Wallet Search?
 

I just went through security at Denver on 2/24. I got selected for the secondary search at the main checkpoint. I travel on business once every two weeks and never put my wallet through the x-ray machine. The screener that wanded me asked me to remove my wallet from my pocket and then proceeded to give it a thorough search (in my presence fortunately). I asked what that was about as I have been through the secondary search many times but never had my wallet searched before. He replied that another passenger had recently been caught with a plastic knife in his wallet so he was now searching all wallets. I don't know if I got one over zealous security man (which I suspect) or this is now becoming a standard procedure. If they now start worrying about plastic knifes, how will they justify plastic knifes with the few remaining on-board meals?

You've got to be kidding! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/mad.gif

Most definitely NOT standard procedure. Most TSA agents I've seen ask travellers to keep wallets with them (as opposed to putting them through x-ray); I've occasionally seen requests to look inside wallets, but have never been subjected to a wallet search (nor would I comply, I suspect).

-Zombie-

I've had my wallet searched by TSA not once but twice. One of the TSA folks even pulled each credit card out and peered at both sides...even having the gall to ask what some of them were used for.
So, in my experience, not an unusual occurrence.

I know what the response to this is going to be, but I'll put it out there anyway.

The folks who make the Swiss Army knife, also make a Swiss Army card. Looks like a normal credit card, but has prohibited items installed. They are not permitted past the checkpoint.

To my knowledge, plastic knives are not prohibited.

Keep your money in your pocket, and send your wallet thru the xray. Baada Bing

Will the x-ray machine be able to spot a plastic knife? Not to mention, if someone had serious intentions of using something like this as a weapon on a plane, it would be very easy to conceal it on your person where it wouldn't even be picked up by additional wanding or wallet searching.

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-26-2003).]

Tazi, you just made the case for the random screening. Remember the guy they caught in New York a couple of weeks ago who was going to Hawaii? He had a number of knives made of composite material. How did they catch him? Random search. So I guess it does have its uses afterall. From what I have read, the guy had connections with Al-Queda associates. Maybe he was not going to actually do anything on that flight, but maybe it could have been a dry run. Afterall, the 9 clowns who succeeded on 9/11 did accomplish at least one dry run before they struck. Maybe, just maybe, the screeners stopped something from happening at a later date. We just might not ever know.

IMO, this is where somebody needs to get a grip on reality. In these days of reinforced cockpit doors, sky marshalls, heightened passenger awareness, etc., what kind of weapon that is small enough to be on a credit card could possibly be used to commandeer an aircraft??

Get a grip.

Composite knives and metal knives for that matter are NOT credible threats to aircraft safety. Want a sharp slashy-slashy-stabby-stabby instrument? Break a glass or a tray table. It's POINTLESS (pun!) to keep on harassing people like this. Visit Zurich sometime. There is an impressive number of knives for sale at the airport, past security. No one uses them to try to hijack planes.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I saw very cool looking "wallet knives" for sale at the wilderness store in my area. They include a wickedly useful looking little knife and other stuff and are designed to go into your wallet.

Ironically, the plastic knives they allow you to use to eat your airline meal seem to me sharper than the steel knives they used to provide.

As pointed out (ha ha -- pun again), anything can become a sharp and pointy object. How many of us get nasty paper cuts?

Hmmm, now how big is a box cutter ?

As long as knives are prohibited, they will be stopped. One man's harrassment, is another man's security.

Box cutters worked because pilots opened cockpit doors and people cooperated with the hijackers. Box cutters are no longer a credible threat to aircraft, but you'd hate to have your job changed to actually having to perform security rather than harassment, am I right?



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I just tape my ceramic knife to my leg under my socks - TSA has yet to find it. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...um/biggrin.gif

Of course, now we will have de-socking to check on this latest threat. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/frown.gif

One man's delusion, another man's reality.

I look forward to the day James Loy and Norm Mineta are fired and/or your organization is permanently disenfranchised.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Hey Spiff, do you watch the news or what? TSA falls under the Department of Homeland Security, run by Tom Ridge. Mineta is not in the loop anymore. Loy will be replaced soon as well.

Hey Aces, own a calendar? It's not 1 Mar 2003 yet... http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif Mineta is still the TSA secretary and Loy is still deputy secretary.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I believe that in the near future that small pointy things will be allowed, but not all planes have reinforced doors an sky marshalls and pilots with weapons. I do not understand why they leave flight attedants out of the security training.

I understand what you are doing, but if you do get caught it is artfull concealment and the LEO's will be called.Plus I would not brag about this because someone may turn you in that does not like you( of course nobody here knows you). Just a suggestion.

No, actually I didn't. Additional wanding, randum or otherwise, is not going to turn up a plastic knife if I have it hidden on my person and there are plenty of places I could do so easily.

Why do you keep bringing up 9-11 as if anything a screener had done could have made a difference? Boxcutters were allowed at the time.


------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

You're right. The deadline for bulletproof cockpit doors is some time in April 2003. After that, prohibiting small knives, etc., will be just silly.

One minor criticism: Anyone who calls the police "LEOs" is obviously very deep into government gobble-de-gook. We are quite happy to use ordinary language around here, like, "We'll call the cops!" No need to sound like a bureaucrat. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif

Bruce

Tazi, additional random screening takes place at the gate. Continuous screening is done at the checkpoint. That only entails wanding. Carry-on bags are checked at the gate as well as wanding. Something that is not always done at the checkpoint. Thats how that "gentlemans" knives were found. Just by chance at a random screening at the gate. Maybe our TSA friends can elaborate further.

Edited for content to clarify random/continuous definition.

[This message has been edited by ACES II (edited 02-26-2003).]

I will do the job put before me, just as I do now.



[This message has been edited by TakeScissorsAway (edited 02-26-2003).]

One man's opinion, another man's BS http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...rum/tongue.gif



[This message has been edited by TakeScissorsAway (edited 02-26-2003).]

What gentleman? We are talking about someone who posted here having his wallet searched for wallet knives. And I am saying that anyone who has ill intentions will find a way to conceal that item on their body so that it will not be found regardless of whether it is randum or continuous dumb screening. These are not dangerous items and anyone that thinks they are needs counseling.


------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-26-2003).]

I might also add that NOBODY knows...or ever will...what actually brought down those planes. For all we know, the hijackers were equipped with machetes, bandoliers, AK 47's, etc. A few cell phone reports about boxcutters being used does not fully explain what happened on all the planes.
At any rate, boxcutters, wallet knives and "other small pointy things" would have a very slim chance of bringing down a plane today. The key weapon the terrorists had on 9/11 was surprise and that weapon is now obsolete.

Why take a chance, slim or otherwise ?

That's right everybody. Take no chances - stay home under the bed where it's safe. We can't take risks of any kind! Don't drive! Don't leave your house! Don't talk to anyone! You could be taking an unnecessary risk! Grow your own food hydroponically in the basement, drill your own well and purify the water yourself. The key to enjoying a happy, health life is risk elimination! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif




------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Well, you apparently do it every day. Many chances, both slim and others.

For starters you you probably get to work. Do you know how many people get killed every day going to and from work? How do you suggest we stop that chance of people getting killed? Or, shall we just live with it and chalk it up to "normal events for the day"?

If we accept that chance of death and mayhem (and that is not a slim chance), what stops us from accepting others?

If "THAT" or "ANY" chance can be eliminated, then what's the harm ?



[This message has been edited by TakeScissorsAway (edited 02-27-2003).]

Life is all about taking chances. I am not afraid of pointy objects. If you are, you should seek counseling for you Aichmophobia.


------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

I have no fear of pointy objects, but I guess someone did. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif

No risk can be eliminated. Most risks can be made smaller but many times at an unreasonable cost. What we are seeing in the area of airport "security" is that the cost of minimizing risks have risen to unacceptable levels. That's the harm.

(Edited for spelling, again)

[This message has been edited by L-1011 (edited 02-27-2003).]

If we really wanted to eliminate ALL risk, we would assign a squad of police (or LEOs, as the TSA likes to call them -- how cute!) to accompany each passenger on his or her trip. Then, if the passenger does anything out of the ordinary -- coughing, raising his voice, whatever -- the squad of police could physically restrain him or her until the plane could land or the accompanying jet fighters could shoot it down. We don't do that for lots of rather obvious reasons, but at least one of them is the COST.

The same logical analysis applies to the TSA. Much of what is goes on at airports today is simply too expensive for society to afford. We should cut back to a reasonable level of security before our society strangles itself economically.

Bruce

I am thinking along the same lines as you. I was in the safety business for a few years and the was a constant ordeal. Risk will never be eliminated , but it can be reduced.

Eliminating risk should fall upon the shoulders of the airlines also. There is a company that makes explosive absorbant containers that have tested with the amount of estimated explosives of flight 103 which had outstanding results. Will the airlines buy them? Probably not while the government is providing security. Will they make their aircraft more secure in the cabin area, probably not unless the government forces them.Why does the government have to burden the load of a private industry?

Interesting philosophical point. Let's consider a big shopping mall. If someone gets picked up shoplifting and the mall security call the police, should the police say, "Hey, you built that big mall; you take care of your own security." I guess to some extent they do; after all, that's why malls hire private security. But at some point, the real government comes in and takes over. I guess something like that is going on now with airlines.

It's even trickier with airports, because most of those are run by government already, although not the Federal government.

I guess the bottom line for me is that I want appropriate security, no matter who pays for it. I don't want a lot of silly, ineffective things done in the name of security. As a very frequent flyer, my main concern is the hassle factor. I don't really believe that the terrorist risk is very high (no matter what color Tom Ridge chooses today!).

Bruce

I think the goverment should pay to have them installed. They can use the money they will save from dismantling the TSA. The fact of the matter is, a terrorist could place a bomb anywhere, not just on a plane so why should just the airlines have to provide such extreme protection?

Very astute point, TSADude.

The point you are making could be recast as follows: any service government "provides" fills a need that might otherwise be filled by the private sector.

I don't think Bruce's mall example is on point. The mall expects the police to show up and arrest a shoplifter, but if the mall wants mall security, it pays for this privately.

The state has a basic monopoly on the use of force, so at this point the state must take over, but not to watch for shoplifters which is a private function.

Since the TSA is saying "security is our bag now," the airlines will quite rightly stop worrying about security. If the government had picked the system that it should have, it would have picked a system of better government oversight with duties performed privately, and the airlines would have more of an active interest in security.

That is one of the many problems with the TSA: it is like having the government patrol private stores looking for shoplifters. The government has no way to calculate what is a good investment and what is not.

The airlines, like all real businesses, make this calculus every day. After all, a bomb in an airplane is not good business, and the airlines have every incentive to provide good security. The government really does not. It has every incentive to spend oodles of money, shut down terminals, evacuate airports, hold people up, because there is no real cost to it of doing so.

The solution is to privatize air security and provide standards and government oversight like we do to assure a safe food supply. Then the airlines are squarely responsible again for security, and they can assess their pax extra dollars and pay for things like bomb-resistant holds. And if they don't then they can go out of business and another airline will do those things and get people's business. If it takes a disaster for that to happen, well, it would happen anyway. I trust private competitive businesses much more than I trust some government agency.

Oh yea, the FDA does a bang up job.

So how much Enron / Worldcom stock did you own ?