Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackphilson | Hacker News Reader

There's a detterence factor in play. Terrorists won't try to get through precisely because of the intense security.

If there were terrorists, they would just open fire on the crowded security checkpoints and kill hundreds of people without any complex scheme. This doesn't happen because there is no terrorist threat we need to be on guard against.

If it's so obvious, then why didn't this happen on 9/11?

Edit: I'm aware that the TSA was created after 9/11. The point I'm making is that it's possible they were able to bring weapons aboard to hijack the planes because security was so lax.

Security checkpoints weren’t crowded before 9/11 because it didn’t take 15 minutes to get through security. I guess this is becoming lost ancient history. There was no ID check. There wasn’t even a boarding pass check — you routinely accompanied departing friends to their gate to see them off. There was none of this shoes off, no liquids, laptop out of the bag, just an x-ray and a metal detector.

The threat model before 9/11 was hijacking, not suicide bombers.

Because a hour-long security line is something that happened after? IIRC there actually was a terrorist attack on a TSA line in the early 2000s.

Yes, that's why we couldn't bring more than 4 ounces of liquid on planes. The theatre about liquids did nothing to address the problems revealed by that attack.

There weren’t crowded security checkpoints on 9/11.

I think you'll find terrorists do exist, and you do need to be on your guard.

Whether the specific airplane controls we have now are effective or required is still a good conversation to have, but you draw the wrong conclusion if you think there is simply no threat.

I used to think this until I realized that the theoretical point isn't to prevent great loss of life, it's to prevent the usage of airplanes as a weapon. Malls, subways, concerts, sports games were always target-rich...targets, but a plane can be used to attack infrastructure and militarily significant targets (e.g. the Pentagon) and to kill far more people with lighter weapons than you could otherwise.

Of course, this could never happen. It's been said to death, but the conventional wisdom before 9/11 was to allow plane hijackers to run their course and assume that all they wanted was cash, to just sit tight and wait for them to set down somewhere. Not even after, but mid 9/11 people realized that old paradigm was out and the passengers of the fourth plane the cockpit door, preventing the usage of the plane as a weapon.

Post 9/11, nobody could hijack a plane with box-cutters anymore - enough people would rather be stabbed than see their plane be used as a weapon that it's simply insufficient, especially since if they crash the plane you're probably dead anyway.

I always wondered about well planned groups. Like wouldn't they use other avenues, infiltrate not as passengers, but as workers or import stuff to shops and restaurants... Either by getting hired or paying some poorly paid worker.

Six people each bring 50ml tooth paste on a plane, after take off, they combine it to 300ml. What are you gonna do.

Maybe 300ml is still fine, but they set the limit to 50ml so it takes too many people to combine them into something useful. Also idk what a ml is.

I was quite shocked after a few years of liquid checks to discover that it is actually in response to a realistic threat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl... -- details that emerged during the trial, and the conclusion reported by El Reg: https://www.theregister.com/2008/09/10/liquid_bomb_verdicts/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com