Better Security? Why Not Implemented?
Aug 17, 2006 | 9:27 am
#16
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,957
Too many stakeholders and competing interests permit only minor changes until either a major crisis erupts or significant time elapses. I like many of Superguy's ideas that were actually in response to the OP on another thread.
Originally Posted by Superguy
Several things.
1. Get rid of SSSS. It's a waste of time and and shows a belieft that the primary screening is ineffective. Just ask Bart what he thinks of it.
2. Have puffers at every checkpoint to check for explosives. Puffer would eliminate the need for swabbing shoes.
3. Shoes remain on.
4. If the WTMD doesn't alarm, you pick up your bags and go on unless there's an issue with one of the below.
5. If the WTMD does alarm, empty the pockets and remove belt (if a big buckle). If it alarms again, then do a hand wand.
6. Pat down areas only to resolve an alarm. This could be an HHMD alarm or something bulging that looks out of place (ie an overstuffed pocket, for example). Shoes only removed if they alarm the HHMD.
7. If the screener can't get a good look on at the bag while it's going thru x-ray, send it thru again. If the alarm can't be resolved, hand search the bag. Clean gloves are a must ... we shouldn't have to ask.
8. If a hand search is needed, do an ETD swab. If there's that much of a concern about liquids, swab the bottle.
9. Screen cargo that gets loaded below deck. This is the stuff the shippers like UPS load on the plane that is NOT screened at all currently.
10. Screen catering, ramp workers, etc. Things bought airside should have been screened in some way previously so as not to cause a problem at the gate.
11. Modify the prohibited items list to things that truly are a threat. Remove little things like little pocketknives (not the big Swiss army knives) that aren't a threat and waste time and resources.
It's not like any of this is rocket science. The above would go a long way to getting rid of security theater and would actually be pretty effective.
1. Get rid of SSSS. It's a waste of time and and shows a belieft that the primary screening is ineffective. Just ask Bart what he thinks of it.
2. Have puffers at every checkpoint to check for explosives. Puffer would eliminate the need for swabbing shoes.
3. Shoes remain on.
4. If the WTMD doesn't alarm, you pick up your bags and go on unless there's an issue with one of the below.
5. If the WTMD does alarm, empty the pockets and remove belt (if a big buckle). If it alarms again, then do a hand wand.
6. Pat down areas only to resolve an alarm. This could be an HHMD alarm or something bulging that looks out of place (ie an overstuffed pocket, for example). Shoes only removed if they alarm the HHMD.
7. If the screener can't get a good look on at the bag while it's going thru x-ray, send it thru again. If the alarm can't be resolved, hand search the bag. Clean gloves are a must ... we shouldn't have to ask.
8. If a hand search is needed, do an ETD swab. If there's that much of a concern about liquids, swab the bottle.
9. Screen cargo that gets loaded below deck. This is the stuff the shippers like UPS load on the plane that is NOT screened at all currently.
10. Screen catering, ramp workers, etc. Things bought airside should have been screened in some way previously so as not to cause a problem at the gate.
11. Modify the prohibited items list to things that truly are a threat. Remove little things like little pocketknives (not the big Swiss army knives) that aren't a threat and waste time and resources.
It's not like any of this is rocket science. The above would go a long way to getting rid of security theater and would actually be pretty effective.
Aug 17, 2006 | 9:45 am
#17
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,957
Originally Posted by HiRandy
Please go back and review every Al Queda attack against US interests.
You will discover that they return to techniques and targets over and over again in almost every case.
Countering that is not fighting the last war, as least week fairly clearly demonstrated. It is averting the next one.
You will discover that they return to techniques and targets over and over again in almost every case.
Countering that is not fighting the last war, as least week fairly clearly demonstrated. It is averting the next one.
Originally Posted by michaelchertoff
Having said that, what seems obvious ("the stated shoe policy") has been a moving target, since it is a proven method of choice for attempting to destroy an airplane, and Al Queda is notorious for returning to old methods that fail until they succeed.
It is one of the ways they use terror to attempt to demoralize the public.
It is one of the ways they use terror to attempt to demoralize the public.
Aug 17, 2006 | 9:55 am
#18
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: MR Gold, DCL Silver, RSSC Silver
Posts: 775
Originally Posted by Djlawman
Entrenched bureaucracy? Incompetence?
The creation of the DHS generally has been a bureaucratic nightmare.
Aug 17, 2006 | 10:02 am
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by ND Sol
Are you related to the suspended FT formerly known as MichaelChertoff? This is from December 16, 2005:
Of course, he was unable to give any statistically significant examples.
Of course, he was unable to give any statistically significant examples.
How about the attack on our embassies and the USS Cole?
Or the attempt to bring down a plane via shoe hidden explosives, followed by an attempt to do the same via disguised liquids?
To me, each and every one of those examples is extremely significant and obvious.
Aug 17, 2006 | 10:13 am
#20
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 72,643
Originally Posted by HiRandy
Is the relationship between multiple WTC attacks, until they succeeded in destroying them, insignificant?
Of course, I am still waiting for an answer as to how the definitely al-Qaeda planned and executed attacks of 9/11 conform to previous attacks / attempted attacks. About how using planes as guided missiles--something dismissed as implausible due to differing from the prior terrorism modus operandi--constitutes continuing the same tactics until they work. If we'd been pro-active and listened to the suggestions that such an attack could be carried out, we might have stengthened cockpit doors and instituted "no cooperation" hijacking policies and averted 9/11. Nope, we kept fighting the last war.
Originally Posted by HiRandy
Or the attempt to bring down a plane via shoe hidden explosives, followed by an attempt to do the same via disguised liquids?
Aug 17, 2006 | 10:16 am
#21
Original Poster
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by bnarayan1511
I thought it was presumptuous to assume that all of us needed educating 
^
^
I used to have that ESP, but lost it a while ago.