9 ms·

I am surprised that so many people here are okay with the idea of being momentarily detained as a matter of course. This is not a turnstile, because turnstiles

• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• ubernostrum 13y ago
  There are already airports which have pairs of sliding doors with a room between them, timed so there's a moment when the first door is closed behind you and the second one hasn't opened ahead, in which you're "detained". And practically every subway system already has one-way turnstiles that can "detain" you in the sense that you can't pass until it opens, and either can't return through it without re-inserting a fare card or can't return through it period. In fact, there's a fuck ton of controlled-access places with systems which effectively do this. What are you already doing for the "detainees" who already are created by those? (not that I like the TSA, I just also don't see why you're treating this as new or unusual)
  • jblow 13y ago
    I have never encountered a situation like this before in an airport. If I were to, I would be very disturbed, and avoid that airport in the future. So, this is new and unusual to me. (Apparently, also, to enough people to make this video notable). Subways that I have seen that require fare cards on exit do not actually prevent you from leaving; you can jump the turnstile or go through a gate on the side that possibly alarms. This is not the greatest thing, but at least while you are inside you can move freely inside a large subway system; being encased in plexiglass until a light turns green is a whole different degree of trapped. Edit: And I guess this is an important part of the point: degree matters. The old boiling-a-frog story is just about slowly increasing the degree of something.
    • steveklabnik 13y ago
      I didn't see the video, but the description sounds like basically every airport I've ever been to in Europe. I have Delta's highest frequent flyer tier.
      • jblow 13y ago
        I've flown into Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Cologne, Hanover, Paris, and London, and I do not recall seeing anything like this. I'd think I would remember as it is very alarming-looking.
        • evan_ 13y ago
          hmmmm I just flew through the Amsterdam airport about two weeks ago and it had this system in the International terminal, except the doors were about 5 meters apart.
          • josephlord 13y ago
            It is a bit different especially in feeling. You walk straight through and most people probably don't realise that they are sort of in a trap. With enough traffic flow they don't really shut (although they obviously could if there was some that they needed to contain but I don't know the scenarios it is used). Because it is default allow the feeling is quite different to the system shown in the video where it feels like default deny and it asks you to wait.
        • DougBTX 13y ago
          In Amsterdam airport they are pretty unalarming, just pairs of automatic doors a few paces apart. From a brief look at this video, you have to momentarily stop, and there is a hint that you might not be able to continue. That's just bad usability. The ones in Amsterdam allow you to carry on walking at a normal pace, and they act like normal automatic doors (in one direction). I'm sure there are people who walk through them every day and don't even notice them. The last time I was in Atlanta, they had a similar thing, but more subtle. If I remember correctly, they have a bank of escalators, but all of the escalators go in the same direction. As I found out when I got to the top, and had to go through security again to get back down...
  • marcosdumay 13y ago
    [EDIT: All that is wrong, because there is no check, and the doors always open] Every place I've ever seen one of those doors, when you can't return, you can always go forward, when there is some check, and you may not be able to go forward, you can always return. I guess, the police would be able to legally create a silo that may detain you, but nobody else can (at least on most democratic countries, I'm not sure about the US specifically).
  • cb10 13y ago
    There are already airports which have pairs of sliding doors with a room between them, timed so there's a moment when the first door is closed behind you and the second one hasn't opened ahead, in which you're "detained". As do many fast food restaurants and other buildings, I'm fairly sure it's meant to function as an air-lock, mitigating the equalization of outdoor and indoor temperatures and preventing drafts into the building. Additionally, you are not being detained in such a situation as it is up to your own agency to either manually open the door or activate the IR sensor. In the airport situation it does appear people are being detained because they don't seem to have the option of opening the exit door themselves. In fact, there's a fuck ton of controlled-access places with systems which effectively do this. Sure, if someone or group is occupying a building and they don't want people wandering around willy-nilly they can control access and 'buzz people in' or whatever. The airport situation is entirely different as it is essentially controlling access to the entire world, restricting ones freedom of movement. So all in all, put a little thought into what your saying before a reflexive "nothing to see here."
  • bpm140 13y ago
    The double sliding doors are to minimize the impact that the outside temperature has on the inside. These have been around for years and I've never seen one in place that can block someone's egress. You are correct that many subway systems have something in place to verify that you were a fair-paying customer. It just doesn't strike me as equivalent. In the subway case, it is there to prevent bad actors from cheating the system. It's lame the same way that people checking your receipts at Sam's Club is lame. In the airport case, you're assumed to be a criminal even before you've received any benefit.
• lukifer 13y ago
  If I were a braver man, I would stand in the middle of a crowded airport security line and yell "BOOM". There are so many potential points of vulnerability in an open society that eternally fighting the last war is absurd. As it is, I quietly protest in the only way I know: I avoiding flying unless it's impossible, and take road trips instead, despite the dramatically higher safety risks. I've come to deeply loathe the airport experience.
  • eli 13y ago
    Err, you know the "yelling fire in a movie" is the famous example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, right? I'm all for civil disobedience, but I'd suggest something that doesn't actually cause a panic.
    • lukifer 13y ago
      As I said, I'm not actually about to do it. Perhaps just yelling: "If I were a bomb, you'd all be dead. This line makes you less safe!", or something like it, would avoid causing a panic. Even so, I'd still have the expectation of being arrested.
    • jlgreco 13y ago
      > "yelling fire in a movie" is the famous example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, right? It is an example of nothing of the sort, since that scenario never happened. That hypothetical scenario was dreamed up to justify the arrest of a war/draft protester for what was plainly political speech.
      • eli 13y ago
        Yeah, I know... it's a metaphor. The point is that you don't have the right to literally say whatever words you want, absolutely whenever you want (nor, I think, should you). The TSA stuff is bonkers, though, and I think totally unconstitutional.
        • 13y ago
• skwirl 13y ago
  Do you consider yourself as being "detained" every time you walk through a revolving door?
  • redidas 13y ago
    Do revolving doors decide when you get to leave or do you?
    • skwirl 13y ago
      Electronic revolving doors can stop and trap you, yes. For example, if it bumps into someone in another segment, it will stop and then you are trapped. If "big brother" had a camera that identified you in one of these doors and wanted to stop the door, they could. There is really no difference between that and this.
      • tedunangst 13y ago
        I have been "trapped" inside one such door (for like 30 whole seconds) because the person in front of me couldn't decide whether they wanted to push the door or have the door push them. Either way, every time they made contact with the door, it stopped moving for five seconds. It doesn't quite make the "most traumatic experiences of my life" list.
        • sesqu 13y ago
          There was an incident some time ago when someone got caught in one of those due to a power outage or something. They ended up breaking the glass.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • teh_klev 13y ago
    This isn't a revolving door, this is a round box that keeps you there until the system controlling it allows you to pass. Revolving doors go round and round and don't usually prevent egress. It can't even be compared to a turnstile because they don't seal you in like this appears to do.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• jmadsen 13y ago
  Yes, ironic isn't it? The mainstream media reports something like this, the normally imaginative HN crowd has no response other than, "Meh. No big thing" rather than applying its usual microscope. Not meaning to troll, but I genuinely wonder if the report came from a different source, how it would be treated, and why there is no one discussing the potential of misuse behind this? We all know the dangers from our govts & businesses are in the form of creeping erosion, not the earth-shaking policies.
  • atwebb 13y ago
    We're all just idiots pretending to know better...
  • logicallee 13y ago
    You say that there is a potential for misuse, but could you be more specific? I just don't see it. Describe, in detail, an exact case that could actually happen in the real world (including political world). How would the abuse or whatever happen (exactly)? Bear in mind that a large percentage of the population is mildly claustrophobic (including being somewhat uncomfortable in elevators, which also detain you between floors as a matter of design). There is no way of knowing who is claustrophobic, but anyone could sympathize with them. it has to be designed to let people through quite quickly in the default case, and no doubt does. so how would this system get abused exactly? I mean to me it just seems like a technicality, like an elevator 'detaining' you. It seems like just a design thing. (For example it can keep people from entering, allowing them only to leave, like a one-way valve, as someone pointed out.) I'm open to the possibility that your imagination is better than mine...so let's hear a description. EDIT: what I mean is that these things can't possible be "detention pods" in practice. Like, how would that even work? I just can't imagine the mechanics of it. I would like a description of what people are imagining. How do you imagine this will get abused (exactly)..describe the process.
    • d0ugie 13y ago
      thanks for articulating the rational side of this (I had a long day). As for the claustrophobic, these exits (which might save money) would serve as a good warning to them that they should reconsider flying altogether if they can't handle a brief stint inside these things.
• superuser2 13y ago
  Lots of people ride elevators every day. Security features and entrapment issues are the same: the controller normally lets people through in the manner specified by its programming (i.e. assignable permissions to exit on certain sides of certain floors depending on the keys/cards/codes features possessed by the rider, potentially also time of day and manual verification). If something fishy is going on, security (or electronics like a metal detector) can direct the controller to stop the car and not open the doors. Once you are in the car, you cannot leave until the controller lets you. This is just a two-doored elevator that doesn't move between floors.
  • dredmorbius 13y ago
    An elevator's express purpose is to transport you between floors of a building. This device's express purpose is to restrict your exit from a building or area.
    • jasomill 13y ago
      The same can be said about guards protecting an exit, and, in all honesty, security portals probably present fewer risks than guards, especially armed guards, where there's a reasonable possibility that building management will risk a lawsuit to forcably detain someone trying to leave: false arrest alone is better for all parties involved than false arrest plus battery and likely injury.
    • superuser2 13y ago
      No, its express purpose is to ensure exits can only be used as exits. Choosing to trap the person is an exceptional condition the same way it is in an elevator.
• Arjuna 13y ago
  I agree. I am thinking to myself... this is the point we have come to? It is a prime example of the erosion of both common sense and constitutional rights: 1. This is an egregious fire hazard. I would love to see the fire marshal weigh in on this. This violates basic common sense regarding the ability to egress a structure in the event of an emergency, regardless of any safe-guards that would automatically open these pods in the event of a fire. 2. This is detainment without probable cause. It completely violates the spirit and intent, if not the letter, of the Fourth Amendment. No matter how long you are detained within this pod, in my opinion, it is absolutely without probable cause, which is a pillar of the Fourth Amendment.
  • fennecfoxen 13y ago
    I assume there's an emergency exit somewhere... the difference being that it's alarmed and everyone freaks out if you go through it. Plenty of emergency exits like that in areas of the airport which are secure and away from the main exit, after all.
  • iancarroll 13y ago
    Excuse me if I understood this wrong, but isn't this just an automatic door to keep people out of the secure terminal? It looks like they open, close, and then open. Are all vestibules holding you without probable cause?
• mc32 13y ago
  Eh, some French banks have had similar doors to go in and out of the banks --presumably so that a robber couldn't just "run away" after a heist. You have to close the door behind you before you can open the door in front of you --kind of like an air lock. But yeah, at an airport this is strange. Altho I also see similar hand/palm print activated doors at data centers for access control.
• PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  What if a turnstile did detain or trap you? What if a revolving door just stopped or jammed mid-revolution and you were stuck in between? What are you going to do when the turnstile decides not to let you move on? Why is a hypothetical jammed turnstile less sinister than a hypothetical jammed automatic-airlock-dealie?
  • dragonwriter 13y ago
    Its pretty trivial to climb/jump over a stopped turnstile. Its a lot harder to do that from a locked room.
    • PhasmaFelis 13y ago
      I meant this kind of turnstile: http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00gCMTNIYJJGpR/Full-Height-Cross-Turnstile-SHF-H011-.jpg http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00gCMTNIYJJGpR/Full-Heigh... I have seen those (generally larger, automated versions) in airports, and there is certainly a moment in every transit where the way back is closed and the way forward is not yet open. That same is true of ordinary, two-way, glass-walled revolving doors, to serve their purpose as a temperature airlock. I've never heard anyone worry about either one trapping people.
      • sesqu 13y ago
        I have read news articles of people getting stuck in those, sometimes for quite long periods of time.