Call to arms.
Jan 3, 2010, 5:15 pm
#181
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Simply put, that goal is impossible to achieve. Any terrorist organization, given enough time, money, and people, can do damage to any particular flight or airport. Even I, with very little training, can come up with unbeatable scenarios.
It's the same way with my car. Yes, I've got a security system on it. That won't stop someone from stealing it if they're determined enough. Heck, all they've got to do is get a tow truck and they can steal the whole thing. But since most thieves don't have tow trucks, all I'm trying to do is discourage the guy who wants to break into my car enough so that he decides that the risk of detection isn't worth the effort.
That's what airline security should be trying to achieve. Absolute security is a myth. The question really should be: what levels of security are possible, at what cost (both in terms of restriction of liberties as well as money spent)? And then we can have a rational discussion as to whether the benefits of a given level of security justify the cost --- and reasonable people can hold different positions on those questions.
It's the same way with my car. Yes, I've got a security system on it. That won't stop someone from stealing it if they're determined enough. Heck, all they've got to do is get a tow truck and they can steal the whole thing. But since most thieves don't have tow trucks, all I'm trying to do is discourage the guy who wants to break into my car enough so that he decides that the risk of detection isn't worth the effort.
That's what airline security should be trying to achieve. Absolute security is a myth. The question really should be: what levels of security are possible, at what cost (both in terms of restriction of liberties as well as money spent)? And then we can have a rational discussion as to whether the benefits of a given level of security justify the cost --- and reasonable people can hold different positions on those questions.
Jan 3, 2010, 5:22 pm
#182
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SFO/OAK
Programs: *Alliance
Posts: 289
I always want to be one step ahead of the bad guys in new procedures and tech regardless of whether we actually are or not (and if we are not, working to get to the point that we are). I guess that is just how I tend to look at things, always work on doing what you are supposed to well, and then finding the next step in the learning curve before the loonies find it.
Jan 3, 2010, 5:29 pm
#183
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
The "loonies" are far ahead of the TSA on the learning curve - which is why TSA reacts rather than acts.
Jan 3, 2010, 5:49 pm
#184
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
Interesting tone here.
I hear there's a message out on the Web that urges al-Qaeda supporters to rise up and fight these new security measures, like WBI, by bombarding TSA and the airlines with objections claiming they're an "invasion of privacy."
Is that what this is all about?
I hear there's a message out on the Web that urges al-Qaeda supporters to rise up and fight these new security measures, like WBI, by bombarding TSA and the airlines with objections claiming they're an "invasion of privacy."
Is that what this is all about?
You seem to be interested in some fine Florida "beachfront" property or a nice bridge between the Brooklyn and Manhattan boroughs of New York. May I send you a brochure?
Welcome to FlyerTalk.
Jan 3, 2010, 6:31 pm
#185
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Southern California/In the air
Programs: DL
Posts: 10,382
That's the way it is. Welcome to politics in the age of the spineless. A real leader will tell the public what it doesn't want to hear. Chill out and take a breather since terrorism has been, is and will remain a public, ugly nuisance and we'll have to expect to live with the risks of it like we do with road accidents. The best bomb makers are still going to be able to sneak explosives by whatever security measures are put in place. There's no getting around that absent an impossible, totalitarian police state. Expect mitigation of the risk but don't expect it to ever be eliminated.
Jan 3, 2010, 6:50 pm
#186
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
I like to think in a different way, the goal should always be every flight safe from beginning to end, period. Whether that is acheivable or not is not a factor. It is about trying to do the best job possible and always looking to improve what you have for the next evolution of the nefarious intenders (or loonies, whichever you want to call them).
I've used the example of "Con Air" before, half facetiously, but I think it's a valid point of comparison. We could improve the security of U.S. air travel immensely by applying handcuffs, ankle chains, and waist chains to all passengers. Such a system would've stopped the 9/11 hijackers and the Underwear Bomber, and depending on how the chains were applied, might've stopped the Shoe Bomber as well.
Now clearly my suggestion is ridiculous; it's completely socially unacceptable to treat common commercial travelers as convicted felons. But that shows that when we talk about doing, in your words, the "best job possible", there are limits to what we'll consider. And those limits will, inherently, create security vulnerabilities which cannot be closed.
Jan 3, 2010, 6:58 pm
#187
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,082
Jan 4, 2010, 5:15 am
#188
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Even if the person is leaving the country the amount of cash that person has is of no concern of TSA. Most times the declaration form is submitted after the TSA checkpoint.
Seems that TSA even agreed with a court to stop looking for cash.
It is clear that TSA cannot find WEI yet they continue doing things that improve aviation security one iota.
Seems that TSA even agreed with a court to stop looking for cash.
It is clear that TSA cannot find WEI yet they continue doing things that improve aviation security one iota.
Jan 4, 2010, 5:19 am
#189
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: boca raton, florida
Posts: 621
And your brethren screener in STL could not count higher than $4700 in cash/checks and therefore thought it was >$10k? Or was this back when the TSA thought it was illegal to have >$10k as it was "contraband"?
Jan 4, 2010, 5:21 am
#190
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Serious question here ... how far does your "mandate to report the finding of anything you suspect to be illegal" carry? If you incidentally find a pornographic magazine with pictures of very young adults, are you mandated to report that to your superiors on suspicion that the material is child pornography? If you incidentally find a large collection of amateurly labeled DVDs, are you mandated to report that to your superiors on suspicion that the material is a stash of illegally copied DVDs?
I'm wondering how far "anything you suspect to be illegal" really goes. Is it really completely at your discretion? Or have you been given specific guidance regarding certain (suspected) illegal items which, if incidentally found, must be reported? If the latter is true, then you are, in a way, intentionally looking for those items --- even if only in the context of a legal administrative search.
Jan 4, 2010, 5:32 am
#192
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Ron, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're misunderstanding me and not being intentionally obtuse. To clarify: I'm not specifically discussing your game of fetch that comes after one of your associates sees something interesting. I'm talking about the entire search, beginning with one of you opening a bag or looking inside with an X-ray machine, and ending when you -- TSA staff -- stop examining the bag.
When you -- meaning TSA airport passenger- and bag-searching staff -- search someone's bag, you will "intend" to look for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but while you're doing so, you'll also keep an eye out for any of several other things, including drugs, wads of cash, and evidence of credit card fraud or immigrations violations, right? You'll ignore most everything in those bags, but if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll take action, right?
When you -- meaning TSA airport passenger- and bag-searching staff -- search someone's bag, you will "intend" to look for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but while you're doing so, you'll also keep an eye out for any of several other things, including drugs, wads of cash, and evidence of credit card fraud or immigrations violations, right? You'll ignore most everything in those bags, but if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll take action, right?
When you checkpoint staffers find something that looks to you like illegal drugs, your next step will be exactly the same as it would be if you'd found something that looked like a weapon, right? If while "intending to" search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll stop what you're doing and call a supervisor, right?
It would take some serious mental gymnastics to consider that what you and your associates do is a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and not a search for drugs, credit card fraud, immigrations violations, and likely a number of other possible indications of wrongdoing.
Jan 4, 2010, 5:37 am
#193
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Stroud screwed up, I said that when the I first read about the incident. I continue to say it today. Get over it and move on.
Jan 4, 2010, 5:48 am
#194
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
For me to “see something in someone’s bag” I have to have opened it. To have opened it there must have been a reason. The reasons for opening a bag DO NOT include suspicion of the presence of drugs, large amounts of cash, or kiddie porn. The finding of those items is incidental to the actual search and the reasons for it.
OK, clear now?
