The Cheap Thrill-Airport Security Measures run Wild

[M Paquette]

The reason that Paquette and I are making a big deal about the radiation of the scanner isn't because it is huge risk, it is because the threat of terrorist is really small. Less than 25 people/per year over the last decade including 9/11.

Yup, and we're looking a radiation exposure levels from the Rapiscan 1000 and similar devices leading to 8 deaths from cancer per year using the TSA numbers, and a bit over 100 per year using the SFSU numbers.

I suspect that the most effective real changes post 9/11 were the changes to a locked and armored cockpit door, and increased passenger awareness (e.g., a hijacking is no longer an inconvenient detour, but something a passenger might want to act on. AKA "Let's roll!", or "Excuse me, steward, but this gentleman seems to be tying to light his shoelaces on fire.")

 

[clifp]

Yup, and we're looking a radiation exposure levels from the Rapiscan 1000 and similar devices leading to 8 deaths from cancer per year using the TSA numbers, and a bit over 100 per year using the SFSU numbers.

I suspect that the most effective real changes post 9/11 were the changes to a locked and armored cockpit door, and increased passenger awareness (e.g., a hijacking is no longer an inconvenient detour, but something a passenger might want to act on. AKA "Let's roll!", or "Excuse me, steward, but this gentleman seems to be tying to light his shoelaces on fire.")

Exactly and these changes were met with widespread approval. The real threat is turning in airlines full of fuel into a weapons and cockpit doors really solved this along with population ready to fight back. Realistically the only way repeat 9/11 happens is if the terrorist recruit an airline pilot.

The explosive testing for checked luggage was an expensive piece of security but probably worth it. Cause you can put a bomb large enough to take down an airplane in 50 lb suitcase.

As Nord's suggest I'd really like to see Mythbuster do a piece on how likely it is take down a commercial aircraft with a shoe bomb, much less a cavity bomb. I suspect that you don't even need to be a Sully level super-pilot to successful land a 7x7 with a hole made by a grenade or a shoe bomb. My guess is that a cavity bomb wouldn't even kill everybody in your row.


It seems me that security measures have rapidly devolved from the obvious, to the sensible to the pointless, to the silly, to the maddening, and now with scanners and groping to the dangerous and traumatizing.

 

[brewer12345]

If my kids' teachers touched them the way the TSA is conducting "patriotic touching," the absolute best they could hope for would be a nasty lawsuit and criminal charges. The worst, well, let's not go there. Why on earth would people put up with this?

 

[Gumby]

To those who say "Well stay home if you don't like it", I have another suggestion. Why don't all you who soil your shorts at the thought of terrorists stay home? Those of us who intend to enjoy all the freedoms for which our ancestors sacrificed will fly and take our chances.

 

[BigNick]

As Nord's suggest I'd really like to see Mythbuster do a piece on how likely it is take down a commercial aircraft with a shoe bomb, much less a cavity bomb. I suspect that you don't even need to be a Sully level super-pilot to successful land a 7x7 with a hole made by a grenade or a shoe bomb. My guess is that a cavity bomb wouldn't even kill everybody in your row.

A couple of years ago, the BBC demonstrated how to blow a hole 2 feet across in the hull of an airliner using two 3-ounce bottles of liquids (the professor doing the experiment didn't tell us what was in the bottles, for obvious reasons), and that was on the ground - no allowance for the further effects of depressurisation. I think that the aircraft would probably be lost if that happened at FL370, cf Pan Am flight 103.

Of course, that also demonstrates that the current liquid restrictions aren't much use. As others have noticed, we're always fighting the last battle. Underwear bomb? X-ray crotches. 330ml PET bottle with explosives? Limit people to 100ml.

 

[REWahoo]

I believe I hear the unmistakable sound of little piggy feet approaching...

 

[thefed]

I'm from the FBI, and I heard that there might be anthrax in your home. Can I come in and check? No? Well, I'm coming in anyway. After all, there might be anthrax, and that kills people. So I'm coming into your home tonight. And tomorrow. Hey, your wife is pretty hot. I'll come back twice at the weekend.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that if the Taliban abuses kids, that it's OK for us to abuse kids? I presume that that's not what you mean, but I'm struggling for another interpretation of your words.

If you refuse to be scanned, there needs to be an alternate measure...which is a pat down. Why is that pill so hard to swallow?

And regarding the 2 year old that was patted down (I have not seen the video footage yet if there is some) - why should a 2 year old be exempt from a pat down or scan? That makes no sense. THAT is my point, no interpretation needed

 

[Keim]

If you refuse to be scanned, there needs to be an alternate measure...which is a pat down. Why is that pill so hard to swallow?

And regarding the 2 year old that was patted down (I have not seen the video footage yet if there is some) - why should a 2 year old be exempt from a pat down or scan? That makes no sense. THAT is my point, no interpretation needed

That pill is hard to swallow for some because we believe that our 4th amendment rights protect us from unreasonable search and seizure.

Here is the amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does the gov't have probable cause to issue a warrant for you to be detained and searched because you plan to ride an airplane? Last I checked riding a plane was a legal activity. Thus the gov't has no cause, and can issue no warrant for abrogation of your rights.

 

[brewer12345]

That pill is hard to swallow for some because we believe that our 4th amendment rights protect us from unreasonable search and seizure.

Here is the amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does the gov't have probable cause to issue a warrant for you to be detained and searched because you plan to ride an airplane? Last I checked riding a plane was a legal activity. Thus the gov't has no cause, and can issue no warrant for abrogation of your rights.

Exactly.

On top of that, I do a public service job that I had to pass a background check for. You really need to porno-scan or grope me?

 

[calmloki]

https://twitter.com/x/status/7088050387550208

Body scans and genital fondlings would save more lives if our Government was paying to have them done in hospitals rather than airports.

 

[WhoDaresWins]

After my trip to FL by plane for Christmas and New Year's, I think I will look into Amtrak for a trip to New York I was planning in March. I can get on The Pennsylvanian at 8:00 a.m. in the town where I live and get to Penn Station around 4:30 or so. I don't have to drive all the way to PIT and pay for parking either as I can walk from the parking space I use for work to the train station. I understand it is a scenic trip and hopefully would be a relaxing one, too. I have a lot of sympathy for people who have to fly frequently for business these days.

 

[clifp]

A couple of years ago, the BBC demonstrated how to blow a hole 2 feet across in the hull of an airliner using two 3-ounce bottles of liquids (the professor doing the experiment didn't tell us what was in the bottles, for obvious reasons), and that was on the ground - no allowance for the further effects of depressurisation. I think that the aircraft would probably be lost if that happened at FL370, cf Pan Am flight 103.

Of course, that also demonstrates that the current liquid restrictions aren't much use. As others have noticed, we're always fighting the last battle. Underwear bomb? X-ray crotches. 330ml PET bottle with explosives? Limit people to 100ml.

Airplanes are pretty rugged machines. During WWII tens of thousand of bombers returned despite being literally riddle with holes by explosive ordnance in the 20 -40 MM range and sometimes as large as 88 MM. These warheads range from a few ounce similar to the 3 oz bottles to a few pounds. In many cases these aircraft landed with several foot wide holes in the fuselage.

During the Vietnam war B52 which are roughly the size of 767 and have pressurized cabins, also returned home despite being hit with 57-100 MM anti-aircraft shells and in some cases Surface to Air missile with 100+ lb warheads.

I am not saying that one of these bombs couldn't bring down a commercial jetliner, just saying that 2 foot hole in a 200' long 200 ton aircraft is by no means a death sentence for the passengers and crew.

 

[thefed]

Exactly.

On top of that, I do a public service job that I had to pass a background check for. You really need to porno-scan or grope me?

short answer....yes. it doesnt matter what your background is...'bad' people at one point or another had clean backgrounds....right?

you go through a metal detector to go to a basketball game
some kids go thru detectors and have bags searched when entering schools
your bags and such are inspected when entering amusement parks
your car can be searched for literally no reason at all by the police...PC is bullshit and can be created out of thin air...ask a cop
ever go to a major courthouse? what happens when you walk in those front doors


the list goes on.

these are all 'legal' activities. you also have a choice not to participate in these 'legal activities' if you so choose.

 

[clifp]

short answer....yes. it doesnt matter what your background is...'bad' people at one point or another had clean backgrounds....right?

you go through a metal detector to go to a basketball game
some kids go thru detectors and have bags searched when entering schools
your bags and such are inspected when entering amusement parks

these are all 'legal' activities. you also have a choice not to participate in these 'legal activities' if you so choose.

No it does matter what your background is. Brewer may get mad and call his boss an idiot but he isn't going to blow up an airplane. Once the Airline/TSA verify that Brewer is the same guy with a security clearance, and has kids they should let him board a plane with minimal delay, walkthru a metal detector and xray his carry on period. No removal of shoes or toilet articles, no need to see if he is carrying a bomb in his underwear etc.

I've never had a cop search my vehicle even when there sure that I was armed robber because I matched his description. Everything you mention is a minimally invasive and makes lots of sense. Lots of criminals go to courthouses, criminal have guns, checking for guns probably safes lives and take all of 20 seconds. Rowdy fans routinely try to smuggle alcohol into sporting events depriving stadiums of revenue and presenting a safety issue when the throw bottles.

Personally, I don't remember me or my daypack being searched when I went to Disneyland a few years ago but I guess it maybe standard procedure at someplaces.

 

[jIMOh]

here is a novel idea... make security checks as complex as the tax code.

I have been to Canada and Mexico and that is the gist of me being "out of the country". How about having a segment of the flying population go thru an FBI/NSA background test. Similar to getting a government top secret security clearence? Then issue those people a special ID, and when I present that ID to fly, and avoid some of the obtrusive security checks.

For anyone which travels more and broader (meaning you go to Europe and South America), have an extra step in the background checking process. Might take 6-12 months longer to get your clearence (who you been visiting in south america?) and then issue a similar ID.

Eventually you can figure out who the terrorists are, because anyone flying to certain locations would be subject to screening 100% of the time. Ever been to Saudi Arabia? Or Pakistan? Sucks to be you, you cannot get the special ID and must be searched EVERY time for EVERY flight.

Makes too much sense to ever be done.

If a terrorist is homegrown, this presents a challenge (I guess), but anyone which has a passport and it has been tracked they have visited a certain country would always be subject to searching.

Not all politicians are stupid, they are already doing this

TSA: Some gov't officials to skip airport security - Yahoo! News

 

[Skye]

"I think I found the Titanic!"

 

[Bestwifeever]

short answer....yes. it doesnt matter what your background is...'bad' people at one point or another had clean backgrounds....right? ...

People with high-level federal security clearances, if they turn 'bad', are in a position to do a lot more damage in their professions than when traveling.

 

[jIMOh]

short answer....yes. it doesnt matter what your background is...'bad' people at one point or another had clean backgrounds....right?

you go through a metal detector to go to a basketball game
some kids go thru detectors and have bags searched when entering schools
your bags and such are inspected when entering amusement parks
your car can be searched for literally no reason at all by the police...PC is bullshit and can be created out of thin air...ask a cop
ever go to a major courthouse? what happens when you walk in those front doors


the list goes on.

these are all 'legal' activities. you also have a choice not to participate in these 'legal activities' if you so choose.

Metal detectors don't cause cancer do they?
Radiation does.

If everyone which flew was required to go thru a "top secret" level background check, that process would

a) verify where person had been for last 10 years (or more)
b) verify who a person's friends are (this would trigger certain things if any of these people are on watch lists)
c) require this process be renewed every X years (I suggest every 3 years)

If a person is required to supply 10 years worth of references which proved employment, community they live in, and general lifestyle, and each year required 10-15 UNIQUE references (references which vouch for a person's character, location, occupation), using 7 degrees of seperation, a connection could be done if a known terrorist is found. If a person resided in another country, a certain % of references have to be from that location and verifiable by US NSA or similar agents.

It would be expensive, but not more expensive than what the TSA is currently doing, IMO.

 

[Koolau]

As Nord's suggest I'd really like to see Mythbuster do a piece on how likely it is take down a commercial aircraft with a shoe bomb, much less a cavity bomb.

I'm trying to decide whether it would be Adam or Jamie alluding to "the sh** hitting the fan(jet)."

 

[Nodak]

A quote from Janet Napolitano contained in "The Hill":

“I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?”

If they try their scanners and pat downs on trains, buses, and ships there will be hell to pay. To me that would demonstrate a lust for power not an attempt to protect.

 

[Keim]

But none of the searches you list are the same, are they? Big difference between a metal detector and a grope session or body scanner that takes nudie pics AND has unknown health effects. Note the line in the amendment about "unreasonable" search and seizure. Our courts have determined the instances you mention to be reasonable. Our courts have made no such statement about what the TSA is doing. In fact, the head of the TSA admits they wouldn't pass the test of the 4th amendment.

Bottom line: I don't want the TSA taking away my 4th amendment rights in exchange for a dubious sense of safety provided by searches that aren't even accomplishing anything. I refer you back to the previously mentioned Ben Franklin quote.

short answer....yes. it doesnt matter what your background is...'bad' people at one point or another had clean backgrounds....right?

Crappy logic here. Might as well arrest everyone now.

Have you seen the movie Minority Report? Perhaps you could be the head of the TSA's new future crimes division.

you go through a metal detector to go to a basketball game
some kids go thru detectors and have bags searched when entering schools
your bags and such are inspected when entering amusement parks
your car can be searched for literally no reason at all by the police...PC is bullshit and can be created out of thin air...ask a cop
ever go to a major courthouse? what happens when you walk in those front doors


the list goes on.

these are all 'legal' activities. you also have a choice not to participate in these 'legal activities' if you so choose.

Personally I'm not a big fan of being searched in any of these examples, either. But, I don't feel the types of searches being conducted are unreasonable, and am confident they do not infringe upon my 4th amendment rights. As to manufacture of probable cause: Yes it happens, but it does have to stand up in a court.

I will pick on your amusement park example for a moment though. That is private property. They can pretty much do what they want as a condition of entrance, and I have no problem with that.

 

[calmloki]

I'm trying to decide whether it would be Adam or Jamie alluding to "the sh** hitting the fan(jet)."

Here's Adam regarding security checks - skip the first minute of the video as it's just applause:

YouTube - #w00tstock Seattle: Adam Savage says "WTF, TSA?"

 

[Rambler]

All this talk is interesting, and great fodder for conversation, but I'm flying over Denver as we speak (free Internet on the airplane today, don't ya know), from JFK. No scoping, no groping going on there. Flew from SFO to JFK on Sunday...nope, none there either. Just the regular old metal detector.

I prefer safety over turning to confetti, that's for sure, but if the only way is scope n grope, then I'm pretty sure a lot of planes out of JFK were unsafe today.

Just sayin'

R

 

[Westernskies]

I was on an airplane 42 weeks last year; none of them blew up, had to land enroute because of an onboard threat, or were escorted to the gate by a squadron of F-15's. For all the grief the TSA is taking over this issue, we haven't had another tragedy since 2001... and the civil libertarians are just as free not to fly as to become indignant about being searched before doing so, I don't see anything in the Constitution about airplanes...

Sure, the searches are a pain in the butt, and TSA may be a bit of security theater, but until we institute terrorist profiling techniques over political correctness, we don't stand a chance of seeing things improve. Pre-flight security isn't going away, and the same folks who are screaming about being searched are preventing us from making any headway in the fight against an enemy who has figured out how to turn our civil liberties against us.

Anyone who buys an airline ticket today does so knowing full well that they are going to be screened in some method before being allowed to board the flight; if you feel the x-rays are unsafe, take the pat-down. If you feel the pat-down is a violation of your personal space, take the x-ray. If you feel either method is too intrusive, don't enter into a contract for air travel; take another mode of transportation, FWIW I don't want you on the plane if you haven't been screened because you feel it's too much of an inconvenience or violates your self-serving religious beliefs.

We screen hundreds of millions of passengers every year, to make it work we have to have standards to do so; using the personnel the TSA has available. Could they be more professional or better trained? Certainly, but the same holds true for any professional or vocation. Methods and countermethods are going to continue to evolve; get used to it. This issue isn't going away because of public indignation, and is far from over.

 

[brewer12345]

People with high-level federal security clearances, if they turn 'bad', are in a position to do a lot more damage in their professions than when traveling.

Thank you.

I could probably do more damage with an hour's worth of frank discussion with a reporter than any dozen terrorists you care to name. The chances of me doing so absent some kind of severe mental illness are nil, of course.