Airport security

[valis]

The complaints I hear, not only from Mr. Randi but many others, on the subject of airport security, baffle me.
Mr. Randi says he was told his batteries were" "Not allowed," he told me. I asked why. "It's on the list," he shrugged. "

What exactly do people expect from security personal? They are not paid a lot of money which means they probably do not have a high level of education. You would like them to use their judgement as to any item or person that comes through their post? From a pool of any possible person or object on earth you want these people to use their best judgement? You will feel more comfortable with these folks using their judgement as opposed to them having written rules?

May I suggest you change the topic to "I am willing to pay a lot more for an airline ticket so that a well educated, thoughtfull person can work at the security checkpoint. Furthermore I will accept any judgement this person feels is resonable because I do not feel they should be restricted by hard and fast printed rules.

Good Luck!

[Operaider]

Here is a related story you might find interesting. I might mail it to Randi to see if he has any comments.

A few years ago Me and my parents took a trip to Mrytle Beach in order to attend my cousins wedding. Since it was soon after the shoe bomber's attempt the airport was understandably percautious. On the trip back we had to wait in a long line to enter pass through the metal detectors. After passing through we had to remove our shoes while inspectors quickly did a search of out luggage. The metal detectors went off while my dad passed through them. After taking everything out of his pockets he was scanned with a hand held detector, which went off near his feet. Luckily the inspectors didn't panic or act irrationally. My dad took off his shoes and it was found that there was metal in the soles. I had a similar experience a few years before while wearing steel toe boots.

(just a note: if the metal detector does go off. Don't say "Oh, that’s just my bomb". They didn't seem to find it funny pre 9/11 and I doubt they find it funny post 9/11. )

While my Dad's shoes were being inspected, a second guard was going through his bag. After a while he discovered a corkscrew that my dad had used at my cousin's party. My Dad, obviously nervous, began to explain that he had forgotten it was in there.
Apparently it wasn't a problem. Corkscrews were not on the unapproved list. It was put back in his bag, and we boarded the plane. You couldn't take nail clippers (an object even McGyver would have trouble turning into a weapon), but you could take an sharp inch long piece of pointed metal.

[Soapy Sam]

Operaider- If you ask nicely on many airlines, the cabin staff will actually GIVE you nice pieces of glass or metal, in the form of drink containers.

[Ravenwood]

When I was flying from Oahu to Maui, I had to ship the final batch of our household goods before boarding my flight, so one of the the items I had with me was my 6" Spyderco folding hunting knife (cuts fiberglass tape real well) not really thinking, I clipped it to my belt like I normally do. I rush to get my flight, go through security, handing them my wallet, cellphone, boarding pass & SPYDERCO HUNTING KNIFE prior to stepping through the metal detector. I walk through the detector, the hand me everything back, still not realizing what has happened, I put everything back, grab my carry on & head for the plane...I'm on the aircraft & buckling my seatbelt when I notice that I am still wearing my Spyderco knife...really makes me feel confident in airport security, seeing as they saw fit to hand it back to me after it was handed to them....:p

[Lithrael]

Of course it's ridiculous to blame the security personnel at the checkpoints. That's not what anyone is suggesting as far as I know. It's those written rules you mention, that we blame.

The people who *do* decide what's OK and what's not are apparantly bonkers. Those are the ones I'm complaining about when I moan that someone took my nail clippers and let the next guy on with an eminently smashable bottle of wine. I have no ill will whatsoever for the folks at the end of the chain of command who are taking my nail clippers.

The airline regulations really *do* allow many dangerous items to be carried on to planes, while hassling people about items that are pretty innocent, and I think that's a legitimate thing to complain about.

[merphie]

I still say airport security is a joke and won't catch real terrorist. I believe they are too smart and dedicated to their cause.

[The Don]

Originally posted by merphie
I still say airport security is a joke and won't catch real terrorist.
Correct, IMHO it's all about trying to make people reassured that that everything possible is being done to protect us when in fact there is, relatively speaking, naff all they can do.

It is highly likely that the next attack will be sufficiently different from previous ones that existing precautions will do nothing

[merphie]

Originally posted by The Don
Correct, IMHO it's all about trying to make people reassured that that everything possible is being done to protect us when in fact there is, relatively speaking, naff all they can do.

It is highly likely that the next attack will be sufficiently different from previous ones that existing precautions will do nothing

Exactly my point. The general population doesn't seem to get it. After 9/11 they were searching everything. So another terrorist walks on a plane with a bomb in his shoes? Thankfully he wasn't smart enough to bring a lighter instead of matches.

[Operaider]

I think they should announce that they will start letting nail clippers back on the plane.

I'd love to be on a plane while someone tries to highjack it with nail clippers. What's the worst you can do with nail clippers. Mess up someone’s cuticles? If someone came at me with clippers on a plane; I'd knock them out of their hand and steal their peanuts.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Operaider
I think they should announce that they will start letting nail clippers back on the plane.

I'd love to be on a plane while someone tries to highjack it with nail clippers. What's the worst you can do with nail clippers. Mess up someone’s cuticles? If someone came at me with clippers on a plane; I'd knock them out of their hand and steal their peanuts.

What about Box cutters?

[Operaider]

Good point,

Not to make fun of the passengers on those flights. But I never really understood how someone could take over a plane with a box knife. I might not enjoy being threatened with a box knife, but I don't think someone could be easily killed with one. Especially if they are fighting back and drastically out number the terrorists.

But, I guess, there is still a chance that they could sneak up on a stewardess and hold it to her neck.

Still I can't think of a single way in which you can so much a threaten someone with nail clippers

For years I was in Martial Arts and learned how to use many different weapons. Still the most damage I think I could do with nail clippers is maybe cut someones ear or nose. Even that would be very difficult

[merphie]

Originally posted by Operaider
Good point,

Not to make fun of the passengers on those flights. But I never really understood how someone could take over a plane with a box knife. I might not enjoy being threatened with a box knife, but I don't think someone could be easily killed with one. Especially if they are fighting back and drastically out number the terrorists.

But, I guess, there is still a chance that they could sneak up on a stewardess and hold it to her neck.

Still I can't think of a single way in which you can so much a threaten someone with nail clippers

For years I was in Martial Arts and learned how to use many different weapons. Still the most damage I think I could do with nail clippers is maybe cut someones ear or nose. Even that would be very difficult

Well, I think it was more the submission. They didn't know what was happening. They probably thought if the went along everything would be OK. How could anyone know? The last plane they did fight back.

You know with the shoe bomber several people tackled him. I don't think they could pull that one off again. I think they know this and won't try.

[gnome]

Originally posted by merphie
I still say airport security is a joke and won't catch real terrorist. I believe they are too smart and dedicated to their cause.

Well, some basic security might be useful to keep idiots on a lark from hijacking planes...

[merphie]

Originally posted by gnome
Well, some basic security might be useful to keep idiots on a lark from hijacking planes...

I don't. I think it is just an infringement on the 4th amendment.

[Beanbag]

The point to make here is that there is now a greater "community interest" in dealing with hijackers and terrorists on planes. In the 70's, the worst that would happen if your plane got hijacked was that you might end up in Cuba or somewhere in the Middle East. You'd be uncomfortable for a while, and there was the real chance that somebody like the Israelis might stage a rescue raid, but overall, your odds of survival were pretty good. So, you'd sit it out and hope for the best.

Nowadays, it's pretty much a given that a hijacker wants to destroy the plane with you still on it. Passenger mentality has shifted from passive acceptance to "either the hijackers go down, or we all do." Witness the pig-pile on the shoe bomber when he tried to light up. One passenger, as I recall, was clubbing him with a fire extinguisher.

Box knives wouldn't work these days. A hijacker would injure some passengers, for sure, but being outnumbered by the rest of the passengers who realize they have everything to lose by not rushing the attackers, the hijackers wouldn't last long.

With the level of scrutiny today, guns and effective bladed weapons can't get on board (easily). Too great of a chance of discovery. The intimidation factor for knives has gone, so that avenue has gone. That leaves either explosives brought on board or checked in with the luggage, or an external attack on the plane, either through sabotage, or by some weapon like a shoulder-fired missile. I consider sabotage unlikely, 'cause airline maintenance personnel are a fairly clannish bunch and know who should be around what planes at any given time. New faces are noticed.

Box knives and shoe bombs were a one-trick pony, and wouldn't work. I just deleted a long paragraph listing a few possible avenues of attack that are both novel and untried to this date. I don't want to give anybody any ideas.

The best idea I ever heard of was the "Baseball Bat" flight, where ALL passengers were issued a standard Louisville slugger upon entering the plane. Anyone pulling a box knife or trying to light their shoelaces would be immediately clubbed unconscious. Bats would be returned to the flight personnel upon departing the plane.

Certainly a better idea than the "Passengers Fly Naked" plan. Imagine that sweaty fat guy in 34-B naked, and sitting next to YOU!

Regards;
Beanbag

[merphie]

Originally posted by Beanbag


Snip

Box knives and shoe bombs were a one-trick pony, and wouldn't work. I just deleted a long paragraph listing a few possible avenues of attack that are both novel and untried to this date. I don't want to give anybody any ideas.

The best idea I ever heard of was the "Baseball Bat" flight, where ALL passengers were issued a standard Louisville slugger upon entering the plane. Anyone pulling a box knife or trying to light their shoelaces would be immediately clubbed unconscious. Bats would be returned to the flight personnel upon departing the plane.

Certainly a better idea than the "Passengers Fly Naked" plan. Imagine that sweaty fat guy in 34-B naked, and sitting next to YOU!

I agree with you 100%. I have also thought of plenty of ways that I could get something on a plane. It's too easy. There has been plenty of lads who did pass several things to show they could.

The idea of airport security is a political move that shows the government is doing something to protect us. It's nothing better than an illusions.

See a few of the flight attendants naked could be worth the flight.

I heard of a while back the British used to bury terrorist and such in pig skin to deter such actions.

I don't know if it's correct or not.

Found this link (http://www.jesuswasaterrorist.com/islamic_plan_of_salvation.htm)

Years ago, I read about a British officer (it was so long ago I don't remember his name or rank) who was fighting a group of Muslim guerrillas in the early to mid 20th Century. He did what I just finished doing, he studied his enemy under the oldest and most ignored rule of combat, know your enemy. He studied Islam and found a flaw in their belief system which he managed to use to defeat the Muslims.

The Muslims believe that, if their body becomes contaminated with any part of a pig such as its skin, meat, blood, urine, or even pig grease from cooking the pig, they cannot go to Heaven and will spend eternity in Hell. This law applies to them even after they are dead and even if they were killed fighting and killing non-Muslims. You see, according to Islam, if you were to pour pig grease on any part of the remains of a dead terrorist who just blew himself up killing non-Muslims, he would not be permitted into Heaven and would spend eternity in Hell.

Using this knowledge, the British officer had his men dip all their bullets in pig grease AND made it public knowledge. The Muslims quickly quit fighting and went home. This is because they could not only not get into Heaven if they were killed fighting this British unit but would be sent to Hell if they were killed fighting this British unit. Ingeniously, the British officer removed their motivation to die fighting the British and replaced it with a motivation to stop fighting the British.

[gnome]

Originally posted by merphie
I don't. I think it is just an infringement on the 4th amendment.

Wow, forgive me for pulling a Shanek but this is not a public service... the airline is privately owned, and you are not required to use their service. What part of the 4th amendment restricts their ability to require whatever security they wish?

What you really seem to be arguing against is the federal mandates on security.

[The Don]

Terrorist attacks in the future may not even target aeroplanes. It'd be much easier to fill several of those 40ft containers with high explosive and send them to various Western countries. Most of them won't be stopped and they'd explose in transit.

It doesn't matter whether there are any casualties, the chaos would be most gratifying.

Or how about suicide bombers at major sporting events or pop concerts ?

The list of possible targets is long and the list of possible methods is wide.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by The Don
Terrorist attacks in the future may not even target aeroplanes. It'd be much easier to fill several of those 40ft containers with high explosive and send them to various Western countries. Most of them won't be stopped and they'd explose in transit.

It doesn't matter whether there are any casualties, the chaos would be most gratifying.

Or how about suicide bombers at major sporting events or pop concerts ?

The list of possible targets is long and the list of possible methods is wide.

Yes, but another attack on an airliner might mess up the nation's economy more than any of those other attacks. A single surface to air missle would spread a great deal of terror and in the end, the government would respond by devoting resources to preventing a second missle attack rather than protecting ports or nuclear power plants.

[merphie]

Originally posted by gnome
Wow, forgive me for pulling a Shanek but this is not a public service... the airline is privately owned, and you are not required to use their service. What part of the 4th amendment restricts their ability to require whatever security they wish?

What you really seem to be arguing against is the federal mandates on security.

Very good point. I do believe it is an infrigement and to date I have never been on a plane.

I guess you could say I am against fenderal mandates because then they would be violating the 4th amendment.

So does the Bill of Rights only protect me from the federal government? Meaning I can suppress you freedom of religion, speech, and search your home?

[gnome]

Originally posted by merphie
So does the Bill of Rights only protect me from the federal government? Meaning I can suppress you freedom of religion, speech, and search your home?

It is not the first amendment that prevents you from suppressing my freedom of religion or speech. It is the laws against using force or harassment from one person to the other.

It is not the fourth amendment that prevents you from searching my home--it is the laws against trespassing on private property.

On the other hand, you could ask me to submit to a search before entering your home, and if I refuse, you can choose not to let me in. You won't get much company that way, but you do have the right.

[merphie]

Originally posted by gnome
It is not the first amendment that prevents you from suppressing my freedom of religion or speech. It is the laws against using force or harassment from one person to the other.

It is not the fourth amendment that prevents you from searching my home--it is the laws against trespassing on private property.

On the other hand, you could ask me to submit to a search before entering your home, and if I refuse, you can choose not to let me in. You won't get much company that way, but you do have the right.

So what prevents the police from doing it because most police are city employees, Not federal.

[Dr Adequate]

I can see that it's a good idea to keep people with weapons off planes. But they're only checking for physical weapons. What about psychic weapons? Uri Geller wouldn't be allowed on board with a gun or a bomb, no matter how peaceful he declared his intentions to be --- why should he be allowed on a plane with the awesome power of his mind? Suppose he did his famous bending trick on the wings.

Everyone claiming psychokinetic powers must be grounded until... er... until we've won the War Against Terror. Or the next cold day in Hell, whichever is soonest.

[gnome]

Originally posted by merphie
So what prevents the police from doing it because most police are city employees, Not federal.

I'm not certain of the legalese behind it in this case. If I had to guess, I would say that the city police ultimately derives its authority from the state government, which is subject to similar restrictions under the bill of rights due to the 14th amendment.

[merphie]

Originally posted by gnome
I'm not certain of the legalese behind it in this case. If I had to guess, I would say that the city police ultimately derives its authority from the state government, which is subject to similar restrictions under the bill of rights due to the 14th amendment.

Sorry man, I couldn't resist. :D So a school would have the authority to subject it's students to searches at will?

I still believe it is an infringment on our rights and therefor I will never step on a plane. IMHO.

[gnome]

Originally posted by merphie
Sorry man, I couldn't resist. :D So a school would have the authority to subject it's students to searches at will?

I still believe it is an infringment on our rights and therefor I will never step on a plane. IMHO.

Ok, schools are about the same as police departments... what it amounts to is -- if it comes from the government, the constitution comes into play.

Schools sometimes get on tricky ground because they are dealing with minors....

Would it be more correct to say that it is an infringement on your
privacy to be searched by a private organization, and so you choose not to patronize their service?

When you talk about rights, you're invoking a legalistic standpoint... and the rights in the Bill of Rights restrict the government, not the citizens.

[merphie]

Originally posted by gnome
Ok, schools are about the same as police departments... what it amounts to is -- if it comes from the government, the constitution comes into play.

Schools sometimes get on tricky ground because they are dealing with minors....

Would it be more correct to say that it is an infringement on your
privacy to be searched by a private organization, and so you choose not to patronize their service?

When you talk about rights, you're invoking a legalistic standpoint... and the rights in the Bill of Rights restrict the government, not the citizens.

Sure I can see your point. There has to be a law that deals with private citizens. Like in one school where to police performed an unprovoked search with weapons drawn and dogs. They are suing over it. What would that fall in?

[Soapy Sam]

The DOGS are suing?


I knew an old lady once who always carred a long, steel hatpin.
She maintained that if mugged, she would shove it right up the attacker's nose.
Just thinking about it makes my eyes water.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
The DOGS are suing?

I knew an old lady once who always carred a long, steel hatpin.
She maintained that if mugged, she would shove it right up the attacker's nose.
Just thinking about it makes my eyes water.

Oh boy. yeah, that's what I meant.

[gnome]

Originally posted by merphie
Sure I can see your point. There has to be a law that deals with private citizens. Like in one school where to police performed an unprovoked search with weapons drawn and dogs. They are suing over it. What would that fall in?

Well, as a police action, that falls under restrictions on government. So the 4th amendment controls there.

[merphie]

Originally posted by gnome
Well, as a police action, that falls under restrictions on government. So the 4th amendment controls there.

So the school can search the students without cause? If the police has authorization from the school to do the search, then the 4th Amendment wouldn't apply.