3 ms·
-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
by 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 agoIt 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.