Security or theater: no electronics on international flights?
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Anyway, I took lockpicks through. Of course they noticed them in the x-ray machine. The guy was super nice about it. He was like, "What are these?" and I responded, "Lockpicks. I just have them for practice on stuff and learning, I didn't mean to travel with them. I'm sorry if they are something that is contraband from carrying on airplanes and I totally understand if you have to keep them."
The guy looked a little puzzled. "Like you use to start or open a car?". Now honestly I've never tried picking a car. I've tried picking my motorcycle when the key fell out once, but never a car. I say, "I guess you could, but I've never tried it." I was worried that he thought I was a car thief or something. He then said, "Oh, well I've been having this trouble with my car ignition. Its really lose. I've always carried heavy keys and I think its broken. Do you know anything about fixing it?" He was intrigued and just was curious. Not accusatory at all. I was kinda shocked. He looked at them and said, "They don't look sharp or anything. They should be fine. We let people carry through small scissors which are more dangerous than these because if you break them in two they are two small knives if they are sharp"
He scanned them through the x-ray once more, and handed them to me and was asking a few other questions about good locksmiths in the area to fix his car. I apologized again for the trouble, but he said and this is the important part:
"Look, I used to work for a prison. The security here is a joke compared to real security at prisons. These wouldn't get through there, but we let all sorts of stuff through that would probably get someone killed in prison fights or would be instantly contraband there."
I'd thought about this before, but the bluntness and understanding that he had behind this was a real shock to me. I'd never thought that the airports were secure- but compare them to an actual 'secure' environment like a prison and they seem wide open.
It is truly unfortunate that the higher ups at the TSA don't promote this guy to the top and have the same understanding as him. You're not making a secure place with these practices- you're making placebo.
If we wanted real security EVERYONE would probably need cavity searches and no one could take anything at all onboard. I'm glad we aren't trying for that obviously.
I almost wish we would - without gradual phase in. Then at least people would stop crying for security, and pressure the government out of it. Well, I guess I can dream.
I do know however, just as in any situation with any law enforcement (or quasi law enforcement) that you do not lie to them. You talk around the truth like an Aes Sedai if you must, but don't lie. If you are pulled into a room for more questioning and you're forced to reveal that you lied, it will be much worse to get out of.
Personally, I only do that when it seems like serious business. When I'm pulled over for speeding there's no gain playing mute.
It was more of a "this is what my tax dollars is paying for?" eye rolling moment. That being said, the TSO who joked that we couldn't bring our baby on the plane was apparently loitering not doing whateve her job was and was assigned to go do something by her manager as we finished putting our shoes on, so there are at least some professional in management at the TSA.
I just have to imagine if it was my kid, I would have freaked out and been a little pissed off. I don't think I could have kept my cool as you have, and I fear for the consequences of that.
o No carry on luggage
o Pat Downs for everyone
I always find it annoying when people whine and complain about how incompetent that TSA is in allowing a knife, razor, or other contraband item onto an airplane. They could, with two simple rules eliminate the chance of those items getting onto a plane - but do you seriously want to live in a world where we go to such lengths to ensure your security?
Also note, taking these steps _would not_ be mere security theater, they really would increase security - at the cost of a lot of convenience or things that make commercial aviation bearable (or possible for some people).
If you've got medicine, you hand it over to the staff, who will administer the doses when needed, but don't allow you to have it prior.
And breast milk would be dispensed the same way- or they'd encourage mothers to use natural breast milk.
You can bring nothing, absolutely nothing with you on the plane.
This of course, would be absurd for civilians- but of course, infinitely more secure. It would be prison-like (as many of these are things they'd do for prison transport) but definitely secure. I'd like to see someone pull off something then on a plane- hard pressed to imagine how they could. They'd have to be Chuck Norris and have a good roundhouse kick (and a 1st class seat space for the said kick) to take the plane or do anything damaging.
Box cutters used in 9/11... ban anything sharp
Shoe bomber... make people take off shoes
Liquid explosive plot... limit liquids and gels to 4oz containers
Guy tries to explode bomb in his lap during the last hour of a flight... no things in your lap during the last hour.
It's comical and tragic.
EDIT: Or redesign the seating layout to turn the cabin into some kind of panopticon where all passengers can watch out for any suspicious behaviour. They can have a voting system which detains a passenger if the number of concerned fellow passengers passes a threshold...
I've never seen a coffin hotel in person, but it sounds much nicer than the cattle car I'm faced with this evening. I'm guessing they can't do it because we couldn't evacuate within the FAA's 90 second deadline. Hm, maybe make an escape pod out of it...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/2833157/Bomb-in-ana...
With the exception of the last one, banning box cutters, requiring people to take off their shoes, and limiting explosives are actually quite reasonable for security. Current detection technologies can't really detect explosive substances, except for the X-ray machine, but the best it can do is tell you the density of the materials in question, not necessarily what type of explosive it is. So running your shoes through the machine makes sense, as enough dangerous solid explosive can be packed into the sole of a shoe.
Liquid explosives are extremely unstable. The explosive power is probably not enough to blow up a plane, but it can definitely injure or kill many people or set fire to the plane. Plus, no machine exists to distinguish explosive liquids from non-explosive liquids at the scale that an airport requires.
For the curious, I'll just briefly list some of the detection systems that are out on the market, and what their capabilities are:
- Metal detector
- X-ray machine - Densities of materials
- Ion Mobility Scanner (eg. Puffers or Swipers) - Trace explosives detection, but easily confused by other nitro compounds such as hand cremes, fertilizer, and uh..jet fuel.
- Millimeter Wave Scanner (eg. Whole Body Scanner) - Anomaly detection (eg. can penetrate clothing), but cannot identify explosives.
- Terahertz Imaging - Can penetrate clothing and can identify materials, including explosives, but can be blocked by water and hasn't reached commercialization.
- Other wavelength imaging - Our group uses UV light and can detect trace amounts of explosives, but does not penetrate clothing. It's only a surface technique.
http://www.governmentbusiness.co.uk/content/view/2072/1/
http://www.kromek.com/products_liquiddetectionscanner.asp?Id...
There are plenty of direct explosives detectors, such as the ICx products: http://www.icxt.com/products/icx-detection/explosives/
They're stable enough when TSA makes passengers throw them all in a trash can before passing through screening.
While I'm on the topic, I read recently (can't remember where) that the proportion of successful detonations of a liquid explosive was actually pretty low, since many potential terrorists are killed in accidental explosions. As a side anecdote, we once had an FBI officer bring in a canister of some unknown liquid explosive for our group to test using our equipment, and I remember he was carrying it with the hand he "didn't use much" just in case it detonated.
The chance of dying from terrorism is far far lower than most other causes of death. It's a rounding error.
The other one that gets me is the painting by the media that pedophiles are going to snatch your child off the street, whilst the risk is miniscule, and most sexual abuse is by family members. It makes people afraid to live their lives.
If newspapers actually ranked news by how much it actually matters, we'd have a massively different view of the world.
I'd be slightly more open to this policy if the TSA was going to start paying for in-flight alcohol. I don't necessarily want to use my laptop around alcohol in-flight. (Or soda, for that matter - though I usually get water bottles for the cap.)
When I used to fly for business with a laptop, the company assumed I wouldn't get much work done on the flight - but one of the cardinal rules was that your laptop was never out of your physical sight when traveling. We encrypted everything, but you always had to bring it carry-on, stash it under your seat, and carry it with you when you went to the washroom.
I'd also be pretty cheesed off if I was an airline - making all these investments in on-board Internet, and now having it banned.
As for the others, I think I could get used to them - I rarely use my iPod when flying anyways (stick with sleeping or in-seat TV), could pack my bag slightly better if needed to eliminate the "personal article" we're now allowed to carry on, and time my bathroom breaks better (the no-standing rule was in force flying into Reagan for a while post-9/11).
More broadly, however, it pisses me off on the grounds that it assumes everyone is a criminal, and would do almost nothing in terms of actual airline security.
You aren't suggesting you need to carry your laptop case with you into the _airplane_ washroom are you? Talking about security theater...
However, I've got a trip to the USA in mid-February (coincidentally flying in from Schiphol) that is probably going to be cancelled if this is (as the more extreme rumours have it) a permanent ban on in-flight use of electronics during all stages of flights to the US.
And I really don't think I'll be the only person cancelling discretionary visits.
Given that the numbskull suicide bomber in question apparently tried to inject some sort of accelerant into the powder in his trousers using a syringe, I pity any diabetics trying to fly anywhere in the next few weeks ...
The detonator squib will be in a pen, a glasses frame, or some other everyday item which has not yet been forbidden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2006_season)#Episo...
Techchrunch seems to think it was 'electronics' related, but the BBC is reporting that he had explosives sewn into the elastic band of his underwear.
So if anything, TSA are likely to ban clothes on planes.
What about private jets?
I just wonder when it starts being profitable to start trying to find the TSA loopholes.
I know I'll be flying a lot less if I can't use electronics internationally; and I'd certainly be willing to pay more money to make those flights if I could continue to use my gear when traveling.
Banning electronics on flights would be the final nail in the coffin for air-travel, even just on international flights it would piss off so many corporate travellers that the airlines wouldn't cope with the losses - many large corps only accept 8hr+ flights for business trips because the employee(s) can work while in flight.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re...