Hacker News Reader

Comment by ouid | Hacker News Reader

To be fair, a laptop battery contains as much energy as a small grenade. I think the fact that no terrorist organization has exploited this really speaks volumes of their lack of resources, and the effectiveness of alternative security measures.

View on HN

Or alternatively the threat of international terrorism has been grossly overestimated.

I think the threat of domestic terrorism on US flights is probably overestimated (and I think a lot of domestic TSA is bordering on security theater), but I don't feel the same flying internationally. I trust everyone far, far, far less; and for me, I consider the extra security layers a welcome addition.

Statistically speaking, the chance of a terrorist event on an international flight is much lower. The 9/11 flights were all domestic. Humans are terrible at evaluating risk objectively.

Care to share your statistics? Not saying you're wrong, but since 9/11, I can't think of a single terrorist incident on an entirely domestic US flight, whereas I can think of several attempts/successes on international flights.

The correct response to terrorism is courage, not extra layers of security.

I think a blend of both is appropriate. I'm just being pragmatic, and people can downvote me all they want, but the reality is I trust the magic of courage just as much as I trust faith in a magical sky being.

I'm not suggesting courage will protect you, I'm saying it will stop people from allowing their dignity, quality of life, and freedom of movement degraded for objectively insufficient reasons.

I do not feel like my dignity, quality of life or freedom of movement have been degraded in any substantial way by the level of additional security I've seen in my travels. I recognize this is not the same for everyone, but personally, my life has continued on as it did before. In fact, with programs like TSA Precheck / Global Entry, my quality of life has noticeably improved.

You are free to disagree with me on whether or not the reasons for additional security are 'objectively insufficient', but my personal opinion is that the additional security I've seen is reasonable when it comes to international travel. For domestic travel, I think it's overkill in places, a position consistent with my original comment above.

You might feel safer - but it's not because of the 'extra security'. That's all it is...a feeling (much like that of feeling safer with a sky being) - http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find...

I believe I covered that with "lack of resources" :).

The number of people in the world who are willing to execute schemes that would kill innocents is very small.

Sadly, there is likely nothing we could ever do to stop those who are truly committed to this goal. Sadder still is the fact that the null reaction is considered unacceptable by politicians and constituents alike.

I've been thinking about the same since 9/11. While they comb through small liquids and nail files in all cabin baggage I can walk into a plane with several Ampere-hours of tightly packed energy in my backpack.

Aren't they then just as dangerous in the cargo compartment in checked luggage?

Not as dangerous by itself as you can't just hold it up to a window or wall. But possibly more so, because you can also pack liquid explosives, flash paper, carbon-packed clothing, compressed gases, etc in checked luggage.

It is. You can find a list of crashes because of a fire in the cargo hold here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...

Search for "cargo hold" to see the number of planes that have gone down due to an event in the cargo hold.

This ban is simple, it is to hurt DBX air carriers which EU and US air carriers have complained about for a long time. DBX based air carriers have newer planes, better service, better food, and shorter legs. This eats into first class and business class revenue of major EU and US carriers.

What is DBX?

Sorry meant, DXB. Dubai Airport Code. Obviously, the ban applies to other regional airports as well however DXB is the main target.

Or, perhaps, it simply goes to show that finding people bright enough to outwit security and still being willing to blow themselves up is HARD.

I've wondered this myself as well - in my mind, 'all' one need do is pierce a fully-charged iPad and then aim the resultant jet of flame at a plane window, and like a violin, a well-publicised fear-inducing terrorist event at worst, or a downed plane at best.

Why the -2?

- ed

I gotta say, -1's are really negative when not backed up by an explanation - it's not like i've said something horrible that's not been since-repeated a couple of times by other people here.

Whay specify specific airlines if it's a security measure?

If it's good for dubia's security it should be good for irish or Cyprus or Sicily

Reply on news.ycombinator.com