Air travel security is retarded - why?

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a lot of false reasoning in here.

You seem convinced of yourself though, so I won't try to reason with you.

But I'll give you just one example:

People have hijacked planes with guns before. It's a tried method. Should we no longer screen for guns?


[/ QUOTE ]

NTB,

I sound sure of myself because I know how to write without being wish-washy or ambiguous. I assure you I can carry on a discussion and am capable of changing my mind.

Please reread my post. I state quite clearly that screening for weapons and trace amounts of explosives is prudent and reasonable. I am also in favor of professionals doing the work, including air marshals and observant officers on the ground.

Yet I do think that adding things to checklists simply because they can be used as a weapon is a no-win situation.

I can't bring a bottle of wine, but I can bring on the bottle. Should we stop that? We could go on for a long time and start banning any number of things. It's not worth doing.

This is in itself an allegory for the question of security in general. Focusing all (or a great amount) of resources solely on airline travel, or any particular attack vector, suffers from the same weakness- guessing where and how an attack will come.

I should have prefaced the point of passenger cooperation more clearly. An attack in the style of the September 11 attacks can no longer assume cooperation. That in itself is a big deterrent for any such attempt.

But I stand by the idea that enumerating improvised weapons and putting a procedure in place for each is inefficient and ineffective.

What other false reasoning would you care to point out?

[HP]

wordwiz great post

it´s good to see some one has the balls to say you can weigh loss of life against inconvenience. I find it silly when anyone argues you can´t

IMO letting one terrorist through can be worth it, depending on how much less inconvenience we can get away with

[NewTeaBag]

If you have read my previous detailed response to TWP, please reread it.

There is more to liquid rstrictions than what you might think.
The same goes for shoe xrays and other seemingly barely useful measures.

TSA does not and cannot prevent every single type of contraband/attack material from reaching a plane.

Think about the "hard target" objective. I submit it's more important than the inconveniences and is effective.

Air Marshalls are essentially a "last line of defence." No matter how you cut it, shooting of any type going on in a pressurized civilian airliner is not a pretty scenario.


As for false reasoning: I apologize if that came off as offensive. My point was more that your language implies an overconfidence in the surety of your own words.

[ QUOTE ]
It is laughable to put any credence...

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We cannot keep improvised weapons out of prisons, we have no chance of doing it on commercial airlines.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, just dedicating the resources we do to TSA instead of general intelligence is a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the type of language I'm talking about. It demonstrates a lack of understanding a few key security concepts.


On a different note:
[ QUOTE ]
I should have prefaced the point of passenger cooperation more clearly. An attack in the style of the September 11 attacks can no longer assume cooperation. That in itself is a big deterrent for any such attempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes in a small way. But, do you think a truly determined, well supported group couldn't force the passengers to submit though? I know how to do it. Why wouldn't just as intelligent and more resourceful terrorists know as well? It's a strange thing when someone points a deadly weapon at you and threatens to kill you for not complying with their wishes. Unless you have the training or have experienced the situation before, it is impossible to say how you or a group of 300 passengers will react. I think, in most cases, most people tend toward cowardice in these situations vice instinctual mass action.

My initial response after 9/11 regarding the hijackings, was "WTMF? How the [censored] did these idiots let themselves get taken over by 5 [censored] with improvised knives?" Even pre 9/11, I would be far more likely to start fighting almost instantly. But, as has been pointed out many times, "regular joes" just don't react that way. Perhaps post 9/11, knowing their lives are forfeit anyway, more "regular joes" would opt to fight rather than cower, but I remain unconvinced there are enough of them.


My point in pointing this out is not to say "woohoo look at me! I'm Joe Security expert, and your silly uninformed guy." But more to say it's a lot more complex problem that you are saying. There are no simple solutions for TSA or intelligence services. Allocation of scarce resources for both undertakings are analyzed constantly. I don't completely agree with them, but, even when I was in a position of authority in the field I still couldn't convince many of the "beancounters" what was or wasn't efficent use and allocation of resources.

That said, the job is being done in a better way then it was 6 yrs ago and is improving.

[StevieG]

NTB,

Yes I did read your response to TWP. At the time, I disagreed with part of it, and this is a good a time as any to discuss:

"Also, [screening liquids] gives TSA a simple and explainable reason to do a more thorough search through your carry on luggage. Once again, seems silly to need an excuse, BUT every extra chance they have to get a deeper look at you and what you are carrying is an incremental increase in security."

Really? No one is really taking a closer look at the rest of the luggage because of this. The liquids are being separated and placed on the bed in their own container.

TSA needs no pretense for screening, If they want to increase the number of bag inspections, they should simply do so.

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is laughable to put any credence...

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We cannot keep improvised weapons out of prisons, we have no chance of doing it on commercial airlines.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, just dedicating the resources we do to TSA instead of general intelligence is a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the type of language I'm talking about. It demonstrates a lack of understanding a few key security concepts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand.

Specifically for the checking of boarding passes when going through the metal detector.

Because in that case I truly think that it is laughable to put faith in a boarding pass I can print out myself (and my extension, manipulate easily).

I will concede that it makes sense procedurally to cut down on the number of people requiring screening by limiting access to passengers.

But if there is a real use for having me walk through the metal detector with a piece of paper I printed myself and handled myself between someone matching it against a government issued ID, I will stop calling it laughable.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
NTB,

Yes I did read your response to TWP. At the time, I disagreed with part of it, and this is a good a time as any to discuss:

"Also, [screening liquids] gives TSA a simple and explainable reason to do a more thorough search through your carry on luggage. Once again, seems silly to need an excuse, BUT every extra chance they have to get a deeper look at you and what you are carrying is an incremental increase in security."

[ QUOTE ]
Really? No one is really taking a closer look at the rest of the luggage because of this. The liquids are being separated and placed on the bed in their own container.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many travellers "forget" to remove the liquid items from their luggage. Thus it is caught on the xray and then a thourough bag search is conducted. Also, there maybey items in the bags which "look" like liquid carrying items on the xray, thus leading to hand baggage inspections.

[ QUOTE ]
TSA needs no pretense for screening, If they want to increase the number of bag inspections, they should simply do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I beg to differ. Providing a simple, tangible reason calms the masses and prevents more poeple from griping even more about "useless security measures."

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is laughable to put any credence...

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We cannot keep improvised weapons out of prisons, we have no chance of doing it on commercial airlines.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, just dedicating the resources we do to TSA instead of general intelligence is a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the type of language I'm talking about. It demonstrates a lack of understanding a few key security concepts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand.

Specifically for the checking of boarding passes when going through the metal detector.

Because in that case I truly think that it is laughable to put faith in a boarding pass I can print out myself (and my extension, manipulate easily).

I will concede that it makes sense procedurally to cut down on the number of people requiring screening by limiting access to passengers.

But if there is a real use for having me walk through the metal detector with a piece of paper I printed myself and handled myself between someone matching it against a government issued ID, I will stop calling it laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you think you can print a machine readable boarding pass that is ALSO going to get you past the gate reading machine, then sure. If not, what are you accomplishing by printing your own boarding pass?

I've already commented on the necesity of ID checks for assuring the accuracy of passenger manifests. I don't see how a simple ID match to boarding pass hurts security or inconvenience. What it does prevent is someone stealing your boarding pass in the airport and attempting to then get thru security and onto the plane. The TSA checkpoints are far better setup to handle any who did as opposed to leaving it to the airline employee at the gate.

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
Well if you think you can print a machine readable boarding pass that is ALSO going to get you past the gate reading machine, then sure. If not, what are you accomplishing by printing your own boarding pass?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but that is just the thing. Those documents don't have to be one and the same.

Someone can book under an assumed name, show the initial screener a printed boarding pass that that person manipulated to match valid credentials, then throw away the fake boarding pass and hand the real one to the airline rep at the gate. Which is a pretty simple way to sidestep that manifest. And I agree with you that this manifest should be important - so why this loophole?

And that doesn't address my original question on why the TSA staffer operating the metal detector needs to see it. For that matter, the piece of paper handed to that person could be a third entirely different piece of paper. Because as far as I can tell, it's still laughable.

[MinusEV]

[ QUOTE ]
In closing, try and remember the big picture and the little picture as you get pissed off ye again at the delays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the big picture, I think you have to ask what exactly are the statistical chances of being injured/killed in a plane-and-terrorist-related incident? I have no numbers, but I'm fairly certain that the chances of this (even using pre 9/11-security measures) are about the same, or less, as getting injured/killed from being struck by lightning.

So how does this justify the enormous amount of money and time spent on the new security measures? Why aren't the same kind of time and money being invested into stopping drunk driving for instance? It's an issue that, looking at the big picture, costs a lot more suffering and money than terrorism and there are measures that can be implemented into cars that would help reduce the issue greatly, but still this is not an issue because of the money and inconvenience it would cost.

Planes crashing into buildings or being blown up is certainly terrifying and 'spectacular' but is it really a big problem in the big picture?

I'm obviously not saying we shouldn't bother with security because so few will be affected anyway, but there's a huge industry making big money from implementing these security measures in addition to governments needing to look like they're dealing effectivly with terrorism. Airlines and passengers are caught in between these and forced to accept whatever new remedy someone comes up with whenever someone presents a new 'a terrorist might do this'-scenario.

[NewTeaBag]

The threats are real and tangible.

Pre 9/11 and post 9/11 the threats were both real and tangible.

Drunk driving is horrid but widespread and so dependent upon individual behavior it is far more difficult to stop. The same goes for the "war on drugs." Until we remove the drunks and the drug users, both fights are diffiult uphill battles. Also, the effect of the indiviual incidents is minor (in terms of scale of injury and damage). OTH, air terrorism is large scale both in terms of deaths and damage and serious steps can and are being taken to minimize the probabilities.

As for terroism, specifically air type terrorism, myself and those better informed, smarter, and more experienced than me were warning of a 9/11 type attack long before 9/11. For a list of reasons the Clinton Administration (and their security chieftains) decided to minimize the threat and dedicate inadequate resources to the threat as well as handcuffing those of us on the front lines in the battle. The same goes for Bush in his 1st 9 months in office. It took a 9/11 just to wake up a lot of politicians to the "realness" of the threat. Now think about the American public. Would they even be close to accepting the newer airport security measures/inconveniences had there been NO 9/11? I seriously doubt it. Think about the disturbance many are expressing POST 9/11.

Now where do we stand today? The Bush admin and his security chieftains have now gone well overboard in many respects and still only dedicate inadequate resources in what some of us experts believe are high threat, high value target areas. Air travel security is one of the few that has gotten a much more seroius upgrade. As I said before, I could make a list of reccomendations that would just about eliminate the threat of using civilian airliners as terrorist weapons, but if your peuking on current measures you would vomit 16 times if my reccomendations were enacted. IOW, TSA is making air travel a harder target but not an impregnable one.