The Fallacy of Airport Security
Oct 12, 2006 | 9:12 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BDL area, also SC
Programs: AA Gold for Life; AOPA;
Posts: 3
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.
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.
Oct 12, 2006 | 9:19 am
#2
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
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.
Last edited by GUWonder; Oct 12, 2006 at 10:50 am
Oct 12, 2006 | 10:25 am
#3
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ?
Posts: 7,544
Originally Posted by VikingDriver
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.
Oct 13, 2006 | 10:25 am
#5
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: BOS
Posts: 781
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
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
Oct 13, 2006 | 11:49 am
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BDL area, also SC
Programs: AA Gold for Life; AOPA;
Posts: 3
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.
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.
Oct 13, 2006 | 4:34 pm
#8
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,487
Originally Posted by Bart
During a bag check, one of my TSOs discovered a bottle of cleaning solution but was unsure if it was a hazmat. He also discovered an unlabelled bottle filled with a brownish colored liquid. I notified the GSC for a determination. The GSC determined that the cleaning solution was permitted because its label did not mention flammability or other warnings other than it being an irritant. I didn't have a problem with her decision. As for the unlabelled bottle, however, she began to open it so she could smell it. I stopped her by asking her if she knew what it was. I then explained that it could be liquor or it could be a toxic cleaning solvent (seeing as how there was one labelled bottle in the bag; the passenger may have been trying to sneak a cleaning solution that would otherwise be prohibited by simply removing the label). She thought about it for a moment then decided to prohibit the bottle. (I also mentioned that I always wear gloves whenever I handle anything inside a passenger's bag and hinted to her with a wink and a smile that she could always avail herself to our gloves whenever called upon to make a hazmat determination.) I later found out that the airport police determined that the bottle contained tequila; they opened it up and smelled it. 
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?
Oct 13, 2006 | 9:09 pm
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
Posts: 34,337
Originally Posted by Bart
What the person did wrong was place an unlabelled bottle of liquid inside the checked luggage.
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.
Oct 13, 2006 | 9:38 pm
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
Posts: 34,337
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?
Or was your sentence simply a grammatical or context error?
Oct 13, 2006 | 9:56 pm
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
Posts: 34,337
Originally Posted by Bart
"theft of freedoms" wasn't directed at the decision to remove an unlabelled bottle of liquid? Hmmmm. Whatever you say.
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?