Can't see the difference between setting off dry-ice bombs in your back yard versus an airport? That's nothing to be proud of! It's a sign of the inability to relate emotionally to other people, not clear-headed rationality.
People aren't afraid of things in descending order of the probability of those things happening. Otherwise people would be a lot more afraid of cars and a lot less afraid of murders, etc. That's a characteristic of peoples' emotional makeup that policymakers have to deal with, just as aerospace engineers have to deal with gravity or friction or other things that can be inconvenient.
You clearly missed the point. The point is:
>>Having them set off in a secure airport area doesn't illustrate any new vulnerabilities. We already know that trusted people can subvert security systems. So what?
point is that an inside man setting off a dry ice bomb does not highlight 'a breach of security'. His rhetoric on the harmlessness of a dry ice bomb seems to be aimed at the fact that a dryice bomb is harmless, set off by an insider is the sole reason to come to the conclusion that LAX lacks security.
I think your point makes sense. I also think you made it better than the author. He does appear to equate this person's actions with his own as a college student or younger in the backyard. I suspect the mindset and motivations though between the two are vastly different. So personalizing it in this way just makes for a confusing side story.
If the prosecution asked for a punishment that is congruent with what damage that dry-ice prankster actually caused it would be a step forward. Politicians (I include elected officials such as the district attorney) do have to put up with public opinion, but they are also in a position to nudge it this way and that.
edit: juste a note to assure you that my intentions are just to correct a misunderstanding of the current topic, not attacking your position of how one should think or assess the gravity of any situation.
> I dunno. In my books the ability to disregard emotional biases is the definition of clear-headedness.
When it's your own emotional bias you disregard we can talk of clear-headedness[1]. But here we are talking about taking other's emotional state into account.
In other words:
the ability to disregard other's emotional biases is not the definition of clear-headedness.
[1] but we are not machine and we have to take our own emotional state into account sometimes.
There's a difference between an explanation and an excuse; rayiner was giving the former, not the latter.
In any case, is it a flaw of our government that our legislators write laws that the majority of people happen to want? The fact that the majority want something irrational is incidental; people want it, and that's why politicians do it.
Is it though? Politicians are elected by majority, but their actions aren't really decided by majority. That has been shown time and time again, perhaps especially after Snowden.
Either way, a majority outcry to implement X doesn't mean an alternative solution Y should be disregarded.
Clear-headedness is the ability to account for emotional biases, not the ability to disregard them. There is a world of difference between acknowledging a fuller set of influences versus deluding yourself into believing no other influences exist.
I'm on your side. It's one thing to relate to people's emotions, but it's another to ignore the fact that people can be in control of their emotions. Just because people might get worked up about scary-looking things doesn't mean that the correct response is to go to all lengths to prevent scary-looking things without discriminating between things that are actually dangerous and things which aren't.
So you're saying that the airport security theater that terrorizes so many of us is necessary because it reassures some other people? And that the emotional needs of those people, who are not rational, must be catered to while the emotional needs of the rational people must be suppressed and ignored?
You would also need to quantify the difference in disutility between a passenger and his/her children being forcefully groped by security and a passenger being startled by a smoke bomb.
You just made one. An unfounded one because you pulled the numbers out of your ass, but you're making the claim that the utility provided by security theater is outweighed by the disutility it creates. So, less ass-pull, more numbers.
No, I asked a question. Maybe an implicit one: What value would you ascribe to placating the ignorant? Or, more fundamentally, is there any utility at all in that?
Or, if there is nothing to the placating, do we have to reach lower still, to asking about the utility of providing sinecures to the self-important and otherwise unproductive?
The cost numbers are in the federal budget. What do you think the numbers are for the value of "placating?"
SOME of the cost numbers are in the federal budget. But there are other costs that dwarf that. The real costs also include people missing their flights, people wasting time unproductively at the airport because they had to leave two hours earlier, people wasting extra time on the freeway or needlessly dying on the freeway. Not to mention the "deadweight loss" from every time somebody is dissuaded from taking a trip at all that they would otherwise have taken due to the extra cost (in time AND money AND stress) of dealing with the idiot brigade.
Is the goal of airport security to mitigate fear or to mitigate credible threats to the safety of the occupants?
Schneier isn't endorsing the practice of setting off dry ice bombs in airports, he's only pointing out that if a system is designed to stop actions that will result in actual harm to humans, then we shouldn't consider the failure to stop grossly inconsiderate pranks a failure.
Consider that:
* The perpetrator wasn't carrying any substances that could be used in a credible threat to the airport occupants.
* Did not execute a plan to physically harm anyone.
* Was not in contact with individuals who intend to carry out any credible threat to the airport.
Ugh. Ok, so rephrase that as "mitigate credible threats to the physical safety of the occupants".
If we expand the role of the TSA at airports to protecting the emotional safety of travelers, we've set ourselves to an impossible task. What comforts one person will disturb another.
I think we can all agree that setting off dry ice bombs in airports is not something we should allow. The question is, what measures will we take to prevent it? I'm not sure it warrants a TSA-like response.
In that case: the current TSA is quite harmful to my emotional safety. Disbanding it and letting me just go to the gate and get on the damn plane unmolested would greatly improve my emotional state.
In all honesty, I think a HUGE part of why people think the airport is dangerous is due to the security. People falsely assume that where there's smoke there must be fire. In this case that assumption is wrong. We should replace TSA with prominent signs explaining how unlikely all the movie-plot threats are. At a minimum, we need:
(1) a poster explaining that a gun fired on an airplane is highly unlikely to damage the plane at all and - contrary to hollywood myths - can't cause a loss of cabin pressure much less "explosive decompression".
(2) a poster explaining why 9/11-type attacks became nearly impossible to repeat shortly after the event became general knowledge.
That seems like a good argument to set off MORE harmless bombs in airports, so people and the authorities get a chance to learn and get used to it and fix their priors about this stupid risk we've been overreacting to all these years.
If I were his attorney (this dry ice guy), I would push for everyone to stop using the word "bomb". The guy basically made a loud noise in an airport. If my ringtone were the sound of a gun firing, or a bomb going off, would I be banned from the airport? Would I be charged criminally for bringing my phone through security?
Of course, the DA can't let up. I'm sure he realizes this is stupid, but there's no way he can 'let a bomber go free'.
Yeah, I don't think you've ever set one of these off before. It's not nitroglycerin, but they can be very dangerous, especially in a "secure" environment:
That's exceptionally large, and intentionally designed to look cool on Youtube. The biggest risk is that you could be struck by one of the bottles as it flies - a PET bottle weighs about 60 grams, so you're looking at, 'Owww, I got bumped on the head'. With the exception of one guy who maliciously filled the bottle with glass shrapnel, I couldn't find any examples of anyone being harmed by one.
Furthermore, what does it matter if it's in a "secure" environment. Does CO2 sublimate faster on one site of a security checkpoint? Does a PET bottle become a lethal weapon when X-rayed in your luggage?
It was a stupid prank. The guy should be fired. 6 years in prison is a ridiculous prospect.
> It was a stupid prank. The guy should be fired. 6 years in prison is a ridiculous prospect.
6 years in prison is quite excessive, but the punishment should certainly be more than "Oh you're fired." This person intentionally caused a major public disturbance, and should be fined accordingly. Maybe probation.
There's "putting a flaming bag of poop on your neighbor's doorstep" and then there's "delaying flights out of LAX".
What is their intentions to put that dry ice there anyway?
If the intention is to play a prank at an airport instead of your own backyard, I think calling it a bomb is still legitimate because your motive is to make something (be it noise, or kill people). And consider the difference between an air port and your own backyard. The airport is a public property and is subject to 24/7 legal enforcement. Your backyard is not. You don't have 5000 people, 100 airplanes, people from 100 countries coming and leaving your backyard. Do you? And carrying that dry ice and place it at an airport, you have planned things. How do you know that dry ice was not part of an actual bomb scheme? What if it was used to distract the security? How do you know for sure it isn't?
Carrying a cellphone and intentionally set it on fire at an airport is a bomb. Carrying a cellphone and use it to call your mother but then the cell explode due to hardware failure is not a bomb, it's called an accident.
Accident vs intentional is a big difference. This is why your client is subject to criminal charges.
He could be a loner hating the government starting yesterday. People change their beliefs every day. How do you know he wasn't one of those people just happened to hate government a few days ago and thought it would be cool to "prank" an airport?
Does it really piss anyone else off when people call them dry ice "bombs?" I get unreasonably upset.
Wikipedia: A bomb is any of a range of explosive weapons that only rely on the exothermic reaction of an explosive material to provide an extremely sudden and violent release of energy (an explosive device).
I don't think anybody who knows what an "exothermic reaction" is would suggest that dry ice sublimating is a reaction. It's a phase change, sure, but it's not a reaction. The CO2 ended up with the same charge it started with and it didn't bond or unbond with anything. In my book that means no chemical reaction.
What happened was the malicious failure of inadequate pressure vessels.
> What happened was the malicious failure of inadequate pressure vessels.
Technically correct, but this quite accurately describes every bomb that isn't just naked plastic explosive / C4.
I do agree it's unfortunate that these devices get called bombs, but only because that word has too strong connotations. It isn't wrong: A bottle filled with dry ice is an "explosive device". The fact that it does not rely on an exothermal chemical reaction is secondary (albeit not irrelevant!): Else what would you call atomic bombs?
Also, let's not forget that these things could have caused injuries. Nobody might have died, but I sure wouldn't want one of these going off in my stall. (Plastic shrapnel and ripped eardrums, anyone?)
I used to make crude dirty bombs (barf bombs) in grade school. Gallon milk jug with vinegar, baking soda, and oatmeal. (add corn for better looking barf) Mix, shake, and throw.
> I don't think anybody who knows what an "exothermic reaction" is would suggest that dry ice sublimating is a reaction. It's a phase change, sure, but it's not a reaction.
This is being overly pedantic. What if the "inadequate pressure vessel" contained shrapnel that exploded out with the pressure change. Would it still not be a "bomb" because there was no chemical change involved?
The term bomb overall is wrong. A bomb is a military weapon with a number of specifications.
A bottle filled with dry ice is a probably human-carried improvised explosive device. The complete explosive device might have shrapnels, it might not, it might be big, it might be small. That needs to be specified further, because explosive devices include a very large group of devices.
After learning that distinction, I found it rather adaequate. If a proper bomb went off in LAX, we'd be looking at a lot of rubble. When WW2 bombs are disarmed over here in germany, square kilometers are evacuated due to the danger of bombs. This is not necessarily the case for most improvised explosive devices.
Saying these things "detonated" is like the Gen Alexander stating that the NSA spying program stopped over 50 plots to to attack the country. We later found out that this was only true for scenarios where "attack" is defined as "transferring money."
They are purposefully overstating the threat. It's not like the TSA has an overabundance of examples that justify it's existance.
And if I purposely inflate a party balloon too far? If I smack an inflated brown paper bag? Would you defend describing those things as "bombs" as well?
I'm happy mail bombs don't rely on 'the exothermic reaction of an explosive material'.
There are more meanings to a word 'bomb' than Wikipedia tells you. Besides, Wikipedia is edited by volunteers. So until an expert moderator moderates the page the truth of Wikipedia is democratic.
Seems the word's origins are rooted in a definition of noise. Granted, words change; perhaps a definition based on "exothermic reaction" is most appropriate now. Certainly destructive power is often connoted with the word these days.
Well if they said "popped some dry ice balloons at LAX" people would not be fearful that their safety was in danger. But that is exactly what they are, balloons not bombs.
You can carry 2.5kg of dry ice in your hand luggage if you talk to the air carrier beforehand. When I found that out, I was amazed nothing like this has happened yet..
Yet, you cannot take a small bottle of water. (Though someone told me they took a bottle full of frozen water and got through, since it isn't a liqid by the rules.. go figure.)
That is completely irrational that airport security would consider banning frozen water some kind of improvement in their performance. A liquid explosive would have a freezing point way below that of water. The freezing point of toluene is too low to be practical for anyone to carry a frozen lump of it. Frozen water would be obviously water and obviously harmless.
Water quality and temperature is often an issue. And on some airports, there's an additional security check before boarding – for example sometimes in Male.
I always take an empty water bottle with me. I always travel with a water bottle, even on short (hour long) car rides. Usually a drinking fountain is provided outside the bathrooms. Better yet, find a restaurant with a soda fountain, those always have a water dispenser on them, and you can add ice too. Just enter and let the staff know you are filling up your water bottle, they won't mind.
Water isn't the issue, explosives or components thereof are, as well as not having to individually check the contents of millions of bottles every day.
You'd have a point if airport restaurants commonly sold nitroglycerine. Which they don't.
This is what's wrong with TSA. Random, different rules applied by different agents. And if you question an agent's application of rules, you're a terrorist and won't be flying today.
"(Though someone told me they took a bottle full of frozen water and got through, since it isn't a liqid by the rules.. go figure.)"
This is the problem...the rules are not clear and randomly enforced and enforced differently at each airport. At O'Hare in Chicago, my wife had to throw out her applesauce that was sealed because it was over 3oz. The agent said that if she had opened it and eaten a bit then it would've been fine but he wouldn't let her do that there, so her snack was thrown out. So they are saying it would be ok to tamper with the product but when it is sealed then that can be a threat. The logic, or lack thereof, behind the decisions really boggles my mind.
In the same way that shouting "fire" or "gun" in the same situation is harmless. If someone does any of these things and panic a crowd who then hurt themselves rushing to get out of the area, they should be expecting at least some wrist slapping in exchange for their little jape.
> I can't get worked up over it, though.
I think what we have here is a high performing autist, either that or some form of sociopath: very intelligent and articulate, but decidedly lacking in empathy.
> I think what we have here is a high performing autist, either that or some form of sociopath: very intelligent and articulate, but decidedly lacking in empathy.
The whole point of what Schneider has spent years writing and talking to the media about is security theatre etc. He is constantly trying to explain and encourage people to make risk decisions rationally, not emotionally.
Characturing slightly, he is the opposite of the national-security loving ideologue who sounds sincere and caring, but really wants people to be more scared, because that gives them more power (consciously or not).
Or do you think a more empathetic presentation is what is needed? For example, should he be saying something more like "A loud bang is undoubtedly scary in an airport, but there was no actual threat to life and the existing security systems caught the person, so I am personally very relaxed about this non-issue, and I feel others should be too."
I could definitely see more empathy being helpful in his presentation, but his core message is good.
Physically, no. It probably put the willies up some people though! And some could easily have been physically injured. Have you ever seen a crowd of concerned people trying to leave somewhere? It isn't always a pretty, calm, and organised situation.
If you only punish people when damage is actually done then you do not discourage silly-but-potentially-damaging actions: you simply make it an extra gamble which for some increases the buzz the prankster gets out of the game.
To compare the situation to a more common situation where people are punished for damage the potentially could have done (but in the instance in question, didn't): If I were to drive at 100mph through a 20mph zone around a school while a little over the legal alcohol limit I would not be let off the punishments for speeding and drink driving if I didn't actually hurt anyone or damage any property. A great many people speed daily and a fair few drink+drive on a regular basis: many are surprised how few actual problems (deaths, injuries, damage to property) are caused as a result hence the oft heard refrain "I've always driven this way and never had a problem yet". "yet" is the operative word there. The first time there is a problem it could be a very serious one and the punishments for these actions take this into account and are intended to discourage the actions generally to reduce the many thousands of instances so that the "1-in-lots" chance is less of a concern.
Also even without injuries there is a issue of wasted time and resource both from the passengers point of view and the airport and authorities. On that point I like the suggestion someone else made above that pranksters are fined to cover any disturbance and clean-up costs, though I imagine that could be expensive to enforce (who decides what a legitimate amount is? who does it get handed out to? how arduous would the appeals processes be for the prankster and the relevant agencies if they think they are not getting enough?).
> The potential sentence is 6 years
But that isn't the actual sentence yet is it? Lets see what sort of slap is eventually handed out before we pass judgement on it.
Well my opinion - fine the guy with the bomb squad response cost not jail.
This will be a hefty sum and will definitely discourage other pranksters but will show that there is at least some sober heads in the government on security questions.
You caused disturbance - you pay for it. But going to jail without doing any damage to anything or anyone is absurd.
Yes I agree with the empathy part. Bruce is getting deservedly high profile views nowadays. A little empathy would lubricate the gears of his cause yet wouldn't violate his principles at all. It's got to have been a headache for the security people at LAX and all the travelers. And while it wasn't an act of terrorism, it sure was a major fucking nuisance, probably delaying all kinds of flights. And it should be punished.
As for cameras at LAX, weren't they warranted, even way before this? I can see Bruce not wanting to add cameras as a reaction to this, but aren't they worthwhile in any large area?
The reason that shouting "fire" is considered dangerous isn't because people get scared, but rather that people tend to stampede, which actually gets people physically harmed or killed. The analogy of "shouting BOO in a theater" doesn't carry quite the same weight.
Now I don't want to nitpick but if you charge someone of "possession of destructive device" isn't the device supposed to be able to destruct something?
A harmless prank, srsly? An exploding pop bottle can take your hand off or cut an artery, if you happened to pick it up because it was behaving curiously. Or it could take a child's eye out, or a (sniffer) dog's.
Is a cut artery from plastic bottle shrapnel more "cut artery"ish than a cut artery from a smashed duty free bottle?
And before you say "bombs hurt multiple people, sharp things only hurt people one at a time.", let me say that I would put a large amount of money on somebody with a glass bottle causing more bloodshed (measured objectively, in pints) before being shot by security then a punk with a soda bottle and dry ice.
A lot of people are criticizing Schneier for lack of empathy or too much nonchalance. Can we really have too much nonchalance in our post Afghanistan/Iraq/Drone strikes/Surveillance state world?
I think about what our world and the U.S. might be like if we had "too much" nonchalance in the face of the 9/11 attacks and had simply done nothing in response. It's hard for me to come up with a scenario that is worse than what resulted from our response.
They're not quite harmless. I've got a nice scar in my eyebrow from one, and I've seen them remove pieces pavement. With just a little more evil thought than I put into it when I was hacking around, I could see them hurting people.
My 11 year old and I can fill 24 bottles with hot water, take them to the firing ground, and then systematically drop a single pellet into each bottle, cap it, throw them and have them go off like grenades -- throwing 24 in under 3 minutes rather than 3 bombs in 24 hours. Even with waterless bombs he could have dropped 24 bombs in hour and created something that would really feel like a siege.
I guess that like Sharknados this is something that only happens in LA.
More political spin from Schneier, whose politics are forever fixed. He wants to distract from the clear implication here--that if dry ice bombs could be detonated so easily, other types of more dangerous devices could as well. This is because he wants less and different airport security, not more, but his approach is disingenuous.
Dry ice bombs are not harmless. It is harmless in an open field and you stay several feet away from it. If the dry ice container is big, the explosion will be bigger. A small water bottle might be harmless (maybe a few minor cuts). But this guy did not just set one dry ice off. He planned several dry ice bombs.
Imagine this thing exploded right when someone passed by, the pieces could cut the person. Put your hand in a dry ice bomb and see what happen. If it doesn't hurt you, I will change my mind about "dry ice bombs are harmless."
And even my five years old cousin would know airport is not a backyard for prank. Do the same in front of WhiteHouse and you will get shot. If you play a prank in the WhiteHouse, do you call that a prank?
If I do this in a kindergarten backyard, or next to your car, what do you think? Still harmless? Carry this dry ice with you to the airplane, do we call that a bomb?
86 comments
[ 13.9 ms ] story [ 1458 ms ] threadPeople aren't afraid of things in descending order of the probability of those things happening. Otherwise people would be a lot more afraid of cars and a lot less afraid of murders, etc. That's a characteristic of peoples' emotional makeup that policymakers have to deal with, just as aerospace engineers have to deal with gravity or friction or other things that can be inconvenient.
point is that an inside man setting off a dry ice bomb does not highlight 'a breach of security'. His rhetoric on the harmlessness of a dry ice bomb seems to be aimed at the fact that a dryice bomb is harmless, set off by an insider is the sole reason to come to the conclusion that LAX lacks security.
I dunno. In my books the ability to disregard emotional biases is the definition of clear-headedness.
I get that people aren't rational. But that's not a good reason to waste money and inflict social damage in the process of placating them.
Your argument could just as well be used to advocate for the "inconvenience" of promoting intelligent design in public science education.
> I dunno. In my books the ability to disregard emotional biases is the definition of clear-headedness.
When it's your own emotional bias you disregard we can talk of clear-headedness[1]. But here we are talking about taking other's emotional state into account.
In other words:
the ability to disregard other's emotional biases is not the definition of clear-headedness.
[1] but we are not machine and we have to take our own emotional state into account sometimes.
In any case, is it a flaw of our government that our legislators write laws that the majority of people happen to want? The fact that the majority want something irrational is incidental; people want it, and that's why politicians do it.
Either way, a majority outcry to implement X doesn't mean an alternative solution Y should be disregarded.
Or, if there is nothing to the placating, do we have to reach lower still, to asking about the utility of providing sinecures to the self-important and otherwise unproductive?
The cost numbers are in the federal budget. What do you think the numbers are for the value of "placating?"
Schneier isn't endorsing the practice of setting off dry ice bombs in airports, he's only pointing out that if a system is designed to stop actions that will result in actual harm to humans, then we shouldn't consider the failure to stop grossly inconsiderate pranks a failure.
Consider that:
* The perpetrator wasn't carrying any substances that could be used in a credible threat to the airport occupants.
* Did not execute a plan to physically harm anyone.
* Was not in contact with individuals who intend to carry out any credible threat to the airport.
If we expand the role of the TSA at airports to protecting the emotional safety of travelers, we've set ourselves to an impossible task. What comforts one person will disturb another.
I think we can all agree that setting off dry ice bombs in airports is not something we should allow. The question is, what measures will we take to prevent it? I'm not sure it warrants a TSA-like response.
In all honesty, I think a HUGE part of why people think the airport is dangerous is due to the security. People falsely assume that where there's smoke there must be fire. In this case that assumption is wrong. We should replace TSA with prominent signs explaining how unlikely all the movie-plot threats are. At a minimum, we need:
(1) a poster explaining that a gun fired on an airplane is highly unlikely to damage the plane at all and - contrary to hollywood myths - can't cause a loss of cabin pressure much less "explosive decompression".
(2) a poster explaining why 9/11-type attacks became nearly impossible to repeat shortly after the event became general knowledge.
Of course, the DA can't let up. I'm sure he realizes this is stupid, but there's no way he can 'let a bomber go free'.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/EOF4IRj3CTo
Furthermore, what does it matter if it's in a "secure" environment. Does CO2 sublimate faster on one site of a security checkpoint? Does a PET bottle become a lethal weapon when X-rayed in your luggage?
It was a stupid prank. The guy should be fired. 6 years in prison is a ridiculous prospect.
6 years in prison is quite excessive, but the punishment should certainly be more than "Oh you're fired." This person intentionally caused a major public disturbance, and should be fined accordingly. Maybe probation.
There's "putting a flaming bag of poop on your neighbor's doorstep" and then there's "delaying flights out of LAX".
If the intention is to play a prank at an airport instead of your own backyard, I think calling it a bomb is still legitimate because your motive is to make something (be it noise, or kill people). And consider the difference between an air port and your own backyard. The airport is a public property and is subject to 24/7 legal enforcement. Your backyard is not. You don't have 5000 people, 100 airplanes, people from 100 countries coming and leaving your backyard. Do you? And carrying that dry ice and place it at an airport, you have planned things. How do you know that dry ice was not part of an actual bomb scheme? What if it was used to distract the security? How do you know for sure it isn't?
Carrying a cellphone and intentionally set it on fire at an airport is a bomb. Carrying a cellphone and use it to call your mother but then the cell explode due to hardware failure is not a bomb, it's called an accident.
Accident vs intentional is a big difference. This is why your client is subject to criminal charges.
He could be a loner hating the government starting yesterday. People change their beliefs every day. How do you know he wasn't one of those people just happened to hate government a few days ago and thought it would be cool to "prank" an airport?
Probably.
Wikipedia: A bomb is any of a range of explosive weapons that only rely on the exothermic reaction of an explosive material to provide an extremely sudden and violent release of energy (an explosive device).
I don't think anybody who knows what an "exothermic reaction" is would suggest that dry ice sublimating is a reaction. It's a phase change, sure, but it's not a reaction. The CO2 ended up with the same charge it started with and it didn't bond or unbond with anything. In my book that means no chemical reaction.
What happened was the malicious failure of inadequate pressure vessels.
I do agree it's unfortunate that these devices get called bombs, but only because that word has too strong connotations. It isn't wrong: A bottle filled with dry ice is an "explosive device". The fact that it does not rely on an exothermal chemical reaction is secondary (albeit not irrelevant!): Else what would you call atomic bombs?
Also, let's not forget that these things could have caused injuries. Nobody might have died, but I sure wouldn't want one of these going off in my stall. (Plastic shrapnel and ripped eardrums, anyone?)
Weapons of Mass Destruction. Which also includes chemical and biological weapons.
This is being overly pedantic. What if the "inadequate pressure vessel" contained shrapnel that exploded out with the pressure change. Would it still not be a "bomb" because there was no chemical change involved?
A bottle filled with dry ice is a probably human-carried improvised explosive device. The complete explosive device might have shrapnels, it might not, it might be big, it might be small. That needs to be specified further, because explosive devices include a very large group of devices.
After learning that distinction, I found it rather adaequate. If a proper bomb went off in LAX, we'd be looking at a lot of rubble. When WW2 bombs are disarmed over here in germany, square kilometers are evacuated due to the danger of bombs. This is not necessarily the case for most improvised explosive devices.
Saying these things "detonated" is like the Gen Alexander stating that the NSA spying program stopped over 50 plots to to attack the country. We later found out that this was only true for scenarios where "attack" is defined as "transferring money."
They are purposefully overstating the threat. It's not like the TSA has an overabundance of examples that justify it's existance.
There are more meanings to a word 'bomb' than Wikipedia tells you. Besides, Wikipedia is edited by volunteers. So until an expert moderator moderates the page the truth of Wikipedia is democratic.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bomb
Yet, you cannot take a small bottle of water. (Though someone told me they took a bottle full of frozen water and got through, since it isn't a liqid by the rules.. go figure.)
edit: a source: http://www.frankfurt-airport.com/content/frankfurt_airport/e...
Maybe in the really early days of the liquids ban, but these days they're a lot more up to speed on elemental phases.
http://www.salon.com/2002/10/03/askthepilot13/
whether it would be considered terrorism.
Take empty bottles and fill them up in the loo after the security check.
You'd have a point if airport restaurants commonly sold nitroglycerine. Which they don't.
This is the problem...the rules are not clear and randomly enforced and enforced differently at each airport. At O'Hare in Chicago, my wife had to throw out her applesauce that was sealed because it was over 3oz. The agent said that if she had opened it and eaten a bit then it would've been fine but he wouldn't let her do that there, so her snack was thrown out. So they are saying it would be ok to tamper with the product but when it is sealed then that can be a threat. The logic, or lack thereof, behind the decisions really boggles my mind.
In the same way that shouting "fire" or "gun" in the same situation is harmless. If someone does any of these things and panic a crowd who then hurt themselves rushing to get out of the area, they should be expecting at least some wrist slapping in exchange for their little jape.
> I can't get worked up over it, though.
I think what we have here is a high performing autist, either that or some form of sociopath: very intelligent and articulate, but decidedly lacking in empathy.
The whole point of what Schneider has spent years writing and talking to the media about is security theatre etc. He is constantly trying to explain and encourage people to make risk decisions rationally, not emotionally.
Characturing slightly, he is the opposite of the national-security loving ideologue who sounds sincere and caring, but really wants people to be more scared, because that gives them more power (consciously or not).
Or do you think a more empathetic presentation is what is needed? For example, should he be saying something more like "A loud bang is undoubtedly scary in an airport, but there was no actual threat to life and the existing security systems caught the person, so I am personally very relaxed about this non-issue, and I feel others should be too."
I could definitely see more empathy being helpful in his presentation, but his core message is good.
> at least some wrist slapping
The potential sentence is 6 years. Nobody was actually hurt.
Physically, no. It probably put the willies up some people though! And some could easily have been physically injured. Have you ever seen a crowd of concerned people trying to leave somewhere? It isn't always a pretty, calm, and organised situation.
If you only punish people when damage is actually done then you do not discourage silly-but-potentially-damaging actions: you simply make it an extra gamble which for some increases the buzz the prankster gets out of the game.
To compare the situation to a more common situation where people are punished for damage the potentially could have done (but in the instance in question, didn't): If I were to drive at 100mph through a 20mph zone around a school while a little over the legal alcohol limit I would not be let off the punishments for speeding and drink driving if I didn't actually hurt anyone or damage any property. A great many people speed daily and a fair few drink+drive on a regular basis: many are surprised how few actual problems (deaths, injuries, damage to property) are caused as a result hence the oft heard refrain "I've always driven this way and never had a problem yet". "yet" is the operative word there. The first time there is a problem it could be a very serious one and the punishments for these actions take this into account and are intended to discourage the actions generally to reduce the many thousands of instances so that the "1-in-lots" chance is less of a concern.
Also even without injuries there is a issue of wasted time and resource both from the passengers point of view and the airport and authorities. On that point I like the suggestion someone else made above that pranksters are fined to cover any disturbance and clean-up costs, though I imagine that could be expensive to enforce (who decides what a legitimate amount is? who does it get handed out to? how arduous would the appeals processes be for the prankster and the relevant agencies if they think they are not getting enough?).
> The potential sentence is 6 years
But that isn't the actual sentence yet is it? Lets see what sort of slap is eventually handed out before we pass judgement on it.
This will be a hefty sum and will definitely discourage other pranksters but will show that there is at least some sober heads in the government on security questions.
You caused disturbance - you pay for it. But going to jail without doing any damage to anything or anyone is absurd.
As for cameras at LAX, weren't they warranted, even way before this? I can see Bruce not wanting to add cameras as a reaction to this, but aren't they worthwhile in any large area?
Citation needed.
>or cut an artery
so can the corner of an unfinished metal desk, or a shrimp fork.
And before you say "bombs hurt multiple people, sharp things only hurt people one at a time.", let me say that I would put a large amount of money on somebody with a glass bottle causing more bloodshed (measured objectively, in pints) before being shot by security then a punk with a soda bottle and dry ice.
I think about what our world and the U.S. might be like if we had "too much" nonchalance in the face of the 9/11 attacks and had simply done nothing in response. It's hard for me to come up with a scenario that is worse than what resulted from our response.
Find that unfair?
An undetonated dry ice bomb is extremely dangerous to handle.
The sound of an exploding dry ice bomb can incur hearing damage.
Using a glass bottle and/or adding nails or marbles to a dry ice bomb turns it into a lethal device.
My 11 year old and I can fill 24 bottles with hot water, take them to the firing ground, and then systematically drop a single pellet into each bottle, cap it, throw them and have them go off like grenades -- throwing 24 in under 3 minutes rather than 3 bombs in 24 hours. Even with waterless bombs he could have dropped 24 bombs in hour and created something that would really feel like a siege.
I guess that like Sharknados this is something that only happens in LA.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lax-dry-ice-expl...
Imagine this thing exploded right when someone passed by, the pieces could cut the person. Put your hand in a dry ice bomb and see what happen. If it doesn't hurt you, I will change my mind about "dry ice bombs are harmless."
And even my five years old cousin would know airport is not a backyard for prank. Do the same in front of WhiteHouse and you will get shot. If you play a prank in the WhiteHouse, do you call that a prank?
If I do this in a kindergarten backyard, or next to your car, what do you think? Still harmless? Carry this dry ice with you to the airplane, do we call that a bomb?