BA 223 - What the F*ck is going on?

dahamsta

Originally posted by Man
So what are you saying here, you are happy with the level of security as it stands but want better training or you would like the level stood down a bit with better training.

I said nothing of the sort, and I'm frankly amazed that you could draw that conclusion from the statement I made (and you quoted). Try comparing them: Mine says, effectively, "reporters have walked through these security measures" and "security professionals deride these security measures"; yours says, "So you're happy with them then?" Hello?

You're drawing a fundamentally flawed conclusion from my posts. I don't object to security, I object to pseudo security. If you don't understand the concept, revisit the archives of Bruce Schneier's Crypto-Gram (you did go there earlir, didn't you?) and read a half dozen examples of Schneier's "Doghouse". That's what TSA and airline security measures are -- ineffective, smoke and mirrors, colourful but without substance.

More importantly, I object to /any/ security measures that trample on civil liberties to the current level. There is absolutely no excuse for the removal of legal rights -- without legal representation, these people are utterly defenseless. These defenses are needed to protect the innocent, like it or not. If you take away the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", you open you and your family and friends up to the latest whim of the spinners.

Perhaps this is what you're suggesting when you say I'm taking you off-topic, but that's not the intention. If we take each incident and element individually, most seem trivial. So what if the screeners aren't trained, we'll get them trained; so what if fingerprints are required, it's just a little thing; so what if we gather up a few innocents by mistake, get the big picture. You don't seem to be seeing the big picture though. Add it all up. Look at the total.

It's not impossible to get throught security, but it is very difficult and of late much more difficult. Fingerprints and photographs wouldn't be long about divulging the identity of a journalist for instance.

These two statements tie together nicely. What are you trying to suggest with the latter? That reporters should be searched because they're reporters? Or that it will be ok to let them on the plane whether or which? Perhaps terrorists should be seeking media accreditation -- nice loophole there. Takes some of the difficulty away.

Well you are entitled to have that opinion, but it's been two years since a U.S plane has been hi-jacked and only now are the restrictions getting extremely tight, so security must be having some effect.

How have the restrictions tightened please? I'm not aware of any new introductions.

Again I'll have to tell you that theses things while unacceptable are going to happen with the law of averages in a tiny percentage of cases. Theres no way out whilst madmen want to con their way onto a plane with the intention of blowing it up. I never said it was acceptable just unfortunately inevitable. Nothing is going to be foolproof or perfect and unfortunately tiny percentages of the travelling public will end up experiencing this in the overall effort to save lives.

This is not an inevitability, people decided to take this route. They knew what would happen and they went ahead anyway. That's disgusting. Describing it as inevtibale is burying your head in the sand.

I don't agree, I feel safer than ever flying actually with these measures in place.

Bizarre. How does a cursory examination of your shoes make you feel more secure? How does profiling that's proven to be more inaccurate than not make you feel more secure? How does confiscation of fingernail clippers make you feel more secure?

All of these are the equivalent of using mála to hold your front door closed at night.

adam

Originally posted by mr_angry
Just when I thought we'd reached a kind of consensus, you again seem to believe that it is acceptable for this kind of thing to happen. I can't understand why. Why does this kind of thing have to happen to innocent people? I firmly believe that our airlines can be kept secure without sending innocent people to Syria to be tortured and interrogated. What's more, I think the fact that it happened at all is f*cking outrageous! And to think the US Attourney General wont even apologise!!!! The man involved should be taking them to the cleaners! How would you feel if that happened to you Man? I bet you wouldn't be best f*cking pleased, even "in the name of airline security".

I wouldnt like it but again , to argue that no mistake should be made is to argue for perfection.
While I hate the horrid mistakes I'm realistic enough to know that they will happen and recognise them for that-mistakes.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Man
I wouldnt like it but again , to argue that no mistake should be made is to argue for perfection.
While I hate the horrid mistakes I'm realistic enough to know that they will happen and recognise them for that-mistakes.

You're missing the important point, Man - picking him up was a mistake. Holding him without notifying his family, denying him access to legal representation, sending him to Syria for months of interrogation - that's not a mistake, it's a travesty.

Originally posted by dahamsta
I said nothing of the sort, and I'm frankly amazed that you could draw that conclusion from the statement I made (and you quoted). Try comparing them: Mine says, effectively, "reporters have walked through these security measures" and "security professionals deride these security measures"; yours says, "So you're happy with them then?" Hello?

So you want more stringent security then? I understand now , thank you for clarifying.

How have the restrictions tightened please? I'm not aware of any new introductions.

All airlines travelling from the E.U to the U.S now have to hand over the credit card details of their passengers to the U.S authorities.
This makes it much easier to profile visitors and weed out for closer inspection potential terrorists.
In the present circumstances thats great idea imho,considering human error will occasionally allow very dangerous objects onto planes.

so what if we gather up a few innocents by mistake, get the big picture. You don't seem to be seeing the big picture though. Add it all up. Look at the total.

The bigger picture is no plane has been hi-jacked in the U.S since 9-11 and the number of innocents who are mistakenly given a further strong inspection are tiny in comparison to the overall numbers flying in and flying in safely.

Perhaps terrorists should be seeking media accreditation -- nice loophole there. Takes some of the difficulty away.

nope, but the finger printing,photographing and credit card details should help to weed out a potential bomber.

Bizarre. How does a cursory examination of your shoes make you feel more secure? How does profiling that's proven to be more inaccurate than not make you feel more secure? How does confiscation of fingernail clippers make you feel more secure?

It's not cursory , if I had a bomb there, it would be found.
Regarding profiling, perhaps the credit card details will help in that matter.
I do not oppose that or any of the existing measures when, they appear to be working,ie no planes into the U.S appear to have been blown up for a whole two years and three months.

This is not an inevitability, people decided to take this route. They knew what would happen and they went ahead anyway. That's disgusting. Describing it as inevtibale is burying your head in the sand.

If you think mistakes are not an inevitability, you are again looking for perfection and as I said thats not going to happen.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Man
So you want more stringent security then? I understand now , thank you for clarifying.

You're just wasting my time now Man.

No I wouldnt say that.
"When Two people agree on everything, only one of them is thinking"
I'm not going to change your mind, nor are you mine.
Theres nothing wrong with that.
That is all

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
Hmmm, how many passengers travel through JFK and other U.S international airports every day Sovtek? And what percentage of these have been subjected to an error ?

Many and what demeaning and stupifying errors they can be.

A very small price methinks to pay considering the level of madness in the brains of people that wish to blow up innocent air travellers.

Contrast that with the madness and stupidity in the methods used since 9/11 on the part of the American "security" apparatus (airlines are still wanting to employ part time, minimum wage security in the US).
I'm not arguing that they shouldn't stop flights if there's some intelligence to base it on.
My point is that you need to realize you don't understand their (the terrorists) motivations and methods and start to rectify that before you start infringing upon people's right to move about freely and without undo search and seizure. In America they've proven that they've done none of this.

mr_angry

Originally posted by Man
I wouldnt like it but again , to argue that no mistake should be made is to argue for perfection.
While I hate the horrid mistakes I'm realistic enough to know that they will happen and recognise them for that-mistakes.

I agree with oscarBravo - pulling him aside, and causing him to miss his connection would be a mistake, but acceptable because it didn very little damage compared to the consequences. Sending him to a Syrian interrogation camp for 10 months is far beyond the realm of "simple mistake". Its a violation of everything we are trying to save! Human rights ring any bells?

Sorry to sound nerdy, but there was a very good episode of Deep Space 9 that dealt with this very issue. There was concern that shape-shifters could be present on earth without anyone knowing, and so they started to place armed guards on the streets, and have people watch each other constantly. Pretty soon, the whole thing descended into paranoid anarchy. One of the lines that sticks with me was the question "Do we destroy paradise ourselves, in order to save it?". That's what's going on here. Do we disregard human rights altogether, just in order to protect them? Complete madness...

You make a fair point Sovtek. I'm concerned with the immediate situation though and with my and others willingness to fly to the states.

I've had some good times there and resent totally, madmen's attempts to kill me and others in their grudges whether justified or not.

That said my tempered views on the whys and wherefores of AlQueda Vs the Rest have been said many times around here without predjudice to my desire as an innocent party to have a safe flight to the U.S

Victor

Originally posted by Man
The bigger picture is no plane has been hi-jacked in the U.S since 9-11 and the number of innocents who are mistakenly given a further strong inspection are tiny in comparison to the overall numbers flying in and flying in safely.

However, up to then there had been 250 hijackings in the US, compared to 50 in Europe. Given that Europe has had it's diversity and "issues" (and within direct flying distance of the Middle East), it would appear that European security measures have worked much better than American ones.

Also, if I'm going to crash a plane into a building, I'm going to make sure it is as full of fuel as possible, not 3,000-5,000 miles from take-off.

Occidental

Originally posted by Victor
Also, if I'm going to crash a plane into a building, I'm going to make sure it is as full of fuel as possible, not 3,000-5,000 miles from take-off.

In that case you would be better off hijacking an aircraft returning to Europe, when you will find that the TSA and Homeland Security aren't half as vigirous in their security checks as non-Americans are only really dangerous on their way in. But you're not supposed to notice that.

The Greatest Security Show on Earth rumbles on.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Victor

Also, if I'm going to crash a plane into a building, I'm going to make sure it is as full of fuel as possible, not 3,000-5,000 miles from take-off.

Perhaps this is a little off the point, but why is there such an emphasis on plane hijacking? Yes, some planes were hijacked during the initial terror campaign, but why is it assumed they would do the same thing again? I imagine terrorists are quite inventive, they want people to be scared not just of planes, but everything, including leaving their house or drinking their water.

Whats been done to protect Power Plants and Chemical Factorys from attacks from 6 guys with machine guns and C4? Perhaps they dont need armed squads, how many sleeper agents could they have implanted in numerous buildings over the last 5 years? Over the past 10years? Who knows what they have planned and for how long?

The attention and money being spent on Airline Security seems like a perfect diversion from an attack on more vulnerable targets.


Matt

Redleslie

Originally posted by Victor
However, up to then there had been 250 hijackings in the US, compared to 50 in Europe. Given that Europe has had it's diversity and "issues" (and within direct flying distance of the Middle East), it would appear that European security measures have worked much better than American ones.

Also, if I'm going to crash a plane into a building, I'm going to make sure it is as full of fuel as possible, not 3,000-5,000 miles from take-off.

Next time you go to the US, you could find yourself pulled into a small room to face some awkward questions about those words.

Originally posted by Occidental
In that case you would be better off hijacking an aircraft returning to Europe, when you will find that the TSA and Homeland Security aren't half as vigirous in their security checks as non-Americans are only really dangerous on their way in. But you're not supposed to notice that.

You too.

Originally posted by Redleslie
Next time you go to the US, you could find yourself pulled into a small room to face some awkward questions about those words.


You too.

Heh!
On a lighter note, I always seem to be checked up and down and inside out when I fly to the states.
On one of my last return journies I was brought into the side room before boarding in jfk, thoroughly frisked and my hand luggage was searched.
I had forgotten untill then about some errr very emabarrassing videos that I had in my bag...:eek:
Boy was I redfaced, everybody was laughing though:D

mr_angry

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Perhaps this is a little off the point, but why is there such an emphasis on plane hijacking? Yes, some planes were hijacked during the initial terror campaign, but why is it assumed they would do the same thing again? I imagine terrorists are quite inventive, they want people to be scared not just of planes, but everything, including leaving their house or drinking their water.

Whats been done to protect Power Plants and Chemical Factorys from attacks from 6 guys with machine guns and C4? Perhaps they dont need armed squads, how many sleeper agents could they have implanted in numerous buildings over the last 5 years? Over the past 10years? Who knows what they have planned and for how long?

The attention and money being spent on Airline Security seems like a perfect diversion from an attack on more vulnerable targets.


Matt

A worrying, but ultimately valid point.

Ping Chow Chi

The states have said that the marsals will only be used on specific flights that they believe are at risk due to info they have gatherd.

Well, if there is info that I flight that I am about to go on could be attacked, I would rather the flight be cancelled than to throw an armed gaurd on and hope for the best ;p

Occidental

Originally posted by Redleslie
Next time you go to the US, you could find yourself pulled into a small room to face some awkward questions about those words.

This is the most worrying part. The security services know that the whole thing is a farce, but instead of trying to sort it out, they'll try to persecute anyone who sees through the facade.

We have people being stripped of nail files, penknives, hairbands, belts etc, but at the same time it's okay to bring on a 2 litre glass bottle or an array of Swiss Army knives that you've purchased in Geneva duty free. I also find it bizarre that pilots are stripped of the same items, when they have a dirty great fire axe sitting in the cockpit. But why would they bother, when the new reinforced cockpit doors mean you just wait for the other pilot to leave the cockpit and then aim the aircraft towards anything you want, safe in the knowledge that your new armoured door will keep everyone out.

BTW it's worth noting that El Al(Israel) still hand out steel cutlery to passengers. Maybe they haven't heard about all this terrorism stuff, or could it just be they know what they're doing.

Originally posted by Occidental
or an array of Swiss Army knives that you've purchased in Geneva duty free.

I somehow doubt that , if those were found in your hand luggage that you would be allowed board with them
I can remember also in Heathrow during the summer someone in front of me having their bag opened after it went through x-ray and an entire surgical kit was taken out complete with knives and everything.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Occidental
BTW it's worth noting that El Al(Israel) still hand out steel cutlery to passengers. Maybe they haven't heard about all this terrorism stuff, or could it just be they know what they're doing.

They have armed air marshals on flights.

sovtek

Originally posted by SkepticOne
They have armed air marshals on flights.

I've been hearing El Al touted becaus they have air marshals. The question is have they ever thwarted a real hijacking?
Israeli airport security is also VERY VERY tight and invasive.

That's forgetting, of course, that Israeli security concerns stem largely from it's military strategy and "foreign" policy.

Moriarty

Originally posted by sovtek
That's forgetting, of course, that Israeli security concerns stem largely from it's military strategy and "foreign" policy.

What, like America?

mr_angry

Originally posted by Man
I somehow doubt that , if those were found in your hand luggage that you would be allowed board with them
I can remember also in Heathrow during the summer someone in front of me having their bag opened after it went through x-ray and an entire surgical kit was taken out complete with knives and everything.

There goes any hope for pregnant women shouting "Is there a doctor on board?"

Sparks

Originally posted by sovtek
I've been hearing El Al touted becaus they have air marshals. The question is have they ever thwarted a real hijacking?

Yes.
Since the 70's though, it's been mainly deterrance. And they have air marshalls on every flight, rather than random flights as is being proposed today.

Occidental

Originally posted by Man
I somehow doubt that , if those were found in your hand luggage that you would be allowed board with them
I can remember also in Heathrow during the summer someone in front of me having their bag opened after it went through x-ray and an entire surgical kit was taken out complete with knives and everything.

The Swiss Army knife shop is airside, after you have passed through all the so called security. The only thing checked after this is your boarding pass. I presume as you haven't mentioned it, you don't believe a glass bottle holds much promise as a weapon (or at least not compared to the nail clippers and hair clips, which they will confiscate).


Skeptic,

The Israeli's take security very seriously and implement it very seriously. The stuff we are witnessing in Europe and the US at the moment is just a sham, though the US seem to be finding it useful as a cover for all manner of things.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by sovtek
I've been hearing El Al touted becaus they have air marshals. The question is have they ever thwarted a real hijacking?
Israeli airport security is also VERY VERY tight and invasive.

Nevertheless, if El Al is being held up as an example to America, it is worth pointing out some of the features employed by El Al security.

I'm not an expert in airline security as many here appear to be, but I would tend to agree air marshals should only be considered part of the overall security programme.

That's forgetting, of course, that Israeli security concerns stem largely from it's military strategy and "foreign" policy.

However what's being discussed here is existing security problems and how they are dealt with. Israel's problems may (arguably) be self made but that is not the case with every country with security problems.

Originally posted by Occidental
The Swiss Army knife shop is airside, after you have passed through all the so called security. The only thing checked after this is your boarding pass.

I haven't actually been in a swiss airport.
I'd be shocked at the hypocrisy or negligence if you could buy those at a U.S airport post security and take them on board, when most of these measures are being driven by U.S security needs, and when certainly we are talking about the measures they insist upon for flights to and from their country.
Having said that , it's all a bit acedemic when some mad person could simply take off their belt and try to strangle somebody.
But then thats where the sky marshals come in.
Why dont they put them on all the planes, that would make sense.
I'd expect they would be agile , alert and well trained and capable police officers.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Occidental
Skeptic,

The Israeli's take security very seriously and implement it very seriously. The stuff we are witnessing in Europe and the US at the moment is just a sham, though the US seem to be finding it useful as a cover for all manner of things.

I agree, however if a) there is a genuine security threat and b) the US is serious about tackling it, then it is quite likely that security measures along the lines of El Al would need to be adopted e.g. invasive passenger screening, air marshals etc.

This does not mean that other things shouldn't be done. Dahamsta has pointed out that alcoholism is rife among airport security chiefs and obvously this needs to be examined. Selection, training and pay of airport security personnel also needs to be fixed.

ArphaRima

Borodin: Do you think they will let me live in Montana?
Capt. Ramius: I would think they'll let you live wherever you want.
Borodin: Good. Then I will live in Montana. And I will marry a
round American woman, and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for
me. And I will have a pick-up truck, or umm... possibly even...a
recreational vehicle, and drive from state to state. Do they let
you do that?
Capt. Ramius: Oh yes.
Borodin: No papers?
Capt. Ramius: No papers. State-to-state.

-Hunt for Red October. Published 1984.


I work for an airline, I go through these checks every single day I go to work.
The question is not how much security is needed to thwart an attack, or how expensive it is, ineffective it is, etc; but rather how many civil liberties we are willing to surrender in the name of it.

Biometrics is the next stage. Fingerprints, DNA, retinal patterns will be stored on soon to be introduced electronic passports. Then there is full body X-rays(prob not X-ray but rather another tech). Ive already seen them stateside. You get into a machine and it gives you a full body scan. Inside and out. Fancy having your genitals and your last meal examined via a scanner by the minimum wage hispanic security guards every time you want to travel?

I sit on the other side of the locked door. As in all cases the locked door, air marshalls, TSA staff, they are the cheapest solution to the problem of airport security. Not that airport security has become any more effective, but rather that it solves the public perception of airport security.
Airport security should never be settled by a gunfight in the air. Only accountants will tell you that it is the most effective solution.
TSA staff? I spent an entire day blasting off shotguns, machine guns, pistols and rifles while on holidays in the US. I was ankle deep in spent cartridges. Went to the airport, they selected me for further screening. I took my shoes off, and they swabbed them for explosives. Nothing.

America is now a police state.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by fluffer
I work for an airline, I go through these checks every single day I go to work.
The question is not how much security is needed to thwart an attack, or how expensive it is, ineffective it is, etc; but rather how many civil liberties we are willing to surrender in the name of it.

I think you need to look at them as two sides of an equation. Obviously, no one wants their civil liberties curtailed. Ideally you should be able to walk on to a plane with as few invasions of privacy as possible. Unfortunately this needs to be balanced with the percieved threat.

Occidental

Man,

Judging by the half-baked enforcement of security procedures so far, I wouldn't expect the introduction of sky-marshalls to be any different. I also wouldn't be suprised if the delays and cancellations of the last week have been a pre-emptive arse covering exercise by intelligence and security agencies. At least when something does happen, they can now tell us how hard they were working and how much worse it could have been if we didn't have them. Congrats to Mister Bush on finding a replacement for Russia, even if it is a virtual one.