News Airport Searches: Too Far or Necessary?

[Pengwuino]

Lately I've seen a few articles popping up talking about how the Israeli's do airport security. I like their idea of profiling people the smart way (for example, an Israeli Arab that travels between Israel and Britain never gets a moment thought but anyone who frequents Syria and other countries that have issues with terrorists will be pulled aside for questioning). I wonder how hard it would be to implement something like that here. Sure, Israel has what, 1 or 2 international airports, but we have far more resources then they do and hopefully with their help, we could have that kinda security here. One article noted that while bombs were going off daily in Tel Aviv, not one hijacker ever made it on board in decades.

I think what is going on now is saying that the terrorists have done their job and done it well. The way Israel does it seems to say "we will actively defend our way of life and your message will never get across".

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but there is a line somewhere.

I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse I promise :), but that didn't answer my question. I asked in your opinion what is the line. Where do you draw the line?

Here, our government is advising me how to dress, and to not wear an underwire bra:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/index.shtm
Screw them, I'll wear whatever damn bra I want.

Important part is bolded.

I would therefore not worry about a lifetime risk that was significantly smaller, or about 1 in 1,000. If I expect to take 200 flights over a lifetime, that's a 1 in 200,000 risk per flight. This is probably around two orders of magnitude higher than the real risk from a terrorist attack.

Interesting. I wonder if you'll take comfort that the odds are remote in that in the event it happens to you.



I'll add my own opinion on this. I prsonally believe the 'extra' security suffers massively from diminishing returns from a security vs inconveneince standpoint. Is the extra inconvenience worth the extra security?

As I've never been in a sticky situation i'd say no. Ask someone who's been in that situation they'd probably give a different answer.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I just went over some of the numbers relating to the x-ray doses from the scanners. It looks like it's not a big deal: at present travel rates I expect about 400 cancer deaths per century, where I might expect 4000 deaths from airplane hijacking and other related terrorism in the same period. (I leave the numbers intentionally vague; the models aren't good enough to support even one significant decimal place.)

So it's entirely an issue of privacy and cost.

 

[Andre]

Anyway, for what it is worth, the 911 disaster could have been prevented by the pilots. At some point, where it was clear that things on board were getting out of control, so should have the pilot(s) let the aircraft seem to be out of control. It requires just a little pushing and pulling the controls in unexpected ways to have all people on board, who are not strapped in, to lose all their interest in their environment, while tumbling all over the place. Sure there would have been panic and wounded but the take over of the aircraft could have been prevented that way.

I did discuss this with commercial collegues and wrote some letters. Most agreed, so I hope that this "last ditch" defence has gained some attention.

 

[Pengwuino]

On the other hand, this is providing some decent comedic relief.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40358601/ns/travel-news/

 

[turbo]

And if you have the body for it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/traveller-wears-bikini-th_n_788127.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Interesting. I wonder if you'll take comfort that the odds are remote in that in the event it happens to you.

I don't follow. Either that's not grammatical or I'm having a long day already. In either case, could you rephrase?

 

[WhoWee]

And if you have the body for it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/traveller-wears-bikini-th_n_788127.html

Could this be an opportunity for toga's to make a comeback?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSyQ3uAu3E&feature=related

The safety pins might be a problem though?

 

[mheslep]

Anyway, for what it is worth, the 911 disaster could have been prevented by the pilots. At some point, where it was clear that things on board were getting out of control, so should have the pilot(s) let the aircraft seem to be out of control. It requires just a little pushing and pulling the controls in unexpected ways to have all people on board, who are not strapped in, to lose all their interest in their environment, while tumbling all over the place. Sure there would have been panic and wounded but the take over of the aircraft could have been prevented that way.

That no doubt would be of use now, in hindsight, with reinforced doors and the knowledge that the hostiles intend suicide versus catching a ride to Cuba at gun / knife point for some coin. I can't imagine any pre 911 crew trying violent aerial maneuvers.

 

[BobG]

I accept a nearly 1% lifetime chance of being accidentally poisoned (and dying from it) without any thought to it (though, to be fair, I eat a lot more often than I take a flight). I imagine there are probably a lot more along those lines that add up to a lifetime risk on the order of a few percent. I would therefore not worry about a lifetime risk that was significantly smaller, or about 1 in 1,000. If I expect to take 200 flights over a lifetime, that's a 1 in 200,000 risk per flight. This is probably around two orders of magnitude higher than the real risk from a terrorist attack.

Interesting. I wonder if you'll take comfort that the odds are remote in that in the event it happens to you.

I don't follow. Either that's not grammatical or I'm having a long day already. In either case, could you rephrase?

It's not quite grammatical, but the meaning is clear.

The odds of being crushed by a toilet bowl falling from a high shelf in the local Home Depot are fairly long. That's the sort of thing that could give a person a persecution complex. It could result in paranoid tendencies.

That's why some people are afraid of flying and drive cross country, instead. If you die in a plane crash, you'll feel like someone has it in for you because the odds against it happening are to slim for it to be mere coincidence. In a car crash, you'll be able to console yourself with the fact that this sort of thing happens to people all of the time.

Of course, I guess if either happened to me, I wouldn't be laughing.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Its hard to use good grammar when I'm posting on a phone. I'll try again at work.

Edit: heh I've jinxed it. I get in and the network is down!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find the entire controversy over TSA checkpoints to be a positive development, even if rather ironic.

Our post 9/11 reactions have included several measures a lot worse than having to walk through a backscatter imaging device. Warrantless wiretaps, US citizens categorized as illegal enemy combatants and denied any legal way to challenge their status, torture of enemy detainees, etc.

And then outrage over one of the most trivial actions taken to protect against terrorists

As a point of clarification, if you recall, I was damned near going out of my mind when this stuff was happening. My position has been completely consistent. And this is offensive.

Just as a point of reference, for those who don't worry about this sort of thing, at what price would you put the right to privacy over convenience? If we could eliminate the need for this for $10 a head by using electronic sniffers, or swabs, would you pay the $10. Do you believe your right to privacy is worth $10? How about $20, or $100. I am honestly curious if you place any value at all on your right to privacy. Does it really matter so little to you?

Also, what level of risk justifies such personal invasions; anywhere that we find one chance in a million of something happening? At what point do you say the odds are too long to worry about it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If it takes rectal and vaginal probing to make sure we're as safe as possible, is that what we do?

 

[xxChrisxx]

Do you believe your right to privacy is worth $10? How about $20, or $100. I am honestly curious if you place any value at all on your right to privacy. Does it really matter so little to you?

This may seem a little obvious but. If you don't like it you don't have to fly. Then you wouldn't be scanned prodded or fondled at all.

Also, what level of risk justifies such personal invasions; anywhere that we find one chance in a million of something happening? At what point do you say the odds are too long to worry about it?

People keep saying this. Yet will not give a clear answer themselves. What is your risk v inconvenience threshold?

Also you need to justify why you think your idea of safety is any more valid than someone with more stringent criteria.

To be honest id make everyone fly totally naked, no one could smuggle anything, the prudes wouldn't fly, the queues would be shorter and if there are any sexy ladies then all the better.

Edit: yeah a finger up the bum stops the last hiding hole, so ill add that to my pre flight checks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that this is a victory for terrorism. I disagree that they have changed us. We have changed ourselves and our national psyche. All the terrorists have done is to take full advantage these changes. We, collectively, no longer know how to make tradeoffs. We have made security, stability, and political correctness the driving factors in formulating the direction in which society should move.

I believe this is only true because people don't understand what they are sacrificing - that which every soldier is sworn to protect, to give his or her life if needed - our liberty. We cheer the soldier whose job it is to defend that which we thoughtlessly toss out with the garbage. What irony.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Cant have liberty if you are dead.

Everyone believes their own views are correct and justified. Yet there must be some compromise when you are using a service along with others whos views differ.

your complaints that its too intrusive are just as justified in people saying its not intrusive enough. So who do we go with? Are you more correct in saying ' you don't have to fly if you think its too dangerous' or the other people who say ' you don't have to fly if you find it too inconvenient'?


You could always become rich and buy your own personal plane, then you wouldn't have to jump through these hoops.

 

[ThomasT]

We're at war with Islamic extemists. That's Muslim fundamentalists. Not Orthodox Christians. Not Zen Buddhists. Not Jews. Not Roman Catholics. Not Protestants. We're at war with Islamic extremists. So, we should profile Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are Arabic. So, it makes sense to profile and detain and search Arabic people.

I have absolutely no problem with this. This is not to say whether or not we're right or wrong in this. It's just the way things are. The survival of Western culture and people is at odds with that of middle eastern Islamic culture. One of them has to go in a global society. I'm hoping that it's middle eastern Islamic fundamentalism.

 

[BobG]

We're at war with Islamic extemists. That's Muslim fundamentalists. Not Orthodox Christians. Not Zen Buddhists. Not Jews. Not Roman Catholics. Not Protestants. We're at war with Islamic extremists. So, we should profile Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are Arabic. So, it makes sense to profile and detain and search Arabic people.

This is not true. Of about 8 million Muslims in North America, there's about an even break down between Arab Americans, Afro Americans, South Asian Americans, and others.

American Muslim Demographics

Or, if you look at the religion of Arab Americans, about 24% are Muslim, while about 63% are Christian. The percentage of Muslims among recent immigrants would be higher, but the majority of Arab Americans were born here. At one time, about 90% of Arab Americans were Christian.

Arab American Demographics

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The county with the most muslims is not in the middle east.

 

[BobG]

This is not true. Of about 8 million Muslims in North America, there's about an even break down between Arab Americans, Afro Americans, South Asian Americans, and others.

American Muslim Demographics

Or, if you look at the religion of Arab Americans, about 24% are Muslim, while about 63% are Christian. The percentage of Muslims among recent immigrants would be higher, but the majority of Arab Americans were born here. At one time, about 90% of Arab Americans were Christian.

Arab American Demographics

Actually, if you look at some of the other statistics in those links, you can gain a hint into why Muslim terrorism is a lot less likely in the US.

Whether Muslim or Arab American (or both), they have higher income levels and higher education levels than the average American. People born in the US, regardless of ancestry, are American citizens and affect American political processes. Currently, there's only two Muslim Congressmen and both were elected to office in the last four years.

In the US, there's a good reason for immigrants to buy into the system and become more interested in becoming integrated into society rather than maintaining close ties to their ancestor's country of origin.

The threat of terrorism from any US citizen is very low - even those with Arab ancestors.

 

[Gokul43201]

This may seem a little obvious but. If you don't like it you don't have to fly. Then you wouldn't be scanned prodded or fondled at all.

Or you could protest what you think is an idiotic policy (not that I know it is). Something wrong with that? If you don't like warrantless wiretaps, you can avoid communication.

People keep saying this. Yet will not give a clear answer themselves. What is your risk v inconvenience threshold?

I thought I gave a pretty clear answer. I will not put myself through the inconvenience of mitigating an r% risk when I routinely think nothing about mitigating the dangers of 1000r% events. If you think it is worth covering the low risk events while ignoring the high risk ones, then shouldn't you be the one that needs to justify such a position?

Also you need to justify why you think your idea of safety is any more valid than someone with more stringent criteria.

I will merely ask the person with supposedly more stringent criteria why they are taking a flight at all, and what personal safety measures they have considered. You are orders of magnitude more likely to die by the airplane have an intended failure than at the hands of a terrorist on board, yet you think it is worth covering the one-in-a-million odds while ignoring the one-in-thousand odds events. I could therefore argue that my idea of safety is more valid than the more stringent person because I am at least being consistent.

Of course, if the stringent person also wears a helmet every time they are climbing stairs, carries a parachute in their carry-on luggage, avoids living in regions of extreme climatic and geologic activity, spends several thousands of dollars on non-standard automobile safety equipment (or avoids automobile travel entirely), never travels outdoors on a rainy day (odds of dying in a lightning strike are worse than 1-in-100,000), has considered a system for surviving asteroid impacts, ... and so on, then I wouldn't have anything to say to them, since they are being consistent in their safety measures, just with a different threshold than mine .

Nevertheless, while I recognize that taking the new air-safety measures does not raise my own safety by any sensible amount, I do recognize that it might (in the best case) provide some additional safety to valuable national/global institutions and against the degradation of large-scale behaviors (to me the significance of 9/11 was more that it helped depress economic activity and spread irrational fear and hatred, than that it killed some small number of people). While I don't personally think these measures provide much more large-scale safety than a host of other less intrusive practices could, that's just my unmeasured opinion.

Some numbers: http://www.livescience.com/environment/050106_odds_of_dying.html

your complaints that its too intrusive are just as justified in people saying its not intrusive enough. So who do we go with? Are you more correct in saying ' you don't have to fly if you think its too dangerous' or the other people who say ' you don't have to fly if you find it too inconvenient'?

As pointed out above, flying in a world without terrorists is much more dangerous than flying in a world without accidental airplane failures. So, the people who get on a flight have already, perhaps unwittingly, accepted that it is going to be dangerous - way more dangerous than having a terrorist blow you up. From my own point of view though, living in a world without backscatter x-ray machines is more intrusive than living in a world without the Patriot Act, Income-based taxation, the National Security Surveillance Act, etc., so I personally don't consider this much of an inconvenience.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Gokul you are the only one who's given a probability of your acceptance. But what physical measures do you believe should be taken as a precaution?

There is also a lot of talk of probability, what governments and airlines and airports (or anyone) asses is risk. The political/PR fallout of a successful terrorist attack on a plane would be enormous. Although the probability is much smaller than an engine blowing up for example (A380 woot), the risk is far higher.

All this is a huge exercise in arse covering. In the even something does go wrong, everyone involved can say we've used every gadget and trick we have.

I still say everyone should be made to fly nude.

 

[turbo]

While everybody is getting scanned and patted down prior to boarding planes, that only addresses the risk of suicide bombers or hijackers. The next plane to crash could well at the hands of somebody who managed to get hold of a shoulder-fired missile (MANPADS). Shoot down a jumbo-jet with a full load of fuel, as it is taking off, and you'd have a spectacular crash. A terrorist's dream.

Very few cargo containers are ever inspected, so our ports are quite porous to compact weapons of that type.

 

[ThomasT]

This is not true. Of about 8 million Muslims in North America, there's about an even break down between Arab Americans, Afro Americans, South Asian Americans, and others.

American Muslim Demographics

Or, if you look at the religion of Arab Americans, about 24% are Muslim, while about 63% are Christian. The percentage of Muslims among recent immigrants would be higher, but the majority of Arab Americans were born here. At one time, about 90% of Arab Americans were Christian.

Arab American Demographics

Ok, so simply profiling Arabic-looking people might not be the answer.

Anyway, somebody seems pissed off (enough to hijack planes and blow stuff up) about something. Who is it that's doing this stuff and why are they doing it? Is it just that some people suddenly decide to 'terrorize' others for no reason? Or is there some rationale underlying the behavior -- whether one agrees with the rationale or not? Is there a set of characteristics that can be identified, or 'profiled', so that airport security personnel aren't wasting time doing random strip searches on 8 year old kids or housewives from anywhere usa?

 

[ThomasT]

The next plane to crash could well at the hands of somebody who managed to get hold of a shoulder-fired missile (MANPADS). Shoot down a jumbo-jet with a full load of fuel, as it is taking off, and you'd have a spectacular crash. A terrorist's dream.

Very few cargo containers are ever inspected, so our ports are quite porous to compact weapons of that type.

I'll bet that the terrorists are considering a coordinated attack of this sort. But who are "the terrorists", and why are they doing this stuff? Are they just crazy people who happen to be, mostly, Islamic and Arabic?

 

[NobodySpecial]

Anyway, somebody seems pissed off (enough to hijack planes and blow stuff up) about something. Who is it that's doing this stuff and why are they doing it?

So far truck bomb attacks on US buildings have come from foreigners that don't like US foreign policy in the middle east and lack the firepower to hit back at nuclear powered aircraft carriers AND white christian americans who don't like the federal government.
That's a pretty difficult cross section set of people to target.

Remember also that targeting is exactly what the terrorists want.

To make it slightly less contentions for Americans consider the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland.
The IRA want(ed) to make it too expensive and inconvenient for the British to remain in Northern Ireland, to do this they needed support both in the community and internationally.

Every time the UK reacted against the Irish community in Britain, with stop and searches, army on the streets, internment etc they convince aimless teenagers in Belfast that they ought to be part of the struggle and provoke supporters in Boston to put their hand in their pockets or pressure their congressman to be anti-British.

It's the same in the US, everytime some muslim person is pulled off a plane or subject to extra searches for 'looking a bit foreign' you build up a resentment among the population. Yes the muslim businessman isn't going to suddenly become a suicide bomber, but he might be more prepared to support a more extreme politician, or be less likely to report somebody as a suspect. Just ask any policeman how easy it was to police LA after the riots.

 

[ThomasT]

So far truck bomb attacks on US buildings have come from foreigners that don't like US foreign policy in the middle east and lack the firepower to hit back at nuclear powered aircraft carriers AND white christian americans who don't like the federal government.
That's a pretty difficult cross section set of people to target.

Remember also that targeting is exactly what the terrorists want.

To make it slightly less contentions for Americans consider the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland.
The IRA want(ed) to make it too expensive and inconvenient for the British to remain in Northern Ireland, to do this they needed support both in the community and internationally.

Every time the UK reacted against the Irish community in Britain, with stop and searches, army on the streets, internment etc they convince aimless teenagers in Belfast that they ought to be part of the struggle and provoke supporters in Boston to put their hand in their pockets or pressure their congressman to be anti-British.

It's the same in the US, everytime some muslim person is pulled off a plane or subject to extra searches for 'looking a bit foreign' you build up a resentment among the population. Yes the muslim businessman isn't going to suddenly become a suicide bomber, but he might be more prepared to support a more extreme politician, or be less likely to report somebody as a suspect. Just ask any policeman how easy it was to police LA after the riots.

Point(s) taken. Maybe we should focus on developing the technology to 'scan' people without them knowing they're being scanned. Safety vs freedom. Comfort vs adventure. I think that most people would choose safety and comfort. So, you provide it without being too 'in their faces' about it.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Do incoming international travelers really exit the airport after deboarding or does the customs area empty out into the general gate area? There's a difference. In other words, the TSA checkpoint isn't to exit the airport; it's to enter the general boarding area.

That's a function of airport design. One way or another, passengers catching a connecting domestic flight will have to go through the security checkpoint.

In fact, that was the secret to the guy in Galteeth's recording. He was not catching a connecting flight, so the solution was eventually to escort him through the boarding area, all the way to the 'outside' of the airport's security area.

That makes more sense. I think you are correct.

Point(s) taken. Maybe we should focus on developing the technology to 'scan' people without them knowing they're being scanned. Safety vs freedom. Comfort vs adventure. I think that most people would choose safety and comfort. So, you provide it without being too 'in their faces' about it.

Warrantless wiretapping..? Why is it necessary to go deeper and deeper into people's lives? I'd think most people would choose reasonable balances along the "Safety - Freedom" and "Comfort - Adventure" ranges.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Here is another video showing a young woman seemingly being harassed by the TSA over some breast milk.

TSA guidelines for breast milk and other liquid medications:

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/formula.shtm

What I find curious is that any liquids, sprays, and other items the TSA says are not permitted on board are then placed in trashcans near the security checkpoints.

Even more curious, why have terrorists not tried to simply detonate explosives at or near airport security checkpoints?

 

[ThomasT]

Warrantless wiretapping..?

That's not the sort of thing I meant to refer to. In fact, the massive increase in monitoring private phone conversations, etc. led to a massive increase in unconnected info. Very confusing.

What I was referring to was some sort of technology that would allow, say, non-confrontational airport 'scans'. Stealthy and subtle, but comprehensive and effective.

Why is it necessary to go deeper and deeper into people's lives?

It isn't, generally.

I'd think most people would choose reasonable balances along the "Safety - Freedom" and "Comfort - Adventure" ranges.

Well, that's what the thread is about. Currently, there doesn't seem to be any way to provide adequate security that isn't, at least somewhat, confrontational, intrusive, and generally uncomfortable for lots of 'innocent' people -- unless 'profiling' is done. But then, what will the 'profiling' be based on?