Is it a security risk? Unattended luggage raises questions

Six years after 9/11, Boston Logan Airport has hundreds of bags left
unprotected for long periods of time outside of airline baggage
service offices on the lower level of its terminals.

For the full story visit:
http://www.travelnewenglandnewspapers.com/lead.html

In message om
shekinah02 wrote:

Six years after 9/11, Boston Logan Airport has hundreds of bags left
unprotected for long periods of time outside of airline baggage
service offices on the lower level of its terminals.


Oh. God. No.

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:57:03 -0700 shekinah02 wrote:

:Six years after 9/11, Boston Logan Airport has hundreds of bags left
:unprotected for long periods of time outside of airline baggage
:service offices on the lower level of its terminals.

Why do you feel that it is more of a security risk than people standing around
with unscreened bags at the departure section?

Or walking around at the arrivals section?

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

In message Binyamin Dissen
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:57:03 -0700 shekinah02 wrote:

:Six years after 9/11, Boston Logan Airport has hundreds of bags left
:unprotected for long periods of time outside of airline baggage
:service offices on the lower level of its terminals.

Why do you feel that it is more of a security risk than people standing around
with unscreened bags at the departure section?

Or walking around at the arrivals section?

Although this doesn't explain the 9/11 tie-in, it's more of a threat to
wander off to a non-owner.

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.

Why do you feel that it is more of a security risk than people standing around
with unscreened bags at the departure section?

Or walking around at the arrivals section?

ANSWER:
In the story, the author mentions the fact that the newspaper was able
to obtain a discarded luggage tag in the departures section. It would
be all too easy for someone to grab one of these discarded luggage
tags, attach it to a piece of luggage, drop it at one of the
unattended baggage sites, LEAVE and set off the bomb by cell phone.
The extra piece of luggage would not be caught in enough time because
the overflow baggage areas are not attended, and more bags are being
lost than ever before.
While sucide bombers walking into the arrivals section is a very
serious danger, there is generally a greater focus on secruity at the
arrivals area and more of a security presence. The baggage security
breach would allow a terrorist to potentially attack many terminals at
once and GET AWAY undetected.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:13:07 -0700 shekinah02 wrote:

: Why do you feel that it is more of a security risk than people standing around
: with unscreened bags at the departure section?

: Or walking around at the arrivals section?

: ANSWER:
:In the story, the author mentions the fact that the newspaper was able
:to obtain a discarded luggage tag in the departures section. It would
:be all too easy for someone to grab one of these discarded luggage
:tags, attach it to a piece of luggage, drop it at one of the
:unattended baggage sites, LEAVE and set off the bomb by cell phone.
:The extra piece of luggage would not be caught in enough time because
:the overflow baggage areas are not attended, and more bags are being
:lost than ever before.
:While sucide bombers walking into the arrivals section is a very
:serious danger, there is generally a greater focus on secruity at the
:arrivals area and more of a security presence. The baggage security
:breach would allow a terrorist to potentially attack many terminals at
:once and GET AWAY undetected.

You do not need a tag to drop off a bag at the arrival area pile. It would
take a real long time until such a bag was detected.

The outer areas of the airport (and is true with most public buildings and
schools) do not have as much protection, but they will not drop out of the sky
if hit.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

On Sep 6, 12:13 pm, shekinah02 wrote:
Why do you feel that it is more of a security risk than people standing around
with unscreened bags at the departure section?

Or walking around at the arrivals section?

ANSWER:

In the story, the author mentions the fact that the newspaper was able
to obtain a discarded luggage tag in the departures section. It would
be all too easy for someone to grab one of these discarded luggage
tags, attach it to a piece of luggage, drop it at one of the
unattended baggage sites, LEAVE and set off the bomb by cell phone.
The extra piece of luggage would not be caught in enough time because
the overflow baggage areas are not attended, and more bags are being
lost than ever before.
While sucide bombers walking into the arrivals section is a very
serious danger, there is generally a greater focus on secruity at the
arrivals area and more of a security presence. The baggage security
breach would allow a terrorist to potentially attack many terminals at
once and GET AWAY undetected.

Except for probably being caught on camera.

Such a scenario, as I understand it, would kill less than 500 people.
There are dozens of similar non-airport non-luggage methods that would
also kill the same number of bystanders, so this isn't exactly a major
loophole in security. People at at airport aren't any more fragile or
less able to dodge shrapnel than people at a sporting event, shopping
mall, parade, tourist attraction, county fair, and so on.

The "evildoers" want to either a) kill thousands, or b) strike at our
very souls by their choice of target. In theory, security measures
prevent a), and their very mindset seems to prevent b). If they
understood us well enough to know who we are as a culture, and what
would frighten us the most, they wouldn't be able to generate the
level of blind animosity that they do. Even Tim McVeigh (who was, at
least on paper, "one of us") thought that striking a federal building
in, of all places, Oklahoma was a "blow to the system".

We should be thankful that the people who really understand how to
grab the attention of Americans, like Paris Hilton, are on our
side.