The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother • Hacker News Board

Re: The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

#31

Post by pyre » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 9:55 PM UTC

neurotech1 wrote: post #24

intellectronica wrote: post #11

The problem with the Israelification goal is that while Israel's airport security method is second to none, it is not scalable, and therefore not applicable to the US (or many other countries), at least not without major restructuring. The problem of scale is manifested twice: 1. Manpower - Israel has a huge pool of very talented young men and women who already received very good training in the army and the security…

I don't think america has a shortage of "trained" security people, there is a fairly large pool of former enlisted military personnel who can be transitioned into airport security. From what I understand, the criminal/terrorist probably would draw suspicion even if approached by relatively untrained airport staff "greeter", and draw further attention to themselves. Remember that the Abdulmutallab came from Yemen, Pai…

> there is a fairly large pool of former enlisted military personnel who can be transitioned into airport security.

The problem here could be that -- at least in the US -- a lot of military personnel come out of the military with some sort of chip on their shoulder towards the rest of society. Though I could just be exaggerating the issue.

If the new security personnel act like 'bullies with a badge' rather than trained professionals, it still might leave air travel as an unpleasant experience.

Re: The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

#32

Post by jonknee » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 9:56 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #30

jonknee wrote: post #27

That only works when you have a tiny number of flights at a handful of locations are willing to spend through the roof. It would never scale. Their largest international airport is tiny by US size--it wouldn't even make the top 20. And that's just the US. Not to mention that the US public would never put up with it. Update: this puts it into perspective--El Al (the largest and most well known Israeli airline) operate…

What about the isolation of the suspected luggage in a bomb-proof area or container? All that would seem to require is investment in the containers and/or blast-proof shell. Why instead is the 'best idea' to try and evacuate a bustling airport terminal with 100's or 1000's of people?

The part that wouldn't scale and that we would never put up with is the personal interrogations, highly armed guards covering entry points and all the searches.

Go ahead and put some blast containers in place, but it would likely be a waste since there are so few evacuations.

Re: The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

#33

Post by intellectronica » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 9:59 PM UTC

andrewcooke wrote: post #25

intellectronica wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an issue, because the marginal cost of analysing an Airport for vulnerabilities and devising ways to defend against them doesn't decrease when you cover more airports. You have to Israelificate each and every airport by developing techniques and training a workforce which is not easily transferable.

my point was that if you have more airports you may also be simply a bigger country, with more resources.

I don't have the numbers but I'm pretty sure as it is Israel is spending an order of magnitude more per passenger than the TSA does. The fact that the TSA drill is inefficient (and ineffective) doesn't mean that it's expensive.

Re: The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

#34

Post by jonknee » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 9:59 PM UTC

amichail wrote: post #28

jonknee wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are relatives of terrorists commonly terrorists themselves? I thought they are typically outcasts. For example, the Christmas Detroit bomber was such an outcast his own father reported that he may be dangerous.

If someone is considering a terrorist act, he/she would need to consider the effect of it on his/her close relatives. And close relatives would have a greater incentive to report him/her if they suspect something. Of course, you could consider a different sort of penalty such as fines that would bankrupt his/her close relatives.

That would never fly in America as it's wholly unconstitutional. I can't be held accountable for a relative's crime if I had nothing at all to do with it. I'm OK with the parents of John Walker Lindh not being bankrupted and being able to fly--anything else would be a trampling of rights.

Re: The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

#35

Post by pyre » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 10:00 PM UTC

jonknee wrote: post #32

pyre wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the isolation of the suspected luggage in a bomb-proof area or container? All that would seem to require is investment in the containers and/or blast-proof shell. Why instead is the 'best idea' to try and evacuate a bustling airport terminal with 100's or 1000's of people?

The part that wouldn't scale and that we would never put up with is the personal interrogations, highly armed guards covering entry points and all the searches. Go ahead and put some blast containers in place, but it would likely be a waste since there are so few evacuations.

If these airports handle so much traffic that these methods won't scale than how in the world is "evacuate the entire airport" even seriously considered as a solution to any problem?

Re: The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

#36

Post by amichail » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 10:00 PM UTC

intellectronica wrote: post #29

amichail wrote: post #21

Why not put close relatives of those who attempt terrorist acts on the "no fly" list?

That's a wrong thing to do for two reasons. 1. It's collective punishment. Unethical unless absolutely necessary. 2. It would be ineffective. In most cases in the west the relatives of people who ended up blowing themselves up didn't know about their involvement in terrorist organizations and didn't condone their actions.

Collective punishment with close relatives is better than racial profiling, massive inconvenience for everyone, etc.

And it would encourage people to be more alert about suspicious terrorist activity within their family.

Re: The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

#37

Post by waterlesscloud » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 10:01 PM UTC

jonknee wrote: post #32

pyre wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the isolation of the suspected luggage in a bomb-proof area or container? All that would seem to require is investment in the containers and/or blast-proof shell. Why instead is the 'best idea' to try and evacuate a bustling airport terminal with 100's or 1000's of people?

The part that wouldn't scale and that we would never put up with is the personal interrogations, highly armed guards covering entry points and all the searches. Go ahead and put some blast containers in place, but it would likely be a waste since there are so few evacuations.

Of course, there are "personal interrogations" in US airports today. They're just "random", but they most assuredly exist.

Re: The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

#38

Post by jonknee » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 10:05 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #35

jonknee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part that wouldn't scale and that we would never put up with is the personal interrogations, highly armed guards covering entry points and all the searches. Go ahead and put some blast containers in place, but it would likely be a waste since there are so few evacuations.

If these airports handle so much traffic that these methods won't scale than how in the world is "evacuate the entire airport" even seriously considered as a solution to any problem?

It's much more work to have half hour interviews with every passenger than it is to evacuate a terminal every couple years.

Re: The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

#39

Post by andrewcooke » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 10:06 PM UTC

intellectronica wrote: post #33

andrewcooke wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my point was that if you have more airports you may also be simply a bigger country, with more resources.

I don't have the numbers but I'm pretty sure as it is Israel is spending an order of magnitude more per passenger than the TSA does. The fact that the TSA drill is inefficient (and ineffective) doesn't mean that it's expensive.

ok, but that's point 1, which i suspect is getting me voted down. you're replying to me replying to someone questioning point 2.

Re: The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

#40

Post by djcapelis » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 10:07 PM UTC

Zarathu wrote: post #14

Oh, yes, because the Israelis totally have their shit together. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihXtbB-4GWw

This seems like a relevant comment, why is it downmodded?

Clearly if Israeli security forces are putting bullet holes through laptops as part of standard procedure, that's not exactly the hassle-free friendly security process the article implies.