undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBFatts10y ago0 comments

They don't scan for explosives until you're going through security. If they had the security checkpoint at the entrance to the airport:

a) People would bitch more because it would take forever to get into an airport. And,

b) It isn't practical. What's next, stopping you at your car or bus before you park?

People demand security but don't want inconvenience. And if security fails, they point and say "it's ineffective." Even if it stops 80% of attacks, unless it's 100% people will bitch. AND if there aren't any attacks, can they really claim that they stopped one unless they publicly acknowledge every attempted attack?

0 comments

adrianratnapala10y ago

It gets worse, since in this case it's not even a trade-off between convenience and security. In Sri Lanka they had (and perhaps still have) security scanning at the entrance to the terminal.

As a result people have to bunch up outside the terminal, making them even more vulnerable than they otherwise would be.

Any true improvements would have to come from streamlined pre-screening, e.g. chemical detectors (or dogs?) in the concourse sniffing things out without making people stop or bunch up. Hard to do.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse