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... )
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 is ever so hot or cold that standing outside unprotected for five hours (the time they were recommending) would be a bad idea.
Also ... having people carry their money and passports around in a clear plastic Ziploc bag is a good idea ... why?
Ooo, the eyedrops is an obnoxious one I hadn't thought of that. Hopefully by the next time you have to fly this will have blown over.
Banning eyedrops is also especially stupid, since anything small enough to fit in an eyedrop bottle is small enough to be stashed in a bodily orifice which isn't routinely screened. (Same goes for watch batteries.)
I think I read that same article. Having people wait outside the airport is stupid. One, there's the weather issue you mentioned. Two, no modern airport is designed to handle that, so it's totally impractical unless you rebuild all your airports. Three, the security risk inherent in having huge crowds of people standing around doesn't go away when you move them outside. If anything it might increase it, since the outdoor crowd is easier-access.
Having your passports and money in a clear bag seems to accomplish exactly nothing.
I think (though I could be wrong -- hope not) that this will all blow over eventually, just as it mostly did after Sept 11. They'll keep a few vestiges (I'm betting you won't be able to bring in sodas from outside security anymore) but you just can't keep totally impractical security measures in place for extended periods of time.
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 don't see that screening people with just a plastic bags' worth of luggage would be THAT much faster: you still have to xray them, and randomly bomb-sniff them. It's possible fewer with set off the x-ray, but ones that set off the x-ray will still have to be opened. (Not x-raying them means people can smuggle whatever they please provided it can fit in a book hollowed out to make it a container - provided people are still allowed books. I don't see that as secure enough to warrant giving up x-rays.)
Practically speaking, most the times people have wanted to search my luggage it was because of my keys. Given the rate at which the airlines lose luggage its unreasonable to prevent them from flying with their keys.
However, I also think it's totally unreasonable to expect people on international flights to sit though 8+ hours with only what they can carry in a clear plastic bag. Actually, especially given that airplanes often no longer serve food, I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to do that. It's certainly not reasonable for people traveling with small children.
Also, with the way airlines lose and break luggage, it's not resonable to expect people to travel with so little. I would never travel to a professional conference and check my poster or anything I needed for a presentation, for example. You can't fit a poster in a plastic zip-loc. I would never want to check my camera or my laptop: the odds ofit breaking or being stolen are too high.
Lastly, while I haven't talked to my father about this latest crisis yet, I remember after September 11 him expressing his opinion that any system is only as good as the people in it. His take was that the fact that things are stolen from checked baggage in and of itself is the symptom of an insecure system, since it proves that a certain percentage of the people who are supposed to be screening these things are not trustworthy. No amount of zip-loc bags can fix that problem.
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 is ever so hot or cold that standing outside unprotected for five hours (the time they were recommending) would be a bad idea.
Also ... having people carry their money and passports around in a clear plastic Ziploc bag is a good idea ... why?
Reply
Banning eyedrops is also especially stupid, since anything small enough to fit in an eyedrop bottle is small enough to be stashed in a bodily orifice which isn't routinely screened. (Same goes for watch batteries.)
I think I read that same article. Having people wait outside the airport is stupid. One, there's the weather issue you mentioned. Two, no modern airport is designed to handle that, so it's totally impractical unless you rebuild all your airports. Three, the security risk inherent in having huge crowds of people standing around doesn't go away when you move them outside. If anything it might increase it, since the outdoor crowd is easier-access.
Having your passports and money in a clear bag seems to accomplish exactly nothing.
I think (though I could be wrong -- hope not) that this will all blow over eventually, just as it mostly did after Sept 11. They'll keep a few vestiges (I'm betting you won't be able to bring in sodas from outside security anymore) but you just can't keep totally impractical security measures in place for extended periods of time.
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
I don't see that screening people with just a plastic bags' worth of luggage would be THAT much faster: you still have to xray them, and randomly bomb-sniff them. It's possible fewer with set off the x-ray, but ones that set off the x-ray will still have to be opened. (Not x-raying them means people can smuggle whatever they please provided it can fit in a book hollowed out to make it a container - provided people are still allowed books. I don't see that as secure enough to warrant giving up x-rays.)
Practically speaking, most the times people have wanted to search my luggage it was because of my keys. Given the rate at which the airlines lose luggage its unreasonable to prevent them from flying with their keys.
However, I also think it's totally unreasonable to expect people on international flights to sit though 8+ hours with only what they can carry in a clear plastic bag. Actually, especially given that airplanes often no longer serve food, I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to do that. It's certainly not reasonable for people traveling with small children.
Also, with the way airlines lose and break luggage, it's not resonable to expect people to travel with so little. I would never travel to a professional conference and check my poster or anything I needed for a presentation, for example. You can't fit a poster in a plastic zip-loc. I would never want to check my camera or my laptop: the odds ofit breaking or being stolen are too high.
Lastly, while I haven't talked to my father about this latest crisis yet, I remember after September 11 him expressing his opinion that any system is only as good as the people in it. His take was that the fact that things are stolen from checked baggage in and of itself is the symptom of an insecure system, since it proves that a certain percentage of the people who are supposed to be screening these things are not trustworthy. No amount of zip-loc bags can fix that problem.
Reply
Leave a comment