Full body scans for US bound flights

[Tobias Funke]

arildno, we get it. You don't like Muslims and probably any religious group. But some of us would prefer not to sacrifice our decency and humanity for a one in two million chance of dying on a plane instead of a one in one million chance.

Somebody (maybe you or Cyrus) used Israel as an example of effective safety measures! Yeah, look at what it got them (or is continuing to get them I guess). A rocket attack every week and a war with no end. I'd rather not end up like that.

And as a preemptive measure, this post is inappropriate and off topic. Saved you some time, Cyrus.

 

[BobG]

There is not much that can be done other than
- improving the Western image among Middle east population
- subduing the terrorists through force
- increasing the defenses
at the same time, in parallel.

I believe #1 (Middle east culture and religion) is the source.

One other thing that can be done is to improve Muslim residents view of their own future in the country they currently reside in. The most effective terrorists are those that already reside in the country they're committing terrorist acts in. Crossing borders to commit terrorism can work, but it's not the most effective method.

That's one key reason Islamic terrorism hasn't been as prevalent in the US as in other countries. They come much closer to sharing the same opportunities for a better future that other Americans have - as opposed to congregating in areas of poverty that they have little chance of escaping.

The US has had civil rights problems in the past that were resolved with less violence than ethnic clashes in other countries -even if not resolved perfectly. In fact, civil rights struggles in the US show you don't have to do a perfect job resolving ethnic strife as long as you're making a good faith effort to resolve them.

The US also faces future ethnic strife with the Latino population - especially if illegal immigrants become clustered in areas of poverty with no hope of creating a better future. In other words, some day the US could face a bigger terrorist threat from within our own borders than from Middle East terrorists.

Of course, having handled civil rights problems in the past is a plus for handling immigrant problems of the future, but it's still a more realistic threat than Islamic terrorism.

 

[arildno]

There's a functional fallacy to using profiled screening - mainly because the number of terrorists is so incredibly small.

There were 809 million airline passengers in 2008. (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2009/bts019_09/html/bts019_09.html ).

I can't find a statistic for the number of passengers denied boarding because of luggage or personal screening, I think it's safe to say that over 99.9% were screened unnecessarily regardless of their appearance (there's no way anywhere close to 809,000 passengers failed screening). If a certain ethnic group is twice as likely to be a terrorist as a different group (and the 99.9% were anywhere near accurate), then 99.8% of screenings for that group would be wasted, vs 99.9% for the less risky group.

Compared to all screenings, there's virtually no improvement in efficiency by limiting screenings to certain profile groups. And the number of terrorists is so small, there's almost no disadvantage to choosing terrorists that don't fit the traditional profile. This isn't traditional warfighting tactics where you need a high number of successes and a high success rate for the attacks to be successful. It's a tactic where a 99.999999% success rate by us is a total and humiliating failure (8 terrorists a year successfully boarding a plane).

Of course it is.

Suppose that the vast majority of terrorists are Inuits, that 1 in 10.000 Inuits perform acts of terrorism.

Suppose that for the population at large, there is only 1 in 10 million of non-Inuits who perform acts of terrorism.

By increasing the surveillance a thousandfold for Inuits, while keeping the surveillance/scan level constant at the other group, we will vastly increase our success rate at catching terrorists.
In this case, we will avoid attacks involving burning, rancid seal oil, and that would be a definite relief, at least olfactorially..

For finding a needle in a haystack, you need something that cuts across the board with as little inconvenience as possible. I think the full body scans will meet that objective at least as effectively as screening luggage (similar accuracy, similar time cost, personnel cost, etc). There's privacy issues, but I find it hard to consider full body scans to be as severe an invasion of privacy as random people in airports ogling attractive, fully clothed people in airports (in fact, the latter would probably cause more discomfirt than the full body scan where your "transparency" is known to you more intellectually than emotionally).

Again:
What is the necessary amount of screening time here in order to test ALL?
And what are the costs we need in order to keep delays within acceptable boundaries?

If there is a glitch somewhere in these calculations, that prevents full screening of all passengers, then, NECESSARILY, sampling procedures MUST be implemented.
And those ought to be as rational as possible, i.e, by singling out identifiable high-risk groups.

 

[arildno]

But some of us would prefer not to sacrifice our decency and humanity ..

People brainwashed into worshipping a serial rapist and mass murderer is thereby deprived of common decency&morality development by their own parents.

Those in active denial of these features, like yourself, are already soiling your own pants bigtime..

 

[Tobias Funke]

I guess that settles it. Somebody's gone off the deep end...I'm not a big fan of religion either. But I have a few Muslim friends and Christian relatives. They're not active child rapists or blood drinkers. You're claiming to look at this logically, but you're clearly biased.

 

[arildno]

I guess that settles it. Somebody's gone off the deep end...

Indeed.
People on the loony left, like yourself.

Before you reply, please write an essay on "how child molestor adoration produces positive morality development in an individual"

 

[Cyrus]

arildno, we get it. You don't like Muslims and probably any religious group. But some of us would prefer not to sacrifice our decency and humanity for a one in two million chance of dying on a plane instead of a one in one million chance.

Somebody (maybe you or Cyrus) used Israel as an example of effective safety measures! Yeah, look at what it got them (or is continuing to get them I guess). A rocket attack every week and a war with no end. I'd rather not end up like that.

And as a preemptive measure, this post is inappropriate and off topic. Saved you some time, Cyrus.

What does rocket attacks on Israel have to do with their airline? Could you stay on topic.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Back to topic or we lock

 

[BobG]

Of course it is.

Suppose that the vast majority of terrorists are Inuits, that 1 in 10.000 Inuits perform acts of terrorism.

Suppose that for the population at large, there is only 1 in 10 million of non-Inuits who perform acts of terrorism.

By increasing the surveillance a thousandfold for Inuits, while keeping the surveillance/scan level constant at the other group, we will vastly increase our success rate at catching terrorists.
In this case, we will avoid attacks involving burning, rancid seal oil, and that would be a definite relief, at least olfactorially..

If you're getting up to numbers like "1 in 10,000", your logic would start to make sense. You fail to appreciate just how small the numbers for terrorism are across any ethnic group (in fact, 1 in 10 million for terrorists across any ethnicity is probably a gross overstatement).

In fact, stating there's any ethnic group 1,000 times more likely to commit terrorism than others is probably a huge overstatement. It's definitely an overstatement for airline terrorism, since I don't believe we've had 1000 Islamic terrorists on airlines in the entire world, let alone one country, let alone in one year.

 

[arildno]

If you're getting up to numbers like "1 in 10,000", your logic would start to make sense. You fail to appreciate just how small the numbers for terrorism are across any ethnic group (in fact, 1 in 10 million for terrorists across any ethnicity is probably a gross overstatement).

In fact, stating there's any ethnic group 1,000 times more likely to commit terrorism than others is probably a huge overstatement. It's definitely an overstatement for airline terrorism, since I don't believe we've had 1000 Islamic terrorists on airlines in the entire world, let alone one country, let alone in one year.

1. Religion is not an ethnicity.

2. To say that Muslims are at least a thousand times more involved in terror attacks is an understatement, not an overstatement.

Since 9/11, well above 14.000 deadly terror attcks have been committed by Muslims
(see for example thereligionofpeace-website), a trend already well-known in the 1990s when "Clash of Civilizations" came out. "Islam has bloody borders"

(That figure alone is more than triple it would have been if the 1 in 10 million estimate had been true (i.e, an expected level of about 500 terror attacks per annum))



Scanning ALL Muslims on airlines most likely would take up less time than scanning ALL grandmothers, with much "better" results.

 

[rewebster]

well, if I was going to look for morel mushrooms, I wouldn't look on asphalt driveways

 

[dotman]

Scanning ALL Muslims on airlines most likely would take up less time than scanning ALL grandmothers, with much "better" results.

Now this, I'm certain, is unconstitutional. I don't think you would be speaking this way if you yourself were a Muslim.

Getting a little closer to the topic, here's what Bruce Schneier had to say, which I agree with:

If we spend billions defending our rail systems, and the terrorists bomb a shopping mall instead, we've wasted our money. If we concentrate airport security on screening shoes and confiscating liquids, and the terrorists hide explosives in their brassieres and use solids, we've wasted our money. Terrorists don't care what they blow up and it shouldn't be our goal merely to force the terrorists to make a minor change in their tactics or targets.

Our current response to terrorism is a form of "magical thinking." It relies on the idea that we can somehow make ourselves safer by protecting against what the terrorists happened to do last time.

Unfortunately for politicians, the security measures that work are largely invisible. Such measures include enhancing the intelligence-gathering abilities of the secret services, hiring cultural experts and Arabic translators, building bridges with Islamic communities both nationally and internationally, funding police capabilities -- both investigative arms to prevent terrorist attacks, and emergency communications systems for after attacks occur -- and arresting terrorist plotters without media fanfare.

You can read the full text of this article http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html" .

 

[BobG]

1. Religion is not an ethnicity.

2. To say that Muslims are at least a thousand times more involved in terror attacks is an understatement, not an overstatement.

Since 9/11, well above 14.000 deadly terror attcks have been committed by Muslims
(see for example thereligionofpeace-website), a trend already well-known in the 1990s when "Clash of Civilizations" came out. "Islam has bloody borders"

(That figure alone is more than triple it would have been if the 1 in 10 million estimate had been true (i.e, an expected level of about 500 terror attacks per annum))

14,000 is just a number unless compared to terror attacks by non-Muslims. And it includes all terrorist attacks, not just airline terrorist attacks, so I'm not sure what you use to get a 1 in 10 million estimate (attacks vs total Muslim population?)

Here's a study on terrorism pre-9/11: http://www.crim.umd.edu/Faculty/userfiles/23/FTPV_A_224594.pdf . Rather than giving a snapshot of a current condition, it illustrates how the terrorist threat changes over time.

Islamic terrorism may be the current "big threat", but I doubt it's 1000 times higher than non-Islamic terrorism. Until the 90's, there were three times as many terrorist attacks in Latin America as in the Middle East (page 191). In the 90's, Sub-Saharan Africa became the hotspot for terrorism (many of these terrorists may be Muslim, since it's a common religion in Africa, but I doubt the majority of terrorist attacks in Africa are motivated by religion). Middle East terrorism has had peaks in the past (most related to Israel-Palestine), but I think it's safe to say terrorism has never been as bad in the Middle East as it is today and I think it's safe to say Islamic terrorism is the biggest current threat. There's just no way it's 1000 times higher than the other threats, though.

In the US (page 197), the Islamic threat is even lower, in spite of one very prolific success. Most terrorist attacks in the US from the 80's on have been by anti-abortion activists. Anti-abortion activists usually don't target airlines (so the Islamic threat is still the biggest current airline threat in the US, even if not high enough for profiling to be effective).

 

[Cyrus]

Now this, I'm certain, is unconstitutional. I don't think you would be speaking this way if you yourself were a Muslim.

Why does his religion or ethnicity have any bearing on the relevance of his statement?

 

[dotman]

Why does his religion or ethnicity have any bearing on the relevance of his statement?

I didn't say anything about the relevance of his statement.

 

[mgb_phys]

To be fair these targeted approaches have worked.
Since that redneck blew up the FBI building with a truck bomb made from diesel and fertilizer the security checks on any rednecks with a truck, diesel or fertilizer have prevented any other federal building bombings.

 

[turbo]

That post certainly contains irony. If having a truck, diesel fuel, and fertilizer makes you a mad bomber, we'll have to put all the farmers in federal prison, just to eliminate the threat. Can't be too careful.

 

[mgb_phys]

we'll have to put all the farmers in federal prison, just to eliminate the threat. Can't be too careful.

Obviously not all of them that would be silly
You would just have to screen those that had two first names with a hyphen, wore mesh back hats or a large belt buckle - that's how you can spot them in a crowd.

 

[Cyrus]

Obviously not all of them that would be silly
You would just have to screen those that had two first names with a hyphen, wore mesh back hats or a large belt buckle - that's how you can spot them in a crowd.

Joking aside, he was not your average Joe redneck that just happened to blow up the FBI building. He did it because of the Waco incident, failure to mention this is ignorance of history. He did it because the FBI stormed the compound he was at and shot up the people there.

 

[mgb_phys]

Joking aside, he was not your average Joe redneck that just happened to blow up the FBI building.

The hijackers on 9/11 weren't your average arab but the Sikh guy that gets pulled out of line at security because he is wearing a turban doesn't care about that.

For very rare events statistical profiling like this does not work.
Targeting Arabs (or middle eastern origin) because the hijackers were arabic doesn't work. If you have 1 in 10,000,000 people that are terrorists and 1:1000 people that are arabic it does not give you much of a statstical advantage.

It's all about fear and who you decide to target the fear at. There is a TV ad running right now for a childrens charity - it claims that 97% of abused children know their attackers and of 100 child homicides/year almost all are by family members. Yet we are scared of strangers near our children.

 

[Cyrus]

The hijackers on 9/11 weren't your average arab but the Sikh guy that gets pulled out of line at security because he is wearing a turban doesn't care about that.

No one claimed they were. But they were middle eastern. The Sikh can get over being searched in the name of security.

 

[mgb_phys]

So you simply switch the security to the last attacker?
So from 4/19 to 9/11 you check only white ex-marines, then you switch to check only saudi's
Then a Japanese suicide cult launches a gas attack on the subway you switch to checking only Japanese.

 

[Cyrus]

So you simply switch the security to the last attacker?
So from 4/19 to 9/11 you check only white ex-marines, then you switch to check only saudi's
Then a Japanese suicide cult launches a gas attack on the subway you switch to checking only Japanese.

If the 'last attacker' is still attacking you, don't you think that seems like a reasonable premise?

What do you propose as an alternative that maximizes available resources?

 

[dotman]

What do you propose as an alternative that maximizes available resources?

A scheme that puts you one step ahead, instead of one step behind, is a good start.

 

[turbo]

The reactionary responses by people in power seem to be CYA moves for the most part. If someone wanted to terrorize the citizens of the US, they could have parked a McVeigh-style fertilizer truck bomb right in front of a Super-Wal-Mart on the morning of Black Friday after the store had been open for a bit. Kill all the register clerks, greeters, etc, as well as lines and lines of people queued up at the checkouts. And since there is a LOT of glass fronting any given Wal-Mart, there would be deadly shrapnel. Terrorists have a target-rich environment in the US, and Homeland Security would consume all of the federal budget if we had to adopt security measures necessary to prevent the most deadly attacks.

 

[Cyrus]

A scheme that puts you one step ahead, instead of one step behind, is a good start.

This is nothing more than a feel good statement. I asked a question about pragmatism, not idealism.

 

[mgb_phys]

Locking cockpit doors.
Traffic bollards preventing trucks driving upto federal buildings
Treating people as part of the solution - not relying on rent-a-cops to confiscate breast milk.
We have had 40years of terrorist attacks, and ads every christmas asking people to report suspicous packages in shopping malls and on public transport.

This worked a lot better than a kafka-esque no-fly list that contains people too dangerous to be allowed on a plane but not dangerous enough to arrest, although it actually seems to contain mostly names of congressmen, cartoon characters and people from Nixon's enemies list.

Or confiscating liquids from people but then not questioning them further and just dumping the potential explosives in a bin. If I tried to take a gun through security would they simply tell me to drop it in the bin and not do it again? If they seriously think the liquids are explosives.

Background checks on the 1000s of people that work on the airside of airports, servicing planes, driving unsearched trucks onto the tarmac everyday might also make more sense than taking butter knives off pilots.

 

[dotman]

This is nothing more than a feel good statement. I asked a question about pragmatism, not idealism.

No it's not. And I've already stated exactly what these measures are earlier in this thread.

 

[mgb_phys]

If the 'last attacker' is still attacking you, don't you think that seems like a reasonable premise?

The TSA doesn't think so.
The 9/11 hijackers had Saudi passports. The TSA list of passports to check, or at least the secret list they published by blacking out the words in the PDF
"Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen and Algeria"

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq - no
Cuba, North Korea - yes, perhaps Cuba and N Korea have converted to radical Shite Islam but the press haven't picked up on this yet.

 

[Cyrus]

No it's not. And I've already stated exactly what these measures are earlier in this thread.

Yes: it is, as we are talking specifically about direct airport security. I also stated, earlier in this thread, the invalidity of your previous posts.