1
   

STUPID AIRPORT SECURITY

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 08:56 am
All good points Drewdad except I am not sure about the government agreeing we are being inconvenienced for no reason. Remember the guy trying to light his shoes that were laced with explosives? We've had no more instances of that since airport security inspects all shoes now.

Tweezers and nail clippers seem to me to be no more useful as serious weapons than would a sturdy ballpoint pen or mechanical pencil or other items that are allowed. Some common sense is definitely in order.

Better x-ray equipment and allowing no carry on luggage other than normal accessories such as purses would speed things up while all baggage going onto the cargo bin was x-rayed.

And lets get past political correctness and allow profiling for purposes of extra scrutiny. I think most Americans and visitors of Arab descent and other Middle Easterners would understand the necessity for that and they certainly don't want to be on an airplane with a terrorist any more than the rest of us want that.

I think otherwise we would not seriously jeopardize security by putting most others through normal security measures and do only very occasional extra scrutiny of people who don't fit the profile.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:04 am
Talking about the the "shoe bomber":

Quote:
London-born Richard Reid has been sentenced in the United States after admitting trying to blow up a commercial flight using bombs hidden in his shoes.

The son of an English mother and Jamaican father, so-called "shoe bomber" Richard Reid was born in 1973 in the London suburb of Bromley.


source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:10 am
Yes, his ethnicity doesn't fit the profile. But look at this face. Could be Middle Eastern no? I'm kidding. At any rate he performed the service of exposing that means of blowing up an airplane and that means has been pretty well elininated as a result.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1730000/images/_1731568_reid2_ap300.jpg
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:12 am
Point is: profiling doesn't work.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:15 am
It isn't the total solution for sure. I'm not convinced there is no profit in it for the purpose of airline security however. We were so naive before. A bunch of happy go lucky Arabs wanting to fly were not profiled and were accepted without question. I guess it never occured to anybody that it was in anyway sinister that they weren't interested in landing. I doubt any flight school in the country will make that mistake again either.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:27 am
DrewDad wrote:
Disallow fewer personal items (nail clippers, pocket knives, etc.)?


You can't take them in the airplanes ... or is such allowed in the USA?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:28 am
Good point, Foxy. Let me rephrase that statement: Profiling based on ethnicity doesn't work. It's obviously totally possible to find non-Arab, non-Middle Eastern-looking guys to perform terrorist attacks.

In one case that might have been the son of an English mother and Jamaican father who had been brought up in London.

In another case it might be a pregnant woman who is the daughter of an American mother and a Candian father, or a teenager who is the son of an Australian mother and a Brasilian father, or an elder lady who is the daughter of an Italian mother and an Israeli father....

Just because this hasn't been the case so far doesn't mean it's never going to happen. If we assume that this could never be the case, we would be just as naive as we were before.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:30 am
Foxfyre wrote:
All good points Drewdad except I am not sure about the government agreeing we are being inconvenienced for no reason.

NPR and my local radio talk shows were both abuzz a couple of weeks ago when a government report came out that airport security is no better today than it was 911. I'll have to see if I can find a link.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:34 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Disallow fewer personal items (nail clippers, pocket knives, etc.)?


You can't take them in the airplanes ... or is such allowed in the USA?


TSA Prohibited Items List
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:35 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Disallow fewer personal items (nail clippers, pocket knives, etc.)?


You can't take them in the airplanes ... or is such allowed in the USA?

Pre-911 these items were allowed. They will now take them from you.

They just disallowed all cigarette lighters. I'm not sure what the rule is on matches. Rolling Eyes

But they allow people to carry on cameras, with straps. Makes a nifty flail, does it not?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:36 am
DrewDad wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
All good points Drewdad except I am not sure about the government agreeing we are being inconvenienced for no reason.

NPR and my local radio talk shows were both abuzz a couple of weeks ago when a government report came out that airport security is no better today than it was 911. I'll have to see if I can find a link.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/04/16/airport.screeners.ap/
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:38 am
Quote:
Reports Say Airport Security Hasn't Improved

April 16, 2005

By KOMO Staff & News Services

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Two upcoming government reports will say the quality of screening at airports is no better now than before the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a House member who has been briefed on the contents.
"A lot of people will be shocked at the billions of dollars we've spent and the results they're going to see, which confirm previous examinations of the Soviet-style screening system we've put in place," Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., told The Associated Press on Friday.

Mica chairs the House aviation subcommittee and was briefed on the reports.

The TSA won't comment on the specifics of the reports until they are released, said spokesman Mark Hatfield Jr.

"When the political posturing is over, rational people will see that American screeners today are the best we have ever had and that they are limited only by current technology and security procedures that are significantly influenced by privacy demands," Hatfield said.

Improving the ability of screeners to find dangerous items has been the goal since the government took over the task at about 450 airports in early 2002 and hired more than 45,000 workers. But earlier investigations showed problems persist.

On Jan. 26, Homeland Security's acting inspector general, Richard Skinner, testified that "the ability of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items from being carried through the sterile areas of the airports fared no better than the performance of screeners prior to Sept. 11, 2001."

Skinner told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the reasons the screeners failed undercover audits had to do with training, equipment, management and policy.

A year ago, Clark Kent Ervin, then-inspector general of Homeland Security, told lawmakers the TSA screeners and privately contracted airport workers "performed about the same, which is to say, equally poorly."

When Congress created the TSA it stipulated that privately employed screeners be used at five airports to serve as a measuring stick for the federal screeners.

Screeners are tested by the inspector general's undercover agents, who try to smuggle fake weapons and bombs past security checkpoints. Their performance also is measured by the Threat Image Projection system, which puts images of threat objects on X-ray screens while the screeners are working and identifies whether they identify the threats.

Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio, the ranking Democrat on Mica's subcommittee, also was briefed on the two upcoming reports. He said they draw different conclusions about the relative performance of government screeners and those who work for private companies.

"The common finding is that no set of screeners, private nor public, is performing anywhere near the level I think we need," DeFazio said.

Screener performance won't be acceptable "until these people have state-of-the-art technology," he said.

DeFazio is especially critical of the X-ray machines used to screen passengers' baggage in most airports. Much better equipment is already available and in use on Capitol Hill and in the White House, he said.

The TSA, which did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment, has said in the past that the tests used to measure screener performance are much more rigorous than they were before the Sept. 11 hijackings.

Before the attacks, the Threat Image Projection system only used images of about 200 items. Now the TSA uses more than 5,000 images, Hatfield said.

Screeners have been much more aggressive about seizing prohibited items than their predecessors, the private screeners who worked for companies employed by airlines. Each month, screeners take from passengers about a half-million things, including 160,000 knives, 2,000 box cutters and 70 guns.
Source

There have been a lot of comments in our media re "Each month, screeners take from passengers about a half-million things, including 160,000 knives, 2,000 box cutters and 70 guns."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:40 am
OE, if we start turning up significant numbers of people who don't fit the profile, then of course profling becomes useless. And there is always the absolute nut who wigs out and commits an atrocity. These people can be anybody but they have always existed since the Wright Brothers' first test flight.

When significant numbers of people who don't fit the profile are identified as being dangerous as terrorists, then we do something different and tighten security further. That has not been the case in the U.S. thus far however.

I do not want security reduced in any way. I just want it to make sense and be the most efficient it can be and maybe be less disruptive to the people who fly. If Williams is correct that people fly less just because of the hassle--and that is certainly true for me personally--then there is the economical health of the airlines themselves to consider too. They are critical to the well being of the country.

There are so many factors. Looking at it one way and one way only will usually not produce the best solutions.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:47 am
The article is interesting Walter. So it looks like better screening equipment should be a priority too.
I was on a flight awhile back and when fishing a pen out of my purse discovered a forgotten 6" pair of scissors. The screener had missed them. I think that was one of those flights I got the 'additional scrutiny' as well but that didn't include the contents of my purse.

I felt like a criminal until I arrived at my destination and left the airport.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:53 am
Foxfyre wrote:
discovered a forgotten 6" pair of scissors. The screener had missed them.



Well, 6'' aren't really that small - even with smaller ones you could feel here like a criminal, because you would be uphelding all the others at the security check.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:53 am
Foxfyre wrote:
When significant numbers of people who don't fit the profile are identified as being dangerous as terrorists, then we do something different and tighten security further. That has not been the case in the U.S. thus far however.


I don't know how you would define "dangerous as terrorists", and if, e.g. Richard Reid, Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh or Lee Boyd Malvo would qualify, but if I would board a flight I'd most definitly not be concerned about 'significant numbers'.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 10:06 am
OE writes:
Quote:
I don't know how you would define "dangerous as terrorists", and if, e.g. Richard Reid, Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh or Lee Boyd Malvo would qualify, but if I would board a flight I'd most definitly not be concerned about 'significant numbers'.


Focus now OE. This discussion is on airline security. Mail bombers, truck bombers, and snipers are all a completely different category. Richard Reid belongs on the list and, despite security measures in force, he got a bomb on a plane. Fortunately, he was caught before he committed mayhem with it, and security has since been tightened to make his method much less likely to succeed.

Richard Reid does not consist o a 'group of people'.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 10:10 am
Fair enough Foxy. But why did you post this list then?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 10:11 am
Neither limited to the US, nor to be associated with the 'airline security' problem.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 10:18 am
The list was to demonstrate that most terrorist attacks against the U.S. in recent times have been committed by persons of Middle Eastern ethnicity or descent including those involving airplanes. It was to provide justification for profiling in the interest of providing better security for everybody including persons of Middle Eastern ethnicity or descent.

It was not intended to suggest that there are not gong to be isolated nutcases out there, but with the exception of Richard Reid who almost succeeded without profiling going on, the others were not associated with organized groups. They also are very rare while Islamic terrorist attacks occur on a daily basis. I can see the difference. I think it should be obvious to everybody.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 03:56:19