Superguy

It was 4th all time last I checked (according to a mod). Probably a record for this particular forum within FT though.

robvberg

studentff, I understand how the lighter ban came into being but we are talking about the security implication. The majority of lighters are not even a threat but you have to try and make bans logical, as much as possible. It is the law abiding citizen that always has his rights restricted. Why can't you drive 100 mph and drunk if you don't cause a wreck? because not everyone can do it and by having the rule it allows some chance to stop the person out to do harm. If you ban the lighters then a terrorist has to decide of the risk his operation failing because someone gets lucky and sees the lighter outweighs other options or he decides success is remote. think back to teh millenium bomber. No one usually was inspected crossing on the ferry but he was. Also since we know that people still get through security with guns, do we not ban guns on flights? the reason we ban them is that because if they are banned and checked for it is impossible to assume you will succeed. If there is a chance to be caught then a whole cell can be rolled up. Again all that a true security system can do is make the chance to succeed hard to quantify. If someone really wants to do serious damage he will not waste his effort unless he thinks he can succeed.

and on medicine and baby formula. Both of them are chanced to be inspected and baby formula is the least likely to be a consistency of the various explosives. Also even the palestinian or tamil female sucicide bombers have not carried out an attack with a baby. A new mother sucicide bomber is highly, I repeat highly unlikely as an attacker. I don't understand your contention that we should have no rules unless all possible items are covered.

again I do not agree with many of the rules but saying we should have none is nonsensical.

Cholula

Fourth sounds right. This thread with 447K views is far and away the leader. And this thread with 357K views is in 2nd place.
But you're also right that this thread is a record for the TS/S Forum.

Now returning you to the debate at hand......

studentff

Competent airport security using just metal detectors and x-rays can almost certainly detect guns with a greater than 90% success rate. Banning guns thus makes sense because it 1) enhances security, and 2) is enforcable. Edit: In addition, the number of harmless everyday items carried by passengers that can be mistaken for guns is vanishingly small, so the gun ban doesn't create a torrent of false positives.

Security cannot detect lighters or toothpaste with anything near that success rate (either in the carry on bag or on one's person according to reports on FT). My position is that banning an object that will have a very low detection rate by security does nothing but annoy law-abiding citizens and reduce their respect for security. Pick an arbitrary "low" detection rate--60%, 50%, 10%, whatever--the effect is the same.

Banning everyday household items (toothpaste, water bottles, the inevitable clothing ban, etc.) or instituing silly requirements like freedom bags also makes it harder to distinguish real bad guys from annoyed travelers because it encourages annoyed travelers to engage in bad-guy-like behavior. (smuggling shampoo)

Terrorist deterrance by random searches for real threats is a separate issue. In the case of the millenium-bomber, a random search caught him at the border with an actual threatening object. Using a random search to catch the lighter or toothpaste of someone who has no ill intent is not a "big catch." "Catching" a guy making protected speech about his opinion of the security theater described above (i.e., the OP) is not a "big catch."

GeoGirl

When you start talking about deterrence, then you have to think about deterrence theory. In sociology, deterrence theory says that in order for deterrence to actually work, you must have three key components: certainty, severity, and celerity (or swiftness). So, theoretically, in order to deter criminals from committing criminal acts, they must believe that they WILL be captured quickly and that the punishment WILL be severe.

In our current system, we have none of these elements-
The punishment for crimes in this country is anything but swift- so celerity is out.

And severity? If you attempt to take contraband on-board, it will be taken away from you. Your punishment? No shampoo for you! Or, your inconvenience and expense in procuring skin care products at your destination.

Finally, with random searches, you might get caught or you might not. How many banned items were taken aboard during the total liquid ban? Seems like I've seen a bunch of posts here saying it's happened a lot. However, on the reverse side, for a terrorist, it might be the lack of certainty FOR getting stuff on board that might deter them, simply because, as someone previously stated, the lack of certainty in achieving their goal might be enough to deter.

I'm just not sure how much deterrence factors in, at least theoretically.

Back to packing for tomorrow...

GG

aircraft engineer

make sure you have a little tape recorder that's "ON" so what gets done will document. I don't tempt things much because usually i'm a little bite late and where I'm going there is only 1 flight per day and not every day

I agree with most of your assessments - EXCEPT for 1 - they should allow FACTORY SEALED containers (liquid, whatever) - I mean it's absolutely silly to ban CANNED soda pop unless I somehow have access to the canning plant. "Bottles" OTOH, can be emptied and refilled without breaking the plastic sela (or those sealing caps can be obtained) Liquor bottles can't be opened without exidence. So I wonder if my LUNCH will upset them?

ND Sol

And we might be able to engineer flying monkeys. Liquid explosives are down the list of possible terrorist scenarios on planes. Why can't the TSA look at a risk managment aspect to this? As you say, the "terrorists have looked at risk/cost/reward of your 'plan'," so why can't the TSA?

Nobody knows exactly how many cargo hold bombings or how they were activated? That is a scary thought given how much money has been spent in the area. And we have seen only one day on which commercial airplanes were hijacked and used as guided missiles into buildings and that was over five years ago. So that must be difficult as well, so we don't need to worry about it.
I have to disagree strongly with this. The present system is Kabuki security. Metal detectors, x-ray machines and explosive detectors are what are needed. SSSS, shoe carnival, baggie carnival, etc. are white noise.


Before Congress passed the law in question, the TSA must have thought they were able to distinguish lighters since torch lighters have long been prohibited.

Are you also saying that there is nothing that I can take on board that I can light with a match and would burn hot enough and steady enough to light an explosive? How about magnesium as a possible example.

GUWonder

I'd make sure that's in compliance with state law before doing that. That's why I recommend "eyewitnesses".

robvberg

actually you are wrong in both cases. The published and unpublished success rate on guns through security is amazingly low. There have been post TSA attempts that I think were in the a couple of catches out of 12+ airports tested. The reason is that there has always been a trade off between convience and threat. It is still very hard, even with the distinctive shape of a gun to run the scanners and not miss things. People day dream and make mistakes, but again the chance even 10% is what the terrorist has to plot against. Even 10% is huge and that is why the 9-11 hijackers very carefully did not violate the rules at that time. Some were looked at because of knives but they were within proscribed legnths. Actually a single gun is not that big a threat, especially now with the rule being pilots don't obey their demands.

Lastly the millnium bomber was not caught because of any random search or alert. He was caught because he acted nervous and was out of place. Just as MKE was out of place in a different way, when he had marked up his baggy. I don't do this for a living anymore but I have more time to keep current then many military and police CT personel. You can argue about any specific rule and I disagree with many. But someone has to make policy and after some terrorists worked on liquid bomb ideas. that is a bigger threat than someone putting in a bomb in the hold with an altimeter based detonator.

Wally Bird

Of course they do*. You think this stuff goes unnoticed ?

http://aviation-safety.net/database/....php?Event=SEB although it includes bombs in a few other places too.

* OK, excluding the Soviet Union and China who until quite recently didn't tell anyone.

robvberg

look theory is not complete and you know it. Here is not a case of detering an attack because they are willing and in some cases want to die. You deter the attack because the planners only have limited resources and do not want to waste them. Therefore you make sure you plan for maximum success. Therefore you will make plans that do not break rules if possible. Also you do not need to through every person against the wall for a violation. But if you see someone who fits a profile and becomes nervous or distant when you take something. They will look more closely. Just as MKE doing something unusual caused several people to be involved. Unusual stands out.

ND Sol

Then why hasn't the "liquid bomb" threat been given more importance since it actually accomplished an explosion a decade ago as opposed to the London one, which really appears to be a non-event vis-a-vis domestic US travel?

robvberg

actually that is not complete. There are other planes that have disappeared that they are unsure what the cause was. I mentioned the main ones that we know for sure, to dispute that if it was easy to do and the most serious risk. then many more of these bombings would have occured. Again my arguement is that it is not easy to do even if you include the attacks that have not been attributed.

fiedler77

This is not the first time someone has said something along the lines of "I've seen liquid explosives that look just like a water bottle and will bring down a plane". However, no one has yet said if those will, or will not, alarm the ETD. Nitro certainly would (and would be about impossible to carry as well), but what about the others that are known? The TATP discussed (in the press) in relation to the London plot involved acetone and sulfuric acid, which should also be easily detectable.

It's not looks to the eye that should matter, it should be looks to the ETD.

jon

bocastephen

No, I don't agree. If you want to live with your fears, please feel free to move to a country that has a Constitutional policy or tradition of placing safety, security or compliance ahead of freedom and liberty. This country shouldn't be it.

Oh come on. This is one of the most ludicrous things I have read on FT since someone said we should drill for oil in my Everglades. Terrorists used freedoms to knock down the WTC?? How about coming back to reality. Terrorists used boxcutters and an out of date aviation policy that required compliance with hijackers in order to seize control of these aircraft. In addition, they used a loose and poorly run visa and immigration system to overstay their visit. They also got lucky with a stack of intelligence failures that contributed to their slipping through our fingers before launching their deadly deed. I don't recall them using "freedom" or "liberty" or "privacy" to manage their operation.

Sorry...now *this* is the most ludicrous thing I read on FT. The ACLU empowers terrorists??

So people shouldn't express their personal opinions at airports? Do you agree that TSA screeners should confiscate toiletries labeled "F.C.U.K" (after the UK retailer)? Should someone be detained because their TShirt has Arabic lettering? How about arresting people who have "Impeach Bush" on their TShirt?

Might I suggest you take a trip to Washington DC and avail yourself of the opportunity to visit our National Archives and have a looksee at our Constitution and Declaration of Independence while also perusing the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and George Washington, among others. Men who knew that Liberty was worth defending more than their lives. You might learn something from their experience and knowledge.

Like, for example, not peeing on MY liberty because it interferes with your personal need to feel safe (while not actually being safe).