Stupid Airport Security
 

Commentary article from Walter Williams entitled Stupid Airport Security is a succinct "Reader's Digest Condensed Version" of a lot of topics that have been hashed and rehashed on this forum.

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43654

ummm
 

Pretty narrow minded article. He has no reason to fear arrest. His comparison to a rape scenario is a straw man. Political incorrectness is not the basis for secondary screening. Pilots and flight attendants are not the same. A Flight attendant needs to be screened. Pilots are screened to prevent someone impersonating a pilot from getting a weapon into the sterile area. The key to security is risk based prevention. Has this guy been asleep for the last two years? The list of things that he lists as being prohibited are not all on the list. The list is about to be relaxed. We dont profile. We are an equal opportunity screening agency. That is to say that there are strong indications that TSA cant rely on appearance in order to base suspicion. His point about resources is another misnomer. Aviation has the biggest financial/social impact on the USA. The other methods do not.

How quickly we forget. Yes, of course the majority of resources are spent on airport security. The events of 9/11 and emotional aftermath drove that train! Williams makes several solid points about other areas that need attention, but he forgets the political inertia behind the current TSA focus on airport security.

Do a review of the 9/11 Commission study on the events, and you will see that airport security screeners followed their procedures. The problem was that the procedures themselves were not adequate. "Selectee screening" consisted of nothing more than making sure the passenger and his/her luggage were put on board. There were no searches, no additional screening or anything else along those lines. It went no further than a positive match between owner and baggage. We've already beaten the horse to death about how knives, utility tools, etc. were allowed on board without question. The only prohibited items were guns, bombs and some knives. (Hazmat became an issue during the late 1980's/early 1990's.)

The hooplah over airport security didn't occur until after 9/11 when there were frequent incidents of fake guns, bombs, knives and grenades successfully being smuggled past security checkpoints. Media scrutiny revealed that a significant number of privately contracted security screeners weren't even US citizens, had questionable backgrounds and worked for very low wages that contributed to a high personnel turnover rate. These are the things that prompted the demand that security screening be federalized with a professional training program instituted to maintain a certain level of proficiency, and that screeners undergo background checks similar to those of government employees who are given security clearances. In other words, Williams conveniently forgets that this bureaucratic monster was created out of a public demand for better airport security. Why is he so surprised at the result?

While the plan is for TSA to eventually cover other forms of public mass transportation, the political focus is still on commercial aviation. Terrorists can still do much more damage by taking over an airplane than they can with trains, boats and buses. Not trying to downplay the vulnerabilities of those forms of transportation, but a hijacked plane can be flown anywhere to hit any target virtually without warning.

I'm not trying to defend TSA. I'm simply pointing out the political reality that Williams appears to have ignored. I do agree with him that bureaucracies tend to be very slow to adjust, react and take action. And this is very much a problem within TSA and DHS. Welcome to the real world: that's the nature of any bureaucracy. What complicates it some more is the tendency for careerism and self-preservation to dominate certain decisions in the face of common sense and prudence. Again, another ugly reality when considering how politics and bureaucratic dynamics affect government agencies.

Yeah, it may be stupid, but why act surprised? We, collectively, put ourselves here and now we have to deal with it.

The airlines and our government put us in this situation, NOT us.

Since Kennedy was in the Oval Office, the airlines were fighting to maintain control over airport security.

Our government decided to rubber-stamp the approvals, yet failed to act upon tangible proof something bad was going to happen (the 8/6/2001 memo), and now we're all paying the price with secret laws, questionable searches (in and out of airports) and an increased distrust of the government and its agencies.

We may be both saying the same thing. While government theoretically acts on behalf of the people, it passes some pretty stupid laws, and I can't believe that we the people are that stupid. Still, if we insist on keeping our distance from government so that we can point fingers at it whenever it does do something stupid, then we are just as guilty for allowing it to happen.

Care to guess how many people voted in the last election with any solid knowledge of the issues at stake, the candidates' positions and their track records in light of their campaign promises? Call me skeptical, but I believe most people voted because of how the media cast these candidates and based on how the media interpreted the issues for them.

Yes, our ability to control our government is slipping away. But we are allowing it to happen through media distortion, our own laziness and our own selfish view of certain issues. In the end, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Not to portray myself as uppity here, but I do not fit into what you describe. I have worked in the media....I know what goes on in there, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let some moron news director dictate how I vote.

Something else I grimace at is how people will vote strictly along party lines, which I refuse to. There are plenty of gasbags on each side of the aisle to go around. Sometimes, unfortunately, it has been reduced to who reeks the least. Maybe I am in the minority here, but I actually still read my voter's pamphlet.

The government involvement thing is where I get nervous. I do not own any tinfoil hats, but I do have a remote fear of being on some watch list should I go on record and disagree with policies. I will admit that I have written constructive, non-"you suck!" messages to the TSA under an alias, for fear of earning some SSSSearches. I fly too much for a living, and I cannot risk my livelihood.

Read through a significant number of posts over the last couple of years. There appears to be a fair number of people from all walks of life who "fear" the TSA. Rhetorically speaking, how many times have you not taken a legal deduction on your taxes because you "feared" the IRS? I'm sure the average IRS employee feels the public shouldn't "fear" the IRS, too.

My memory may be fading again but I don't recall any 'public demand', unless by that you mean a few newspaper editorials and one or two imperious Congressmen. Yes the existing screeners were the butt of Leno, Letterman et al., and had low motivation and morale. All of which could have been addressed without the need to create a Federal agency whose methods, procedures and lack of oversight some of us find umm... disturbing.

Bart,
If that statement rang true, John Kerry would have won the election hands down, with no questions raised by anyone. The liberal media (newspaper, tv, magazines) ran GWB into the ground, while raising up John Kerry as a war hero and the only hope for our nation.
I believe most people voted how they did in spite of how the media interpreted the issues for the candidates.

Not to stray too far off topic, but have you ever wondered why people voted for Bush? I am willing to bet that they voted either because they did not want to vote for Kerry or because they voted based on a stereotypical view of Bush as a Republican rather than based on his actual views and perspectives. As for the Kerry campaign itself, I think a strong argument can be made for how it mishandled certain events in spite of all the careful packaging. My point still stands: very few people actually study the candidates, the issues and their track records to make an informed, well thought-out decision on who they will vote for.

One other thing: I wasn't necessarily talking about the office of the President. I was talking in general about the whole election process from either voting for the local alderman to House representative to bond issues as well as for President.

I think we are getting quite off topic here, lets not turn this into a political discussion. And now back to your regularly scheduled programming....

Thanks

JLM_USAIR
TS&S Mod

Initial Report in Sep. '96 from the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security presented by Gore and Co.:

Complement technology with automated passenger profiling. Profiling can leverage an investment in technology and trained people. Based on information that is already in computer databases, passengers could be separated into a very large majority who present little or no risk, and a small minority who merit additional attention.

Such systems are employed successfully by other agencies, including the Customs Service. By utilizing this process Customs is better able to focus its resources and attention. As a result, many legitimate travelers never see a customs agent anymore -- and drug busts are way up.

The FAA and Northwest Airlines are developing an automated profiling system tailored to aviation security, and the Commission supports the continued development and implementation of such a system.

To improve and promote passenger profiling, the Commission recommends three steps. First, FBI, CIA, and BATF should evaluate and expand the research into known terrorists, hijackers, and bombers needed to develop the best possible profiling system. They should keep in mind that such a profile would be most useful to the airlines if it could be matched against automated passenger information which the airlines maintain.

Second, the FBI and CIA should develop a system that would allow important intelligence information on known or suspected terrorists to be used in passenger profiling without compromising the integrity of the intelligence or its sources. Similar systems have been developed to give environmental scientists access to sensitive data collected by satellites.

Third, the Commission will establish an advisory board on civil liberties questions that arise from the development and use of profiling systems.


The watered down version in Feb. '97:

No profile should contain or be based on material of a constitutionally suspect nature - e.g., race, religion, national origin of U.S. citizens. The Commission recommends that the elements of a profiling system be developed in consultation with the Department of Justice and other appropriate experts to ensure that selection is not impermissibly based on national origin, racial, ethnic, religious or gender characteristics.
Factors to be considered for elements of the profile should be based on measurable, verifiable data indicating that the factors chosen are reasonable predictors of risk, not stereotypes or generalizations. A relationship must be demonstrated between the factors chosen and the risk of illegal activity.
Passengers should be informed of airlines security procedures and of their right to avoid any search of their person or luggage by electing not to board the aircraft.
Searches arising from the use of an automated profiling system should be no more intrusive than search procedures that could be applied to all passengers. Procedures for searching the person or luggage of, or for questioning, a person who is selected by the automated profiling system should be premised on insuring respectful, non-stigmatizing, and efficient treatment of all passengers.
Neither the airlines nor the government should maintain permanent databases on selectees. Reasonable restrictions on the maintenance of records and strict limitations on the dissemination of records should be developed.
Periodic independent reviews of profiling procedures should be made. The Commission considered whether an independent panel be appointed to monitor implementation and recommends at a minimum that the DOJ, in consultation with the DOT and FAA, periodically review the profiling standards and create an outside panel should that, in their judgment, be necessary.
The Commission reiterates that profiling should last only until Explosive Detection Systems are reliable and fully deployed.
The Commission urges that these elements be embodied in FAA standards that must be strictly observed.

Profiling without offending the enemy - worked wonders for the enemy on 9/11/01.

Great strategy that the enemy is celebrating.

Lest we forget:

THE HIJACKERS
FLIGHT 11
Mohammed ATTA (also known as Mohammed al-Amir) Born September 1, 1968 in Kafr al Sheikh, Egypt. ATTA grows up in Cairo with his middle-class family.
Abdulaziz ALOMARI Saudi Arabian.
Walid AL-SHEHRI From Khamis Mushayt in Saudi Arabia.
Satam AL-SUQAMI Born June 28, 1976. Saudi Arabian. Islamic-law-school student at King Fahd University in Riyadh. College roommate of MOQED.
Wail ALSHEHRI Born 7/31/73. Brother of Walid.

FLIGHT 175
Marwan AL-SHEHHI Born in United Arab Emirates on 5/9/78.
Hamza ALGHAMDI Born 11/18/80. From Beljurashi in southern Saudi Arabia.
Ahmed ALGHAMDI From Beljurashi in southern Saudi Arabia.
Ahmed Hassan Al-Qadi BANIHAMMAD (aka Fayez Ahmed) Citizen of United Arab Republic.
Mohand ALSHEHRI Saudi Arabian.

FLIGHT 77
Hani HANJOUR Saudi Arabian Born August 13, 1972.
Khalid ALMIDHAR Saudi Arabian.
Majed MOQED Saudi Arabian.
Nawaq ALHAZMI Brother of a police chief in the coastal town of Jizan.
Salem ALHAZMI Saudi Arabian.

FLIGHT 93
Ziad al-JARRAH Born in Al Marj, Lebanon May 11, 1975.
Ahmed ALNAMI Born December 1977. Saudi, from the town of Abha.
Ahmed Ibrahim AL-HAZNAWI Born October 11, 1980 - Saudi Arabia.
Saeed ALGHAMDI Saudi, from Khamis Mushayt.

Profiling, if used effectively, would have prevented 9/11

Care to elaborate as to how, exactly ?

None of the perpetrators were 'known terrorists' or 'known hijackers'.
All had entered the US legally, and although some visas had expired nobody would have cared at the time.
All had return tickets, bought with credit cards.
All used genuine IDs.
The knives and boxcutters they carried were allowable.
They may also have had mace/pepper spray which would have been caught by the equivalent of a 'secondary', but I don't know if that was enough reason to deny boarding.

And before you descend into ad hominem, I am in favor of profiling (and have said so several times), partly to prevent the highly unlikely possibility of an attempted repitition of 9/11 but mainly to mitigate the current clusterf**k that is TSA screening.

How? They used box cutters. Even if they'd been "profiled", what would have been done differently? The reason they succeeded was the policy of cooperating with hijackers, on the assumption that they won't crash the plane.

Profiling won't solve anything. It's not like there aren't whacko Muslims who aren't Arabs. The terrorists will just use people like John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid and Jose Padilla.

The author of this story is at least as stupid as the airport security he's discussing. I'd planned a point by point rebuttal, but every single paragraph contains a stupid statement.