Slashdot Mirror
British Airways Chief Slams US Security Requests
Ponca City writes "Reflecting a growing frustration among airport and airline owners with the steady build-up of rules covering everything from footwear to liquids, Martin Broughton, chairman of British Airways, has launched a scathing attack on the 'completely redundant' airport checks requested by the TSA and urged the UK to stop 'kowtowing' to American demands for ever more security. Speaking at the annual conference of the UK Airport Operators Association, Broughton lambasted the TSA for demanding that foreign airports increase checks on US-bound planes, while not applying those regulations to their own domestic services. 'America does not do internally a lot of the things they demand that we do,' says Broughton. 'We shouldn't stand for that. We should say, "We'll only do things which we consider to be essential and that you Americans also consider essential.''' For example, Broughton noted that cutting-edge technology recently installed at airports can scan laptops inside hand luggage for explosives but despite this breakthrough the British government still demands computers be examined separately. 'It's just completely ridiculous,' says Broughton."
but shouldn't this be under YRO?
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
Not as we actually do, because that would cost us money and effort, and it's much better to demand from you.
Airport securities may be able to scan computers with X-ray, but they have never been able to stop the defective exploding lithium ion batteries. It's only a matter of time before electronics are banned altogether after some terrorists turn batteries into weapons...
Looks like Mr B has just bought himself a lifetime ticket to that line...
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1123034-tantric-tsa-art-foreplay.html
Finally, a voice with power pointing out the obvious.
Will anyone get on the bandwagon, will it go any further?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Saturn is actually an autonomous research facility for an alien civilization. The rings are supercolliders, like LHC or the one at Fermilabs, only a million times more powerful. The center also began biological experimentation billions of years ago on Earth, but the project was terminated when there was a sample breach and the directors decided to abandon the planet.
"But how does the civilization who built the thing retrieve information?" you ask. "We could detect any radio waves leaving the planet."
Well, the facility uses quantum teleportation to manipulate the Sun, producing sunspots. These spots are visible millions of light years away (they have a lot of time to wait for the results, they have engineered immortality and spend most of their time in stasis.) Other stars have other research facilities that communicate with other stars, creating a redundant mesh-like network of slow communication that they use.
Brave thing to say from where he's sitting. This is going to cost him money, friends and influence. I mean, just saying that all that US Security isn't necessary. Imagine what someone will be saying next.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Guess who's next on the don't fly list!
Countries like the UK and Israel have experience with terrorism, and they've developed reasonably sane ways of handling it. Just to be clear, I'm not praising the fact that they stole land from the Irish and the Palestinians -- but at least they don't act like total idiots when someone sets off a bomb. The US, on the other hand, responded to 9/11 by running around like a chicken with its head cut off. We shot ourselves in the foot in ways that were far worse than any of the damage done by the 9/11 hijackers, including two wars and an all-out assault on our own civil liberties. Compared to that kind of national self-mutilation, I can't really take it too seriously when I'm not allowed to bring a full-size shampoo bottle on an airplane -- but it certainly is an example of the same idiocy, just on a smaller scale.
Find free books.
I accidentally left a silver knife and a silver fork that I use to lunch at work in my backpack when I made a trip to Brazil. Passed through 4 domestic flights and 2 international ones and none of the security check points noticed a thing. I was surprised when I got home and found those in my bag.
Makes me wonder if this is part of the game of using outside interests as a means to justify more surveillance here in the US. After all, it's quite easy to say "well gee the brits say they're doing all this extra stuff we don't do so maybe we should start!" A perfectly 'rational' response for politics.
When I was in Tokyo/Narita, they had these nifty little tubes with a microwave emitter and antenna in them. Send a pulse of 2.4GHz microwaves into a drink bottle, same stuff as your microwave oven uses, and check if it resonates strongly. I bet the things cost under a hundred bucks to make.
All the "liquid explosives" people are worried about are not mostly water. All of the crap people take on planes to drink is mostly water. Yet the TSA won't let me take a bit of juice or water through security? What a crock.
I asked a TSA guy about this, and he said that "we're developing new x-ray scanning technology that can check drinks, but it won't be ready until 2012, and it is very expensive."
Huh? The Japanese have solved this problem with a fucking microwave oven, and we're wanking about with this ridiculous security theater?
It's an insult to perfectly secure modern foreign airports that the US requires these ridiculous redundant security checks. Just last week I flew from Shanghai (China) to Seoul (Korea) and then to Seattle. When we got to Seoul we disembarked the plane in a secure area, went to the transfer area (still secure) and had to go through screening all over again. This seems silly; any transfer from any flight inside of the US doesn't require this step as long as you are still in a secured area. Does this mean the TSA doesn't think Korea can secure their airport? That seems like an insult.
But to make matters worse, there was a *separate* security check after we got our ticket checked but before we entered the Jetway to the plane to Seattle. But it wasn't so much a security check as it was a line of checkers making people open bags (where they dug around a bit, but not a lot) and each checker asked if we had any lighters. When asked about the two extra levels of security checks, the answer was always "US Flight."
a) Why is there a security check in a secured area?
b) What is the point of the *second* security check before you get on the plane that doesn't really accomplish anything anyways?
I don't get it; it's insulting to other countries and costs way too much money. And I'm convinced we are paying for it with US tax dollars.
A single proper security check is be sufficient. Then, you're either in a secured area or you aren't. Maybe there are a handful of airports in the world that can't guarantee security of their "secured area," but the shiny modern airport in Seoul (Incheon) is not one of them (especially considering it also serves as a military airport!)
I mean, what language is that?
I'm sure that the Queen doesn't use such word.
LIttle help.
Charlie Sheen
When I travel to the USA, and I am packing,I tend to just grab any device I might fathom that I would need, and toss it into the suitcase. PCMCIA Token Ring cards, ISDN cards, cables, chargers, just keep going. Do I need all that crap? No. But when I arrive, there is a nice white paper in the suitcase explaining that it was opened for "Security Reasons."
The poor security checker was probably thinking, "What the hell is he going to do with this garbage .... Token Ring, indeed!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I have cancled my travel plans to the USA post 911 due to thier increased security checks and invasive tests. There is no way I will allow myself to be entered into thier databases as there is no garentee this information will be correctly entered and maintained, and for it to remain private.
I hate what TSA has done to the airport/airplane experience. So much so that I am on personal boycott of all commercial flying (unless forced to for work). I know it won't do anything but I do it on principle.
If British airways is still flying here, there is still money to be made. If the profit margin gets to small on flights here they will stop.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Redundant is an understatement. A few days ago I took a direct flight from Ireland to the US. I was required to stop and hand over my passport eight times! As a US citizen I've felt more welcome entering the former USSR than my own country.
But if the flight is arriving into Incheon's secure area from one of those airports that cannot guarantee the security of their secure area, then Incheon's security has been breached. So the extra check to transit between the arrival lounge and departure lounge is not silly. The second extra check on the other hand is just there to appease the TSA, and that is silly/
Actually, that's exactly how it should be... Let the US bound passengers deal with the idiotic extra checks, and make us other go through the useful ones.
Only thing you're going to get from me taking of my shoes is a biological weapon going off.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Mmmm ...
It's strange really. On one hand a cash strapped US is trying to promote tourism and overseas visitors for the cash that can bring in, and on the other the security industry (which failed so spectacularly in the first place) is promoting this gung ho, demeaning and impossibly aggravating set of procedures for the same said tourists.
I used to visit the US fairly regularly .... once every two years or so. Nowadays it's about last on my list, simply because of the aggravation involved in setting up the trip, getting the necessary documentation, undergoing the various intrusive security procedures and the like. It's simply not worth the trouble.
If they don't make it a farce, it could become a tragedy.
It's an insult to perfectly secure modern foreign airports that the US requires these ridiculous redundant security checks. Just last week I flew from Shanghai (China) to Seoul (Korea) and then to Seattle. When we got to Seoul we disembarked the plane in a secure area, went to the transfer area (still secure) and had to go through screening all over again. Does this mean the TSA doesn't think Korea can secure their airport? That seems like an insult.
If I understand you correctly, you weren't screened in Seoul, you were screened in China. Now I'm not commenting on the efficacy of the 'security theater' that's performed to get people on airplanes, but I think the US stance there is most certainly going to be that we don't trust the security check in China. And the point there is that the terrorists we're trying to prevent will look for the softest point in the security. If they can daisy chain flights together to start in a place with nearly non-existent security and end up in the US, they will.
As to the check at the jetway after getting checked in the secure area, that does seem excessive. Seems like a lack of trust in what you could do in the airport to acquire weapons from...vendors?
The US doesn't just pay for it with tax dollars, it also pays for it in tourism and business.
Cavity searches are a notoriously unpopular way to begin a vacation.
... under the previous administration, the TSA actually asked multiple high-volume airports to set aside certain gates for US-bound flights, reclassify those areas as sovereign US-soil (!!!), and allow the US to post armed US TSA officers there (!!!!!). That was rebuffed, ranging from the Germans refusing outright, Canadians politely offering an additional Mountie, to the Japanese asking for more time to 'study' the issue. The arrogance of the US authorities to make the request in the first place is only eclipsed by the current treatment of foreigners coming to the US (online $$$ VISA, photographs and fingerprints on arrival, etc.) - to what end? Thanks to this lovely attitude, multiple nations have started to retaliate against US citizens by charging them reciprocal rates and also treating foreigners like criminals. Well, great, it's the little people as usual getting the short end of the stick when the elephants start dancing.
I wish more folk in the transportation business - consumers as well as providers would start speaking up more about the very costs of security theater versus the benefits. AFAIK, the TSA has yet to nab a single potential terrorist prior to them doing something naughty on the plane. Similarly, FAA red teams continue to enjoy great success penetrating US airports at will while over 300 TSA employees have been fired for being caught stealing passenger items (makes you wonder how many weren't caught, but I digress). The TSA continues to throw technological solutions at a very complex problem in a completely reactionary manner instead of being honest and admitting that stopping all crime in the air is inherently impossible.
Bruce Schneier has written at length about this, noting that the best way to ensure that only the folk who are supposed to be on the plane is to check them for security, ID, and ticket validity at the gate, just before they get on the plane. Having big choke points at the entry to airports only ensures one thing: a big fat target for terrorists. Worse, the current push for backscatter and microwave machines significantly reduces throughput since the TSA has not allocated any additional floor space or parallel paths into the airport to accommodate the 5x slower scan rate of a backscatter machine vs. a magnetometer. And, should you be silly enough to opt out of a machine scan and ask for a manual pat-down, you can expect the TSA staff to retaliate. In my case, my carry-on luggage was subjected to a comprehensive search even though the pat-down did not uncover anything suspicious (TSA headquarters later stated that this should not have been done)
Bottom line is, some common-sense approaches like upgrading cockpit doors were good ideas. But until Congress and the president grow a backbone and stop the madness, the TSA will continue to grow and whatever privacy and convenience passengers used to enjoy simply will continue to evaporate. It's a pity considering how much fun travel can be. But who am I kidding? There is simply too much money in the business of providing 'security' these days, too many fiscal interests that would be hurt.
Seriously, a two minute read would have informed you that it's not a substance that anyone is going to be drinking without immediately purging. But nooooooo, you had to post this drivel for my eyes to process, thus robbing me of time I could have better spent at xhamster. Thanks a bunch.
One of those things can be fixed in 20 minutes and involves spending less money. The other can be fixed after months or years of work and involves spending a fortune.
It's not just the TSA. I had the same experience during a Tokyo stopover on an Air Canada flight from Hong Kong to Toronto.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
I now take the ferry to England to avoid this carry on. Yeah it takes a big longer but that is the only disadvantage
*Take as much crap as I can carry
*Nobody cares how many screw drivers, nail clippers, 8p8c crimpers, LED bulbs, gas soldering irons, unusual electronic items, bottles of water I take with me and use on the ferry. *Queues short or nonexistent
*Use up expensive satellite bandwidth for free
*Decent quality air for the entire journey
*Nobody blasting on the loudspeakers trying to sell me shite while I try to sleep
*Decent food
*If a bomb does go off there is a good chance of you surviving
*Fixed fair - no cancellation,change fee, come back when you like
*Good scenery along the way
Airport security seems like an exercise in compliance - "oh we dont see too many of these around, we're going to scan it seperately and ask you why exactly you're taking it with you, and if we dont like your answer you'll be waterboarded". Anyone taking stuff besides clothes and a Kindle full of DRM can expect a fair bit of hassle
Airlines seem to make and change rules just to catch people out. They charge administration fees when it doesnt cost them anything. Airports and airlines get away with it because people just accept their shit and don't stop flying. Even when you go to look for the people responsible for bringing in the rules you are given the run-around.
The worst has to be the recent rules against liquids specifying the exact type of plastic bag and container they must be in and sending people back to buy an overpriced plastic bag if its slightly too big. Things are so bad now, the odd plane getting blown to pieces almost seems worth it now.
Cavity searches are a notoriously unpopular way to begin a vacation.
Don't worry, these are done only if you and your family refuse to be seen in the nude.
This was discusssed on the Guardian comments the other day, and this solution was put forward which, if implemented, would sweep it all away at a stroke. I don't claim this came from me, but I can't find the attribution.
Solution: Invent a device that causes any concealed explosive to detonate instantly, and have this within a sealed containment room. Ordinary passengers pass right through, but real security risks are immediately removed from the situation. Extra bonus: muffled bangs would be shortly followed by an announcement that a seat upgrade is now available...
The Transporation Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security are illegal.
Duh ... duh ... what?
Yes. Both illegal and all employees illegal.
Saa .. fuuu ... duh ....
It all stems from the Congressional Edicts following the "so called" 9/11 events.
Therein the Congress gave authorizaion to "assertain" and "apprehend" the perpatrators.
An "Act of WAR" ... hardly.
Had Congress declaired a State of War and Authorized the Present to assume War Powers, all insurane policies of those affected and the properties affected would have been quickly ... Null and Void.
They were not!
Ergo ... a "State of War" does not exist.
Therefore the Transporation Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Securiy are in fact ... Illegal ... as with all employees thereof.
Lovely how the Law works!
You say as if there are no direct planes from China to US.
Under some circumstances it makes sense. I flew from the UK to the US one day after the original liquid explosive plot was uncovered back in 2006. The airport was stiff with armed guards -- putting a bullet through a bottle of liquid explosive does not seem to me to make anyone safer, but that's just a detail -- and my wife, kids, and self got both the standard security treatment and a pat-down on the jetway. You see, some of the plotters had been found with airport employee clothing. Suppose there had been other plotters who got away, and were working the security detail that day, and passing their friends through. A second search meant they had to infiltrate another spot, which they had probably not planned for, and so it cut that avenue of attack, or at least narrowed it a lot.
I don't suppose there are many al-Qaeda sympathisers in Korea, but it's entirely possible there are some in China, and we know that corruption is endemic there. I'm perfectly sure that Hu Jintao doesn't want any incidents on flights out of China, but things can happen without his knowledge. Defence in depth: it really can help.
TSA is security theater, complete with uniforms for the actors and Uncle Sam as the librettist. If the TSA disappeared tomorrow, the SAME DAY there would be airline-hired security guards in their place, because what airline wants to be sued by 300 angry widows/widowers when a plane gets blown up? And the airline guards would have to actually follow all the privacy laws, unlike the TSA (whom otherwise rational people seem to think should be exempt for some reason).
[sarcasm] And in this recession, how dare you criticize them? TSA is a jobs program -- these people have families to feed, you heartless bastard. [/sarcasm]
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
From TFA:
"Every time there is a new security scare, an extra layer is added on to procedures," Carrivick said. "We need to step back and have a look at the whole situation. Standards change fairly regularly, and this puts pressure on airports and airlines. We need to decide what we are trying to do and how best to do it."
Good Lord! Is this guy insane? He obviously doesn't know how we do things. "Decide what we are trying to do and how best to do it." Jesus H. Christ, what is that guy's friggin' problem...
...are we scared yet?
You say as if there are no direct planes from China to US.
It occurred to me, but I decided it's easily explainable. For a direct flight from China, the US will meddle in the security in China as they did with Korea in this instance. They won't meddle with a flight from China to Korea. In other words, the US will concern themselves with the last leg into the US in all cases, and won't trust whatever security you went through to get to the last leg.
It's not completely insane. If we posed this in terms of computer security - let's say somebody passed you a cert signed by some guy you don't know. Are you going to trust it? Not likely.
No.
[mods down to Score -3: Poor Schmuck]
BTW, are you by any chance Popeye?
...are we scared yet?
everyone has to take out their laptop in the US for in-state flights as well as cross country flights. what is the problem here? if anything where are the US owned airlines complaining about citizens having to take off their shoes in the dirty airports and take off their jackets. really? find something else to complain about and don't start a trend of blaming the TSA for your falling revenue.
When Barak Hussain Obama assumed the Presidency of the United States of America, ...
Congress did not transfer "War Powers" to him to continue a "State of War" since A State of War had never been determined and the War Powers were never confered to frm President George Walker Bush.
Ergo.
All of the "War" campaigns carried out by U.S. and NATO organizations and personnel as authorized by President Barak Hussain Obama are in fact illegal.
Why?
The U.S. Congress never declared that a "State of War" exists. And the U.S. Congress never confered "War Powers" onto the president at the time, President George Walker Bush ... and the U.S. Congress never transtered the "non-existant State of War nor the never granted War Powers" onto the new president, President Barak Hussain Obama at or during or after the innaguration in January 2009!
The actions and existance of the Department of Homeland Security and its Zepta the Transporation Security Agency and all the employees involved are illegal.
Time to end the circus.
Send in the Clowns!
Just last week I flew from Shanghai (China) to Seoul (Korea) and then to Seattle. When we got to Seoul we disembarked the plane in a secure area, went to the transfer area (still secure) and had to go through screening all over again.
Same happens in Dubai, for all flights I believe, but certainly for a transfer from London to Islamabad
A single proper security check is be sufficient. Then, you're either in a secured area or you aren't.
Do you trust security in some random airport in somewhere like Zimbabwe? Get a flight from there to Heathrow, land at Heathrow, transfer to another flight (say to Amsterdam), then on to the U.S. You're always in a "secure" area, but it's only secure at the first point of entry, and the longer you spend in the secure area the more chance of getting something you shouldn't have.
Only thing you're going to get from me taking of my shoes is a biological weapon going off.
Sometimes, when I take my shoes off, it's like a biological weapon going off
If you:
1) Keep it up.
2) Let the airlines know.
3) Work on convincing others to do the same.
As people may have noticed from the bailout some time back, the government considers the airlines important. They want to keep them happy. This is not only because they are important economically to the US, but because they have heavy political influence.
Well, if the airlines start to find out that the security theater is cutting in to their bottom lines, they aren't going to be happy at all. They can verify it too. If you let them know who you are they can look and say "Yep, guy used to fly with us twice a year, doesn't fly with us at all anymore." While one person won't change everything, you get enough and it will. They'll start bitching to congress, and they have the ability to demand in-person audiences and that kind of thing. They'll say "You need to yank on the TSA's leash, they are costing us business."
Economic pressure on companies can be quite effective, if people will actually follow through, and company pressure on the government can be quite effective, particularly if said thing is already publicly unpopular.
And the business includes flight transfers. In a couple of weeks I'm going from London to Mexico. The cheapest routes involve US airlines and a tranfer in the US, but I'm willing to pay extra to fly Iberia via Madrid and avoid US airports.
As a very frequent traveller all over the world, I can not agree more with the BA boss. The whole US imposed security mess is inconsitent, abusive and humiliating. I normally get around it by being docile and act like the sheep I'm supposed to be - but when something goes wrong all hell breaks lose. My story is about being "picked out" for an additional check (the infamous SSSS boarding pass). The TSA officer at Raleigh NC airport picked me out in the line before the x-ray scan and told me to step aside for a pat-down. I told him I'd accidentially left my boarding pass on the x-ray belt and just wanted to grab it before it got sucked into oblivion. That resulted in a "SIR, YOU ARE DISREGARDING MY INSTRUCTIONS - STEP THIS WAY OR I WILL ARREST YOU!!!". What a great way to treat people - especially those from foreign countries who are the greatest US supporters in the war on terrorism (in my case Australia). TSA officers (of all people) should understand that sometimes the people in the security line are jet-lagged, tired and not completely focussed. Especially after an 18 hour transit. Maybe I should also mention the insitence from US immigration on finger-printing my 18 month old child in 2004. Thankfully they have since given up on that stupid idea. To all my US friends: Try travelling to New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium or any other country with a sensible democratic government and reasonable security and immigration checks. You will be surprised at the way that you are treated like a human and not a terrorist by default.
Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
I try to behave such that the world would be a better place if everyone behaved as I did. The backscatter machines have not, AFAIK, been shown to actually prevent terrorist attacks; in exchange, they offer an opportunity for the TSA to upload naked pictures of me to the Internet. Therefore, removing them would be unlikely to reduce security. I always opt out and get the pat-down. If everyone did this, the lines would be so long that they'd have to get rid of the machines.
Given that 9/11 was four US domestic flights, I thus fail to understand the logic behind such overboard security on International-US flights - in selecting any potential target, invariably the easiest would be chosen. The entire foundation of flight risk factor assesment appears to me somewhat random, at best.
I don't even bother to go to the US. I won't either until they calm the fuck down.
Jonathanjk.com
It is also frustrating to have to wait forever when trying to land at Heathrow at 6 AM in the morning just because you don't have enough runways. Do you think you could you do something about that?
Yes, it's a simple matter of convincing everyone is West London that more flights are not going to be distruptive, the people of Sipson that they don't like their houses that much so don't mind if they are forcibly moved to a different location and their houses demolished, and the environmental campaginers that a 50% increase in capacity isn't going to harm the environment.
I used to visit the US fairly regularly .... once every two years or so. Nowadays it's about last on my list, simply because of the aggravation involved in setting up the trip, getting the necessary documentation, undergoing the various intrusive security procedures and the like. It's simply not worth the trouble.
Same here. And I won't even transit through the US because of the hassle.
I have a friend who works there. Apparently it doesn't matter at all how good the passengers are with complying with all these idiotic restrictions. The metal detectors can be set to "beep" manually, if they want to pull someone aside and frisk them down or wave the wand at them.
At various times of the day, the screeners are told to have a minimum number of these passenger checks.
So even if everyone on your flight has put all their metal in hand luggage, you'll still find something like one in ten getting beeped through the metal detector and causing delays. Completely unneeded. Completely at the behest of those who think they know better.
This seems silly; any transfer from any flight inside of the US doesn't require this step as long as you are still in a secured area. Does this mean the TSA doesn't think Korea can secure their airport? That seems like an insult.
Schipol Airport @ Amsterdam does the same. It makes some sense to just security check everyone regardless. The main problem with the trust model is transitive relationships - you trust Korea, Korea trusts Abu Dhabi, AD trusts Cairo. Now you have people being security checked at Cairo and able to travel through Korea and into Europe/U.S. It exposes the entirety of the trust network to failures at the weakest point.
I am against security theatre. I am also against executives of companies that must pay for security measures crying that those measures cost too much to implement. Any effectiveness review should be carried out by independent experts rather than the companies that stand to gain the most financially by relaxing security.
I have no love for BA - Tory privatisation collaborators the lot of them - but it's good to see them standing up to the terror forces here. I'd also like to see a more rigorous policy of prosecution for securithugs who make false accusations against passengers, particularly in cases where threats have been admitted to be non-credible but violent action has been taken anyway.
I should have mentioned that as a UK citizen, the reaction by everybody involved in the US towards security is absurd especially when we've lived here with terrorism for decades. But also their policies suddenly force us to change our way of life because they feel threatened by extremists like the rest of the world already does. Photographers for example weren't threatened with criminal law or accused of nefarious activities as much as they are now before 9/11.
Jonathanjk.com
Nice. Next time do it also in Norwegian and Japanese (including punctuation), and perhaps I'll be impressed by your linguistics skills.
- These characters were randomly selected.
No, the real difference is where it happened. As long as it was "Somewhere Foreign", terrorism was Not A Problem.
As soon as American Soil was attacked, Terrorism Is The End Of Civilisation.
I also passed by one of those "3rd scan inside the secure area and manned by US personnel only" checkpoints once - in Frankfurt, not exactly an untrustworthy airport.
Except that at that time that checkpoint was just being forcibly dismantled by German police - due to overstepping of compentencies or something similar, as I overheard from the heated discussion raging on.
I have never seen so many grins on the faces of flight passengers...
What is REALLY completely ridiculous is the security check procedure itself. So called "security" checks do little to stop someone who really wants to bring something into the airport. Woodrow Wilson said "The bomber will always get through." And he is right. The security checks don't actually provide any security, they only provide an illusion of security. At a cost of time and money to everyone.
Interestingly enough, reducing the amount of security at aiports would increase throughput and would mean more likelihood of a runway being free. They had an interesting piece in Super Freakonomics about the time-cost of shoe checks at airports - even though the shoe bomber Richard Reid was onthe face of it a failure inflicting no injuries, let alone casulaties, the cumulative time wasted in airport shoe checks going into the USA alone amounts to something like 1,000 human lifetimes every single year, or in other words a 9/11 every five or six years. That's the real cost of terrorism, we're so scared we're accomplishing their goals for them.
Fly to Canada - Drive over the border ... what security ?
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
The BBC news article on this ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11632944 ) has a selection of comments from other people in the industry too - I think this one sums it up better for me than the quotes from Broughton (re-quoting from bbc article):
Mr Carrivick, of BAR UK [.....] said airport security seemed to be a "layered approach".
He added: "Every time there is a new security scare, an extra layer is added on to procedures.
"We need to step back and have a look at the whole situation. Standards change fairly regularly and this puts pressure on airports and airlines. We need to decide what we are trying to do and how best to do it."
Not defending the practice, but international arrivals in the US is treated as non-screened. You clear customs and get re-screened for your onward connection. Many airports abroad work this way for international transfers, but not all. Only in the last couple years has Heathrow gone this way.
As you say, you have to establish the chain of trust. Secondary and tertiary screening can be effective, especially in high risk areas, but the reward is too low for most locations. Still remember flying out of Vientiene, Laos. Security check was a sign: No Guns. The xray machine was not even plugged in.
Actually it's very simple. The first security area is about 50% effective, so adding a second area will make it 100% effective! We're planning on adding a third security check, making the check 150% effective and effectively expelling half a terrorist who had snuck into the area via other means. We're not clear which half yet, that needs further testing.
Remember, we're here to help!
Love, the TSA
Ummm .. the total number that died on 9-11 was under 3k
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_9_11_total
But, but... the 9/11 attackes were caused with domestic flights hijacked by foreigners. So obviously the US should stop foreigners getting in the country, not domestic flights getting hijacked.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Influenza kills more people per year than 9/11. In fact, we'd have to have 9/11 happen about once per month to equal what Influenza does. Now, when you get on a plane, for the next "X" hours, you're breathing recycled air that contains the viruses of everyone else on the plane.
If you want to kill alot of people, infect yourself with the virulent strain of the flu you can find, and board an aircraft. No bombs required. No knife, no gun, no metal of any type. Just the flu.
All this security theater is to prevent what? A hijacking? Hijackings are over. No one will ever sit in their seat and be quiet ever again during a hijacking. The whole plane will get up and kick the ass of whoever tries to hijack a plane. It doesn't even matter if he's got a gun, he doesn't have enough bullets to kill everyone. It doesn't matter if he has a bomb, the people in the plane will consider themselves heroes and attack the guy anyhow, to prevent him from completing whatever plan he may have.
So what is the point of all this theater? To protect the airplane itself? That's my guess. It's cheaper for airlines to spend millions in federally funded security than it is to continually replace aluminum cigars which they would have to pay for out of their own profits.
It's clear that they don't care about people, otherwise, they'd prevent anyone who is ill from boarding a plane. I mean, seriously, terrorists need to get a clue. Sure, bombs make "terror" in that they get you in the news and make people scared, but seriously, if you want to actually kill people, all you need is a virus.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Yes, it is frustrating having to put up with all those silly airpot checks demanded by the TSA.
It is also frustrating to have to wait forever when trying to land at Heathrow at 6 AM in the morning just because you don't have enough runways. Do you think you could you do something about that?
That's easy. Don't fly into Heathrow. Chances are you didn't want to go to Hounslow anyway.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
The softest point is actually in the US. My wife just flew internally from Washington to New York, and then NY to London without having her passport checked. Sure, she did get bag screening, but as far as the US is concerned, she could have been absolutely anyone, and they just let her onto a large, fully fuelled jet.
I'm with BA on this one... "I pity the fool" ;-)
I could fly through the US on my way home, making a stopover in one of several towns that would allow me to continue flying south.
But I need a frigging visa.
You know what? I go to Canada or look for flights with stopovers elsewhere in my way to my final destination.
This has already costed the US taxpayer and tourist industry *thousands* of dollars.
So carry on scaring wealthy foreigners, it is not like there aren't ways to avoid the US altogether.
I haven't been there since 3 months before 9/11. I won't be going back, ever, until some measure of sanity and calm returns over there.
I just returned from Shanghai China also. The screening there was as good as any US screening.
They found something in my bag that both US and Japanese screenrs missed earlier in the trip.
It might offend your tender little sensibilities, but profiling the potential terrorists is what works, all these screening techniques don't. Grandma is not carrying a bomb onto the plane, the middle-eastern 20-something man with the shifty eyes and the nervous body language is.
I've been to the US twice and there are a lot more places there I'd like to visit, but as long as things remain this crazy in their airports I'm spending my holidays in saner countries.
I was screened in Shanghai, then screened two more times in Seoul. Shanghai also has a gleaming, state-of-the-art airport with proper screening procedures and secured areas (including hand wandings for nearly every passenger.) Nothing is going to get through.
So the US is saying, basically, "we don't trust anyone to properly screen their passengers" when domestic US flights don't seem to approach this maniacal level of "security."
The not-exactly-exhaustive check at the jetway was bizarre and pointless. Where are you going to purchase a lighter from in the airport?
We actually had similar - likely more extensive - screening entering the Shanghai Expo each day. I've never seen a security scene like that before - it was massive, and impenetrable. If the TSA worked like that I'd feel safer, for sure. ;)
Exactly. This was something I used to make fun of. I could fly out of a rural airport (that could handle 747s but did have a gate, just rolling ladders, and there was no security. None. Take anything you want on there and get delivered to a 'secure' terminal anywhere in the country. I haven't been there for some time, so I don't know how it was post 9/11.
This reminds me of a trip I took in January of this year, shortly after a thwarted terrorist attack in the US. Leaving Canada, we could carry NOTHING on board. Once inside the US, while switching planes, we mentioned this to some American travelers, and it was a total mystery to them; they got to bring their usual carry-on complement! There were no obviously heightened security measure in place. Oh and, "funny" enough, the potential attack was launched from within the US, and had no ties to Canada whatsoever. Pure nonsense.
For all of you that think you are some sort of civil liberty champions...
Unabated air travel is not a right... it is a privilage. If you do not like the rules then choose another means of travel. Your civil liberty is the ability to choose how you travel. Your right is to be protected from harm. How fast we forget the sadness and anger that we felt on 9/11. You would be singing a different tune if you had lost a loved one that day.
How about: "millions for security, but not one cent for theater!"
Its pretty easy to get into the states now. Last time I went down was about a week ago, forgot my passport. Kids didn't have passports either. I just had to promise the border guard I'd take the little ones to get some ice cream in exchange for letting me go across the line.
That somebody stood up to the ridiculous security circus.
I used to love to fly, now I avoid it as much as possible, the idiotic senseless humiliating farce that one has to endure to get on board is just too much.
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
For those who missed the joke: (traditional) Japanese has no punctuation.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
.
I am a christian. George Bush is my friend.
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
Oh, didn't you hear? They're planning on taxing tourists for the joys of going through all the security checks and also to promote the USA as a place of tourism.
There's a lot of disjointed thinking in the American government departments.
He is spot on, US security is nothing but kabuki theater to make the once-a-year travelers feel safe.
Our privacy, liberty and dignity is on the line here, and for an unproven technology that doesn't even keep us safe. If a would-be terrorist put an explosive up a body cavity the strip search scanners and invasive pat down would not detect that. So tell me why are we sacrificing our dignity for this false sense of security?
Nothing beats a metal detectors (guns/knives), baggage x-ray (all contraband) and explosives swab (bomb residue). And best of all none of that combination leads to perverts in a booth staring at your child's naked body.
Still not convinced? Read this before you go into that scanner: http://www.savvytravel.net/2010/10/5-reasons-to-reject-tsas-strip-search-and-grope/