5 ms·

>Or removed from planes, though I'm not holding my breath. It was added because planes kept getting hijacked or blown up in the 70s. Security didn't just magic

>Or removed from planes, though I'm not holding my breath. It was added because planes kept getting hijacked or blown up in the 70s. Security didn't just magically appear one day because politicians thought it'd be great to annoy more people. The former doesn't really apply to trains and the latter is less catastrophic.

calcifer 8y ago
Please, modern day airport security is pure theater designed to make naive people have the illusion of safety, and for politicians to line up the pockets of some contractors. If a terrorist has arrived at the airport with intent to cause harm, security has already failed. It doesn't matter if the guy doesn't get on the plane - he could just do it in the terminal and cause even more casualties. The real way to prevent these attacks lies with intelligence agencies, to stop them wayyy before it becomes the airport's problem.
- la_barba 8y ago
  >It doesn't matter if the guy doesn't get on the plane - he could just do it in the terminal and cause even more casualties. Well, if the bad guy was denied boarding, then by definition the security is not "pure theater", and at-least as far as the screening is concerned, it did work as intended. It seems obvious to me that at this moment in time, the populace is more sensitive to violence occurring in certain kinds ofplaces. The idea that the same could occur in a park or a train or a bus or a stadium is not lost on anyone.
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    If you want to cause a high number of casulties one of the most effective places to plant a bomb would probably be the line in front of an airport security checkpoint. But of course "causing casulties" and "causing terror" isn't nessesarily the same.
    - marcinzm 8y ago
      There's a lot of places with packed lines however bombs aren't that great in open spaces. A similarly sized bomb on a plane would kill a lot more people. Most mass casualty bombings seem to involve multiple coordinated attacks in dense locations and still don't get near the death toll of a single medium sized airplane.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  Please, modern day airport security is pure theater designed to make naive people have the illusion of safety, and for politicians to line up the pockets of some contractors This is a very American-centric kind of cynicism and myopia. In countries that had to cope with hijackings and terrorist bombings for decades before 9/11, this kind of "theater" is effective and welcome.
  - marcinzm 8y ago
    The US also dealt with a lot of hijackings and bombings decades ago. Mysteriously they mostly stopped once security and metal detectors got implemented.
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    An American glad to hear this. However, is it the same theater or a somewhat different one?
    - wongarsu 8y ago
      Mostly a very different one, and there are varied approaches. One of the more successful ones is Israel, where they do the standard bag scanning etc but spend most of their effort on screening for suspicious people and then more thoroughly inspecting them. The US system seems to mostly ignore what's effective or efficient and works mostly as a jobs program.
      - jdavis703 8y ago
        I suppose the system seems efficient as long as you don’t look like a “suspicious people.” I was kind of surprised when in Denmark I was accused of lying about liquids being in my bag, pulled aside, had everything searched and tossed out the bag, and then was mocked for the (potentially excessive) amount of Läkerol candies I had. After they admitted there were no liquids or other contraband I was shooed out while trying to precariously balance my electronics, clothes and other items... So much for efficiency.
      - Pulcinella 8y ago
jchallis 8y ago
The Madrid train bombings were pretty catastrophic by any measure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
- marcinzm 8y ago
  That took 10 separate bombs across 4 trains and killed 193 people. For comparison, a single Airbus A380 can carry over 500 people. So basically, an order of magnitude more deaths if the same scale of attack was carried out on airplanes instead.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  IIRC, Spain introduced airport-style security checks in Spain's high-speed railway services after the Madrid bombing. It's even quite funny how someone can visit Toledo and pass big freaking swords through the security check, some of which even sold right in Toledo's railway station, if he bought it there and has the receipt.
BurningFrog 8y ago
The bulk of it was added, only in the US, after 2001.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Screening increased (and restrictions were added) after 2001. But the earlier hijackings caused the debut of metal detectors and security screening generally which had been pretty much non-existent before. Anyone could just breeze up to the gate and it was common to see people off or greet them there. >only in the US Huh? Although processes are not identical to the US, there has been a significant increase in security in other countries. The UK for one is almost indistinguishable from the US. (No shoes off but they actually more rules in terms of removing electronics.
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    In my travels in < 10 non US countries since 2001, the security hassle has varied, but always been substantially lower. Not a scientific sample, to be sure!

calcifer 8y ago

Please, modern day airport security is pure theater designed to make naive people have the illusion of safety, and for politicians to line up the pockets of some contractors. If a terrorist has arrived at the airport with intent to cause harm, security has already failed. It doesn't matter if the guy doesn't get on the plane - he could just do it in the terminal and cause even more casualties. The real way to prevent these attacks lies with intelligence agencies, to stop them wayyy before it becomes the airport's problem.

la_barba 8y ago
>It doesn't matter if the guy doesn't get on the plane - he could just do it in the terminal and cause even more casualties. Well, if the bad guy was denied boarding, then by definition the security is not "pure theater", and at-least as far as the screening is concerned, it did work as intended. It seems obvious to me that at this moment in time, the populace is more sensitive to violence occurring in certain kinds ofplaces. The idea that the same could occur in a park or a train or a bus or a stadium is not lost on anyone.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  If you want to cause a high number of casulties one of the most effective places to plant a bomb would probably be the line in front of an airport security checkpoint. But of course "causing casulties" and "causing terror" isn't nessesarily the same.
  - marcinzm 8y ago
    There's a lot of places with packed lines however bombs aren't that great in open spaces. A similarly sized bomb on a plane would kill a lot more people. Most mass casualty bombings seem to involve multiple coordinated attacks in dense locations and still don't get near the death toll of a single medium sized airplane.
reaperducer 8y ago
Please, modern day airport security is pure theater designed to make naive people have the illusion of safety, and for politicians to line up the pockets of some contractors This is a very American-centric kind of cynicism and myopia. In countries that had to cope with hijackings and terrorist bombings for decades before 9/11, this kind of "theater" is effective and welcome.
- marcinzm 8y ago
  The US also dealt with a lot of hijackings and bombings decades ago. Mysteriously they mostly stopped once security and metal detectors got implemented.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  An American glad to hear this. However, is it the same theater or a somewhat different one?
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    Mostly a very different one, and there are varied approaches. One of the more successful ones is Israel, where they do the standard bag scanning etc but spend most of their effort on screening for suspicious people and then more thoroughly inspecting them. The US system seems to mostly ignore what's effective or efficient and works mostly as a jobs program.
    - jdavis703 8y ago
      I suppose the system seems efficient as long as you don’t look like a “suspicious people.” I was kind of surprised when in Denmark I was accused of lying about liquids being in my bag, pulled aside, had everything searched and tossed out the bag, and then was mocked for the (potentially excessive) amount of Läkerol candies I had. After they admitted there were no liquids or other contraband I was shooed out while trying to precariously balance my electronics, clothes and other items... So much for efficiency.
    - Pulcinella 8y ago

jchallis 8y ago

The Madrid train bombings were pretty catastrophic by any measure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

marcinzm 8y ago
That took 10 separate bombs across 4 trains and killed 193 people. For comparison, a single Airbus A380 can carry over 500 people. So basically, an order of magnitude more deaths if the same scale of attack was carried out on airplanes instead.
geezerjay 8y ago
IIRC, Spain introduced airport-style security checks in Spain's high-speed railway services after the Madrid bombing. It's even quite funny how someone can visit Toledo and pass big freaking swords through the security check, some of which even sold right in Toledo's railway station, if he bought it there and has the receipt.

BurningFrog 8y ago

The bulk of it was added, only in the US, after 2001.

ghaff 8y ago
Screening increased (and restrictions were added) after 2001. But the earlier hijackings caused the debut of metal detectors and security screening generally which had been pretty much non-existent before. Anyone could just breeze up to the gate and it was common to see people off or greet them there. >only in the US Huh? Although processes are not identical to the US, there has been a significant increase in security in other countries. The UK for one is almost indistinguishable from the US. (No shoes off but they actually more rules in terms of removing electronics.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  In my travels in < 10 non US countries since 2001, the security hassle has varied, but always been substantially lower. Not a scientific sample, to be sure!