And? There’s a lot of things that people could theoretically do. The few seconds that someone is going through event security isn’t going to stop a competent attacker, nor is it reasonable to expect them to be able to do that.
The point is to stop the most common attackers who are sloppy idiots.
No incompetent person could feasibly use a Raspberry Pi to do any harm, and I invite you to find any examples to the contrary. It is easier to abuse a phone.
It is solving for the wrong problem. An idiot with a Pi or Flipper Zero isn’t the actual threat any more than Star Simpson was.
And if you don’t agree the stupidity that Star was put through was absurd, then we simply won’t agree on the matter.
There’s a difference between security/intelligence and theater. Too many people mistake the two, because they’ve been trained by folks like the TSA to mistake theater for security/intelligence.
You are all spot on with in terms of a technical information security evaluation here.
Unfortunately, the reality is there are not enough information security specialists in the world to hire them as event security for every large public event. And even if there were, the logistics of such an event would not allow for enough time for a proper information security screening.
What you're asking for is not theoretically wrong, it's just impossible to implement.
My argument isn’t that every event can and should build an intelligence apparatus. That would be impossible, though it would actually provide security. I agree.
My argument is that banning flipper zeros does not do anything to improve security, even if they wish it did. If they actually cared about security, it would cost them a lot more time and money. Instead, they’ve chosen theater. I don’t even have a problem with this necessarily, if it makes some people feel safer; I have a problem with anyone pretending it is security, and not theater.
When someone is given a placebo during a clinical trial, they are informed and unblinded after the trial so that they do not think they were on the actual medication; this is because otherwise, they would draw the wrong conclusion from the trial for themselves.
This is theater; that’s okay, maybe, but let’s not pretend it’s something it isn’t.
Anyway, I think we’re repeating ourselves, and I’m happy to agree to disagree.
You're really missing the forest for the trees here. It's arguable which one has more theoretical exploits. This is an issue of practicality. Phones are allowed because it's normal for everyone to have one in their pocket and impractical to ban them.
Yeah, they are probably a disturbance at best. Like pets, large signs, beach balls, and alcohol alcoholic beverages, which are other things on the list.
"security" is a lot more broad than just "preventing terrorist attacks"
You don't need to be a super l33et h4x0r to disrupt an event -- you could knock around a beach ball or turn off a display with the IR blaster on a flipper zero. Not everything is life or death.
What’s more likely? That they were banned due to misunderstandings of what these devices are, or that they were banned they are “causing a disturbance”? Can you find an example of such a case? I’m not sure why this feels so important to defend.
There are several definitions of security, but the most relevant (in this context) are:
1. the state of being protected against or safe from danger or threat.
2. the safety of a state or organization against criminal activity such as terrorism, theft, or espionage.
3. procedures followed or measures taken to ensure the safety of a state or organization.
I fail to see how these devices fall into those definitions. I also don’t see how beach balls do either.
So if your argument is changing to: it isn’t security, but rather preventing people from getting in each other’s way (large signs, strollers, beach balls) I once again don’t see how that applies.
I agree those items have nothing to do with security either.
I'm not changing anything -- my root comment in this thread specifically mentioned "disturbances". Mitigating disturbances to the proceedings of an event is plainly a part of event security. The "threats" evaluated in event security are not solely to life and limb but also to the proceedings of the event itself. I didn't think this required elaboration; I thought most people would be familiar with this function of event security.
The point is to stop the most common attackers who are sloppy idiots.