flopticalcube
macrumors G4
El Al relies primarily on profiling. Armed Sky Marshalls are standard on ALL flights to/from/within the US although they may not be present on any particular flight.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Stay Classy TSA
- Thread starter rdowns
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
El Al relies primarily on profiling. Armed Sky Marshalls are standard on ALL flights to/from/within the US although they may not be present on any particular flight.
GoCubsGo
macrumors Nehalem
No, the voice is not saying that at all. I'm not even sure you could twist the words around enough to make them sound like "I don't want to get pat down".
It's out of context but still ridiculous.
There are already armed marshall on many flights in the US. WHen was the last time we had a shoot out in the sky? 🙄
His point was remove the TSA security check and only have only armed air marshals. Bringing a gun to a bomb fight is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plane packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
Last edited:
My friend, I hate to hurt your feelings, but I have been all over this planet and talked to people that would love to do nothing but kill Americans. I have no problems giving up a little (and it is little) piece of freedom to ensure the plane I board is as safe as we can get it. If that means they search a 6 year old then so be it. I'm also fairly certain that the government is not trying to take away our freedoms. We have had our heads stuck in the sand for years over terrorism thinking it would never happen here. Now, it has and at first people were blaming he government for not reacting soon enough... "How could you let this happen to us!" Then they implement some control to plug a rather large hole and the reaction is "you are taking away our freedom!"
You can't have your cake and eat it too. The TSA is not the best solution but it is the only reasonable one at this time. Like I said, quit complaining and come up with a better solution then send it to your congressman otherwise you are just making everyelses lives miserable who have to listen to you whine.
Last edited:
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
GFLPraxis
macrumors 604
The "Health" angle is murky, but TSA uses opt-out ratios as proof of acceptance. They've put out multiple press releases pushing >2% opt out rates as proof that people feel safer and don't mind the new security measures. So, I'm going to opt out every time, if for no other reason than to drive up the cost for them.
GFLPraxis
macrumors 604
Put a big, thick, security door between the cockpit and the passengers that can take a stronger blast than the plane's hull.
Problem solved; the risk of a man with a knife on a plane is identical to that same man on a public train or bus.
No ridiculous pat-downs and feeling up of children needed. Allow profiling and leave the metal detectors in place (similar security to our local courthouse) to prevent casual idiots, and have the security door to minimize damage from an organized attempt (if they can't hijack the plane, and can only kill the people on board, it's not worth the trouble; they can just go blow up a bus), and you've got a pretty good balance of security.
Last edited:
4. The most rational response would be to realize that a butter knife cannot harm anyone and allow you to carry it on the plane.
I'm going to duck out of this thread but I want to answer this one....
I could sharpen that butter knife to a lethal edge in less that 10 min. They did the right thing.
srl7741
macrumors 68020
As much as I disagree with everything TSA they are not the problem "we" are for allowing them to do what they do everyday. We continue to lower the bar and I don't see it going back up. It's difficult to reverse such a large thing after we have accepted it. Next up Saturday/Sunday sporting events or other places with very large numbers of people.
GFLPraxis
macrumors 604
When was the last time a European or Japanese plane were hijacked before 9/11? That's an ambiguous statistic. Nobody was hijacking planes before and nobody's hijacked planes since.
Nobody hijacks Israeli planes either, and they're subject to much more terrorist attention than we are.
In fact, TSA has twice failed to stop a bomber on a plane since 9/11. Both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were stopped by passengers.
TSA's measures aren't working, but a measure of common sense can easily mitigate the damage of someone smuggling a boxcutter or knife on to a plane.
And I can get a knife or fork at one of dozens of restaurants inside the terminal post security. What's your point?
1980s - Aer Ligus Dublin - London; Air France Frankfurt - Paris; Rio Airways Killen, Texas - Dallas, Texas; TWA Athens - Beirut; Egypt Air Athens - Cairo; Malev Hungarian Airlines Prague - ?? ;
1990s - Lufthansa Frankfort - Cairo; FedEx flight Memphis - ??; Air Malta Malta - Turkey; All Nippon (domestic flight);
I've only listed those flights that departed from a European (and one Japanese) airport.... not European airlines that departed from non-European airports. After 9/11 there were still a number of hijackings, but the closest they come to European departure points are Nicosia, and Tirana. Though there was one from a Mexican Airport and one from a Caribbean airport. The Mexican hijacking was by a man threatening a bomb, but I don't think they actually found one.
I'm not sure of your point. But the Israelis use a different screening model, plus they need to look after only a handful of airports domestically. At airports internationally they screen passengers themselves after the local authorities have screened the passengers.... so everybody gets screened twice, and in two different ways.
And how may people have the TSA found? And how many people have not even bothered to try, because they were afraid of getting caught?
Actually, that wont work, because someone somewhere on that plane outside of the cockpit will have to know the code, and the door will end up being opened mid-flight regardless - otherwise how are pilots supposed to eat/go to the loo on longer flights? Organised groups would take advantage of that in a second, making your idea null and void on any flight over approx 3 hours. The Shoot-up on a plane also wont cause that much damage. While a bullet may exit the aircraft and cause a decompression, in theory the most that should rip away of the aircrafts outer-skin is a 10-10 square. Not drastic, and definitely survivable. Even with multiple bullet holes, the plane would still in all likelihood get down to 10,000ft and then proceed to land with no loss of non-shot-at life, which is what the TSA actually cares about
Please elaborate on how the TSA failed to find these people. Neither of these examples were screened in the United States prior to boarding their respective flights.
How much discretion should a TSA screener be given as to who should be given a secondary screening should something go "Bing". Six years and under, get a bye. How about seven years old? Is eight too young? How about VIPs and corporate CEOs? Should Randy Quaid get screened but not Charlie Sheen, because the screener has the discretion and a fondness for 2 1/2 men?
Here's an interesting video.... by the by....
It's just a game... admittedly. Link. [Warning-mute your sound, it's very loud even at the quietest volume click]
iJohnHenry
macrumors P6
My son, then two, was pulled aside by "random" secondary screening in 2005 at Ontario airport in SoCal. I wasn't too upset, because nothing inappropriate (other than the absurdity of checking a two-year-old) was done, but was struck by the waste of time. And lest anyone think we were profiled, we are both obviously white, with English-sounding names, traveling on round-trip tickets.
miles01110
macrumors Core
Was that a pun?
Also, I'm sure that his intention was to let you know what a badass he is, because he can badassify innocuous silverware. He can probably also make a bomb out of a stick of butter. And artillery shells from a bag of oranges. Just don't mess with him, is what I'm trying to get at, here.
Also, remember that scene in 24, when Nina killed a guy on a plane with a plastic gift card? That's exactly why women should be banned from air travel. Until that day comes, I for one am glad that we have forward-thinking TSA agents frisking little girls like the future terrorists that they are. God bless them.