I know what a welding gun looks like and I would think it could be as dangerous as a bat or club. Probably the guy just didn't want to check his luggage and thought he'd get away with it. Afterall it's not something he would have needed on the flight http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...um/biggrin.gif

Having said that he could have been kept busy welding up the holes made by the guys with the guns !

Nigel

Here's one for you Americans in this thread.

Here in the UK at BRS and I believe LGW at least, they digitally photograph all passengers at the security check. This is done by a video camera fixed on a mounting, when you board your flight the boarding card scanner throws your picture up on a computer screen. I assumed at first it was a secondary check to make sure the person that went through security actually was the person getting on the flight. Now however I'm leaning towards the thought that the picture is fed into a central computer system and checked against a list of known suspects.

Now would this be deemed to breach constitutional rights ? I expect to get several different answers on this http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...um/biggrin.gif

Nigel

Hello - I've only discovered this board today, (courtesy of "The Dolans" finance talk show on New York's radio WOR710AM) so this is my first posting.

I'm a 41 year old white female and for many years have had my carry on bags physically checked at Heathrow. I've also been questioned by AA staff because I have a stamp for Dubai in my passport. Since Sept 11th every single time I have flown I have had to remove my shoes and have a female security officer patting me down.

Do I mind? No, not at all. Like Beergut, I'm from England and extremely aware of terrorism.

But one thing is implanted in my memory. About 15 years ago a young, five months pregnant Irishwoman was stopped from boarding an El-Al flight at Heathrow airport. Inside her portable radio-cassette player was Semtex. This young woman had had the misfortune to be in a relationship with an Arab guy who was supposedly going to accompany her on the flight, and rebooked to a later flight for 'business reasons'. She had no idea of his plans. He got 25 years and is in a prison somewhere in the UK - I just hope he was never released early for 'good behaviour'.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by godivabrit:
[B] I've also been questioned by AA staff because I have a stamp for Dubai in my passport. [B]

Is it just me or are the only people you see in Dubai apart from Asian workers just Brits < G >

Nigel

Which probably explains why you rarely hear people complaining about their Constitutional Rights when access to a sidewalk is blocked.

In one case, I can explain. Before the flight, my girlfriend wanted to remove the scissors she keeps in her carry-on bag and put it into her checked bag. But she couldn't find it. So she assumed she must have moved it the day before and forgotten. The X-ray found the scissors, deep inside one of the pockets she forgot to look in.

Ed

I would say the terrorists have succeeded on 9/11. They have caused everyone to become security freaks.

Rightly or wrongly, trust is something no longer given freely. Millions of travellers are put through considerable inconveniences to prevent another hijacking.

As a frequent flier, I find it a huge pain to go through the new security processes. There are certainly valid reasons to have the security processes, and I do endure them with a smile on my face, even if I do feel violated time and time again.

The terrorists have succeeded on a magificent scale. No where else in the animal kingdom can a extremely small group of animals leverage such control and fear over such a large group of a population.

The terrorists have affected our daily lives, our outlook on travel, our freedom to travel, our freedom to vacation, our freedom to privacy.

Osama Bin Laden and his terrorists have definitely won the war on terrorism. Look at the airline industry, our federal and state budgetary crisis. Look at all the attention spent on interior plane security, while other softer targets are neglected.

I've never understood this. Why should the terrorists care whether we have to undergo increased security or not? In THEIR minds, I'm sure this has nothing to do with whether they consider themselves to have won or not. I mean, do you really think Osama Ben Laden cares whether we have to go through an X-ray machine?

In their minds, they will have won when we are either all dead, or all devout Muslims.

Ed


[This message has been edited by suranyi (edited 12-06-2002).]

Definitely OBL cares whether you go through an "X" Ray machine or not. Terrorism ensures economic penalties as well as mortal . Create terror and you increase expenditure on security.

Nigel

Terrorism is about destroying a way of life that they don't agree with. The ultimate goal may be death to us all but I am sure they take some pleasure in knowing that they have chiseled away many of our freedoms. Things that we as Americans took for granted pre 9/11.

The events of 9/11 have changed the way we live. These changes will affect us and many generations to come for a long time. Terrorists know this and think this is great.

What concerns me is how far we as a country are willing to take this. Terrorism is something that I believe can never be eliminated. It has been around for hundreds of years and will be around for hundreds of more years. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can win this so called war. Just like we think we can win the war against drugs.

We are fighting an enemy with no rules, no boundaries, and no country we can invade. No one leader that once killed will cause the rest of the structure to self-destruct. Terrorism is something I fear will be around for a long time.

I think there is one way that terrorism could be wiped out but it comes with a heavy price, it comes with the elimination of our personal freedoms. Will the government be so focused on winning this war that they there will come a time when they don't care what rights are violated or eliminated?

I do not consider myself an alarmists, I consider myself a realist. Let the deluge of criticism begin. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...um/biggrin.gif

rawbert

Beergut said:

>Your constitutional rights are of no use >whatsoever if you're dead.

and

>Go on USA , get rid of the " intrusive " >security and have your " rights" chiselled >into your headstone.

These statements are relevant only if you can show that if we keep our constitutional rights, we will die. The truth is more of us will die from auto accidents that from terrorism. We seem to have accepted auto deaths as a cost of personal mobility. Maybe we should make our peace with the fact that terrorism won't be going away soon, take reasonable precautions of course, and maybe try to eliminate some of the reasons terrorism exists.

Exactly!

We should make peace with the fact that some will die as a result of terrorist attacks and try to eliminate/minimize those deaths - but not by infringing on my constitutional rights.

To re-phrase beergut's observation: My life is of no use if my rights have been taken away.

As they say in New Hampshire, Live Free or Die. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif

Rawbert, I thought the same thing come 9-11. I am reminded of a certain lieutenant's defense that "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." One wonders at what point security measures will secure a world no longer worth, well, the security measures.

Living more than the mere life is not possible either if you have no constitutional rights whatsoever.

Osama bin Laden, henchmen and ilk are, to some degree, students (perverted students) of history. They know well that the security and defense expenditures of the Soviet Bloc were so cumbersome that their economies collapsed under the burden. They are hoping to do the same thing to us. Fortunately, there are two things they forget: open market economics (capitalism) have a way to finance not only defense-related expenditures over longer periods of time than planned economies but our system also creates better economic growth to allow us to continue spending for longer periods of time -- more or less sustainably. The other item they forgot is that people work better when free.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited 12-09-2002).]

Ok I'm assuming that you 4 guys above believe that being randomly searched is a breach of your constitutional rights or am I wrong?.

If that is the case then I also assume that you're happy flying with people carrying knives/guns or anything else they may care to bring aboard. Have I got the facts right ?

Nigel

I believe it is a breach of my Constitutional Rights but the Supreme Court will likely disagree with me, should the case ever be brought before them. I also think it's a disgusting violation of my person and belongings without probable cause.

I could care less if people bring knives on board. Or bats. Or box cutters. Or pool cues. I trust the x-ray machines and the magnetometers to keep out the real weapons, namely guns and bombs.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Interesting that while you apparently trust the TSA screeners for nothing else you are trusting them to do something which is beyond the capability of the technology in use.

Guns are probably the easiest weapon to detect on the Xray though the detection rate can be reduced by careful placement and surrounding them with material of similar density.

Explosive devices, on the other hand, can be made of items that look quite routine in a piece of luggage. That is why they are using the sophisticaed 3D MRI-type machines for screening checked luggage and even those are unable to completely clear all bags.

But you already know that, you just choose to ignore it.

When there is a large block of dense, material, do you think the screeners will just pass it because they don't see a gun?

Explosives also give off a different colored signature on the x-ray. The newer CT EDS machines that the TSA is blowing billions of dollars on might have better resolution were it not for the 30% false-positive rates and unknown false-negative rates.

But of course you knew both of these things too and just chose to ignore them as well...



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

The "block of dense material" can be made to look like ordinary items.

The Xray can show organic material in a different color but there are lots of things, other than explosives, that will show up as organic.

The new checked bag screening machines are the best technology we currently have available. They do what no other current technology can do which is to quickly clear large quantities of checked bags which greatly reduces the number of bags which need additional attention.

The X-ray's false-positive rate is considerably lower than the EDS CT machines.

I'm not sure what you mean by "quickly clear large quantities of checked bags" when the false-positive rate has been shown to be 30+% and the false-negative rate is unknown.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Well I recently did my first trip to the US, and having read several FT rants on the subject, was quaking in my shoes as I approached security in ORD. And was really, pleasantly surprised - yes, there was a queue, but it was moving briskly. Staff were polite, even courteous (more so than in the UK) bags were checked thoroughly (though could get very fed up at taking the laptop out of the bag - my one gripe - they either need better experienced staff or better equipment). And then I was through - and for the rest of the trip it didn't get much worse than that. Had one instance where they decided that there were too many metallic objects in my handbag (purse in American), but the lady searching it was friendly and professional. All in all, impressed, especially given how quickly it has all been set up.

But what was surprising was the difference in security on the UK - US sector, where check-in procedures were much stricter, and apparently, FAA mandated. Shouldn't they be doing that everywhere? There's absolutely no point doing it on international flights only.
And I am concerned that this means the US has still not fully learned what airline and airport security is about. But I hope that they have raised the bar enough!

From what I can figure some US citizens accept it as security, others accept it as security but a breach of their rights and other just reject it completely because they reckon it breaches their rights.

As I mentioned earlier the US government is waking up to terrorism but some of the citizens aren't. Anything like the UK and it'll get more streamlined with time.

Nigel

I figure a knife is a weapon and after 911 I'm sure boxcutters are considered so in the US. Football hooligans over here have used them for years as weapons.

Red eye, dark cabin, terrorist/madman with a knife, people asleep. Rather you than me, doesn't take long to slit a few throats.

Don't know about in the US but in the UK security ( including random searches ) are a way of deterring an attempt in the first instance not just stopping one that's planned.

What about my earlier post Spiff ? About being photographed at security and then the picture being viewed at the gate. Also my thoughts that the picture is compared with known suspects on a central database, Would that be a breach of rights ?

One more thing while I'm here < G >. In the case of people that don't agree with the security as it is, whether it's unconstitutional or they just don't like it what would you put in its place ?

Oh and bear this in mind, 10% of the Female prison population in the UK consists of Jamaican drug smugglers. They are paid/threatened/ their families threatened until they agree to smuggle into the UK. They are also told that the UK authorities will just deport them back to Jamaica ( wrong ).

Most of the drugs are swallowed but some is hidden in fruit, tourist trinkets, strapped to the body or just packed in a suitcase hoping not to get pulled at UK customs. Now, what if one is given a bomb instead of drugs ? they're hardly going to unwrap it and check first particularly if it's strapped onto the body.

Nigel

A knife is no longer a credible weapon with which to hijack an airplane. It can kill, but it can kill on the ground, too. A person wanting to kill a few sleeping travelers could just as easily break their necks. Possibly even more easily since the person with the slit throat may run/flail for awhile before bleeding to death, thus alerting other potential victims to the assassin.

Deterrence should be accomplished by good, reliable technology, competent people operating said technology, and the promise of a quick, violent response against anyone stupid enough to try something like hijacking an airplane. "Random security" is an example of the ends not justifying the means. Hassling people without probable cause is not worth the possibility of a microscopic bit of additional safety. At least that's an American (or some Americans') point of view.

I do not welcome the prospect of your photographic security expanding outside the UK. I doubt our US government would discard all pictures taken of passengers who are not criminals and retain only a small database of known criminals.

Bomb mules can be dealt with in exactly the same manner as terrorists: through effective use of technology.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Actually, it's because many of us believe there is a solution that both prevents terrorism and preserves people's rights, privacy, and dignity. We question rash solutions that over-solve the problem while costing insane amounts of money.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

As far as it invading your constitutional rights, that is incorrect. You have the right to make the choice of providing your own transportation or air travel or any other form of travel. You know what goes on for air travel. This is your right. It is by choice you choose air travel knowing what is going to happen or could happen. Speak loudly and someday the government may make changes.

------------------
When in doubt www.PlaneFriends.com

Those facts have been pointed out to Spiff on numberous occasions. Doesn't make any difference. He's going by what he THINKS the Consitution says, not what the courts have determined that it says.

Evidently, your reading skills are right up there with your probability and image processing skills, for you ignored:

"I believe it is a breach of my Constitutional Rights but the Supreme Court will likely disagree with me, should the case ever be brought before them. I also think it's a disgusting violation of my person and belongings without probable cause."



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

If the throat is cut correctly you take away the air supply which renders unconciousness as well as the blood. I recall reading an article about a hand amputation in Iran for a thief. Apparently the knife was slid between the wristbones, tendons cut and the hand popped off in about a second. Professional throat cutters would do a few **** quickly and even if they only managed one they've caused terror again. Sure they want to kill people but it's also about creating fear.
Anyway I'd still rather be attacked by a Man with an arm rather than a knife !!

We'll have to disagree on random security, if it's done right it's more cost effective than searching everybody or having no searches when under threat.

As for photographic security am I right in saying that 7 of the 911 hijackers were known ? Couldn't that have given a chance of stopping at least part of the tragedy ?

Drug ( rather than bomb ) mules are now being " sniffed " by machines at the airport of departure along with the other passengers but some still get through and are stopped by " random security " but others still make it to the UK. More are caught here but no-one knows exactly how many are successful You can't rely solely on technology, experience counts for a lot and the TSA will get that in time.

Had to go through those sniffing machines at the CN Tower in Toronto in July, you have to stand in there for several seconds while you're " sampled ", they also take photographs. Man was I worried about my breath http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...um/biggrin.gif


Spiff, I think that given time security will find its own level but first it needs the experience which means doing things wrong as well as right. Random searches will continue but not on the scale they are now and I expect the US Government is looking at all ways of protecting the public including photography.

People may not like it and may consider it a breach of their rights but it's there to stay in some form or other.

I belive that here in the UK we have one of the highest densities of CCTV in the World. Moves some crime into other areas, helps catch some criminals especially violent drunks and the ones that are definitely up to no good wear caps or hoods so they can't be recognised.

Long story but I was attacked by a bunch of drunk kids this year, they were too young to punch out and they weren't strong enough to even knock me over. Nevertheless I had cuts, bruises and a broken tooth but reckoned it had all been captured on CCTV. The cameras weren't working !!! Technology failed but I still want it there for the next poor bloke these gits go for.On the other hand I know several people who'd have no qualms about slapping a few 15 year olds around http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...um/biggrin.gif


Nigel

I fail to see any descrepancy between your stated position and my summary of your position.

[This message has been edited by LarryJ (edited 12-11-2002).]