Practical Travel Safety Issues - Interpol say body scanners are useless

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/29/interpol_davos/

but what would they know? ;)

He is probably aware of why and how strip searches and strip search machines have failed before. He is also probably not as obsessed about aviation "security" as the "security" perverts in the UK and US political and bureaucratic establishments.

He explained that passport fraud was a major problem, and that the best way to improve airport security was through better intelligence and intelligence sharing.

"Right now in our database we have over 11 million stolen or lost passports," he said.

"These passports are being used, fraudulently altered and are being given to terrorists, war criminals, drug traffickers, human traffickers."

Haven't we heard this very issue mentioned as one that is going to negate "Secure"Flight?

Haven't we heard this very issue mentioned as one that is going to negate "Secure"Flight?

Yes, but that person is talking about lost or stolen passports. He failed to include the fraudulently-acquired real passports that would show up as valid in response to an Interpol system query since they are neither lost nor stolen as far as Interpol or the passport-issuing government/agency knows.

"Clean skins" are generated every day with fraudulently-acquired real passports. Some governments make a habit of doing so for their intelligence agents and assets by way of their own or another -- often unwitting -- country or government agency. More often, the "clean skins" are gotten by someone with some money and enough connections to commit identity theft of a person who is unlikely to have had or to get a passport themselves.

"Clean skins" by way of fraudulently-acquired real ID and actual clean skins will generally have no problem running circles around the US government's blacklisting.

If anyone were to think this is a problem limited to less developed countries but not possible in the US, then they really are dangerously naive.

He is also probably not as obsessed about aviation "security" as the "security" [employees] in the UK and US political and bureaucratic establishments.

How many British planes were crashed on Sept 11th? Follow up attempts on them since then? :rolleyes:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/29/interpol_davos/

but what would they know? ;)

An article from the same "source?": http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/08/mutallab_comment/

"Let's consider, for instance, a future security check involving backscatter X-ray-through-clothes perv scans."

Yeah, they are not biased. Must be a TS/S regular writing for them.

Why all the sensationalism, just give me the facts please.

How many British planes were crashed on Sept 11th? Follow up attempts on them since then? :rolleyes:

The strip search machines wouldn't have made a difference on September 11th, 2001 regardless of whose planes were crashed or may or may not have been the subject of a plot since then. It doesn't even take genius to realize that, but it does take foolishness to ignore that the "security" perverts are still in love with the idea of strip search machines at airports. :rolleyes:

The strip search machines wouldn't have made a difference on September 11th, 2001 regardless of whose planes were crashed or may or may not have been the subject of a plot since then. It doesn't even take genius to realize that, but it does take foolishness to ignore that the "security" perverts are still in love with the idea of strip search machines at airports. :rolleyes:

Of course they are. At $150k-170k a pop, that's big money.

The strip search machines wouldn't have made a difference on September 11th, 2001 regardless of whose planes were crashed or may or may not have been the subject of a plot since then. It doesn't even take genius to realize that, but it does take foolishness to ignore that the "security" perverts are still in love with the idea of strip search machines at airports. :rolleyes:

I dont disagree with you, only suggest that his tone about the USA being "security obsessed," which was the part I quoted, was somewhat justified.

How many British planes were crashed on Sept 11th? Follow up attempts on them since then? :rolleyes:

Oh noes! 9-11!!

http://nephilim70.com/images/Doonesbury911911911.jpg

Oh noes! 9-11!!



Oh noes, a 9/11 revisonist! Appreciate ya. :rolleyes:

http://static.911digitalarchive.org/marquis/1764.jpg

Stop by http://911digitalarchive.org/, it happened.

Dan_E, never forgets.

Oh noes, a 9/11 revisonist! Appreciate ya. :rolleyes:

http://static.911digitalarchive.org/marquis/1764.jpg

Stop by http://911digitalarchive.org/, it happened.

Dan_E, never forgets.

He's not saying it didn't happen. Just that it's an overused excuse for everything, especially for the government to ask for more and more power to "protect" us.

I don't forget 9/11, but I'm not about to let my government trash what happened on 9/11 for it own purposes either.

9/11 was a tragic event, but we have 2 choices. Continue to be terrorized by it and allow that memory to be abused by people trying to gain power, or we can be a stronger nation, learn and remember, but not allow it to terrorize it.

I'd rather see a braver nation that sees that those people died for freedom rather than be used an excuse to invade that freedom, but that's just me.

How many British planes were crashed on Sept 11th? Follow up attempts on them since then?

I dont disagree with you, only suggest that his tone about the USA being "security obsessed," which was the part I quoted, was somewhat justified.

On the other hand, for 30 years the UK had to deal with IRA bombs and other activities, that (while I'm not certain, suspect) killed more people and did more damage that the WTC attacks. These attacks also occured where they lived, day in and day out, instead of far away on conveyance that most people only rarely utilize.

He's not saying it didn't happen. Just that it's an overused excuse for everything, especially for the government to ask for more and more power to "protect" us.


I really dont want to risk this being pushed to OMNI/PR, but I suggest the argument sounds so passe, something from 2007 and the previous majorities. Does one really think the environment today would allow these false worries?

Heck, the Doomsday Clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock) gained a minute this century...its time to lighten up, TS/S.

I really dont want to risk this being pushed to OMNI/PR, but I suggest the argument sounds so passe, something from 2007 and the previous majorities. Does one really think the environment today would allow these false worries?

Heck, the Doomsday Clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock) gained a minute this century...its time to lighten up, TS/S.

I'd like to think the hysteria has stopped, but every time there's an "incident" involving planes, it pretty much gets stirred up again.

Did you ever think, even shortly after 9/11, that'd we'd be talking about whether virtual strip searches should happen to get on a plane?

Go take a look at TSA's blog and see how even today 9/11's being abused.

On the other hand, for 30 years the UK had to deal with IRA bombs and other activities, that (while I'm not certain, suspect) killed more people and did more damage that the WTC attacks. These attacks also occured where they lived, day in and day out, instead of far away on conveyance that most people only rarely utilize.

Great point, thanks for the clarity.

And the planes the IRA crashed in to buildings accumulated how many deaths? And the follow-on attempts to incur additional deaths on said airplanes were what...I forget the count?

I admit I may have trivialized the plight of the conflict in that region to emphasize a point (for which I apologize), but that was only one example. I suggest we are mixing apples and oranges here, but I am sure some will correct me if I am wong. Or wronger than wrong. So be it.

But the discussion point I continue to emphasize is that the author claiming the USA is overly paranoid is an unfair assessment, based on recent events.

I mean how many times do you get hit in the head with a hammer before you decide to duck?

Interpol say body scanners are useless

Where did they say that exactly? I must have missed it. :rolleyes:

Oh noes, a 9/11 revisonist! Appreciate ya. :rolleyes:

Dan_E, never forgets.

What exactly is being "revised"? :confused:

Maybe those who can't get past 9/11 and have to keep bringing it up as a pathetic excuse for the destruction of civil liberties ought to apply to their respective government for some stimulus counseling funds and let the rest of us get on with our lives and our liberties.

Great point, thanks for the clarity.

And the planes the IRA crashed in to buildings accumulated how many deaths? And the follow-on attempts to incur additional deaths on said airplanes were what...I forget the count?

I admit I may have trivialized the plight of the conflict in that region to emphasize a point (for which I apologize), but that was only one example. I suggest we are mixing apples and oranges here, but I am sure some will correct me if I am wong. Or wronger than wrong. So be it.

But the discussion point I continue to emphasize is that the author claiming the USA is overly paranoid is an unfair assessment, based on recent events.

I mean how many times do you get hit in the head with a hammer before you decide to duck?

Ok, so one big incident is bad, but 30 years of small incidents is no big deal in the grand scheme of things. And of course, the fact that it happened abroad instead of the US changes things too.

I can't believe you're comparing a one off (but large and horrific) event with 30 years of people living in real fear that they could be shot or killed in an explosion at any time for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. :td:

]
But the discussion point I continue to emphasize is that the author claiming the USA is overly paranoid is an unfair assessment, based on recent events.


The USA is insanely paranoid.

Some candyassed government hacks have allowed murderers on another continent to deprive us of our civil liberties.

Osama bin Laden: Jump, dog, jump!

American government scumbags: How high, Mr. bin Laden??

Pathetic and disgusting. :td:

Go take a look at TSA's blog and see how even today 9/11's being abused.

You know, Bob's blog has zero influence on my opinion of 9/11 and how that day affected me...or my country. I know what I know, no thanks to him or his agency.

Abuse can be physical. Verbal. Those who suffer physical attacks like rape and assault can speak of abuse. Harrassing language and racial slurs, that is abusive.

But a couple of prima donna frequent flyers being asked for additional screening by government employees in place for that purpose is not abuse.

Your recourse? Choose not to fly. I see here more than a few have taken that path.

Your recourse? Choose not to fly. I see here more than a few have taken that path.

Nope.

Fight and and mark those destined for the wall when this nation stops wetting the bed like little chicken____ cowards.

One day, those "in charge" who destroyed our civil liberties will get the punishment they so richly deserve, whether it is in history books or elsewhere. They are un-American scumbags, guilty of treason.

Maybe those who can't get past 9/11 and have to keep bringing it up as a pathetic excuse for the destruction of civil liberties ought to apply to their respective government for some stimulus counseling funds and let the rest of us get on with our lives and our liberties.

Or maybe those who would rather a few planes fall out of the sky every week, as long as no one delays their travel plans or inconvience their splendor in the grass of liberties that could affect the rest of the traveling public?

You know, Bob's blog has zero influence on my opinion of 9/11 and how that day affected me...or my country. I know what I know, no thanks to him or his agency.

Abuse can be physical. Verbal. Those who suffer physical attacks like rape and assault can speak of abuse. Harrassing language and racial slurs, that is abusive.

But a couple of prima donna frequent flyers being asked for additional screening by government employees in place for that purpose is not abuse.

Your recourse? Choose not to fly. I see here more than a few have taken that path.

Abuse can take a lot of forms outside the "traditional" means. Do you or don't you think that power can be abused? Abuse of power doesn't fit the definition you provided but is very real in many aspects.

We're not talking about extra screening - granted a lot of what is complained about is annoyance. That doesn't mean that abuses don't occur and a lot of it is implemented by TSA policy.

Do you think the Bierfeldt case was an abuse of power (refusing to answer questions about carrying cash he was legally entitled to carry and had nothing to do with aviation security)?

Do you think MKEBound being detained and hassled (i.e. told he has no rights at the checkpoint) was an abuse of power?

Do you think effectively asking for permission from the government to get on a plane (i.e. am I on a list and am ok to fly) an abuse of power?

That list can go on, really.

Yes, we can choose not to fly. However, I also value my freedom and would love to be able to travel without having to worry about whether a screener is going to abuse the power they have. I'd rather work for that. YMMV.

... to deprive us of our civil liberties. ...



Define please?

Wondering what has been deprived lately, just to keep my scorecard updated? Thx :D

Or maybe those who would rather a few planes fall out of the sky every week, as long as no one delays their travel plans or inconvience their splendor in the grass of liberties that could affect the rest of the traveling public?

Planes are no more likely to fall out of the sky with sensible screening than they are with Scumbag Screening. Sensible screening is cheaper and preserves liberty and dignity. Scumbag screening is the work of filthy Communist perverts.

Or maybe those who would rather a few planes fall out of the sky every week, as long as no one delays their travel plans or inconvience their splendor in the grass of liberties that could affect the rest of the traveling public?

And how many planes have fallen out of the sky, either before or after TSA? :rolleyes: Does it even come close to an annual basis, let alone a weekly?

With TSA's poor security, we're fortunate it hasn't happened.

A couple of good articles to chew on.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/skies-are-as-friendly-as-ever-911-al.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html

Don't you think it's possible the US might be overreacting a bit?

Define please?

Wondering what has been deprived lately, just to keep my scorecard updated? Thx :D

Civil liberties destroyed by government scumbags of late: (list not complete)


Having to show ID to the government to travel.
Having to be strip searched by the government to travel.
Having one's possessions restricted by the government when traveling.


Want me to keep going, or are you already embarrassed?

Do you or don't you think that power can be abused?

I know power can be abused. Do I think the USA abuses power? Yes. Do I think the minions at the airport who shine a black light on my bording pass and ask me about my day are chipping away at my freedoms, no.


Do you think the Bierfeldt case was an abuse of power (refusing to answer questions about carrying cash he was legally entitled to carry and had nothing to do with aviation security)?.
I admit I am ACLU website deep (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/bierfeldt-v-napolitano) on the details of this, so besides noting the bias, I wont comment. Ditto on MKEBound. I suggest these are anomolies and dont reflect 99.99% of the flying public.


Do you think effectively asking for permission from the government to get on a plane (i.e. am I on a list and am ok to fly) an abuse of power?)

No. But I am not on a list, so myself am biased. But I ask permission for work travel, I ask my firm, will they pay the bills. I ask the airlines, will they take my plastic to buy a seat? I ask my wife, will she let me go? So asking permission from my government (TSA)? Souns just like another wicket to jump through.

Wish I was independently weathly and have no one on this blue marble to answer to. If it aint the boss, it's the man. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif

Well, I would rather work through profesionals screeners myself, but that is not the rule these days. So I do what the rule of law says today.

Don't you think it's possible the US might be overreacting a bit?

Concur. Yes. But every action is not an over reaction, is it? Golly gee, sarge, I hate the knee jerk response, who doesn't?

I also dont believe something, anything, is better than doing nothing. Useless activities are not worth the engery.

Actually, I have read some good suggestions across the TS/S forum, some wise folks post around here. But I am sad to say some Chicken Littles often drown them out, which is sad.

Good thing the earth heals itself. :cool:

No. But I am not on a list, so myself am biased. But I ask permission for work travel, I ask my firm, will they pay the bills. I ask the airlines, will they take my plastic to buy a seat? I ask my wife, will she let me go? So asking permission from my government (TSA)? Souns just like another wicket to jump through.

You're really all over the map.

You've muddled marriage, employment, and government intrusion into your life all into one.

You chose to get married. If you want to fly, your wife can divorce you, but she can't prevent you from traveling.

You chose to work at your job. If you want to fly, your boss can fire you, but your boss can't prevent you from traveling.

The government, however enforces its restrictions on your travel at gunpoint. You don't get a choice there.

And on top of all that, the government uses racist profiling to to put even more restrictions on some other people, many of whom are fellow US citizens.

You may think it's no big deal, but many disagree with you. Probably those who are victims of racist profiling most of all.

I admit I am ACLU website deep (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/bierfeldt-v-napolitano) on the details of this, so besides noting the bias, I wont comment. Ditto on MKEBound. I suggest these are anomolies and dont reflect 99.99% of the flying public.
No. But I am not on a list, so myself am biased. But I ask permission for work travel, I ask my firm, will they pay the bills. I ask the airlines, will they take my plastic to buy a seat? I ask my wife, will she let me go? So asking permission from my government (TSA)? Souns just like another wicket to jump through.

Wish I was independently weathly and have no one on this blue marble to answer to. If it aint the boss, it's the man. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif

Well, I would rather work through profesionals screeners myself, but that is not the rule these days. So I do what the rule of law says today.

Ah, so if it doesn't affect you directly, then it doesn't really matter then. Got it.

But take a look at it from the argument you made. It's not a big deal because 99.99% of the public doesn't have to deal with it (disputable, but let's use this for the sake of the argument). Similarly, 99.99% of the public never were and likely never will be blown up in a terrorist incident involving a plane either. So why is it ok to discount it in the first instance but not the second?

Please note I'm not making a case for NOT screening - just trying to take a look at if the measures that keep getting added are actually going to do anything and will be effective for what they add (or don't).

As to the others, there's a difference between working out that stuff with an employer or spouse. After all, there are options there in all of those. You can choose your airline, spouse, or employer. Can't choose to deal with another entity other than TSA, though, and that's the big difference.

Concur. Yes. But every action is not an over reaction, is it? Golly gee, sarge, I hate the knee jerk response, who doesn't?

Do you think the latest responses have been knee jerk responses?

I also dont believe something, anything, is better than doing nothing. Useless activities are not worth the engery.

I agree. Unfortunately, that's not how government works.

Actually, I have read some good suggestions across the TS/S forum, some wise folks post around here. But I am sad to say some Chicken Littles often drown them out, which is sad.

Good thing the earth heals itself. :cool:

Happens everywhere on both sides whenever there's a passionate issue.

Civil liberties destroyed by government scumbags of late: (list not complete)


Having to show ID to the government to travel.
Having to be strip searched by the government to travel.
Having one's possessions restricted by the government when traveling.


Want me to keep going, or are you already embarrassed?

W,T, F, over?


Having to show ID to the government to travel.
Really? C'mon, you are not serious, are you? I mean that is number one on your list. Dude, you really need to step back and do a reeval, you are whacked. You're mad 'cause you gotta show your drivers license? What are you, under 21 and you are afraid you cant buy shots at the FF club?


Having to be strip searched by the government to travel.
What...you have to take off your cowboy boots at the WTMD? I have never had to go beyond a shirt, pants, socks for tens of thousands of miles, but I am a segment guy. I would never classify beinging "stripped." But I also dont sensationalize or exagerate a bunch, my Mom was terrible at that. If I told her once, I told her ten thousand times not to exagerate![/QUOTE]


Having one's possessions restricted by the government when traveling.
Like what, drugs? Jeff Foxworthy has a funny story about a leaf blower being confiscated at the checkpoint and I laugh. I mean seriously, what harm is a leafblower? But I gotta ask, ...? It is post Dec 2009 underwear bomber, why travel with a leaf blower in "checked" baggage? No one says you cant have it (restriction), it seems they just ask that you not place it where you can grab it in flight. Hey, I aint chicken, I just want to know ... you need a leaf blower in the overhead for?

You may think it's no big deal, but many disagree with you. Probably those who are victims of racist profiling most of all.

Nah, I think not. Sounds like response by a Windbag (http://www.yourdictionary.com/windbag). I wonder how one defines "many?" :confused: Is it the number of members of FT who agree with your point and disagree with mine? I am just looking for metrics beyond this comment? Thx

Do you think the latest responses have been knee jerk responses?.

If you speak of the USA response after the attempt of blowing up an airplane on christmas bound to the US, yes.

If you speak of the USA response after the attempt of blowing up an airplane on christmas bound to the US, yes.

If you agree that the response to the panty bomber was an un-necessary knee-jerk response, then W.T.F.?

None of your posts so far have been particularly intelligible. I suggest you slow down and try to express one cogent point point per post. Multiple posts are allowed.

Random diatribes tend to self-assign to the kettle security-at-all-costs mentality that doesn't fly well, to coin a phrase. @:-)

I mean seriously, what harm is a leafblower? But I gotta ask, ...? It is post Dec 2009 underwear bomber, why travel with a leaf blower in "checked" baggage? No one says you cant have it (restriction), it seems they just ask that you not place it where you can grab it in flight. Hey, I aint chicken, I just want to know ... you need a leaf blower in the overhead for?

You may not be a "chicken", but you do sound paranoid. I need a leaf blower to blow leaves. If you don't like traveling with innocuous appliances, that is not a public concern, it is yours. You are like a person of size. You want the traveling public to accommodate your unreasonable wishes. Sorry, we're now outgrowing that mentality.

Sorry, no, you may not raise my armrest to accommodate your outsized fear.

An article from the same "source?": http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/08/mutallab_comment/

"Let's consider, for instance, a future security check involving backscatter X-ray-through-clothes perv scans."

Yeah, they are not biased. Must be a TS/S regular writing for them.

Why all the sensationalism, just give me the facts please.

Are you saying the head of Interpol is biased-- or that he is misquoted? :confused: