few, known places - then by all means focus your efforts on those places/airlines. After all, nabbing the laptops of, say, a few million people daily or however many people fly because there is a non-zero risk that someone flying from one of a handful airports may be up to shenanigans probably isn't worth it. Terror is exceedingly rare as long as you are not living in, say, the less savory parts of Syria or Afghanistan. We shouldn't spend an unlimited amount of time, money and convenience on a problem which is marginal on the worst of days.
- tbihl 10y ago
  It might be worth considering that this unwieldy policy could be an obfuscated response to a specific, credible threat. In that case the US government increases the odds that the move will be regarded as getting lucky, rather than necessitating that adversaries look for leaks and adopt better security policies.
evgen 10y ago
Perhaps the most likely avenue for such a plan depends on compromise at least one person in the passenger screening process. If you know that they have a plan which has a reasonable probability of working given a compromised person working the carry-on scanner and you know the airports where these groups are most likely to compromise such individuals then it seems logical to start with those locations. Terror groups can get into Europe, but do they have people working airport security a CDG or FRA?