
Dry Ice Bombs at LAX - CapitalistCartr
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/dry_ice_bombs_a.html
======
rayiner
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.

~~~
aegiso
> It's a sign of the inability to relate emotionally to other people, not
> clear-headed rationality.

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.

~~~
mithaler
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.

~~~
hrkristian
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.

------
msandford
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.

~~~
mayank
> 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?

~~~
jlgreco
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?

~~~
mayank
If it contains shrapnel, and if the discharge is forceful enough to cause
injury from the shrapnel, yes.

------
dspillett
> and they're harmless

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.

~~~
alanctgardner2
> who then hurt themselves rushing to get out of the area

> at least some wrist slapping

The potential sentence is 6 years. Nobody was actually hurt.

~~~
dspillett
_> 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.

------
kaybe
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.)

edit: a source: [http://www.frankfurt-
airport.com/content/frankfurt_airport/e...](http://www.frankfurt-
airport.com/content/frankfurt_airport/en/misc/container/list/list_of_permittedandprohibitedobjectsaccordingtoiata/jcr:content.file/file.pdf)

~~~
CaptainZapp

      Yet, you cannot take a small bottle of water
    

That's true, of course. You can nevertheless avoid paying 8 bucks for a small
bottle of water after security:

Take empty bottles and fill them up in the loo after the security check.

~~~
easytiger
You aren;t allowed empty bottles. at least they have been removed from me

~~~
benburleson
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.

------
alanctgardner2
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'.

~~~
wikiburner
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:

[http://www.youtube.com/embed/EOF4IRj3CTo](http://www.youtube.com/embed/EOF4IRj3CTo)

~~~
alanctgardner2
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.

~~~
bronbron
> 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".

~~~
toomuchtodo
Fine. You're fired and 5 years probation. Excessive punishments do nothing but
exacerbate the situation.

------
icarus127
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.

------
shin_lao
Dry ice bombs are illegal in California and are categorized as weapons.

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.

------
PaulHoule
I think the guy had no technique.

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.

------
venomsnake
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?

------
yeukhon
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.

[http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lax-dry-ice-
expl...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lax-dry-ice-explosions-
airport-employee-arrested-in-case-20131015,0,4216277.story#axzz2iZaIqOt1)

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?

------
peter303
Sneiner is as imature as the dry ice kook. You dont dont semi-dangerous things
on your employers time nor in public places.

~~~
darkarmani
What does that have to do with locking your employees up for years and years?

------
zoba
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.

------
JulianMorrison
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.

~~~
pessimizer
>An exploding pop bottle can take your hand off

Citation needed.

>or cut an artery

so can the corner of an unfinished metal desk, or a shrimp fork.

~~~
AmVess
Did the pranksters also set off unfinished metal desks and shrimp forks in an
airport?

~~~
jlgreco
You _really_ think nobody can legitimately have something capable of cutting
an artery in an airport?

~~~
JulianMorrison
Exploding things? I would say there are very few legitimate uses for those in
an airport.

~~~
jlgreco
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.

------
codex
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.

