Yeah, I've always looked at the extreme reaction authorities have to threats of violence as a pretty significant DOS risk. I'm surprised this isn't more common.
Are the reactions extreme? You're effectively weighing convenience against fatalities. It would seem to me that the reaction is rather reasonable.
Neither judgement changes the fact that the reaction itself definitely makes DOS possible, of course.
I imagine the reason it isn't more common is that the punishment for making terroristic threats tends to be quite high (especially against airports), so you need to be very certain you won't get caught doing it.
Bomb threat reactions are normally justified, but swatting reactions (and police reactions in general) are still too violent and ineffective. Not to mention that technology is making spoofing of threats easier and easier.
It seems to me that that would be very difficult to determine in retrospect.
In any case, I think we can agree that militarized police breaching through a door and going in with guns drawn like they're going to assassinate Bin Laden all due to a phone call is dumb and shouldn't happen
They should send a drone to look into the window, or turn one of the dozen devices in each room into a microphone, or perform any kind of other investigation first before they do that.
I mean, if the phone company can figure out who to bill for that bomb threat I'm pretty sure they can hand over whomever made the call.
They might not do that for you and I but I think at the state level they have more tools. Of course the person might be in a foreign country but then it's really don't let far away foreigners call in bomb threats.
I was at a major airport going home, and it was absolute chaos. Turned out they had received a bomb threat, and so security was super stringent.
Well, I've never been so scared before.
The massive security queue meant the entry hall was packed with people, and anyone could walk into there straight from the parking lot with 5-6 huge, heavy suitcases on a trolley without raising any suspicion.
Good example of how security is counterintuitive. Another one from real life is how bank robbers often create misleading or blocking maneuvers such as setting a truck on fire, blocking road access to helicopter pads etc. But the epitome of “security paranoia paradox” must surely be military dictatorships, where powers you create to protect you can eventually overpower you.
As a tangent, it feels like there are close analogies to computer security for these cases.
In the most famous robbery[1] here in Norway they did exactly that, had a truck block the ramp of the city's primary police station parking lot, located in the basement of the station, and then set it on fire. They also threw tear gas canisters at the main entrance.
This significantly hampered the police response to the robbery.
They made a film about the robbery[2], which was quite well received.
When I was in Bangalore in 2018 they wouldn't even allow anyone into the entry hall without a boarding pass and passport. Security was more tight back then compared to how you describe it now.
Huh, considering the thorough checking that CRPF guy did for my backpack to finally take out a plumber's tape and throwaway. Is government/ airlines security not confident about their security procedures.
Hate flying through India. They make TSA look like nice guys. Apparently, you can't carry vapes in carry-on and you can't check them in either due to batteries. So you can't take vapes at all, cigarettes are fine though. I have a two piece vape, so I put the liquid bit in check-in and the bottom battery in carry on. And he still confiscated it. Got into an argument of how it's just a battery and that why stop there; after-all everything can be used to make a bomb. He got mad that I said the b word. I let him have the battery as I didn't want to miss the flight.
On one hand, it's security theater. A real threat does not find it intimidating.
However, if someone were to abolish the TSA for being security theater, do you have confidence that people wouldn't immediately start bringing knives?
It's security theater that simultaneously fulfills a deterrence purpose; and any politician that dares get rid of it, will be blamed for anything and everything thereafter.
However, if someone were to abolish the TSA for being security theater, do you have confidence that people wouldn't immediately start bringing knives?
Your point is well-taken, but before 9/11 I probably carried a pocket knife on nearly every flight I took. ‘cuz people carry pocket knives, at least in the Midwest. Throw the little 2.5” blade in the bin before going through the metal detector, pick it up on the way out.
Obviously I don’t do that anymore.
Additionally, you used to get a real steak knife in first class, bigger than the knife I carried. George Carlin even did a bit about that decades ago.
And not just flights, all government offices that have any security prohibit any knives. I used to have a swiss knife at most times on me, and I went to the social security office to get a card (one of the first gov. offices I visited in the US). They wouldn't allow it, but also wouldn't hold it for you. I had to go out and hide it in the bushes like an idiot.
I think the moral of the above story, although we are loath to admit it because it's so stupid, is that cheap theatrical security measures actually work surprisingly well. Whether it be $5 Master Locks, the deadbolt on your door, easily guessed passwords, or even DRM. No strength against a determined attacker, but they do mostly "work." Even a stupid password like "p@ssw0rd" prevents 98%+ of attacks compared to just a hypothetical password-free "Log in as Jake" button. If it stops 98% of casual attacks, it can be simultaneously stupid and yet valuable.
This sounds strange to me given the number of guns they confiscate. Go ahead and try to sneak a firearm or an explosive through. Pretty sure they’ll catch you more than 5% of the time. In fact I’m pretty sure they’ll catch a gun every time. And the surface explosive detectors probably are contractually tested and if their failure rates go too high they lose the contract. What acceptable failure rates would you write into that contract? Don’t answer that you’re clearly not a reliable interlocutor. For myself I’d target single digit failure rates. I’d guess the contract says greater than 95% accuracy.
In conclusion: bullshit.
I’ll leave aside for the moment who accidentally brings a on through an airport security check. Heck I don’t even keep a mini-multitool in any bag I might casually bring on as carry-on, somewhat to my annoyance. But if you do happen to have an oops firearm in your carryon I’m not sure I care if it was a mistake or on purpose.
I'm not saying those guns shouldn't be confiscated. I'm just saying that how much they confiscate says nothing about their capability to confiscate gun brought with malicious intent. There's way more stupid people with guns than malicious ones.
Don't say that to a CISF guy. They get really mad. I once interned at a national lab and there was a snafu due to which I couldn't get in. So I had to call my advisor from the main entrance, and I told him that the watchman isn't letting me in. The security guy overheard it and threw a fit about how he isn't a watchman but a central gov. employee.
Absolutely. In Indian hierarchy one can blast watchmen for not doing their work properly and CISF can blast a passenger for not doing their work properly. So they are indeed powerful. One can see that in their swagger. They are there to serve government not the passengers.
TFA says that the motive is unclear, but that's not particularly true, is it? I mean, there are several, very predictable results from this, among which surely must be the objective(s). This leaves a pretty narrow trail to follow for whatever intelligence services must be looking at it now. Not knowing the lay of the land over there, I can't even guess, but someone here must be able to intuit what's going on.
I don't understand why authorities even respond to bomb threats at all. If your security procedures are sufficient to keep people from bombing planes, bomb threats are irrelevant. If someone intends to bomb a plane, they don't announce it, making bomb threats doubly irrelevant. An institution getting a bomb threat is about as consequential as someone threatening to kill you in a Youtube comment.
> If someone intends to bomb a plane, they don't announce it
In the heyday of IRA terrorism, they would regularly phone in threats shortly before a bomb went off.
It's much easier to claim responsibility for a bombing if one does so before the bomb goes off. And when one's aim is political pressure, one might prefer to target military/ police/ infrastructure/ politicians/ whatever with fewer civilian casualties.
Of course there were also plenty of bombings without phone threats, so make of that what you will. And in one of the most deadly bombings - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing - the warning didn't specify the location of the bomb, and people 'evacuated' towards the bomb.
D. B. Cooper, also known as Dan Cooper, was an unidentified man who hijacked Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305, a Boeing 727 aircraft, in United States airspace on November 24, 1971. During the flight from Portland, Oregon, to Seattle, Washington, Cooper told a flight attendant he had a bomb, demanded $200,000 in ransom (equivalent to approximately $1,500,000 in 2024) and four parachutes upon landing in Seattle.
Cooper showed a device which by all appearances may have been a bomb, though its ultimate capabilities were never conclusively determined:
[Cooper] opened his briefcase, and she saw two rows of four red cylinders, which she assumed were dynamite. Attached to the cylinders were a wire and a large, cylindrical battery, which resembled a bomb.
Meanwhile, a terrorist on US soil has openly threatened [1] to blow up Air India flights again [1] with specific dates. That doesn't qualify under free speech protections, does it?
He's a US and Canadian dual citizen, the US government has been trying to protect him by giving him intelligence about threats against him, in Canada the CBC has been interviewing him and he said he's in regular touch with Trudeau.
Very strange just like the 1984 bombing of Air India that took off from Canada by the same Khalistan terrorists, killing 350 people of Indian origin including about 80 children. The investigation in Canada was completely botched and let the terrorists go free.
The current test for freedom of speech in the U.S. is "Imminent Lawless Action," which is a refinement of the previous "Clear and Present Danger" standard.
The threats do not qualify under the current test.
Good that guy is not in India, Otherwise he would be put behind bars for decades or just executed/hanged or encountered without any consequence whatsoever. No burden of proof on government ever.
It seems to me this government is watching too many Akshay Kumar movies and thinking they can get away with eliminating "threats" on foreign soil and be called heroes for doing this.
This is fake news with fake videos in the linked articles. This person has not threatened anyone. Instead he's been a vocal figure about the political crimes committed against a minority by the Indian government. The Indian government tried to assassinate him but got caught red handed. And now their media is trying to convince everyone that this guy is a terrorist.
Makes sense. A three letter US agency can very well identify the people making these calls when they can spy on Indian diplomats. I hope a request through Interpol is made.
My guess is our government isn’t cooperating. I’m sure they can figure out who’s doing this but have been dragging their feet and antagonizing India instead. Not the smartest way to build a partnership to contain China geopolitically or economically.
The airlines have to follow a protocol to report threats to the ground, even if they’re likely fake. That’s why there are repeated incidents of fighter jets being scrambled to accompany the affected plane until they’re given clearance to land. It is disruptive, expensive, and clearly terroristic. The governments involved (primarily Canada, but also the US and India) need to restore rule of law and crack down on this.
I think I recall reading that these hoax threats are being done by supporters of a fringe Sikh separatist movement that aims to break up India, so they can form a Sikh religious ethnostate they call Khalistan. As I recall this group assassinated the prime minister of India at one point. But after that they also blew up an Air India flight with hundreds of Canadians and others on board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182). When India cracked down on the terrorists, many fled to Canada, and so there are many supporters of that movement there (if you’re in BC you know).
Unfortunately Canada has done little to crack down on this movement even though they have a record of terrorism and pose a threat to a key trade partner and important ally in the Asian Pacific region. I’m also not sure governments can fully stop anonymous online threats or coordination. Look at other disruptions like BLM groups blocking highways, or Palestine groups blocking airports, or whatever. These types of events are difficult to stop ahead of time.
Both Canada and the US have freedom of expression and freedom of association -- it would be both illegal and immoral for them to support India's extrajudicial, extraterratorial executions of people of Sikh faith who seek a homeland free of India's Hindu religious ethnostate.
At the moment, it seems India is refusing to cooperate with Canada's probe of terroristic assassination plots apparently orchestrated by the Indian government, instead sequestering the suspects back in India and attacking Canada with righteous indignation for bringing it up. Respect for the rule of law, IMO, would mean giving information to the Canadian government as requested, and making the assassination plot suspects available for interview and possible prosecution.
Ground flights, people hate you. Let the planes fly and a real explosive materializes, lose your job/jailed for negligence.
reply