investigation: airport security a FARCE.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Spoooon

Lifer
Mar 3, 2000
11,563
203
106
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Israeli airline's = great security record. Sure they have fewer flights to manage but they use competent screeners, have armed marshals on every jet and profile risky passengers (*cough* Palestinians *cough*). They probably use other, more secretive measures, too. I don't believe any terrorist has succesfully messed with an Israeli flight, ever.

There was an article about Israeli security measures a while back on CNN. The gist of it was that there was no way American citizens would be willing to put up with that kind of inconvenience. I thought flying was bad before all the bogus security measures...
 

Jmmsbnd007

Diamond Member
May 29, 2002
3,286
0
0
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: notfred
Oh no! A pocket knife and a corkscrew, they're going to stab a hole in the plane and it will crash!!! ahhh!!!!
rolleye.gif

Actually, a WWII fighter pilot veteran who had won the Congressional Medal of Honor for his work in WWII was flying to West Point to make a speech. He was wearing the Congressional Medal of Honor around his neck when he tried to board the plane and was stopped. Apparently, you can "poke someone's eye out" with the <STRONG>Congressional Medal of Honor</STRONG> -or so was the excuse they gave him for disallowing it. It took the old man arguing 45 minutes or so before he was let on the plane with it around his neck. :|

I hate airport idiots.

nik
Now that's just plain stupid. I can't believe how low they're going, they might as well chop off our hands, as we all know, we could easily choke someone with them!
 

Jmmsbnd007

Diamond Member
May 29, 2002
3,286
0
0
Originally posted by: Spoooon
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Israeli airline's = great security record. Sure they have fewer flights to manage but they use competent screeners, have armed marshals on every jet and profile risky passengers (*cough* Palestinians *cough*). They probably use other, more secretive measures, too. I don't believe any terrorist has succesfully messed with an Israeli flight, ever.

There was an article about Israeli security measures a while back on CNN. The gist of it was that there was no way American citizens would be willing to put up with that kind of inconvenience. I thought flying was bad before all the bogus security measures...
I used to fly El Al quite a lot, all the extra security is transparent to you.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,457
6,689
126
Hehe, bizmark, first you suggest we're loosing millions if not billions on a problem and they you expect me to solve it for free. I would much rather hear your solution.
 

nord1899

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,444
0
0
Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
Originally posted by: Spoooon
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Israeli airline's = great security record. Sure they have fewer flights to manage but they use competent screeners, have armed marshals on every jet and profile risky passengers (*cough* Palestinians *cough*). They probably use other, more secretive measures, too. I don't believe any terrorist has succesfully messed with an Israeli flight, ever.

There was an article about Israeli security measures a while back on CNN. The gist of it was that there was no way American citizens would be willing to put up with that kind of inconvenience. I thought flying was bad before all the bogus security measures...
I used to fly El Al quite a lot, all the extra security is transparent to you.

I remember reading/seeing somewhere that the average wait time for the El Al security is less than 15 minutes. But its real security, not "sniff your shoes" security. I could put up with 15-30 minutes of security if I thought it would actually do something.
 

Alphazero

Golden Member
May 9, 2002
1,057
0
0
I live in Israel, and compared to El-Al's security at Ben-Gurion airport, American airport screening is an absolute joke. You'd think people would start taking these issues seriously, but it seems to me that it's all being run by a bunch of apes.
 

Alphazero

Golden Member
May 9, 2002
1,057
0
0
As for the screening, I only get asked a couple of questions and then waved through, since I'm an Israeli citizen. Foreign citizens could take a couple more minutes. Suspicious people (read: Arabs) will be thoroughly searched if they arouse the suspicion of the highly skilled and experienced screeners.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Alphazero
I live in Israel, and compared to El-Al's security at Ben-Gurion airport, American airport screening is an absolute joke. You'd think people would start taking these issues seriously, but it seems to me that it's all being run by a bunch of apes.

It really has nothing to do with being run by a bunch of apes. There are a couple of real issues though. 1. The infrastructure for the security is not in place. 2. The training and implementation is ongoing. 3. People in this country have no idea what real security is. If real security was ever put in place at our airports you would clearly hear the whining and bitching across the globe, because of the cost and the inconvenience.

Dave
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,892
543
126
Did you catch the little tidbit that these reporters carried multiple forms of contraband through "every airport security checkpoint they encountered"? Of course we can't reasonably expect "perfection", but a 100% failure rate certainly gives me pause, especially in a fully independent test like this -- 11 different airports, using different screening machines and employees, and different passengers, bags, and contraband items.
Let me guess, these journalists were white females with blonde hair or white clean-cut men wearing Polo shirts...right? Why don't they take a dozen Arab men and try the same test? What do you think the result will be?

I sincerely hope that far less scrutiny is given to those who do not fit within any higher-risk profile than those who do. How many airliners have been hijacked throughout the world again by white women or men vs. Arabs or Muslims? Ummm...tough question!

The goal isn't to catch every violation, at least not at first. The immediate goal is to catch those violations by people who are a risk for targeting an airliner in a terrorist act. We know who those people are, essentially, and we know who those people are EXTREMELY unlikely to be. We knew this before 9/11, quite frankly, but civil rights groups were rather successful at enticing people to believe the fantasy that terrorists "can" come in every color, ethicity, or nationality.

While technically true, it is certainly "possible" for terrorists to come in every color, ethnicity, or nationality, "possibilities" are irrelevant because the 'possibility standard' dictates wasting limited resources chasing every remote extreme merely because its 'possible', invariably stealing resources that could be better spent on the probable.

It is "probabilities" that matter most and we were given the most painful reminder, the latest in a host of painful reminders, of the significance of probability on 9/11.

This obviously isn't the story being told to the public, but you bet your ass this is the unwritten internal policy guiding increased scrutiny and who gets it, and I agree with it 110%.

When the infrastructure and capabilities to give all possibilities regardless of probability equal scrutiny, without causing air-travel to unnecessarily grind to a screeching halt with the consequence of forcing the airline industry out of the frying pan and into the fire, we will do so.

But its going to take a lot longer than the extremely foolish and naive time-frame expectation of a year to accomplish this goal. I don't know who gave you the absurd notion this would all be done in a year, but you can tell them I said they were an idiot.
 

bizmark

Banned
Feb 4, 2002
2,311
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, bizmark, first you suggest we're loosing millions if not billions on a problem and they you expect me to solve it for free. I would much rather hear your solution.

hey, I never asked for your solution :) I only asked whether you were happy with the current (non-)solution, which you (IMO correctly) see as a big show put on to get people to fly.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
The problem with airport security is it cannot stop those who are dedicated to attacking people on an aircraft. Lemme see. Tweezers, nail files etc.

How about a good strong piece of monofilament with plastic handles hidden in a belt? Or any of the various plastics which can be made into knives?

There is a balance to be struck as in most things.

Here we have ease of access to the airlines by legitimate passengers and the security of the aircraft and passengers. I think we agree that both extremes of these desires are mutually incompatible.

So we have those who do not want to be inconvienced and those who want to be completely safe, and the great majority who are all over the place. Unfortuately the airlines have to service all the public.

So where does that leave us? To fall back on the adage "Perception is reality". You create the illusion of safety. Illusions are necessary in everyday life, for without them, the majority of humanity would be incapable of functioning. You can think of your own examples, as I assume the intelligence level here is high enough to do that.

What we do is hire people to do tedious work with a generally hostile public to scan them and catch what they can under the constraints placed on them in terms of work conditions and what the public will allow and hope the majority will believe they are safe. Well in reality for the most part they are. Statistical fact. Statistics are not enough for frightened people though, so things are "better and improving" Again the majority accept this.

Now we get to people with an agenda which come and awaken us from our daydream. The press has the job of stirring the pot to increase contraversy, in order to increase sales. If they wanted to try something to test security, they should have taken a gun/knife (not a nail file type, but really do damage type). The problem with this is they would probably be caught and imprisoned, first amendment notwithstanding. So they bring things on board that if used would get them pummeled into next week by the other passengers. Remember your seat is a flotation device and an effective shield against box cutters, etc. Anyway, we have the opposite extreme of what I like to call the Safety Nazis. We must be safe all the time no matter what. So they applaud when my 2 year old niece was carried away from her parents because the metal clips on her suspenders set off the alarm. Or better the GI Joe 2 inch M16 allegedly removed from a child. That was funny to see posts here saying, "Yeah, it could be a threat so they have to take it" Pul-eez.

So, what to do,

Strike the middle ground, and accept a compromise and go back to sleep and dream of safety
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,457
6,689
126
Am I happy with the current situation. I can be unhappy without calling everybody in the world an idiot. And if i can do no better myself, have nothing positive to contribute, I may bitch, but I try not to take myself too seriously. Hayabusarider there pretty well sums up my attitude. I think we need better faster technological solutions, but I also think we need to act in the world in a way that makes friends rather than enemies.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,892
543
126
I live in Israel, and compared to El-Al's security at Ben-Gurion airport, American airport screening is an absolute joke. You'd think people would start taking these issues seriously, but it seems to me that it's all being run by a bunch of apes
El-Al has a fleet of about 30 airliners. More passengers fly through Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport in TWO WEEKS than El-Al handles in one year. lol!

Hey, we could make security tight as a drum at one little dinky airport in the United States, too.

The scale of the project we are undertaking is a tad bit more massive than that.
 

NogginBoink

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
5,322
0
0
Originally posted by: Spoooon
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Israeli airline's = great security record. Sure they have fewer flights to manage but they use competent screeners, have armed marshals on every jet and profile risky passengers (*cough* Palestinians *cough*). They probably use other, more secretive measures, too. I don't believe any terrorist has succesfully messed with an Israeli flight, ever.

There was an article about Israeli security measures a while back on CNN. The gist of it was that there was no way American citizens would be willing to put up with that kind of inconvenience. I thought flying was bad before all the bogus security measures...

Personally, I'd be much more willing to put up with the inconvenience of effective security than the inconvenience of the ineffective security present at Americal airports.

When I flew through Isreal, I didn't view the security process as an inconvenience at all. It was a necessity, and handled very professionally by the Israelis.
 

bizmark

Banned
Feb 4, 2002
2,311
0
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Let me guess, these journalists were white females with blonde hair or white clean-cut men wearing Polo shirts...right? Why don't they take a dozen Arab men and try the same test? What do you think the result will be?

Okay, this is a valid point, and one that I hadn't thought about. I agree with you completely that some type of racial/ethnic profiling should be in place, whether officially or unofficially. And it's too bad that the races of the reporters involved in this story aren't mentioned.

I sincerely hope that far less scrutiny is given to those who do not fit within any higher-risk profile than those who do. How many airliners have been hijacked throughout the world again by white women or men vs. Arabs or Muslims? Ummm...tough question!

For a time the Western world associated terrorism -- specifically airplane hijackings and bombings -- with Northern Ireland. Not any more obviously, but it has happened.

It is "probabilities" that matter most and we were given the most painful reminder, the latest in a host of painful reminders, of the significance of probability on 9/11. This obviously isn't the story being told to the public, but you bet your ass this is the unwritten internal policy guiding increased scrutiny and who gets it, and I agree with it 110%.

I agree as well. But when confronted with my own personal experiences (21 year old, clean-cut white male, usually dressed in a polo shirt when I travel) at the airports, having to take my shoes off, having my bags searched, seeing plenty of 70-year-old ladies being searched, etc., and also reading stuff like this:

A security agent at Newark insisted on passing our bag through an X-ray machine twice after spotting a tape recorder, cell phone, two-way pager and radio inside. She remarked: "You're pretty loaded up." It was 5 a.m. Few others were on line. But she never opened our bag - and had no idea she missed a rubber-handled razor knife and box cutter.

At Santa Barbara, a ticketing agent escorted us to a security checkpoint around 4:40 a.m. We had been randomly selected to have our check-in and carry-on luggage searched. On the way, the agent joked: "You haven't taken any flying lessons recently, have you?" The utility knife in our carry-on would not be discovered - despite X-ray and hand searches.

I've got to say that, if they're not being "colorblind" and "random" in this little enterprise, they're at least doing a VERY good job of appearing so! And frankly I don't trust the competence of these people enough to be able to think that they're fooling us.

But its going to take a lot longer than the extremely foolish and naive time-frame expectation of a year to accomplish this goal. I don't know who gave you the absurd notion this would all be done in a year, but you can tell them I said they were an idiot.

Okay, so we've got a LOT of people who have already been working at these airport security checkpoints. Hopefully, they had had SOME training before 9/11. They learned how to stand there, how to take people's stuff and send it through the machine, and how to sit at the machine and look at things on the television screen.

So what's changed that would require so much more training and equipment that an increase in security would take over a year? They've learned how to look *extra careful* at the screen? Learning to look at the bigger, newer, more sensitive screen? They've learned how to use tongs to rub a piece of cloth all over a computer and put it in a little bomb-sensing device? They've learned how to wave a wand all over a person's body and listen to the sound it makes when it passes over metal? They've learned how to un-pack a person's luggage and then re-pack it?

And all of this still doesn't get around the fact that there was a 100% failure rate to detect contraband items in carry-on luggage, despite some bags being sent through the x-ray machine twice, and some bags being hand-searched. Whether the fact that the items are contraband is bullsh|t isn't the question; the problem is that these people are obviously so ineffective at doing their jobs that it's just a huge waste of money and also a cost to the civil liberties of the general (non-terrorist) travelling public (which has been debated ad nauseum in another thread).
 

Josh

Lifer
Mar 20, 2000
10,917
0
0
Hmm, if someone came at me with a "a corkscrew, razor blades and pepper spray" on a plane, they'd be asking for an beat down. And, especially now, if some fool was dumb enough to try and take a cockpit like that, I'd be afraid to look at his body after the plane made an emergency landing to fly his (corkscrew-carrying guy) body out to nearest hospital. Passengers would beat that fool senseless.
 

Yo Ma Ma

Lifer
Jan 21, 2000
11,635
2
0
Originally posted by: bizmark
MSNBC link

THE REPORTERS carried utility knives, rubber-handled razor knives, a pocket knife, a corkscrew, razor blades and pepper spray through every airport security checkpoint they encountered, the newspaper said.

CBS News crews also tested security screeners last week, although they did not attempt to smuggle banned items through checkpoints. They carried bags lined with lead to block X-rays and sailed past about 70 percent of screeners at several airports nationwide.

The Daily News said guards X-rayed and hand-searched its reporters? bags, asked them to remove their shoes and checked photo identifications, but did not find the banned items.

The airports included the four at which the terrorists boarded flights on Sept. 11 last year: Newark International, Boston?s Logan International, Washington Dulles International and Portland International Jetport in Maine, the News said.

Still feel safe? The government spins its wheels with feel-good measures like random searches and similar bullsh|t but it clearly doesn't make any difference. Even the fvcking airports where the 9/11 terrorists boarded let people get through with banned items and lead-lined bags. What a fvcking joke.
All is not lost, we are safer today from lactating mothers and traveling engineers than we were a year ago.
 

Spoooon

Lifer
Mar 3, 2000
11,563
203
106
Originally posted by: NogginBoink
Originally posted by: Spoooon
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Israeli airline's = great security record. Sure they have fewer flights to manage but they use competent screeners, have armed marshals on every jet and profile risky passengers (*cough* Palestinians *cough*). They probably use other, more secretive measures, too. I don't believe any terrorist has succesfully messed with an Israeli flight, ever.

There was an article about Israeli security measures a while back on CNN. The gist of it was that there was no way American citizens would be willing to put up with that kind of inconvenience. I thought flying was bad before all the bogus security measures...

Personally, I'd be much more willing to put up with the inconvenience of effective security than the inconvenience of the ineffective security present at Americal airports.

When I flew through Isreal, I didn't view the security process as an inconvenience at all. It was a necessity, and handled very professionally by the Israelis.
Hey, I'm just posting what I read on CNN. If I remember correctly, because of the sheer volume of passengers in the US, it wouldn't be possible to have a quick and "secure" screening.

 

bizmark

Banned
Feb 4, 2002
2,311
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Am I happy with the current situation. I can be unhappy without calling everybody in the world an idiot. And if i can do no better myself, have nothing positive to contribute, I may bitch, but I try not to take myself too seriously.

Touch&eacute;. But sometimes I think that negative actions can be very helpful and necessary. Repeal laws without setting new ones in their place. Un-do what has been done. Admit that doing nothing is better than doing something that's pointless.

Hayabusarider there pretty well sums up my attitude.

I also think that Hayabusarider had a good take on the situation. I guess the unfortunate fact is that politicians strive to satisfy the unthinking public which yearns for nothing more than security.

I also think we need to act in the world in a way that makes friends rather than enemies.

That goes without saying.

edit: and sometimes it's necessary to call everybody in the world an idiot, if they are. Even if they aren't, it will provoke a reaction.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,457
6,689
126
Actually, bizmark, I think negative actions are called negative for the reason that they are negative. The reaction is often a poke in the nose. :D
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,892
543
126
Okay, so we've got a LOT of people who have already been working at these airport security checkpoints. Hopefully, they had had SOME training before 9/11. They learned how to stand there, how to take people's stuff and send it through the machine, and how to sit at the machine and look at things on the television screen.
I've flown for years before 9/11 and four times since.

Before 9/11, you walked through the metal detector with your jacket and shoes on. If the metal detector was tripped, you were asked if you had emptied your pockets and sent through again. If it tripped again, you were quickly patted-down for guns while the security guy flirted with the X-ray screener then sent on your merry way.

Your carry-on bags were X-rayed as you went through the metal detector.

The difference is that screeners were trained before 9/11 to discern three things in carry-on bags on X-ray: guns, bombs, knives. I'm talking Dirty Harry sized guns, Dirty Hezbollah sized bombs, and Dirty Rambo sized survival knives. This is what they used to train screeners to look for - items that were so ominously obvious, or obviously ominous, whichever is more fitting, that they COULDN'T be missed.

The lack-luster progress of the new security measures are not a measure of the futility of such measures, it is a measure of how casual and lax airport security was to start with. Your premise that they already had an effective 'base' of security on which to build and so it shouldn't require much for the airline industry to comply with the new measures is in error.

This is not merely a natural extension of existing airline security, it is a massive overhaul and expansion of an enormous system from the ground up.