Fixing Security Issue Isn't Always the Right Answer 361
Trailrunner7 writes "In a column on Threatpost, Bruce Schneier writes that the recent security breach at Newark Airport shows that fixing a given security problem isn't always the right move. 'An unidentified man breached airport security at Newark Airport on Sunday, walking into the secured area through the exit, prompting an evacuation of a terminal and flight delays that continued into the next day. This problem isn't common, but it happens regularly. The result is always the same, and it's not obvious that fixing the problem is the right solution. American airports can do more to secure against this risk, but I'm reasonably sure it's not worth it. We could double the guards to reduce the risk of inattentiveness, and redesign the airports to make this kind of thing less likely, but that's an expensive solution to an already rare problem. As much as I don't like saying it, the smartest thing is probably to live with this occasional but major inconvenience.'"
Re:Overreaction (Score:2, Informative)
If you've read the article:
"This kind of security breach is inevitable, simply because human guards are not perfect. Sometimes it's someone going in through the out door, unnoticed by a bored guard. Sometimes it's someone running through the checkpoint and getting lost in the crowd."
Re:Overreaction (Score:3, Informative)
wouldn't it be cheaper to hire a guy to stand there to stop people from coming in?
No, because the people who are capable of staying awake through an entire shift of this duty command very high salaries.
A turnstile (as others have suggested) would be far cheaper. But it doesn't contribute to the security theater, so its not done.
Re:Overreaction (Score:2, Informative)
a guy from Slovakia had a bomb on a plane and nobody even noticed :) http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/fury-over-slovakia-smuggling-explosive-on-flight-440837.html)
Re:US Airports suck for security (Score:2, Informative)
He didn't say it would be hard to fix, he said it probably isn't worth spending loads of money on a small problem.
Re:Overreaction (Score:3, Informative)
You'd need to make it *much* larger to accommodate carry-on luggage. And you'd need to put in a lot of them to make sure that people aren't standing in line for minutes to get *out* of the terminal just because a few planes disembarked at the same time. And that means making an enormously wide hallway to accommodate several over-sized turnstile gates. And because the grandma in the wheelchair still can't push through one on her own, and to allow rapid evacuation in case of an emergency, you *still* need a security guard to make sure that when grandma goes through, terrorists, or more likely, clueless travelers, don't wander through before it shuts.
Your post isn't informative, it's a poorly thought out "I could do it better" that fails to factor in real world concerns.
Re:Overreaction (Score:3, Informative)
The subway in Paris had tall narrow gates that would open (rather than a turnstyle). That worked really well and would keep all but the most aggressive from jumping over. They were at least 6 feet tall.
Sure, it would be inconvenient, but not as inconvenient as having the terminal emptied.
Re:That's a really stupid idea! (Score:3, Informative)
Or better yet, just move* out of the USA and somewhere into Europe.
Looks nicer over there, and better services for tax garnished.
*speaking as a citizen of USA, specifically Indiana.