If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a security risk? Unattended luggage raises questions
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a security risk? Unattended luggage raises questions
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a security risk? Unattended luggage raises questions
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a security risk? Unattended luggage raises questions
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a security risk? Unattended luggage raises questions
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a security risk? Unattended luggage raises questions
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
KLM incident raises security questions | Frank F. Matthews | Air travel | 1 | April 21st, 2005 04:31 PM |
KLM incident raises security questions | Frank F. Matthews | Air travel | 0 | April 21st, 2005 04:26 PM |
KLM incident raises security questions | Frank F. Matthews | Air travel | 1 | April 21st, 2005 12:13 AM |
KLM incident raises security questions | Earl Evleth | Europe | 0 | April 18th, 2005 09:48 AM |
KLM incident raises security questions | nobody | Europe | 2 | April 15th, 2005 02:24 AM |