The Fallacy of Airport Security
 

Airport Security by the lowest bidder or by government employee is like giving the ability to control dirvers licenses and car registrations to the DMV. Oh, wait, thats the way it is now.

Airport Security allows some of us to 'feel safe.' Look at the reaction after Britain foiled a liquid bomb plot by guys who had no ingredients or ability to make a liquid bomb. We ban liquids from airlines when we what? A) Learn about the Threat or B) make arrests? Why, its B of course. The EXACT same threat existed since before 1/1/2000, much less 9/11, but, the high and mighty government does nothing about it until they arrest a bunch of incompetents for talking about it.

Why do we remove our shoes? Because someone tried to light their shoe on fire with a lighter. Do we ban lighters? No, that takes another 3 years. what happens when we discover someone has mercury batteries and creates an explosive with the innards of an aklaline or lithium battery? Guess we'll ban batteries then. Eve though the actual threat exists now.

What was different about the liquid explosive threat on Aug 9 from aug 10? Nothing. They simply arrested a few guys. So, what was the security reaction to the liquid threat from Sept 14, 2001 through Aug 9, 2006? If you think about it, all that happened was they made an arrest public. The actual threat was no different.

Physics and intelligence has nothing to do with airport security. We can stop someone from bringing a metal gun or knife board. Thats about it. carbon fiber blades are not easily detectible. New hard phenolics are the same way. you need to detect guns from shell casings, not from guns ultimately.

Explosives? Binary explosives are virtually impossible to create on an airliner. Dangerous fumes are another issue however. You can kill dozens with poisonous fumes easily. Yet, all manner of liquids are allowed. Too many people objected the liquids ban. so, deadly weapons are allowed because too many people objected.

How about insulin? How many people could be incapacitated or killed with a syringe and an simply an air injection? You may not get control of an airliner, but when it lands with everyone dead, thats a pretty good statement.

Security is reactive and just plain silly in the country. It is 100% about 'feeling safe,' with checks and searches designed to create just enough inconveniece to make people 'beleive' that it is effective.

Security is about politics and politicians not wanting to have people bleieve they are not safe. It has nothing to do with actual security, except from ammunition and metal knives. Everything else is a crap shoot.

The solution is clear. Do away with silly no-fly lists that have not captured a single terrorist but which act to inconvenience only law abiding citizens. Do away with random selectee checks and searching old women and infants. Lets focus on the threat and not on the politics of it. That would require that the bureaucrats actually make an intelligent assessment of what the threat actually is - everyone is not the threat, devoting scare resources to screen everyone makes no sense. Unfortunately, they do not want to be wrong, so they waste effort screening everyone.

Well said .... other than the solution seems to imply something that is not the case. That is, the government already devotes "scarce resources" to screen some people more than others. (Some of the haraSSSSment being done is cover to engage in "scarce resources" allocation on a basis that would be more blatantly illegal in the US and be strategically more counterproductive if not masked in the way currently being done). The government also spies on some people in America and elsewhere more than others, which is the definition of allocating resources to screen some people more than others. Better to have an improved baseline, which is something we don't have, at airports -- beginning with better, more comprehensive explosives detection of one and all going onto the plane.

As I've said before, we have to have strict security measures--there are millions of votes at stake!

Deleted

Hey, there are signs of intelligent discussion...

I believe that the root of the problem is that politicians are in charge of the details of security rather than simply setting policy. Exhibit A would be the congressionally mandated lighter ban. In the end, security is about politics and economics (read Schneier) but is much more effective if the politicians restrict themselves to a and b above and leave c and the operational details to the security experts. Unfortunately, as BNA_flyer points out, there are a lot of votes at stake and meddling has proved irresistible to the politicians and political appointees who run the show. Getting them out of operations and restricting them to high level policy would improve the situation greatly. Not bloody likely though.

Michael

YES!! intelligent discourse on security. Thanks for intelligent comments. This IS a discussion we need to have.

If we are to make sense of airport security, we need to be in a position to make the intelligent decisions about cost, benefit and likelihood of threat. A free society is designed to have the facts needed to make that choice intelligently. We may not end up with a much different situation than we have now, but at least we will have confidence in the choice made, accepting of balanced choices and understanding the final choices made. The

I'm not advocating NOT searching infants and old folks, but, advocating not directing resources to a low threat until the threat increases or changes. And change it will. We are turning the terrorists into a huge boogeyman, with super powers, when in reality they are pretty incompetent adversaries who need to get lucky to be successful. Lets not lose what we are in order to be safe from medievel murderers who spend their entire lives thinking ways to kill us.

Doing security with the TSA and DHS, and giving them authority over us is the mistake. The entire security apparatus from a cop on the corner to the head of DHS and Justice needs to remember for a moment who they work for; they do not work for the President or the collective 'we,' they need to see that they work for you, and me, and the people who they treat like their enemy.

Deleted

While this seems rather benign, what you describe is quite scary.

When you found out that the liquid was not prohibited, did you make an effort to return the item to its owner? If not, was the owner of the bag notified of the removal of the tequila and compensated for the government's taking of property, or were they to assume that it was stolen?

Did the person who packed the bag do anything wrong (illegal) to justify the government's taking of the tequila?

Deleted

You are making the assumption that the person should know that this is wrong. I think your assumption is not correct and shows one of the big problems. These rules are not logical. Anywhere else in the world, no one would think that bringing an unlabed bottle of booze in checked bags is a bad thing. In fact it is an absolutely normal thing. Only in America (and the UK I suppose) and only amongst people who travel or watch too much news are people aware that this *might* be a bad thing.

This is like when I went to the airport for my first flight to the US since the baggies started (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=612327). I didn't know the new rules. I tried to ask why I had to put my toothpaste in a plastic bag, which then went back into my carry-on bag. It is completely illogical and I would never have come to the realization on my own to do such a thing.

However flyers in the US now somehow accept this as thing 'way things are'. It's pretty disgusting that people so quickly accept the theft of their freedoms for no good reason.

Deleted

I read the entire thread and nowhere in my post (please re-read it) did I criticize your decision on the spot. What I criticized you on is that you wrote above that the person did something wrong. Notice that was the part I quoted.

Or was your sentence simply a grammatical or context error?

Deleted

Nope. Not at all. Sounds like you had a knee-jerk reaction to my comment which was a general statement about TSA practices at checkpoints. I thought that was obvious. But if not, I apologize for not being clearer.

However as to my main point, again, for the third time, my rant is about your statement that the person did something wrong by having an unlabeled bottle of booze in his checked bag. Can you understand that point?

Deleted