OK, so this bomb plot. Obiously, it is good that it was stopped. That goes without saying. But I'm being driven slowly insane by two different things right now
( Read more... )
Well, I have to admit that I *do* think that the current security measures are silly and over-the-top, at least if continued long term. I think the bottom line is that in the long run, air travel needs to remain reasonably conveinent or the air travel industry, the tourism industry, and probably the economy in general (at least in the US), is going to come crashing down. I don't think it's practical to keep people from bringing electronics on board forever, for example.
The bottom line is that security in a system as big as the air travel system is going to be full of holes no matter what they do, and that the security in any system is only as good as the people in it (which judging from all the reports of stuff stolen from checked luggage during inspection, isn't saying much.)
I do think that preventing people from filling a water bottle or buying a soda on the concourse past security is rather silly. If the concourse is secure than liquid aquired there shouldn't be explosive, and if it's not secure we're sort of already screwed
I'm more worried about liquids, actually-flying is dangerous due to dehydration. I'd think asking people to open their (clear plastic) bottles of water and drink from them would be sufficient. Or only bring on drinks they'd bought on the concourse if they still had the plastic seal. And for example, I don't go anywhere without eye drops, because I wear contacts, especially on an airplane (see comments re: dehydration). Or is the Department of Homeland Security going to pay for my cornea transplants? (For that matter, are they going to pay for people's broken or lost laptops, iPods, and cell phones? If they lose my luggage with my car keys inside, are they going to pay for a replacement key fob [and my taxi home and/or rental car in the meantime]? Those things are really expensive.)
I read an article today recommending banning anything with a battery (including watches) and not allowing people into the airport until they'd been screened. Because, y'know, it's not like there are any airports anywhere in the world where the temperature
( ... )
Having your passports and money in a clear bag seems to accomplish exactly nothing.
You can see whether they have a banned item at a glance. I'd say that's a pretty significant benefit.
but you just can't keep totally impractical security measures in place for extended periods of time.
I'm honestly not sure how impractical this stuff is to keep up on a permanent basis. The increased security time is likely because a lot of people make mistakes, and so you have to have time to correct that. As people get used to the new measures, that'll be less likely. Screening people with only a clear plastic bag's worth of hand luggage will likely, IMO, end up being quicker in the long term than having to faff with x-ray scans and the like, if problems like medication can be ironed out.
Unless people are dangling the little bags from their hands (very high theft risk, BTW) they still have to open the luggage to search it. I'm not sure I see the benefit
( ... )
I do think that preventing people from filling a water bottle or buying a soda on the concourse past security is rather silly. If the concourse is secure than liquid aquired there shouldn't be explosive, and if it's not secure we're sort of already screwed.
Well, everything is playing odds to a degree. Someone will still be able to sneak a bottle in, at least on occasion. You just assume that, the concourse will not be completely secure. So by saying no one can have a water bottle, you reduce, again, the chances of something bad happening because if someone has a water bottle, well, they shouldn't do. Each layer of security is unlikely to work alone, but stack them all up and you hope that probability stacked on probability will increase safety. A battery in and of itself won't blow up a plane, but you assume that someone will sneak liquid explosives on at some point, so you make every effort to take their detonator away, just in case
( ... )
True. However, I think the question is a cost-benefit one. Is the risk of someone smuggling something past security, but somehow being stupid enough to get caught at check-in, so high that's it's worth the huge inconveinence and cost of searching all passengers at check-in, not to mention dealing with the thirsty, dehydrated passengers on the flight (and the various medical conditions that suffer from inproper hydration).
I don't see having dispensers with paper cups on the plane as a solution, since you usually can't just get out of your seat at a whim to get a drink. Add to that the problems with where to put the water, lines to get the water (intermixed with lines for the bathroom, of course) and what happens when you run out of water and/or cups (bound to happen, especially on long flights) I think that it's easier over all just to err on the side of non-excessive paranoia and just let people bring their bottles of water on board.
"No terrorist attack has ever been stopped at an airport." In my mind, that tells you how important adding layer upon layer of security to airport travel is: not very.
Well, herein lies the rub - what the security measures probably prevent is people planning attacks that have a high probability of being detected at the airport in the first place. So this isn't "foiling" an attack, but were the security measures not there, someone might well decide to take advantage of that fact. Unfortunately, there's no way to test the theory other than by ditching such measures and seeing if you start losing planes. :-/
The bottom line is that security in a system as big as the air travel system is going to be full of holes no matter what they do, and that the security in any system is only as good as the people in it (which judging from all the reports of stuff stolen from checked luggage during inspection, isn't saying much.)
I do think that preventing people from filling a water bottle or buying a soda on the concourse past security is rather silly. If the concourse is secure than liquid aquired there shouldn't be explosive, and if it's not secure we're sort of already screwed
Reply
I read an article today recommending banning anything with a battery (including watches) and not allowing people into the airport until they'd been screened. Because, y'know, it's not like there are any airports anywhere in the world where the temperature ( ... )
Reply
Reply
You can see whether they have a banned item at a glance. I'd say that's a pretty significant benefit.
but you just can't keep totally impractical security measures in place for extended periods of time.
I'm honestly not sure how impractical this stuff is to keep up on a permanent basis. The increased security time is likely because a lot of people make mistakes, and so you have to have time to correct that. As people get used to the new measures, that'll be less likely. Screening people with only a clear plastic bag's worth of hand luggage will likely, IMO, end up being quicker in the long term than having to faff with x-ray scans and the like, if problems like medication can be ironed out.
Reply
Reply
Well, everything is playing odds to a degree. Someone will still be able to sneak a bottle in, at least on occasion. You just assume that, the concourse will not be completely secure. So by saying no one can have a water bottle, you reduce, again, the chances of something bad happening because if someone has a water bottle, well, they shouldn't do. Each layer of security is unlikely to work alone, but stack them all up and you hope that probability stacked on probability will increase safety. A battery in and of itself won't blow up a plane, but you assume that someone will sneak liquid explosives on at some point, so you make every effort to take their detonator away, just in case ( ... )
Reply
I don't see having dispensers with paper cups on the plane as a solution, since you usually can't just get out of your seat at a whim to get a drink. Add to that the problems with where to put the water, lines to get the water (intermixed with lines for the bathroom, of course) and what happens when you run out of water and/or cups (bound to happen, especially on long flights) I think that it's easier over all just to err on the side of non-excessive paranoia and just let people bring their bottles of water on board.
Basically, I think this column in the Washington Post said it all when she said, "No terrorist ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Well, herein lies the rub - what the security measures probably prevent is people planning attacks that have a high probability of being detected at the airport in the first place. So this isn't "foiling" an attack, but were the security measures not there, someone might well decide to take advantage of that fact. Unfortunately, there's no way to test the theory other than by ditching such measures and seeing if you start losing planes. :-/
Reply
Leave a comment