SleepOverGreenland

It is not about effectiveness. All is about giving a show to calm down people. If effectiveness would be rated to be very poor (as it is, of course), many people would be highly concerned (again) and may stop travelling (again).

Occasionally travellers have no problem with all the stupidness in screening and bans. Those travellers feel queasy at the airport and feel a bit safer, when getting screened thorougly. And those travellers are the ones, who would be okay and probably would even prefer more bans.

flysurfer

Correct.
Every pax is guilty until proven innocent.
Unfortunately, that proof can't be provided, because - despite many years of training and investing billions of dollars - neither our screeners nor their equipment are capable of distinguishing water, toothpaste or shampoo from "ready-to-mix" explosives. Since screeners in FRA and MUC take all liquids from every U.S. bound pax, "we expect a 80 year old woman to use her bottle of nasal spray to blow up the plane" is the high level of competence our governments have come up with five years after 9/11 and more than 35 years after pax screening became mandatory at airports. These are our tax dollars and security fees at work. ^ Well done, and certainly in line with all those other great political achievements. And as usual, the public seems to be quite happy about it. Guess I'll better hit the autobahn today, before they introduce a mileage toll.

Jossijoe

Well I have to agree nobody is guilty till proofen, but over here the best proof you will get is a blown up plane.
I think in this case certain peolpe are more supicious then other, also by their looks. So if they have nothing to hide whats wrong by asking certain peolpe to please take two minutes time for a check so lives may be saved? Yes people from your faith are more likely to blow up a plane.

andyZRH

You aren't serious about simply profiling people based on their looks, are you?

Do you know a reliable method to determine a person's faith?

If you are serious about profiling, then you have to do it El Al-style, which means, among other things, that every passenger is questioned.

LH_Fan

^ ^ ^ to this as well as to ulev's and weero's posts on profiling. Sometimes the discrepancies between what should be obvious and what IS obvious are amazing ...

weero

Yes, I indeed did because you always are so straight to the point - so basically
it's you fault ulev that I missed the message . You terrorist until proven
innocent...
Please tell me that you are being sarcastic about this .
Because I agree with one thing the over-cautious people and the pro government
folks here claim: the threat is out there. Vicious creatures plot on hurting planes
and pax. So a measure being effective is of utmost importance for true air transport
service. Where asking people if they are terrorists and if they have H20 that can
be upgraded to Nitropenta is reducing security as it takes away resources
from proper screening.
If this was a silly game then today's methods would be a mere nuisance. Not
useful but also not terrible. But again all these measures - such as looking at
shoes in an x-ray machine - how does plastic explosive look different than a
shoe sole? Why not use a tanning goggle to look at it? - do hurt security.
The time between one imbecile shoe bomber making an attempt and many
imbecile shoe bombers making many attempts could have been used to install
machines that find explosives. Not hiring troops that cluelessly look at shoes.
The measures in place do not make air traffic much less safe than it was before.
But they make it much less safe than it could be had the money been spent
on tools and not funding silly power games to make the TSA omnipotent.

andyZRH

Yes, the threat is out there. But IMHO the real threat is totally blown out of proportion by
a) sensationalistic media
b) by politicians/government entities who see the terrorist threat as a great opportunity to push through surveillance tools and policies they would otherwise never get away with

I totally agree with you. E.g. the threat of liquid explosives on airplanes has been known for at least 10 years now. If this time would have been used to develop and install the necessary equipment to detect such explosives without creating security lines out the door, we wouldn't have to deal with silly "security measures" like banning water from planes.

SleepOverGreenland

Oh, I am sarcastic on this topic.

But, how would you messure effectiveness? Number of terrorists catched upon screening? Number of bombs identified? Or more recent, total water purloined from innocent pax per day worldwide [in million gallons]?

They probably catch a couple knifes, scissors and nail files per day. And may find this effective. But probably all of those confiscated arms came from forgetful guys and nobody was really a terrorist.

So at the end of the day the question is, how many hijacks and bomb attacks have been prevented.

But (!!!), over cautious people still fly and may feel almost protected. They are not interested in real measures, as long as they are in good faith of effectiveness. And the white house preacher keeps them in their good faith.

flysurfer

After 9/11, how many would-be terrorists have been arrested, tried and found guilty as a result of effective airport security measures?

The infamous shoebomber wasn't cought at the airport, even though he got an IDB on the first day. Which actually proves the ineffeciveness of the system.

weero

Unfortunately all you say is true andyZRH

What I meant - as froth on the turbid cappucino we get served - is that all
those dangerous, expensive, and authorities that cut into our civil rights do
not add a dime to our safety.
They reduce it on several accounts

• shooting nervous people who speak
  Spanish. After all "la bamba" is sufficiently close to "bomba"
• they take away drugs from ill and frail people to watch them dehydrate and
  perish on board
• they make it impossible to get a neutral, supranational assessment of their
  effectiveness as they need to operate in disguise
• the bear the chance to go awry. The past showed that governmental bodies
  which are no held publicly accountable for their actions become dangerous
  very quickly. Claiming that Homeland Security is designed 'good' wherea
  KGB was meant to be 'evil' is ignoring the fact that they served the same
  'good' cause initially but had not been supervised.

The grotesque shoe carnivals and the ban on eye drops shows that the 'going
out of control' has already started. Also proclaiming that someone who sings
'my water bottle is a bomb' as an enemy of the state is incredibly similar
to what all the secret services of the dark past did.

Actually YES.
How many terrorists (real ones with weapons, not hair bleach) have been arrested
at security checkpoints.
How many bombs have been retrieved from passengers' luggage.
If fear that the answer will be zero in a very good approximation. I only recall
the news that one Frankfurt police officer with her gun in her backpack has been
caught and one firearm in Scandinavia. I never read of any bomb retrieved ever.
But we can't say that as we are not told the details. After all we are terrorist
suspects ...

Jossijoe

Well I AM actually saying that. Why should a person thats 75 be checked the same way then a male with a saudi passport. Yes lets face it, certain people are bigger threats then other and that partly because of the look. I am not saying this is tottaly foolproof but it forsure helps, and by cutting the search time on small threats they can search people that fit the profile more.

LH_Fan

Look, if we've all learned one lesson it's that Al Qaida aren't stupid. How difficult do you think will it be for them to find terminally ill WASP husbands/fathers/wifes/mothers who are desperate enough that they will, in a final act of support for their family and against payment of a considerable amount of money, sacrifice themselves? How difficult will it be to brainwash some WASPs and turn them into deadly weapons? I could go on ... Bottom line is, as others have put it more eloquently, profiling will only work if everybody is subjected to it (and I'm merely pointing that out, I'm not advocating profiling here).

ulev

And if we all want to be real safe, according to those standards why don't we suggest that everybody with a somewhat darker skin should be excluded from flying for good?

Automatic skin color measurements at the airport!

This would probably exclude half the population of Israel from flying. But what the heck. When it only improves the safety of air travel.

Jossijoe

Well i have never said any system is 100 percent foolproof, if they really want they can do it and hide everything on an old person. But come on so lets just cut all the screening bec. they can do it if they want to. We gotta stay realistic. Everyone has a right to fly even Bin ladins father. But by checking the bigger threats better we can lessen the chances and hopefully make it harder for them.
I have nothing against anybody.
If one goes to a football game they will search fans that look agressiv and not a 80 year old for firecrackers.
By a illegal demonstration called by skinheads in a town everyone with no hair will be considered a bigger threat.

Yes this is profiling and on flights we should do that as well. Guys wake up People are trying to kill !!!

andyZRH

With all due respect, it seems you're still missing my point. Some superficial "profiling" based on looks, skin color, clothing, age, etc. just won't cut it! It's very likely that such a system would actually reduce the level of security we have now. If you want to improve security by profiling, you have to go all the way, El Al-style, as I have mentioned before.

Certainly, it can be done, El Al has been doing it for years, but it comes at a high cost. You need intelligent, educated, well-trained professionals who question and observe passengers in order to find out if something seems "wrong" and warrants further examination. Training costs and salaries won't be cheap, not to mention the opportunity costs of all the passengers who need to be at the airport much earlier than before.

Besides the fact that it would probably take years to implement such a system on a global scale, I strongly doubt that the actual risk warrants it.


BTW, have you met TierFlyer yet? I'm sure you two guys would get along well!