Airport security - the right way?

[Wildy]

TSA is truly stuck on stupid.

To be honest this is the first time where I agree with your use of the phrase "stuck on stupid".

 

[mhaze]

....
TSA is truly stuck on stupid.

Isn't what is going on is a obsession with things that are not part of the human monkey - breast prosthesis, baby milk, artificial legs, bags for urine, chemo bags and pump, whatever is attached that isn't part of the monkey, it is to be considered suspect until proven and verified otherwise.

Meanwhile no air freight is checked, and that not uncommonly is 50% of the payload of aircraft, the other half being human. Checked luggage is ran through a scanner, so it has to have no obvious bad stuff. Carry on luggage is scanned and may be physically examined.

So why the obsession with what's on the person? There seem to be a thousand and one ways and means other than what's on the person.

 

[JonathanClement]

These security measures are making me lose faith in humanity.

 

[mhaze]

These security measures are making me lose faith in humanity.

What, Security Theater is not entertaining, inspiring, and does not fill you with thunderstruck awe at the seriousness which your government fights the covert enemies of the nation?

In the patdown of your junk lies the safety of the nation.

 

[Alt+F4]

So why the obsession with what's on the person? There seem to be a thousand and one ways and means other than what's on the person.

9/11 then the shoe bomber, than the underwear bomber. Cargo can't hijack the plane and get publicity for some stupid cause.

 

[JonathanClement]

What, Security Theater is not entertaining, inspiring, and does not fill you with thunderstruck awe at the seriousness which your government fights the covert enemies of the nation?

In the patdown of your junk lies the safety of the nation.

Seriously, we're letting the terrorists win. We've lost many of our freedoms. I think a persons body is sacred and should not be invaded upon without probably cause! Seriously, they were frisking a very white, very american looking 3 year old for God's sake! Seriously? SERIOUSLY? It's out of control! At this rate, they're going to start body cavity searches! Are you going to approve of THAT in the name of "safety"?

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for a little teporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Benjamin Franklin

The terrorists WILL find a way in! Unless we outright molest people, there are going to be openings! The only thing these security measures are ultimately accomplishing is turning America into a fascist, dark empire which only exacerbates the terrorists hatred of us. It's in times like these that I thank God I live in Canada.

 

[mhaze]

9/11 then the shoe bomber, than the underwear bomber. Cargo can't hijack the plane and get publicity for some stupid cause.

Umm.....

Neither the shoe or the underwear bomber tried to hijack a plane. They wouldn't have succeeded if they'd tried. The passengers would have called the bluff.

They both attempted to detonate a bomb without it's being contingent on demands to the passengers or flight crew.

 

[elgarak]

Seriously, we're letting the terrorists win. We've lost many of our freedoms. I think a persons body is sacred and should not be invaded upon without probably cause! Seriously, they were frisking a very white, very american looking 3 year old for God's sake! Seriously? SERIOUSLY? It's out of control! At this rate, they're going to start body cavity searches! Are you going to approve of THAT in the name of "safety"?

I'm not sure that this argument is valid.

If I were a terrorist, and I knew with 100 per cent certainty that a 3 year old very white kid would not be checked, then I would be abusing such a kid as a mule, for sure.

 

[Kaylee]

<snip>

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for a little teporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Benjamin Franklin

<snip>

It's in times like these that I thank God I live in Canada.

AFAIK, Cananda, Great Britain and the Netherlands also use backscatter machines at their airports.

I don't know if those countries offer a pat-down alternative, even an ugh, enhanced pat-down alternative. Does anyone know?

As for Ben Franklin, I wonder what his opinion would be about how the govt is currently defining the 4th Amendment rights given that its possible these days to pack a nuclear bomb in a suitcase.

Let me be very clear here:

* I'm a strong supporter of 4th amendment rights
* I think the use of FBS and enhanced pat-downs at airports are ineffective, demeaning and a huge waste of money. Since we are dealing with foot traffic, sniffer dogs and metal detectors would probably do a much better job.
* I'm still not sure about the use of portable millimeter wave scanners in vulnerable public areas such as borders, major highways, etc to scan trucks and cars. (I'm not sure that they can, I've only seen reports that portable backscatter machines have been used in this way.)
* I'm against the use of backscatter machines.

I suspect that there weren't extensive searches at American seaports in the 1780s, but if they had the same kind of weapons then that we do now -- maybe they would have?

 

[mhaze]

.....I suspect that there weren't extensive searches at American seaports in the 1780s, but if they had the same kind of weapons then that we do now -- maybe they would have?

Terrorism requires modern style mass media to operate. The event is not the end in and of itself, it's effect is in the media.

And I suspect that it requires centralized media, such as TV and the newspaper. EG, terrorism might not work with Internet news. Since a large part of the younger generation is going to the internet and not even getting cable tv, that has some implications.

What is problematic and disturbing is that once we've created huge bureaucracies to handle terrorism, then they survive and grow only on the existence of terrorism. They need the public to continue to fear, and for this they need if not actual terrorist events, then some sorts of angles to work that allude to these continuing to be something to be worried about.

But it's based on the public having those fears, which I don't think they do.

 

[mhaze]

I'm not sure that this argument is valid.

If I were a terrorist, and I knew with 100 per cent certainty that a 3 year old very white kid would not be checked, then I would be abusing such a kid as a mule, for sure.

The problem with your argument is that you never know any such thing with 100% certainty. And the wrong goalset is to eliminate 100% of all possible terrorist actions.

What should be eliminated is the effect of terrorist actions, which is the plays on public fear and hysteria. That's already in large part gone, because post 911, everyone that gets in the plane knows that part of their job is to not allow a plane to be hijacked.

So where's the terror now?

Where's the fears?

What's the reasonable amount of protection from the government that we want?

PS: Good article.

Close the Washington Monument

 

[Kaylee]

Terrorism requires modern style mass media to operate. The event is not the end in and of itself, it's effect is in the media.

And I suspect that it requires centralized media, such as TV and the newspaper. EG, terrorism might not work with Internet news. Since a large part of the younger generation is going to the internet and not even getting cable tv, that has some implications.

I agree, terrorism relies on mass publicity. I think it could still work with just internet news -- things still have a way of going viral on the internet. I also think that some organizations will continue to be relied upon for general news, even if they were to drop their newspaper and TV network outlets. IMHO, in the future the distinction between TV and a dedicated web site for streaming media will be lost among the public. Just like many people decided to drop the landline phones in favor of just having one cell phone, I think [more] people will decide to stop buying TVs in favor of just having a computer network at home that can, of course, handle video streaming. As with the phones, this will be driven by young adults and people who move frequently.

What is problematic and disturbing is that once we've created huge bureaucracies to handle terrorism, then they survive and grow only on the existence of terrorism. They need the public to continue to fear, and for this they need if not actual terrorist events, then some sorts of angles to work that allude to these continuing to be something to be worried about.

But it's based on the public having those fears, which I don't think they do.

I agree. I also think its fed by large corporations who have expensive products they want to sell to the Govt. and an army of lobbyists who exist to sell it to Congress. This is clearly what happened with the backscatter machines.

I don't know how to solve that problem though. How can an organization be set up to do a job to solve a problem without becoming a problem itself? How can it be set up to be strong enough to solve a problem without having enough strength to become entrenched and powerful enough to become a problem itself and keep itself in power?

 

[mhaze]

.....I don't know how to solve that problem though. How can an organization be set up to do a job to solve a problem without becoming a problem itself? How can it be set up to be strong enough to solve a problem without having enough strength to become entrenched and powerful enough to become a problem itself and keep itself in power?

It's okay with me if the government has "Nanny State Airlines" and they strip and search all passengers, and private industry has "Freedom Air" with $1M prize for any takedown of a terrorist, and no strip and search. Let's see how many passengers ride Nanny State Air.

But to ram Nanny State Air on everyone is going to not work out too well. It doesn't really have much to do with terrorism in my opinion.

We're seeing here the implementation of the progressive, anti-Constitutional concepts of "rights" here. According to these view, "rights" are privileges that the government meters out to you as it wishes, not something that you possess which is inalienable.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...em-is-game-horrifying-sex-abuse-experts.shtml

Apparently TSA agents are being told that one way to handle the new groping pat downs for children is to try to make it out to be some sort of "game." This is apparently horrifying some sex abuse experts who point out that a common tactic in abuse cases is to tell the kids that they're just "playing a game."

 

[bigjelmapro]

Why we still going on about intrusive methods of airport security when this op quite clearly explains the alterative of looking directly at the passengers themselves and their behaviour?

This approach has had definitive results. Time to get past this stubborn method of airport security, which has had no results, and scrap it for competent and experienced security force.

 

[mhaze]

Why we still going on about intrusive methods of airport security when this op quite clearly explains the alterative of looking directly at the passengers themselves and their behaviour?

This approach has had definitive results. Time to get past this stubborn method of airport security, which has had no results, and scrap it for competent and experienced security force.

Because progressive liberals with their happy baskets of feelings run the US administration at this time, and they don't want to do it the efficient way.

That wouldn't generate Security Theatre.

 

[mhaze]

Why we still going on about intrusive methods of airport security when this op quite clearly explains the alterative of looking directly at the passengers themselves and their behaviour?

This approach has had definitive results. Time to get past this stubborn method of airport security, which has had no results, and scrap it for competent and experienced security force.

The way the media presented it, National Opt Out Day (when people were going to overwhelm the TSA by refusing the porno-scanners) was a failure because hardly anyone opted out.

But that's a lie.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/full_body_scann.html

Organizers of National Opt Out Day, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving when air travelers were urged to opt out of the full-body scanners at security checkpoints and instead submit to full-body patdowns -- were outfoxed by the TSA. The government pre-empted the protest by turning off the machines in most airports during the Thanksgiving weekend. Everyone went through the metal detectors, just as before.

 

[Kaylee]

....I don't know how to solve that problem though. How can an organization be set up to do a job to solve a problem without becoming a problem itself? How can it be set up to be strong enough to solve a problem without having enough strength to become entrenched and powerful enough to become a problem itself and keep itself in power?

It's okay with me if the government has "Nanny State Airlines" and they strip and search all passengers, and private industry has "Freedom Air" with $1M prize for any takedown of a terrorist, and no strip and search. Let's see how many passengers ride Nanny State Air.

Interesting idea, but that's not going to happen for a lot of reasons.

But to ram Nanny State Air on everyone is going to not work out too well. It doesn't really have much to do with terrorism in my opinion.

It's definitely gone overboard.

Here's a simple analogy. I lock my front door every time I leave home. Luckily, I've never been burglarized. Does that mean that my lock is useless? No, it's probably the reason that my home hasn't been burglarized.

There's probably many people who would like to burglarize my home if they could. But does that mean that I'm going to invest in a super duper system that would require fingerprint and eye scan tests before I could enter my home? No, its overkill. I have many pressing needs and bills that I have to take care of. Given a common sense cost/benefits analyis, it wouldn't be a prudent use of my resources.

I wouldn't invest in a system that would require me to get x-rayed and compare the output to a stored copy on a computer before allowing me entrance either.

That really would be overkill, and in the long run, probably unhealthy. And it also wouldn't be a prudent use of my resources.

Let's say I had a guardian who made many of my financial decisions for me. If they decided to go for the x-ray lock system, they would be guilty of poor stewardship. ETA: To make the analogy complete, the x-ray lock system manufacturers promise my guardian a plush job after he arranges to have me contractually obligated to install the system.

That's what we seeing now with the US govt. They are making bad decisions and spending our tax dollars in an irresponsible way esp. given the state of our budget. We had many posts at the JREF that explained why sniffer dogs combined with metal detectors would be a much better choice at airport security check points.

The new TSA protocols did not get designed over night, it took years to get them in place. A lot of this happened under a Republican administration and Republicans can be quite good at "corporate welfare". Result? Rapiscan wins, American citizens lose.

We're seeing here the implementation of the progressive, anti-Constitutional concepts of "rights" here. According to these view, "rights" are privileges that the government meters out to you as it wishes, not something that you possess which is inalienable.

I think we're seeing poor stewardship and greed run amuck. I don't believe that our constitutional rights were the original main target, but nevertheless they are in danger as a result.

So my question in my last post is still open.

 

[dc1971]

Interesting article from a Canadian site, on how Israel handles airport security with multiple layers: stopping people before they even get to the airport, behavioural profiling, in short looking for the terrorists not the guns.

The comments section highlight potential cons as well: the profiling could be seen as racist, scalability issues.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother

And you agree with this?

 

[dc1971]

I think this type of attitude will end up prevailing. Most of us just want to get the damn traveling over with. The new security might suck, but so did the old security. The benefit now is that with the baggage x-rays and porno-scanners (I'm stealing that ), you can potentially get from your home all the way to your seat next to a fat person on the plane without being touched by anyone.

Okay! You made your point. However, what's next? Body scanners in automobiles? Terrorism checkpoints being masqueraded as DUI checkpoints? Internet camera scans where you will be required, if you have internet access, to scan yourself each time you access the internet? All of this in the name of thwarting terrorism and "feeling safe"?