You can no longer just leave Syracuse airport [video]

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/53594630

by ck2 • 13 years ago

120 140 13 years ago

nbcnews.com

tehwebguy2• 13 years ago

What purpose could this possibly serve that is more important than have proper fire exits?

ck22• 13 years ago

Well think of it this way, I am sure law makers and law enforcement don't have to use them so it's no bother at all.

I get panic attacks, can you imagine if one of those things accidentally locked on me?

TallGuyShort• 13 years ago

I suspect it's a reaction to the LAX shooting to prevent an attacker from fleeing on foot so easily - similar to the double bank doors you sometimes see on banks in dangerous countries. More important than proper fire exits? No. Just my theory on the possible purpose.

ck22• 13 years ago

So keep the gunman locked in with more people around them to shoot?

mehmehshoe• 13 years ago

While the LAX shooting was happening I kept wondering why the shooter didn't just go backwards through the exit. There is usually just one (half asleep) agent sitting there. This would certainly prevent this.

TSA quit screening my thoughts!

sschueller• 13 years ago

Who is going to take the blame when people are looked in during a shooting? What if the power goes out and there is panic? I hope there are other fire exits.

Coincoin• 13 years ago

If it was designed with safety in mind, it would probably need power to stay closed. If there is no power it would prop open. But then, I got stuck in an elevator for an hour last month, so yeah, people would probably diaf.

marcosdumay2• 13 years ago

And everything I said is just wrong, before there is no check for living the restricted area.

cdjk• 13 years ago

Here's an article about it if you don't to watch the video:

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/syracuse_airp...

It sounds like it's an electronic one-way gate to exit the secure area of the airport, replacing the TSA agent who used to sit at the exit. Physical one-way turnstiles have been around for a while - I'm not sure I've ever seen one at an airport.

koenigdavidmj• 13 years ago

I would assume that getting a cartful of bags through the turnstiles is kind of difficult, and that's the reason that strategy has been avoided.

EDIT: Grammar.

frostmatthew• 13 years ago

Since it would presumably be located before baggage-claim people are unlikely to have a "cartful of bags" at this point - they would only have what they're capable of carrying on the plane.

sciguy77• 13 years ago

Open the pod bay doors, Hal.

rayiner4• 13 years ago

installing the portals has allowed Syracuse to eliminate a security job at the exit lanes

Works for me. Unlike TSA workers, automated exit doors can't form unions.

metaphorm• 13 years ago

unlike human workers, automated exit doors don't hesitate to imprison the occupant with no thought about the situation.

these are jail cells, not doors.

res0nat0r• 13 years ago

They are not jail cells. We had the same thing in restricted hallways when I worked my prior job in big pharma. They were used mainly to allow big hallway access and securely allow one person at a time through the door, with weight sensors at the bottom of the pod.

You can override these doors most likely with an emergency button if needed.

colinhowe• 13 years ago

From what I've heard TSA agents don't think about the situation either

rayiner4• 13 years ago

Have you never used an automatic double-door vestibule in a cold city?

diminoten• 13 years ago

Have you ever been in a jail cell before?

tehwebguy2• 13 years ago

Automating stuff is great, and unlike the people in this thread crying "police state" I think it's just a bad idea + bad bureaucracy.

privong• 13 years ago

For what it's worth, a similar system is in place at the Madrid Airport.

mdip• 13 years ago

It sounds like the "main purpose" of this system is to create a one-way exit to prevent people from accessing the terminal without going through the security checkpoint (using the exit as an entrance). It's a problem that every airport has solved in one way or another by either posting security or using existing, novel, techniques. In an attempt to "improve" on the one-way exit idea, they've created a user experience that is exceptionally foreign to anyone using it and also adds a one second jarring experience that gives the impression of being detained in a tall, glass, coffin.

At one of the major airports I used to travel through (DTW), exiting the terminal involved going through a slow-moving motorized revolving door. It was one way, and also included a brief instant where you could neither enter, nor leave, and could be "stopped" by airport security at that point should detaining you be necessary. Because it's a revolving door that works very similar to nearly every revolving door a person encounters (save for the motor and one-way nature), it doesn't have that same feel and certainly wouldn't warrant an NBC News segment.

I'd imagine this over-engineered solution to a solved problem also comes at a much steeper price tag.

AutoCorrect• 13 years ago

not only that, they've created a novel way to trap people inside a burning building. This is a terrible idea.

rhizome2• 13 years ago

Silly, airports can't catch fire.

superuser27• 13 years ago

Building code would almost certainly require a tie-in to the fire alarm so that it allows free passage when there's a fire. If it's like many airports, there would be other alarmed fire exits, and you could easily go under/over the crowd control ropes if you had to.

tovmeod• 13 years ago

This reminds of of a story I heard from a speaker about over-engineering:

A toothpaste company had a small rate of faults when producing the product, every couple of thousand tubes produces the machine would put an empty one on the production line, it would then be packaged and shipped, so every now and then a customer would complain he bought an empty toothpaste.

The company decided to fix that, hired a couple of consultants, and after a dozen of engineers looked into the problem for a couple of months and burned a couple of millions in research they came up with a brilliant solution.

before packaging the toothpaste, they added a very sensitive balance to the production line, every toothpaste would pass there, if the balance detected a difference in the expected wight it would pause the line, then a mechanical arm would push it out, go back to the resting place and continue the line.

After implementing the solution the managers waited a couple of months to see the results and compare numbers, to see how efficient the new solution was. It was amazing! 100%. not one complaint of empty tubes after the expensive solution was implemented. The board was so satisfied with the investment that they came to the production floor for a tour on the new QA perfect tool. But it was turned off. They called the floor manager and asked what happened, they couldn't turn off that important piece of the production line, they could have all the complaints back. The floor manager said he doesn't even remember how to turn it on, he said, I turned it off shortly after the put this thing here.

So how it is possible they have 0 complaints with if not because of the new tool? The floor manager said it was slowing down production, every now and then it would completely stop the whole production line, so he turned it off and bought a fan, pointed out to the stop, the fan would be string enough to push any empty toothpaste case.

Phargo• 13 years ago

That's a fun story told often around a most factories. I've also heard it told that instead of a mechanical arm the operator would have to stand up, walk over, remove the box, and go sit back down. Since the guy was a little lazy he just put a fan there. The moral of that story was "ask the laziest guy how to fix your problem and he'll give you a good answer".

It's a dangerous methodology to preach though. In this story they found out that they had a problem where they were producing boxes without product and instead of actually figuring out why they were producing empty boxes in the first place (i.e. determining the root cause of the problem) they over engineered a 100% quality control inspection on every piece at a huge expense.

ibejoeb• 13 years ago

How smart are these things? Presumably the inside door won't open while someone is in between. Otherwise, I just need to double-tailgate, or simply hire two accomplices.

A large iron maiden (floor-to-ceiling revolving gates, like NYC subways) seems to be a much better, cheaper solution.

tedunangst3• 13 years ago

The iron maiden turn stile is harder for people with luggage (or crutches, wheelchairs, ...) to navigate. The main problem being you get inside, then some jerk decides you're not moving fast enough and helps you along. Two door capsules move at the pace of the passenger and aren't going to force you along.

wizzard• 13 years ago

Yes, the DTW big revolving door is much more natural. I didn't even understand the purpose of the "coffins" at first glance, I thought they were some kind of body scanner due to their cylindrical glass design.

As for over-engineering: the SLC airport just uses a down escalator as the exit.

superuser27• 13 years ago

Interlocking doors ("mantraps") are a standard and widely-deployed access control device. Here are some commercially available: http://www.boonedam.us/mantrap-security-doors/

The national security policy people who implemented this probably go through one to enter and exit their office every day and didn't think anything of it. They exist in all kinds of secure facilities. (Not necessarily as a glass coffin, but simply a room to which only one door can be open at one time.) Like a turnstile, it solves the tailgating problem - you can visually inspect who is in the room before you let them through, and if someone's face doesn't match the badge they swiped, you can hold them there while you call the police.

As for fire safety, in some areas building code requires that the controller is tied into the fire alarm and allows free egress if activated. There's also almost always a bypass switch/key/code to let both doors open.

A couple of examples I can remember from popular fiction are the entrance to CBS Master Control in The Insider (1999) and the executive suite of Seatec Astronomy in Sneakers (1992). There were a few in the Artemis Fowl and Alex Rider books. There is a mantrap with no access control between the main floor and the butterfly wing at the Milwaukee Public Museum to keep the air conditioning out and the butterflies in. Haven't been there since ~2005, but I remember being locked in it for several seconds before the exit light turned green.

Any Biosafety Level-rated lab has negative pressure to prevent virus from escaping, so there's an interlocking door system between the hot part of the lab and the rest of the building. Electronics prevent both airtight doors from unlocking simultaneously, and you are required to go through a decontamination shower procedure before opening the outer door (not sure if that's enforced by electronics or just training.)

kyleblarson• 13 years ago

Saving money by spending millions to replace a couple of $20 per hour TSA goons?

jakewalker• 13 years ago

Mountain out of a mole hill. These doors simply ensure that people can only exit, and not enter, a secure area.

There are dozens of civil liberty violations to complaint about w/r/t airports and TSA. This isn't one of them.

PhasmaFelis4• 13 years ago

I'm confused. I was ready to be upset about this, but assuming they're telling the truth it's just an overly-complex version of a turnstile/one-way revolving door. I've never seen an airport that didn't have some sort of one-way-enforcing mechanism on the terminal-to-baggage-claim passage. Am I missing something? Or is the issue just that it's unnecessarily complex and failure-prone?

lambda2• 13 years ago

Most airports have large sliding doors that are triggered on one side only. Because they are large, and there are a lot of people flowing through them, it would be possible to slip in while the door is open, so they need human guards to watch and ensure that no one does that.

A regular turnstile doesn't really work very well for people with a lot of luggage.

So this is basically a large version of a turnstile, that is more secure than just a single gate, so it can be secure enough to leave without full time guards without preventing people with baggage from getting through.

Not a bad idea, not horrible civil liberties wise, but could be a problem for people with claustrophobia, and if they are avoiding having a guard, it's likely that there won't be an alternative exit for people for whom these won't work.

PhasmaFelis4• 13 years ago

Ordinarily I'd agree with the claustrophobia point, but I feel like anyone who genuinely can't deal with a few seconds in a glass-walled airlock would never have managed getting on a plane in the first place.

jcdavis• 13 years ago

This is a bait headline, its just an automated machine to only allow exits. Several airports in Europe have similar systems

maxk42• 13 years ago

Unlawful imprisonment.

jblow5• 13 years ago

I am surprised that so many people here are okay with the idea of being momentarily detained as a matter of course.

This is not a turnstile, because turnstiles do not detain you or trap you; you can always move freely on one side or the other. This device detains you and then lets you move on. What are you going to do when it decides not to let you move on?

ubernostrum• 13 years ago

There are already airports which have pairs of sliding doors with a room between them, timed so there's a moment when the first door is closed behind you and the second one hasn't opened ahead, in which you're "detained".

And practically every subway system already has one-way turnstiles that can "detain" you in the sense that you can't pass until it opens, and either can't return through it without re-inserting a fare card or can't return through it period.

In fact, there's a fuck ton of controlled-access places with systems which effectively do this. What are you already doing for the "detainees" who already are created by those?

(not that I like the TSA, I just also don't see why you're treating this as new or unusual)

jblow5• 13 years ago

I have never encountered a situation like this before in an airport. If I were to, I would be very disturbed, and avoid that airport in the future. So, this is new and unusual to me. (Apparently, also, to enough people to make this video notable).

Subways that I have seen that require fare cards on exit do not actually prevent you from leaving; you can jump the turnstile or go through a gate on the side that possibly alarms. This is not the greatest thing, but at least while you are inside you can move freely inside a large subway system; being encased in plexiglass until a light turns green is a whole different degree of trapped.

Edit: And I guess this is an important part of the point: degree matters. The old boiling-a-frog story is just about slowly increasing the degree of something.

marcosdumay2• 13 years ago

[EDIT: All that is wrong, because there is no check, and the doors always open]

Every place I've ever seen one of those doors, when you can't return, you can always go forward, when there is some check, and you may not be able to go forward, you can always return.

I guess, the police would be able to legally create a silo that may detain you, but nobody else can (at least on most democratic countries, I'm not sure about the US specifically).

cb10• 13 years ago

As do many fast food restaurants and other buildings, I'm fairly sure it's meant to function as an air-lock, mitigating the equalization of outdoor and indoor temperatures and preventing drafts into the building. Additionally, you are not being detained in such a situation as it is up to your own agency to either manually open the door or activate the IR sensor. In the airport situation it does appear people are being detained because they don't seem to have the option of opening the exit door themselves.

In fact, there's a fuck ton of controlled-access places with systems which effectively do this.

Sure, if someone or group is occupying a building and they don't want people wandering around willy-nilly they can control access and 'buzz people in' or whatever. The airport situation is entirely different as it is essentially controlling access to the entire world, restricting ones freedom of movement.

So all in all, put a little thought into what your saying before a reflexive "nothing to see here."

bpm140• 13 years ago

The double sliding doors are to minimize the impact that the outside temperature has on the inside. These have been around for years and I've never seen one in place that can block someone's egress.

You are correct that many subway systems have something in place to verify that you were a fair-paying customer. It just doesn't strike me as equivalent.

In the subway case, it is there to prevent bad actors from cheating the system. It's lame the same way that people checking your receipts at Sam's Club is lame. In the airport case, you're assumed to be a criminal even before you've received any benefit.

lukifer2• 13 years ago

If I were a braver man, I would stand in the middle of a crowded airport security line and yell "BOOM". There are so many potential points of vulnerability in an open society that eternally fighting the last war is absurd.

As it is, I quietly protest in the only way I know: I avoiding flying unless it's impossible, and take road trips instead, despite the dramatically higher safety risks. I've come to deeply loathe the airport experience.

eli3• 13 years ago

Err, you know the "yelling fire in a movie" is the famous example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, right?

I'm all for civil disobedience, but I'd suggest something that doesn't actually cause a panic.

skwirl3• 13 years ago

Do you consider yourself as being "detained" every time you walk through a revolving door?

redidas• 13 years ago

Do revolving doors decide when you get to leave or do you?

teh_klev• 13 years ago

This isn't a revolving door, this is a round box that keeps you there until the system controlling it allows you to pass.

Revolving doors go round and round and don't usually prevent egress.

It can't even be compared to a turnstile because they don't seal you in like this appears to do.

jmadsen• 13 years ago

Yes, ironic isn't it? The mainstream media reports something like this, the normally imaginative HN crowd has no response other than, "Meh. No big thing" rather than applying its usual microscope.

Not meaning to troll, but I genuinely wonder if the report came from a different source, how it would be treated, and why there is no one discussing the potential of misuse behind this?

We all know the dangers from our govts & businesses are in the form of creeping erosion, not the earth-shaking policies.

atwebb• 13 years ago

We're all just idiots pretending to know better...

logicallee2• 13 years ago

You say that there is a potential for misuse, but could you be more specific? I just don't see it. Describe, in detail, an exact case that could actually happen in the real world (including political world). How would the abuse or whatever happen (exactly)? Bear in mind that a large percentage of the population is mildly claustrophobic (including being somewhat uncomfortable in elevators, which also detain you between floors as a matter of design).

There is no way of knowing who is claustrophobic, but anyone could sympathize with them. it has to be designed to let people through quite quickly in the default case, and no doubt does.

so how would this system get abused exactly? I mean to me it just seems like a technicality, like an elevator 'detaining' you. It seems like just a design thing. (For example it can keep people from entering, allowing them only to leave, like a one-way valve, as someone pointed out.)

I'm open to the possibility that your imagination is better than mine...so let's hear a description.

EDIT:

what I mean is that these things can't possible be "detention pods" in practice. Like, how would that even work? I just can't imagine the mechanics of it. I would like a description of what people are imagining. How do you imagine this will get abused (exactly)..describe the process.

superuser27• 13 years ago

Lots of people ride elevators every day.

Security features and entrapment issues are the same: the controller normally lets people through in the manner specified by its programming (i.e. assignable permissions to exit on certain sides of certain floors depending on the keys/cards/codes features possessed by the rider, potentially also time of day and manual verification).

If something fishy is going on, security (or electronics like a metal detector) can direct the controller to stop the car and not open the doors.

Once you are in the car, you cannot leave until the controller lets you.

This is just a two-doored elevator that doesn't move between floors.

dredmorbius• 13 years ago

An elevator's express purpose is to transport you between floors of a building.

This device's express purpose is to restrict your exit from a building or area.

Arjuna• 13 years ago

I agree. I am thinking to myself... this is the point we have come to? It is a prime example of the erosion of both common sense and constitutional rights:

1. This is an egregious fire hazard. I would love to see the fire marshal weigh in on this. This violates basic common sense regarding the ability to egress a structure in the event of an emergency, regardless of any safe-guards that would automatically open these pods in the event of a fire.

2. This is detainment without probable cause. It completely violates the spirit and intent, if not the letter, of the Fourth Amendment. No matter how long you are detained within this pod, in my opinion, it is absolutely without probable cause, which is a pillar of the Fourth Amendment.

fennecfoxen2• 13 years ago

I assume there's an emergency exit somewhere... the difference being that it's alarmed and everyone freaks out if you go through it. Plenty of emergency exits like that in areas of the airport which are secure and away from the main exit, after all.

iancarroll• 13 years ago

Excuse me if I understood this wrong, but isn't this just an automatic door to keep people out of the secure terminal? It looks like they open, close, and then open.

Are all vestibules holding you without probable cause?

mc32• 13 years ago

Eh, some French banks have had similar doors to go in and out of the banks --presumably so that a robber couldn't just "run away" after a heist. You have to close the door behind you before you can open the door in front of you --kind of like an air lock.

But yeah, at an airport this is strange. Altho I also see similar hand/palm print activated doors at data centers for access control.

PhasmaFelis4• 13 years ago

What if a turnstile did detain or trap you? What if a revolving door just stopped or jammed mid-revolution and you were stuck in between? What are you going to do when the turnstile decides not to let you move on? Why is a hypothetical jammed turnstile less sinister than a hypothetical jammed automatic-airlock-dealie?

dragonwriter3• 13 years ago

Its pretty trivial to climb/jump over a stopped turnstile.

Its a lot harder to do that from a locked room.

blisterpeanuts• 13 years ago

It's a one-way exit from the secure area of the terminal. Functionally it's the same as a guard standing there watching people file through to a one-way escalator or door into the public part of the airport.

Personally, I'd prefer the human. This system sounds too complicated and expensive and prone to malfunction. What if there's a fire and the doors stop working?

jcromartie• 13 years ago

Who schmoozed and boozed to get this contract, instead of a normal one-way turnstile door?

ynniv2• 13 years ago

I can see how this appears to replace a TSA employee watching for reverse travel, but what has been created is of a different nature. Atlanta's airport has a similar reverse-travel prevention system in the form of a 3 story escalator, but there travelers can't be easily singled out. This individual door system is a security camera and a remote override away from individual detainment. Add facial recognition (the physical conditions are ideal) and the only thing separating this from an automated warrant officer is a willing politician. It seems out of place to be upset by what appears to be an automatic door, but some forethought suggests this is substantially different from what it replaced.

rhizome2• 13 years ago

Yet another reason to be happy that facial-recognition doesn't work.

superuser27• 13 years ago

Serious question: should we not be able to arrest people we have arrest warrants for? Is there a right to flee arrest?

The only difference from the status quo is that currently, you could try to run from the police once recognized and they might not be fast enough to tackle you. But as far as I know, the Constitution does not enshrine any principle of "the right to a sporting chance at escaping trial" - just "the right to a fair trial."

ynniv2• 13 years ago

Of course we should. But an automated warrant officer would also be something new...

Airports seem to have their own notion of legality, so at what point would it detain someone? An international warrant? US felony warrant? US state felony? Misdemeanor? Back taxes? Unpaid child support? Unpaid municipal fines? We accept all major credit cards! You didn't report for jury duty... mind telling us where you live now? And while you're here, we'd like to inform you that your ex-roommate has run afoul of the law... perhaps you've seen him lately? Let me get the investigating officer on the line...

Facial recognition primarily fails because the camera is too far away, and at a poor angle. Please stare at this camera to open the door. Hmm, those glasses are getting in the way, mind taking them off? Please, don't bang on the glass like that, it scares the other travelers. Just a second, I'll black out the "privacy" glass.

Anything that can be done will be done in the right context. A little imagination is always prudent!

jasonlotito2• 13 years ago

should we not be able to arrest people we have arrest warrants for?

For the children...

dragonwriter3• 13 years ago

We're talking about airports, where the security procedures already require a non-transferrable boarding pass and photo ID for identity confirmation to enter the secure area at the departure airport.

If you were going to build an "automated warrant officer" system overlaying existing airport security, there's plenty of places where it would already be fairly trivial to do that exit mantraps probably don't affect the risk that much.

arnarbi• 13 years ago

Every single European airport I have been to has this kind of portals to get from inside the secured terminal area to the baggage claim area.

ringmaster2• 13 years ago

Philadelphia airport has been like this for years already. The "airlock" isn't a single-person, but a small room that can lock a handful of people in as they pass individually through some unjumpable turnstiles. I'd post a photo, but there are signs around the room forbidding photography.

jasonlotito2• 13 years ago

Having just gone through the Philadelphia airport in October, I don't remember anything of the sort. Maybe it's only in a specific area for a specific reason? But no, you can go from plane to free air without being in any sort of "airlock" like this.

ringmaster2• 13 years ago

The airlocks are not at all of the terminals, so it's not surprising you didn't see it.

Here's a PDF explaining the airlock rooms at PHL (they call it a "secure exit lane system") with photos: http://www.aci-na.org/sites/default/files/tufts.pdf

If you look closely at the metal turnstiles in the bottom-right photo on page 8, you can see that there are glass doors between them. These separate and close by sensor to allow only one person at a time through the exit passage. This room is, by necessity, fully covered in cameras, and as other posters have said, it's a short jump from this into something with software recognition that locks the doors and waits for the armored men with clubs.

Sure, it's a far cry from the firetraps that those glass tubes in Syracuse are, but this method of containment is not new -- we were just not really paying attention to it before.

gphil• 13 years ago

I actually walked through this thing a couple of weeks ago. It was a little weird, but I didn't feel "detained" at any point. It just felt like going through a high-tech turnstile, as others have theorized it would.

mgoeppner• 13 years ago

As a former resident of Syracuse, I think these beat the old barrier ropes, doors which looked like they were from a mental hospital, and a lone slightly pissed off and exhausted TSA agent eyeballing you and your fellow passengers in an otherwise desolate airport at 11 evening.

And there are very, very, very few arrivals (and also virtually no departures) between 10PM and 5AM, which means it doesn't make much sense to pay a single TSA agent for an eight hour graveyard shift for 2 or 3 incoming flights.

mattmcknight• 13 years ago

Seems like yet another challenge when flying with a few little kids...hope it doesn't spread.

Glyptodon• 13 years ago

What happens if there's a fire or something?

URSpider943• 13 years ago

I'm sure that you can just push on the doors and get out, with an associated alarm that clears the terminal.

If there's a fire, I'm sure that all the doors open.

Airports are not exempt from building codes.

stiles• 13 years ago

This looks like a giant PITA for people with small children or anyone escorting someone with a handicap.

lxmorj• 13 years ago

Well fuck, I live here. That sucks.

phy6• 13 years ago

I've seen and used devices like these at various Federal facilities and you stay inside for 3-4 seconds until a guard pushes a button to open the other side. The guards called them scanners and said that they sniff for explosives. These look identical, so maybe sniffing is an add-on feature.

newman314• 13 years ago

This has already previously been invented at subway stations.

Take this. http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.474936.131463560...

and make it bigger. Boom, problem solved.

Side benefit: This can be an entirely mechanical design = energy efficient.

bisrig• 13 years ago

Having been through SYR recently - the doors are pretty annoying. When I was there, they had a bunch of signs telling people to go through in groups, which was hilarious as 1) the door midpoint area is about the size of one person plus their carry-on, and 2) the door timing would close the door much too quickly to actually have more than one person enter. Also, the cycle time is pretty slow. Really, really bad design.

buyx• 13 years ago

I wonder what the throughput of these doors is, and if it would work at larger airports. My guess would be no.

Because of the high crime rate, most banks in South Africa have these double-door man traps (although less sleek-looking), and everyone accepts them as a normal part of life. Reading the comments here reminds me of how abnormal that really is.

coldcode• 13 years ago

How does this work with people who are disabled? Elderly people with canes or walkers or on wheelchairs?

URSpider943• 13 years ago

This is just a one-way door to prevent people from walking the wrong way into the sterile area. Today, human beings have to sit there and watch people walk past all day -- what a boring and demeaning job!!!

This is NOT a new security measure, it's the same old measure implemented in a different way.

I think people are freaking out about the fact that the system detains you for a split second in the process. There are better solutions out there. For example, all of the train turnstiles in Japan are set to default-open. If they detect someone going through without paying, they close extremely rapidly as soon as you cross the front threshold. That should do the trick, although I guess it wouldn't stop someone from passing contraband across the gap.

URSpider943• 13 years ago

An article I found pointed out the probable root cause -- the TSA is now refusing to staff exits from secure areas, claiming that they are only responsible for screening. That puts the burden for exit monitoring onto the airport operators. Naturally, this cost falls disproportionately on smaller airports where the volume of passengers over which to amortize the cost is less.

nphase• 13 years ago

These are all over the place in Frankfurt. They are unmanned and nondescript, it's literally just the door you exit through. There are no lights or anything, but somehow they make it seem pretty clear that it's just to keep people from slipping through in the unintended direction.

mariuolo• 13 years ago

I hope these news exaggerate facts, because every day I read something it looks like the US is on its path to become a Soviet hell.

You can no longer just leave Syracuse airport [video]

Related Stories