The Trouble With Current Airport Screening Procedures

[wsteineker]

I just found this article over at Wired news.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,58386,00.html

It's really kind of sad that such an utter lack of reason has overtaken our government's efforts to fight terrorism. This article is a real eye opener. Enjoy!

 

[MrMacMan]

"Your A Terriost Suspect!"

If you share a name with 'atta' or an 'osma' or an 'Mohammed' you better watch out, the U.S is after you!

Omg, so stupid....

Heck I though I was mad when they screened me and found my metal watch has guess what "metal" and than when my bad went through they found my nail cliper w/o any sharp parts... and then the dog sniffed me and they needed to x-ray me to see if I wan smuggling drugs *out* of the U.S (WTF!?!?) and then I was a 'random' passagner for a shoe test where you have to take off your shoe, just in case.

That is what a 15 year old w/o looking middle eastern the people with arabic names go through hell!

 

[wsteineker]

You're absolutely right here, man. My girlfriend was forced to give up her metal makeup brush during a screening recently. That's just over the top, man. This has all just gotten so damn silly.

 

[pseudobrit]

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again:

The terrorists have already won.

 

[NavyIntel007]

The stupid thing is they have to be so damn politically correct that they can't just single out Arabs (I'm not saying that all Arabs are terrorists, however terrorists have tended to be arabs of late) that they'll sit there and search the bags of a 8 year old asian girl along with the 77 year old man. Like come on...

I don't often agree with pseudobrit, but he's right, they won.

 

[wsteineker]

Wow. I've never agreed with Navy before, so mark this one down. The terrorists really have won. I'm not saying I think profiling Arabs (because that's what it is) is a good idea, but reason dictates that the terrorist you're looking for probably isn't some hyperactive toddler.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
The stupid thing is they have to be so damn politically correct that they can't just single out Arabs (I'm not saying that all Arabs are terrorists, however terrorists have tended to be arabs of late) that they'll sit there and search the bags of a 8 year old asian girl along with the 77 year old man. Like come on...

I don't often agree with pseudobrit, but he's right, they won.

At least in my epxerience security has come down to a more rational level since right after 9-11. For example, my nail file and clippers didn't taken the last time I flew (coupla months ago leaving Miami I think)

The shoe thing has never bothered me. On more than one occasion I've gotten the royal treatment. Shoes and bags x-rayed and swabbed. Wallet "searched" (I keep a couple spare keys in my wallet), wanded 6 ways from Sunday, checkin bag tossed into super-duper-ulta X-ray machine etc., and it never bothered me (even when I was pressed for time to catch my flight).

As for 8 year old girls, old women, nuns and priests why shouldn't they be subject to the same rules as everyone else? If the young or old and feeble looking don't get searched guess who I would use if I wanted to bring down a plane (if i was a terrorist)? I'd kidnap a baby pass it off as my kid at the airport and store flamible or toxic chemicals in it's bottles or forumula jars. Or I'd dress up as a priest or recruit someone older and innocent looking and have them smuggle the tools needed to take out the plane.

There are a million examples of aiport security gone over board but saying certian people shouldn't be subject to the same standards because they look too young, or too old, or too innocent is naive.


Lethal

 

[zimv20]

it was interesting to me, in the weeks after 9/11, to watch the media equate "personal freedoms" w/ how long we have to wait in line at an airport.

i'm w/ lethal, i don't mind the wait (though i grimace every time i'm pulled aside to remove my shoes and undo my belt).

i'm much more concerned that law enforcement can search my house w/o telling me, arrest me w/o letting me inform anyone (including a lawyer), and grab my credit card receipts and library checkout history to figure out if i _may_ commit a crime in the future.

are those things supposed to make me feel better?

 

[wsteineker]

I hope you all have good credit, because the FAA's proposed new screening technology, CAPPS II, uses a massive credit rating database to flag people as terrorist risks based on quality of credit. I'm a college student with a freelance job and a roommate who doesn't like to pay his half of the bills ontime. My credit has gone to ****, so if this works out like it looks to then I'm gonna have to start taking the train. It's situations like these where personal liberty IS infringed. End of story. You shouldn't have to worry about information that you've gone the bulk of you life assuming to be secure being let out of the box just because the government wants to. That's why we have the system we have, so the powers that be can't just do whatever they want. To date, that information was only available to institutionns when YOU made it available (applying for loans, credit cards, etc) or signed a waiver allowing an inclusive background check. This is crossing the line.

Here are two wired articles that address the situation. The first is an overview of the system, and the second goes into more detail with the obvious problems not enumerated in the first article. Both are excellent reads.
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,58051,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,58344,00.html

 

[LethalWolfe]

RE: Terrorists have won.

We'll, that's a bit of a catch 22. If security didn't get ramped up and more planes got hijacked and more people died what do you think public, and world, opinion would be? But since security has gotten ramped up and no recent attempts to hijack a plane have succeed or been reported in the media (assuming their have been any) people start thinking "well, all this security is stupid 'cause no one has hijacked a plane for a while." Maybe the increased security has actually been a productive deterrent?

Of course, there is also the possibility that no other hijackings have been planned and a bunch of terrorists sitting in caves are havng a good laugh at the minor inconvience they've caused some people at US airports. If that's the case then that's fine w/me 'cause I'd rather have them laughing at people than killing people because security still sucked a monkey's nut.


Lethal

 

[caveman_uk]

Last time I went thru' transit in LAX I was stopped by security because of a plastic survival bag in my luggage (The bag in question is a very large polythene bag vacuum sealed in another plastic wrapper about the size of a credit card and 1/2 inch thick). You won't believe how many baggage checkers I had to explain what it was to and how long it took. (The answers are 3 and 10 minutes). Then there was the time at Logan I was searched because my hairbrush looked like a knife on X-ray...

I think it would be a good idea if

a) They bothered training the security guys
b) They spoke English as their first language.
c) They picked people with some evidence of interpersonal skills

Given the choice of flying via the US or over Iran to New Zealand I'd choose Iran to avoid LAX transit

 

[cubist]

The other troubling thing is all this authority with no responsibility. If they damage your laptop, or break your leg for that matter, they disclaim all responsibility.

And the confiscation stuff is terrible, too. Seizing property on suspicion of drug dealing? Whatever happened to "there shall be no taking without compensation"?

But this is not new... some say the trend began with FDR... some say it began with Lincoln... some would even blame it on Alexander Hamilton.

 

[wsteineker]

I totally agree with the last two posts. This growing power can only be justified with proper training, which is a far cry from what is actually occuring. There is simply no responsibility on the part of these people, nor is there any mechanism for reclaiming the value of lost or damaged goods. As for property rights, while they are not sacrosanct in this country, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of property owners when the situation that leads to confiscation or damage of said property is incurred without the owner actually having broken a law. There has to be some responsibility accepted on the part of the FAA and the TSA for damages to perfectly legal personal property incurred during these searches.

 

[alex_ant]

Well, I read the article, but I still don't understand what the problem is with AirPort screening procedures. Anyway, if you're worried about security, why are you using wireless Ethernet?

 

[wsteineker]

The title of the thread may be a little misleading (my bad), but I think the overall problem here is more than obvious. The FBI was notified of a problem and refused to do anything about it. In fact, it seems as though the hassle has increased.

And I don't use wireless ethernet...

 

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by wsteineker
The title of the thread may be a little misleading (my bad), but I think the overall problem here is more than obvious. The FBI was notified of a problem and refused to do anything about it. In fact, it seems as though the hassle has increased.

And I don't use wireless ethernet...

i *think* that alex was making a play on airport like the place where planes fly in and out of... and airport like apple's wireless thing...

but i could be wrong

alex is an enigma wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a pair of wet trousers

 

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by caveman_uk
Last time I went thru' transit in LAX I was stopped by security because of a plastic survival bag in my luggage (The bag in question is a very large polythene bag vacuum sealed in another plastic wrapper about the size of a credit card and 1/2 inch thick). You won't believe how many baggage checkers I had to explain what it was to and how long it took. (The answers are 3 and 10 minutes). Then there was the time at Logan I was searched because my hairbrush looked like a knife on X-ray...

I think it would be a good idea if

a) They bothered training the security guys
b) They spoke English as their first language.
c) They picked people with some evidence of interpersonal skills

Given the choice of flying via the US or over Iran to New Zealand I'd choose Iran to avoid LAX transit

I understand that a bit too much. The customs people are just as bad or worse.

As far as security screeners go:

a> They got their 6 hours of training. I believe some people even got 12 hours. (They were probably asleep the first time.)
b> They only need to speak English fluently--who decides that?
c> No one in government needs interpersonal skills

I would add the requirements:
d> They should have to stay awake during their work shift
e> They should know how to check that the equipment is actually functioning. Someone needs to make certain the equipment can't be unplugged quite so easily.

 

[pseudobrit]

I think Israel has some of the best airport security around.

But they make a wise choice, and it distinguishes their security from ours: their screeners are professionals, who take their jobs seriously, get paid a professional's salary.

Here's an excellent article detailing some of the problems:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2096081.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2096081.stm

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I think Israel has some of the best airport security around.

But they make a wise choice, and it distinguishes their security from ours: their screeners are professionals, who take their jobs seriously, get paid a professional's salary.

Here's an excellent article detailing some of the problems:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2096081.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2096081.stm

pseudobrit has a good point. In many countries providing security at air ports is a real profession that people can take pride in. In the US being an air port security guard is like a half step up from McDonalds.


Lethal