TSA regulations and profiling
0
On Christmas day Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a 23-year-old Nigerian with connections to Al-queda was able to board a plane in Amsterdam which he attempted to blow up while en route to Detroit Michigan.
Due to this event the TSA has announced new regulations starting at pat downs before boarding a plan for most passengers. These pat down will focus on the upper thighs and pelvis region. Also one hour prior to arrival at your destination you will not be allowed to leave your seat or be allowed to have anything in your lap which includes everything from a blanket, book or any other personal belongings. Unless you can suspend the book in mid air.
The TSA has also ordered all airlines to “disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, Internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and "during all phases of flight”. So no wi-fi on your laptop while in flight or listening to Sirius satellite radio. If your the type that likes to see landmarks as you fly then you better stay glued to the window as the TSA is also ordering pilots and crew not to “make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.”
I would like to note that these regulations do not apply to "Heads of State or Heads of Government” or the spouses or children of chiefs of state or to “one other individual chosen by the Head of State or Head of Government.” So presumably Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, whose henchmen were convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259 crew and passengers, would not be forced to soil himself.
Though I can't find an article, I have heard the airline did follow all current safety regulations in screening of it's passengers. (Hopefully someone can find a quote or article.
So I want to ask Fakku, if that son of a bitch can get on an airplane with plastic explosives while he is on a terrorist watch list, even after his own father called the embassy and explained that he had a legitimate fear that his son may do something stupid. Then why the fuck am I still being forced to take my shoes off if the current regulations do jack shit? Also isn't it about time we start profiling instead of treating everybody like we're all terrorists? I found it sickening to watch an old women (possibly in her late 70's) get pulled to the side for a pat down. I believe this P.C. attitude is going to get people killed. I would rather see people profiling suspicious people instead of treating everybody as if we're all equally guilty. Why are the feelings of a few being put ahead of the very lives of the rest of us?
Edit: Apparently I can't spell anything around midnight.
Due to this event the TSA has announced new regulations starting at pat downs before boarding a plan for most passengers. These pat down will focus on the upper thighs and pelvis region. Also one hour prior to arrival at your destination you will not be allowed to leave your seat or be allowed to have anything in your lap which includes everything from a blanket, book or any other personal belongings. Unless you can suspend the book in mid air.
The TSA has also ordered all airlines to “disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, Internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and "during all phases of flight”. So no wi-fi on your laptop while in flight or listening to Sirius satellite radio. If your the type that likes to see landmarks as you fly then you better stay glued to the window as the TSA is also ordering pilots and crew not to “make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.”
I would like to note that these regulations do not apply to "Heads of State or Heads of Government” or the spouses or children of chiefs of state or to “one other individual chosen by the Head of State or Head of Government.” So presumably Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, whose henchmen were convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259 crew and passengers, would not be forced to soil himself.
Though I can't find an article, I have heard the airline did follow all current safety regulations in screening of it's passengers. (Hopefully someone can find a quote or article.
So I want to ask Fakku, if that son of a bitch can get on an airplane with plastic explosives while he is on a terrorist watch list, even after his own father called the embassy and explained that he had a legitimate fear that his son may do something stupid. Then why the fuck am I still being forced to take my shoes off if the current regulations do jack shit? Also isn't it about time we start profiling instead of treating everybody like we're all terrorists? I found it sickening to watch an old women (possibly in her late 70's) get pulled to the side for a pat down. I believe this P.C. attitude is going to get people killed. I would rather see people profiling suspicious people instead of treating everybody as if we're all equally guilty. Why are the feelings of a few being put ahead of the very lives of the rest of us?
Edit: Apparently I can't spell anything around midnight.
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
This is security theater that's meant to make you "feel secure" as well as prove that the administration is "doing something" (a typical CYA[size=10]1[/h] action). It doesn't actually lower your risk that much.
Bruce Schneier wrote a lot about this - his articles on the psychology of security and risk assessment is something that I would make mandatory reading - as has constantly criticized the TSA's actions:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/
What's really alarming though is not even the great number of false negatives and time consuming hassle this produces - which increases fear and terror, therefore doing the terrorist job on our own - but the apparent high number of false negatives. Ergo the whole theater doesn't help us screen and catch these terrorists. Most of the time it was using conventional intelligence - good'ol humint from agents in the field - or as in this case the vigilance of the passengers that has averted the disaster.
When one realizes that the various data farming schemes have even more abyssal track records it takes more than just leap of faith to continue supporting this madness.
Unfortunately this "unwaivering" support and affirmation in face of facts and experience is in a lot greater supply than we realize:
Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians
"There is a certain kind of personality that is well-correlated with all these problems. Altemeyer calls it Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). First, I should clarify a few things. Authoritarianism does not refer to the authorities themselves, but the people who would obey those authorities. Also, "right-wing" is used in the sense of being lawful or proper, not in the sense of being political conservative. RWAs in the US tend to be very politically conservative, but those in soviet Russia would probably be socialists. (There is also such a thing as Left-Wing Authoritarianism but that is not covered by the book.) Right-Wing Authoritarians exhibit the following qualities: submission to the established authorities in society, aggression in the name of these authorities, and wanting to enforce conventionalism on the rest of society." - excerpt from the Skeptic's Play's review
In USA this portion of high RWAs greatly overlap with the Christian Religious Fundamentalists or Evangelicals as they brand themselves.
[size=10]1 - Cover Your Ass[/h]
Bruce Schneier wrote a lot about this - his articles on the psychology of security and risk assessment is something that I would make mandatory reading - as has constantly criticized the TSA's actions:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/
What's really alarming though is not even the great number of false negatives and time consuming hassle this produces - which increases fear and terror, therefore doing the terrorist job on our own - but the apparent high number of false negatives. Ergo the whole theater doesn't help us screen and catch these terrorists. Most of the time it was using conventional intelligence - good'ol humint from agents in the field - or as in this case the vigilance of the passengers that has averted the disaster.
When one realizes that the various data farming schemes have even more abyssal track records it takes more than just leap of faith to continue supporting this madness.
Unfortunately this "unwaivering" support and affirmation in face of facts and experience is in a lot greater supply than we realize:
Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians
"There is a certain kind of personality that is well-correlated with all these problems. Altemeyer calls it Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). First, I should clarify a few things. Authoritarianism does not refer to the authorities themselves, but the people who would obey those authorities. Also, "right-wing" is used in the sense of being lawful or proper, not in the sense of being political conservative. RWAs in the US tend to be very politically conservative, but those in soviet Russia would probably be socialists. (There is also such a thing as Left-Wing Authoritarianism but that is not covered by the book.) Right-Wing Authoritarians exhibit the following qualities: submission to the established authorities in society, aggression in the name of these authorities, and wanting to enforce conventionalism on the rest of society." - excerpt from the Skeptic's Play's review
In USA this portion of high RWAs greatly overlap with the Christian Religious Fundamentalists or Evangelicals as they brand themselves.
[size=10]1 - Cover Your Ass[/h]
0
Kind of Important
A ray of Tsunlight.
Honestly, the extra ten minutes it takes to get through security makes no difference to me. (Leave to fly to Texas tommorow at 4 actually)
While the security may seem overzealous here in the states, it's the fact that people like that man can get explosives onto a plane that the security is so tight. While the aiport in Amsterdam may have followed all the correct security rules, it wasn't good enough. Hence why all flights inbound to the US are getting their security kicked up a lot.
Now, on the flip side, people leaving the US, it would make no sense to reduce security just cause someone happened to have lived/visited here. A lot of (I hesistate to use the word terrorist) were born and raised (At least raised) here in the states. And allowing them to slip by and take down a plane would be something that was easily avoided with the full-body scanners and so forth.
While some people may not like having to wait a little longer, really what's the problem? After you get through security, all there is, is a bunch of waiting for your plane anyway.
However I agree a little bit. We need to start getting some profiling done. As you said, frisking a grandmother doesn't get rid of the fact that someone waiting in line looks suspicious as hell. If they get offended, say, sorry. Done, problem solved. And if they happened to catch someone using that method, I bet it'd become a lot more accepted.
While the security may seem overzealous here in the states, it's the fact that people like that man can get explosives onto a plane that the security is so tight. While the aiport in Amsterdam may have followed all the correct security rules, it wasn't good enough. Hence why all flights inbound to the US are getting their security kicked up a lot.
Now, on the flip side, people leaving the US, it would make no sense to reduce security just cause someone happened to have lived/visited here. A lot of (I hesistate to use the word terrorist) were born and raised (At least raised) here in the states. And allowing them to slip by and take down a plane would be something that was easily avoided with the full-body scanners and so forth.
While some people may not like having to wait a little longer, really what's the problem? After you get through security, all there is, is a bunch of waiting for your plane anyway.
However I agree a little bit. We need to start getting some profiling done. As you said, frisking a grandmother doesn't get rid of the fact that someone waiting in line looks suspicious as hell. If they get offended, say, sorry. Done, problem solved. And if they happened to catch someone using that method, I bet it'd become a lot more accepted.
0
Kind of Important wrote...
Honestly, the extra ten minutes it takes to get through security makes no difference to me. (Leave to fly to Texas tommorow at 4 actually)While the security may seem overzealous here in the states, it's the fact that people like that man can get explosives onto a plane that the security is so tight. While the aiport in Amsterdam may have followed all the correct security rules, it wasn't good enough. Hence why all flights inbound to the US are getting their security kicked up a lot.
Now, on the flip side, people leaving the US, it would make no sense to reduce security just cause someone happened to have lived/visited here. A lot of (I hesistate to use the word terrorist) were born and raised (At least raised) here in the states. And allowing them to slip by and take down a plane would be something that was easily avoided with the full-body scanners and so forth.
While some people may not like having to wait a little longer, really what's the problem? After you get through security, all there is, is a bunch of waiting for your plane anyway.
However I agree a little bit. We need to start getting some profiling done. As you said, frisking a grandmother doesn't get rid of the fact that someone waiting in line looks suspicious as hell. If they get offended, say, sorry. Done, problem solved. And if they happened to catch someone using that method, I bet it'd become a lot more accepted.
Wouldn't the better method be, trash the ineffective measurements and concentrate on the methods that actually work. If these scans are "working" as they claim then why did he slip in? He was on the watch list which is supposed to keep people from flying but, yet they let him on anyways. I'm not sure if they were aware he was boarding a plane but, it still remains that while on the list, he got on. This is why I am considering if we should profile people before they get on a plane.
@Flaser: I agree this does seem like they are just trying to make us feel safe while not actually doing anything about it. The cynical part of me would think that they are doing this on purpose in order to seize some opportunity when there is another (successful) attack. That's probably my distaste for this administration boiling to the surface though.
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Kind of Important wrote...
Honestly, the extra ten minutes it takes to get through security makes no difference to me. (Leave to fly to Texas tommorow at 4 actually)While the security may seem overzealous here in the states, it's the fact that people like that man can get explosives onto a plane that the security is so tight. While the aiport in Amsterdam may have followed all the correct security rules, it wasn't good enough. Hence why all flights inbound to the US are getting their security kicked up a lot.
Now, on the flip side, people leaving the US, it would make no sense to reduce security just cause someone happened to have lived/visited here. A lot of (I hesistate to use the word terrorist) were born and raised (At least raised) here in the states. And allowing them to slip by and take down a plane would be something that was easily avoided with the full-body scanners and so forth.
While some people may not like having to wait a little longer, really what's the problem? After you get through security, all there is, is a bunch of waiting for your plane anyway.
However I agree a little bit. We need to start getting some profiling done. As you said, frisking a grandmother doesn't get rid of the fact that someone waiting in line looks suspicious as hell. If they get offended, say, sorry. Done, problem solved. And if they happened to catch someone using that method, I bet it'd become a lot more accepted.
Excuse me, but you're speaking about an intra-national flight with minimal security compared to international flights. The later can cause significant delays.
Also, you're misguided in putting the blame on the Amsterdam airport security/authorities. The prescribed checks - that WERE FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER - *CAN'T* detect explosives in your pants. To do that new, even more invasive, time consuming screening will have to be instated...
...with little to no effect. Afterwards, terrorists will simply choose a new method or attack different targets than airplanes or airports.
Please read up on the links I posted. The whole approach is wrong, because it's predictable - and hence can be specifically fooled or countered - it can only target specific threats and forces us to continuously play catch up games that only mend the latest whole in our net that the latest batch of would be or successful plotters tried.
Even more invasive checks won't solve the problem. We can't successfully screen this many people. We need specific and targeted measures that go after the root of the problem. However these measure are largely invisible because they involve far away effort to locate, monitor and infiltrate the hostile parties whom may orchestrate these attacks. The public wouldn't see these actions and by necessity can't be given elaborate reports to demonstrate the force and effect of the actions.
Instead we have highly visible, highly invasive and time consuming efforts with little actual benefit that confirm the public that the government - and those in office - are actually doing something and this whole theater provides the illusion of safety but no actual marked increase in security.
0
Kind of Important
A ray of Tsunlight.
I was writing my post as you made yours, thus the links were not there before I had started.
Now, how do you know the regulations were followed correctly? Any airport/government will lie to cover their asses, saying that, of course they did it all right, it could never be their fault, could it? Perhaps instead of blaming the system itself (As flawed as it is.) There is a chance it was some random sod who didn't give enough of a damn to cross-check that man's name against the list. However you feel about the system (Not too hard to guess from what's been said) you have to admit, there is a chance what I said could or has happened.
But perhaps the system just does not work as you say. If that is the case, then yes, obviously some shit need be done.
Now, how do you know the regulations were followed correctly? Any airport/government will lie to cover their asses, saying that, of course they did it all right, it could never be their fault, could it? Perhaps instead of blaming the system itself (As flawed as it is.) There is a chance it was some random sod who didn't give enough of a damn to cross-check that man's name against the list. However you feel about the system (Not too hard to guess from what's been said) you have to admit, there is a chance what I said could or has happened.
But perhaps the system just does not work as you say. If that is the case, then yes, obviously some shit need be done.
0
LD
Soba-Scans Staff
It's pretty infuriating to think that if I have to answer the call of nature in the last hour of a flight, I won't be allowed to. What kind of ridiculous shit is that? How can you tell grown adults that they can't use a bathroom they're sitting right next to because the TSA can't be bothered to actually perform their job correctly? Combine that with the "let me see your hands" bullshit and they're basically treating everybody like criminals.
It's another symptom of the rot that's set in in all layers of administration in this country, both public and private. The policy to stop people from destroying airplanes doesn't actually work, but effectiveness means nothing to the people who decide and implement these policies. It get filtered through so many layers of blind ideology in an environment of unquestioned authority that it no longer corresponds to reality in the end.
It's another symptom of the rot that's set in in all layers of administration in this country, both public and private. The policy to stop people from destroying airplanes doesn't actually work, but effectiveness means nothing to the people who decide and implement these policies. It get filtered through so many layers of blind ideology in an environment of unquestioned authority that it no longer corresponds to reality in the end.
0
It takes both too much wariness or unalertness to expose that small hole in the wall that you can widen and cause chaos on the other side...
And apparently that man did exactly that.... with their pants unbuttoned but still up....
And apparently that man did exactly that.... with their pants unbuttoned but still up....
0
First off, the security in Amsterdam is a failure then. I would say, they probably researched this prior to the attempt and came to the conclusion that security there is a joke or that they knew someone from the inside. Even if we have good implementation here, we cant enforce it on other countries - it is sad that terrorists can reach american airports and endanger lives here because of the failure of ...
From my understanding of how the pat-down works, I think it wont change much at all - it is a waste of time. Honestly, if you are a freakin terrorist, would you attempt something that will obviously be detected by a publicly known security measure? I agree that we should stop wasting time on procedures that are not effective and work on more intelligent countermeasures.
I agree somewhat with stricter electronics use while on-board a plane, id rather forego the leisure of using any if it can interfere with the plane's navigation/communication systems - the risk that a terrorist is carrying such a device that is camouflaged as a regular laptop for example.
Penguin, if you dont mind please explain the profiling mechanics that you propose.
I think what we need are better scanners, one thats safe to be used on humans, like the one used on the hand carry. It would be nice if it can log in the elements that people carry for flights and cross check them with those from others to see if you can make explosives or combustibles out of them when combined. If you know youd be hand checked, why would you carry your 'equipment' where it can be felt, youd keep it inside your person or have it in parts and let other members of your group carry it, in their stomach for example and assemble it on the plane. Another thing is, you can make highly combustible compounds using legal elements, I wonder how that can be dealt with...
The disturbing thing is how this guy was even allowed to board the plane. Just something, assuming that the passport and the visa are both real and belongs to a real living human, its possible to pretend to be this person if you look like him/her, or made to looke like him through medical procedures, and get past security. There are limits to pictures, papers and computers.
What I propose is a system that uses dna before boarding planes to make sure you are who you are, as a support to the existing ones that are not considered as a waste of time.
Good security is where the villain isnt even allowed to get to the plane, or inside the airport if possible
From my understanding of how the pat-down works, I think it wont change much at all - it is a waste of time. Honestly, if you are a freakin terrorist, would you attempt something that will obviously be detected by a publicly known security measure? I agree that we should stop wasting time on procedures that are not effective and work on more intelligent countermeasures.
I agree somewhat with stricter electronics use while on-board a plane, id rather forego the leisure of using any if it can interfere with the plane's navigation/communication systems - the risk that a terrorist is carrying such a device that is camouflaged as a regular laptop for example.
Penguin, if you dont mind please explain the profiling mechanics that you propose.
I think what we need are better scanners, one thats safe to be used on humans, like the one used on the hand carry. It would be nice if it can log in the elements that people carry for flights and cross check them with those from others to see if you can make explosives or combustibles out of them when combined. If you know youd be hand checked, why would you carry your 'equipment' where it can be felt, youd keep it inside your person or have it in parts and let other members of your group carry it, in their stomach for example and assemble it on the plane. Another thing is, you can make highly combustible compounds using legal elements, I wonder how that can be dealt with...
The disturbing thing is how this guy was even allowed to board the plane. Just something, assuming that the passport and the visa are both real and belongs to a real living human, its possible to pretend to be this person if you look like him/her, or made to looke like him through medical procedures, and get past security. There are limits to pictures, papers and computers.
What I propose is a system that uses dna before boarding planes to make sure you are who you are, as a support to the existing ones that are not considered as a waste of time.
Good security is where the villain isnt even allowed to get to the plane, or inside the airport if possible
0
ashcrimson wrote...
What I propose is a system that uses dna before boarding planes to make sure you are who you are, as a support to the existing ones that are not considered as a waste of time.
This isn't possible, you know. Maybe in 50 years or so. You'd have to get everyone on the planet on a database, and if you could do that, you wouldn't need all this security and just nab the guy before he even gets on a plane. And said database itself can be stolen or manipulated.
Despite what CSI might suggest, DNA identification takes _days_ for each person, maybe several hours if it were streamlined. It'll take weeks to process a plane's worth of passengers, and because it is a security measure, the time will be spent under guard in the airport -- sending DNA ahead of time simply won't do.
And even DNA can be fooled. Not the test itself, but the extraction method. For example, buccal swabs. Simply gargle the victim's saliva or line your mouth with the victim's cells and that would be enough to fool DNA. If somehow they develop a way of extracting blood that isn't intrusive (say, a pinprick), that can easily be fooled as well by using a small pack of blood hidden in the finger tip.
Think of the cost. Quite simply, even the US will hardly be able to do DNA tests for every passenger, much less poorer nations.
Finally, even if a person is who he sys he is, this isn't to say he won't blow up a plane.
0
Fatman, I know it does not exist, it is something that I propose we develop.
No matter how good a database system is, if you cant match the person to the record without any room for errors the system that employs it is flawed and is a security risk just like how it is now.
I do not propose what you see on TV in CSI, or even a thumb prick... I think its too simple to go around that if ever, I can think of one and its low tech even, jesus. I would go for something deeper inside your body or your arm to be precise. Its painful, takes a while but if the system can be developed to process it faster well or a new way of doing it even thats painfless and convenient to the passenger if its that much of a big deal later on
I just think you should think about your last line again
No matter how good a database system is, if you cant match the person to the record without any room for errors the system that employs it is flawed and is a security risk just like how it is now.
I do not propose what you see on TV in CSI, or even a thumb prick... I think its too simple to go around that if ever, I can think of one and its low tech even, jesus. I would go for something deeper inside your body or your arm to be precise. Its painful, takes a while but if the system can be developed to process it faster well or a new way of doing it even thats painfless and convenient to the passenger if its that much of a big deal later on
I just think you should think about your last line again
0
I don't see how DNA sampling has anything to do with this at all, except people drawing conclusions from TV shows, which is hilarious. The problem was never confirming a given terrorist's identity; the problem is preventing someone who has nothing to lose from attacking an unprotectably complex system. Which is an impossible task.
We're already doing profiling. Remember the Terrorist Watch List (people were ranting about this just a few weeks ago, right here in SD)? That's profiling. It doesn't work. The guy was on the no-fly list. He still got to fly. He did not show a valid passport. He still got on the plane.
Profiling, like any of the other measures currently taken, is a Punch and Judy Show they put on for the sheeple; simply so that people won't stop flying aeroplanes. Also, of course, as people mentioned, to seem "tough on turr". Plus, it's a great opportunity for the executive forces to extend their powers.
The fun thing is though, that none of these measures work. Neither the new Millimetric Scanners they're now putting up at Shiphol, nor strip-searching people, nor any profiling, nor mighty databases of all Evil Tourists can protect something as chaotic and insanely vulnerable as air traffic.
Assume that they really manage to sniff out all bombs anyone could bring onto the aeroplane. Want to stage a really effective terrorist attack? Bring some fever thermometers. Break them, pour the quicksilver around. Grounds the plane for fucking ever. As this little thought experiment goes to show, the vectors of attack are nigh unlimited.
And it's not just air traffic either; terrorism as such is a means of asymmetric warfare. You can't respond symmetrically to an asymmetric threat. You can't profile or surveil or strip-search terrorism away.
There are only two things that can counteract terrorism, and they are the following:
1. Adopting a less hysteric attitude. The more media attention and paranoia an attack generates, the more effective it will seem to the terrorists, and the less likely becomes a level-headed, sense-making response. The more hysteria and the more of a security clampdown, the more impressive every successive attack will seem, even if it's a botched one like in this case, because people will go "OHMIGAWD, they got through our security network, they're so sophisticated!". At which point it becomes (and has become) a vicious cycle. Breaking this cycle is half the work.
2. Fighting the causes. How you go about that depends on your taste and political conviction. But, as a matter of fact, you cannot win an asymmetrically fought war by throwing placebo security at the problem. You have to take the battle where it belongs.
Would it have been less sickening if it had been a 20 year old young man? And if so, why?
That's a bit self-contradictory, because from a legal point of view, general suspicion is the mother of profiling. I wonder where P.C. comes into play with profiling. Furthermore, I'm seriously gobsmacked and astonished to find someone of your self-professed political conviction speaking out in favour of profiling.
Bottom line: Personally I'd rather they do away with the whole useless, hysteria-guided airport "security" and bury the wretched monster of profiling for ever. Dragnet profiling is the death of due process and by extension of the rule of law. I'd rather have the odd bomb every now and then, than that. Not that it would prevent terrorism in the first place anyways, cf. Franco vs. ETA. Take the fight where it belongs, but leave me the hell alone!
We're already doing profiling. Remember the Terrorist Watch List (people were ranting about this just a few weeks ago, right here in SD)? That's profiling. It doesn't work. The guy was on the no-fly list. He still got to fly. He did not show a valid passport. He still got on the plane.
Profiling, like any of the other measures currently taken, is a Punch and Judy Show they put on for the sheeple; simply so that people won't stop flying aeroplanes. Also, of course, as people mentioned, to seem "tough on turr". Plus, it's a great opportunity for the executive forces to extend their powers.
The fun thing is though, that none of these measures work. Neither the new Millimetric Scanners they're now putting up at Shiphol, nor strip-searching people, nor any profiling, nor mighty databases of all Evil Tourists can protect something as chaotic and insanely vulnerable as air traffic.
Assume that they really manage to sniff out all bombs anyone could bring onto the aeroplane. Want to stage a really effective terrorist attack? Bring some fever thermometers. Break them, pour the quicksilver around. Grounds the plane for fucking ever. As this little thought experiment goes to show, the vectors of attack are nigh unlimited.
And it's not just air traffic either; terrorism as such is a means of asymmetric warfare. You can't respond symmetrically to an asymmetric threat. You can't profile or surveil or strip-search terrorism away.
There are only two things that can counteract terrorism, and they are the following:
1. Adopting a less hysteric attitude. The more media attention and paranoia an attack generates, the more effective it will seem to the terrorists, and the less likely becomes a level-headed, sense-making response. The more hysteria and the more of a security clampdown, the more impressive every successive attack will seem, even if it's a botched one like in this case, because people will go "OHMIGAWD, they got through our security network, they're so sophisticated!". At which point it becomes (and has become) a vicious cycle. Breaking this cycle is half the work.
2. Fighting the causes. How you go about that depends on your taste and political conviction. But, as a matter of fact, you cannot win an asymmetrically fought war by throwing placebo security at the problem. You have to take the battle where it belongs.
FPOD wrote...
I found it sickening to watch an old women (possibly in her late 70's) get pulled to the side for a pat down.Would it have been less sickening if it had been a 20 year old young man? And if so, why?
FPOD wrote...
I would rather see people profiling suspicious people instead of treating everybody as if we're all equally guilty.That's a bit self-contradictory, because from a legal point of view, general suspicion is the mother of profiling. I wonder where P.C. comes into play with profiling. Furthermore, I'm seriously gobsmacked and astonished to find someone of your self-professed political conviction speaking out in favour of profiling.
Bottom line: Personally I'd rather they do away with the whole useless, hysteria-guided airport "security" and bury the wretched monster of profiling for ever. Dragnet profiling is the death of due process and by extension of the rule of law. I'd rather have the odd bomb every now and then, than that. Not that it would prevent terrorism in the first place anyways, cf. Franco vs. ETA. Take the fight where it belongs, but leave me the hell alone!
0
Gibbous, I believe its not just the thought that someone will blow up or hijack a plane that should be important but also making sure someone who isnt really supposed to be on that plane to begin with is just as a security risk as the rest - but that will stray off out of the airport security issue in a way so I wont expound.
Terrorists are best assumed to be not afraid to die and ready to kill anyone. You do not need bombs to cause terror, you can use your plane utensils to kill people there or even your bare hands or teeth if you really want to push it. Thats why filtering is important, so that we dont even have to reach that point if possible
I believe security is a compound of multiple systems working together and catching what the individual parts cannot handle alone. Profiling alone will not work, DNA wont or a bad-ass database or even what you propose which is battling its causes because they all have limits.
I can think of one international airport on a certain country, you can get to/through even if you dont have the right papers if you can make arrangements with the airport personel before hand, you go out through another route but thats the past who knows now. In this scenario, no matter how good the security measure is if the person wont even be subjected to it... it fails even with all that we are proposing are implemented. The more people are involved in the implementation of a system, the higher the probability of errors and holes.
All that we can do now is to plan for better methods in the future while we do what we can with what we have
I agree that it is better for security measures to be less detectable if possible and not broadcasted for every terrorist to know. As for fighting the cause, that is impossible already in my opinion, its a separate topic so ill leave it, but it can reduce the threat so of course that is good
I agree with you that age should not be a factor is giving slack to someone, doing so is a serious hole that terrorists can take advantage of. Somehow I sorta see what Penguin might be saying, its more on the humanity of the present protocol - that it doesnt work and it causes unnecessary anguish to these folks, I think
Terrorists are best assumed to be not afraid to die and ready to kill anyone. You do not need bombs to cause terror, you can use your plane utensils to kill people there or even your bare hands or teeth if you really want to push it. Thats why filtering is important, so that we dont even have to reach that point if possible
I believe security is a compound of multiple systems working together and catching what the individual parts cannot handle alone. Profiling alone will not work, DNA wont or a bad-ass database or even what you propose which is battling its causes because they all have limits.
I can think of one international airport on a certain country, you can get to/through even if you dont have the right papers if you can make arrangements with the airport personel before hand, you go out through another route but thats the past who knows now. In this scenario, no matter how good the security measure is if the person wont even be subjected to it... it fails even with all that we are proposing are implemented. The more people are involved in the implementation of a system, the higher the probability of errors and holes.
All that we can do now is to plan for better methods in the future while we do what we can with what we have
I agree that it is better for security measures to be less detectable if possible and not broadcasted for every terrorist to know. As for fighting the cause, that is impossible already in my opinion, its a separate topic so ill leave it, but it can reduce the threat so of course that is good
I agree with you that age should not be a factor is giving slack to someone, doing so is a serious hole that terrorists can take advantage of. Somehow I sorta see what Penguin might be saying, its more on the humanity of the present protocol - that it doesnt work and it causes unnecessary anguish to these folks, I think
0
I feel that the current security measures fail almost every step of the way. I find it okay to go through the metal detectors and scan the carry on luggage, but allot of the other procedures that everyone must do makes no sense.
Like e.g. the limit on the size of the bottles of liquid you are allowed to bring on board, 100 ml bottles in clear bags i believe, makes no sense. I am no bomb expert, nor chemical engineer, but I can easily blow up the plain or gas all the passengers even though the bottles are small. So all this does is give all the passengers allot of problems.
Basically I believe that airport security should consist of generally effective measures like the baggage scanners and metal detectors, with some additional old fashion human profiling by trained professionals. All the extra security does nothing, since if I wanted I could easily take down any plain if I wanted to (by bringing innocent materials on board), so the only way to prevent me would be profiling me before I board the plain.
Like e.g. the limit on the size of the bottles of liquid you are allowed to bring on board, 100 ml bottles in clear bags i believe, makes no sense. I am no bomb expert, nor chemical engineer, but I can easily blow up the plain or gas all the passengers even though the bottles are small. So all this does is give all the passengers allot of problems.
Basically I believe that airport security should consist of generally effective measures like the baggage scanners and metal detectors, with some additional old fashion human profiling by trained professionals. All the extra security does nothing, since if I wanted I could easily take down any plain if I wanted to (by bringing innocent materials on board), so the only way to prevent me would be profiling me before I board the plain.
0
Spain still gets threats from ETA yet I don't see ETA hi-jacking planes as of yet. Their security procedure consists of one guy checking your passport, and a guy with a sniffer dog along with the usual luggage x-ray. Anything above that is unnecessary and simply won't help. Why? I'll expand with an example...
You increase security passengers get delayed in the airport due to everyone having to be patted down, body scanned etc. There are now huge queues at security. What will the terrorist do? He'll pack his suitcase full of explosives and blow himself and everyone else in the packed security checkpoint to tiny pieces.
So to counter this you have sniffer dogs at all entrances to the airport to ensure that no bombs can get to any particularly effective crowded zone. Your terrorist drives a car packed full of weed killer and explosives into the airport...
To counter this you put up roadblocks to the entrance to your airport. There is no way a terrorist could possibly get a vehicle past this. He has been thoroughly searched he has all the materials he is allowed on him. He looks like your typical business man. He boards his flight. Flight is in mid-air nothing looks out of the ordinary. Until your terrorist overloads his laptop battery and uses it as a small explosive. Possibly setting fire to the aircraft or even making a hole in the side of the craft.
You now make everyone wear government issued clothes while on the flight. No hand luggage is permitted. Your terrorist then rents a private aircraft and flies it into an airport. Consider this, you have tightened security higher than that of communist Russia and there are still possible ways for a terrorist attack to occur. In the process of all of this you have basically done the terrorist's job for them. Why do we fight terrorism? So we can live the life we want freely. Yet all you gain from this is the general population feeling what it's like to be a criminal. Playing catch up after an attack is not security. There will always be holes to exploit. This is just a comfort blanket for the insecure, though this has already been said.
I don't know how the profiling would be done (I might have the wrong kind of profiling in mind) but I can imagine one flaw right off the bat which would be having too much information. If I have this right, the amount of data that would have to be analysed to identify a threat is silly big. (Again I don't know how it would be done exactly) But it would be much less finding a needle in a hay stack much more finding a needle on a farm...
You could make a database with ID cards for all your passengers. UK tried it, the whole ID card and finger print ordeal. It got broken like a day after it was initially released. So on top of it not helping we will all get to enjoy a whole new fuck off wave of identity theft. With the possibility that it infact helps the terrorists.
On a side note there is absolutely not evidence that the job was an inside job or that security was particularly lax in Holland. The problem here isn't that things aren't tight enough it's that the government is spending a whole lotta money on something that is as helpful to security as rainy weather is to drying my clothes.
and on a side note
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8441891.stm
...
You increase security passengers get delayed in the airport due to everyone having to be patted down, body scanned etc. There are now huge queues at security. What will the terrorist do? He'll pack his suitcase full of explosives and blow himself and everyone else in the packed security checkpoint to tiny pieces.
So to counter this you have sniffer dogs at all entrances to the airport to ensure that no bombs can get to any particularly effective crowded zone. Your terrorist drives a car packed full of weed killer and explosives into the airport...
To counter this you put up roadblocks to the entrance to your airport. There is no way a terrorist could possibly get a vehicle past this. He has been thoroughly searched he has all the materials he is allowed on him. He looks like your typical business man. He boards his flight. Flight is in mid-air nothing looks out of the ordinary. Until your terrorist overloads his laptop battery and uses it as a small explosive. Possibly setting fire to the aircraft or even making a hole in the side of the craft.
You now make everyone wear government issued clothes while on the flight. No hand luggage is permitted. Your terrorist then rents a private aircraft and flies it into an airport. Consider this, you have tightened security higher than that of communist Russia and there are still possible ways for a terrorist attack to occur. In the process of all of this you have basically done the terrorist's job for them. Why do we fight terrorism? So we can live the life we want freely. Yet all you gain from this is the general population feeling what it's like to be a criminal. Playing catch up after an attack is not security. There will always be holes to exploit. This is just a comfort blanket for the insecure, though this has already been said.
I don't know how the profiling would be done (I might have the wrong kind of profiling in mind) but I can imagine one flaw right off the bat which would be having too much information. If I have this right, the amount of data that would have to be analysed to identify a threat is silly big. (Again I don't know how it would be done exactly) But it would be much less finding a needle in a hay stack much more finding a needle on a farm...
You could make a database with ID cards for all your passengers. UK tried it, the whole ID card and finger print ordeal. It got broken like a day after it was initially released. So on top of it not helping we will all get to enjoy a whole new fuck off wave of identity theft. With the possibility that it infact helps the terrorists.
On a side note there is absolutely not evidence that the job was an inside job or that security was particularly lax in Holland. The problem here isn't that things aren't tight enough it's that the government is spending a whole lotta money on something that is as helpful to security as rainy weather is to drying my clothes.
and on a side note
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8441891.stm
...
0
As has been said, no matter what is done, you can't cover all the possible ways someone can blow up a plane. The current measures don't even come close.
So what do we do? Obviously, there should be SOME security. No one seems to object to going through metal detectors. Still, at some point, you're making every go through so many hoops that it almost feels like it isn't worth it any more(and depending how you value things, it may not be worth it).
Personally, I like measures like metal detectors and scanners because they are pretty quick and don't cause a ton of problems for passengers like having to take off your shoes or put your baby formula in tiny bottles in a plastic bag. Or the measure FPOD mentioned where you can no longer read books during landing. The new scanners proposed seem like they would be much more efficient than all the shoe removing nonsense we have going on now.
Profiling is not something I can support. It violates the ideal of treating everyone equally under the law.
On that note, I got one of my bank accounts shut down once due to profiling. Apparently I was a high risk to funnel my $300 to terrorists. I had to go obtain my social security card and bring it to the bank to get my account back. It ended up being just an annoyance, but until I do something to prove otherwise, shouldn't I have the right to be treated equally under the law?
So what do we do? Obviously, there should be SOME security. No one seems to object to going through metal detectors. Still, at some point, you're making every go through so many hoops that it almost feels like it isn't worth it any more(and depending how you value things, it may not be worth it).
Personally, I like measures like metal detectors and scanners because they are pretty quick and don't cause a ton of problems for passengers like having to take off your shoes or put your baby formula in tiny bottles in a plastic bag. Or the measure FPOD mentioned where you can no longer read books during landing. The new scanners proposed seem like they would be much more efficient than all the shoe removing nonsense we have going on now.
Profiling is not something I can support. It violates the ideal of treating everyone equally under the law.
On that note, I got one of my bank accounts shut down once due to profiling. Apparently I was a high risk to funnel my $300 to terrorists. I had to go obtain my social security card and bring it to the bank to get my account back. It ended up being just an annoyance, but until I do something to prove otherwise, shouldn't I have the right to be treated equally under the law?
0
FPOD wrote...
I found it sickening to watch an old women (possibly in her late 70's) get pulled to the side for a pat down.Would it have been less sickening if it had been a 20 year old young man? And if so, why?
Actually yes it would have been less sickening. The general profile of the last dozen or so terrorists who have tried to bomb a plane have been male in the age range of 20 to 30. It's makes more sense to pat down a 20 year old man than a 70 year old woman. If you can find a single instance where a 70 year old woman blew up a plane then maybe we should consider frisking granny but, until then it's a waste of time harassing an old woman.
FPOD wrote...
I would rather see people profiling suspicious people instead of treating everybody as if we're all equally guilty.That's a bit self-contradictory, because from a legal point of view, general suspicion is the mother of profiling. I wonder where P.C. comes into play with profiling. Furthermore, I'm seriously gobsmacked and astonished to find someone of your self-professed political conviction speaking out in favour of profiling.
My self-professed political conviction also includes the prevention of crime where applicable. Though I don't remember actually speaking out in favor of profiling just posing a question (sometimes to learn something you must play the devil's advocate). I see it as asinine to ignore the obvious.
As for the P.C. nature as I mentioned. The current politically correct nature of some Americans refuse and will violently fight any notion that there are similarities in the people who have perpetrated every or nearly every terrorist attack since 9/11. It's "politically correct" to frisk granny while ignoring that there hasn't been a terrorist attack by an old woman bombing a plane in the last decade. Meanwhile, someone who fits the very characteristics of a terrorist are supposed to go un-harassed. I assume you are familiar with the flying imams controversy. In a nutshell,
Spoiler:
The P.C. crowd chastised all who felt that these men were suspicious. Calling them racist, and just about every other nasty word in the English language. Simply because people were being suspicious on a plane and people felt that they may be in danger. So while the P.C. crowd has been hammering it into our heads that we shouldn't be aware of our surroundings and that "nobody is suspicious" or even going so far as to eviscerate anybody who dares speak up that somebody IS doing something suspicious but, turned out to not be a large problem once investigated. (though the behavior was still suspicious at the time). The P.C. crowd in the media spends no time dragging the person out in public to be flogged by the masses for what they claim to be bigotry, xenophobia or what have you. An unintended consequence of these public media floggings is that fewer people will speak up if they see suspicious behavior as they are scared of being wrong. That fear will be capitalized on by our enemies.
Therefore, Political correctness in this situation will get people killed.
On top of that, Political correctness lead many of the supervisors of the Fort Hood shooter to wash their hands of the situation simply because if they were wrong they would be gutted like fish by the media and every Islamic group in the civilized world. Fort Hood came about due to the failings of military personal from identifying a threat out of fear for not being politically correct in their assumptions that he may pose a danger to people.
In conclusion any logical person would know, if you are looking for somebody it's better to look for somebody fitting the description. If our police departments worked like our TSA regulations. The next time a black guy robs a store. Police will be kicking down the doors of every white woman in a fifty mile radius.
Edit: Glad to see your still alive lion. I can relate. I've had a bank account frozen before. Though they didn't specific why they froze it. I never got to unfreeze my account they simply mailed me a check a couple weeks later.
0
Regarding the Imams:
Isn't there a difference between acting suspicious and profiling simply someone because they look like they might have come from a nation in the Middle East?
The Imams you refer were clearly requesting ridiculous things. The airline had no obligation to give them the things they requested. If they weren't going to sit in their assigned seats and demanded seatbelt extensions they didn't need, to airline could have denied them extensions and forced them to sit in their correct seats or face removal from the aircraft.
I think the airline would have been reasonable to flag the seatbelt behavior especially as suspicious.
There are certain behaviors which will get you pulled in for questioning in an airport: leaving baggage unattended, talking about weapons or bombs, etc. That's reasonable. If you do something stupid like that, it's your own fault.
What I disagree with is demographic profiling. It would be unjust to subject all males 20-30 to additional screening based simply on that demographic. If a group of people boarded a plane and acted like the Imams you described, then they could only blame their suspicious behavior for additional screening directed at them, and the situation can and should be dealt with similarly whether they are priests, imams, ministers, shamans, druidic elders, or whatever else.
Isn't there a difference between acting suspicious and profiling simply someone because they look like they might have come from a nation in the Middle East?
The Imams you refer were clearly requesting ridiculous things. The airline had no obligation to give them the things they requested. If they weren't going to sit in their assigned seats and demanded seatbelt extensions they didn't need, to airline could have denied them extensions and forced them to sit in their correct seats or face removal from the aircraft.
I think the airline would have been reasonable to flag the seatbelt behavior especially as suspicious.
There are certain behaviors which will get you pulled in for questioning in an airport: leaving baggage unattended, talking about weapons or bombs, etc. That's reasonable. If you do something stupid like that, it's your own fault.
What I disagree with is demographic profiling. It would be unjust to subject all males 20-30 to additional screening based simply on that demographic. If a group of people boarded a plane and acted like the Imams you described, then they could only blame their suspicious behavior for additional screening directed at them, and the situation can and should be dealt with similarly whether they are priests, imams, ministers, shamans, druidic elders, or whatever else.
0
Brittany
FAKKU Production Mngr
I remember reading something -really- interesting a year ago in my English class. It was that scientists discovered that bee's are really easy to train with classical conditioning. They discovered basically that bee's were able to sniff out bombs at a much more heightened rate than dogs could, that and they were conditioned at a much fast rate and less expensive rate than dogs as well.
I forget what they condition the bees with (most likely honey.. lol) but they're in a contained box and when they smell something alarming that could be a bomb, even at a small dose - they go crazy inside the box, because they rationalize the smell that we're looking for as food so they get excited.
I think that'd be simple enough, place a box of bees next to the metal detector as you're passing by ;p. If the bee's get excited, stop and pat you down.
I forget what they condition the bees with (most likely honey.. lol) but they're in a contained box and when they smell something alarming that could be a bomb, even at a small dose - they go crazy inside the box, because they rationalize the smell that we're looking for as food so they get excited.
I think that'd be simple enough, place a box of bees next to the metal detector as you're passing by ;p. If the bee's get excited, stop and pat you down.