rkkwan

alanRow - I'm pissed, not at you or any Fodorites, but pissed at what we travelers have to go through these days just to fly.

So, I'm really hoping to hear some practical suggestions.

I guess your answer is that we should just be "nice" to other people in the world, and won't have to deal with the problem at all.

Let's hear from others.

Ackislander

One obvious answer to better security is backscatter x-ray everybody. These show every detail of your body -- I mean every detail -- under your clothing and are a quick way of spotting contraband of all sorts. But they sure do invade your privacy! take a look at http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/

Another answer is photoscanning. If you enter the UK, you are being photoscanned. Your photo is being captured and compared to those of known terrorists as you go through immigration. It isn't very intrusive, but is it acceptable to Americans? The British are willing to accept it because they have been the victims of bombing by the Irish Republican Army.

This raises another point. Many posters who complain about profiling, searches, restrictions, etc, think we should only scan brown, black, or asian men. You are just as dead if you are killed by Timothy McVeigh as by a jihadi, just as dead if you were blown up by Menachem Begin and the Stern Gang as if you were killed by a Palestinian.

Defending a democratic society against terrorism is difficult and will always be imperfect. Terrorists are willing to die, and it is very difficult to stop someone who is willing to die to destroy you. What we are negotiating now is the degree -- not the actuality -- of restrictions we will have to accept on our freedom, whether you and I like it or not. I hate it, but I don't see any other way.

mikemo

I rather think an international detailed data base would be best. (Can't single out and criticize the US Gov't)
FD: I'm flying Avianca to EZE and AeroMexico from SCL in the next two months.
M (SMdA, Gto.)

thursdaysd

Securing the cockpit door was probably the best idea. Better explosive detection devices would be a good move. Proper bag matching on all flights, as mentioned earlier. How about hiring El Al to handle passenger screening? They seem to have a great track record.

Carrybean

If the US instituted what Israel does, there would be no end of howling.

I'm always thoroughly searched, pulled aside, patted down & I don't object IF they would do the same to some of the people on flights I've been on who DO fit the profile of 9/11 but I consistently see them sail right through.

I don't think white middle-aged vacationers should be excluded but this PC nonsense is going to cause another tragedy.

thursdaysd

I was also interested in the position of the airlines - from the BBC site:

"Negotiations to renew the agreement collapsed just before the deadline on 30 September 2006, leaving airlines in a legal vacuum.

An airline that provides the passenger data to the US could in theory be fined under data protection laws in Europe, while one that fails to provide it could be fined by the US, or be deprived of landing rights."

JBHapgood

If they required all passengers to fly in pocketless prison jumpsuits with only a government ID and boarding pass in a clear plastic bag, used backscatter x-rays and millimeter wave scanners on all passengers with random body cavity searches, made the purchase of an air ticket contingent on passing a detailed background check, and required all checked baggage to be submitted 48 hours in advance for inspection and carriage separate from the passenger's flight, terrorists would still find ways to wreak destruction. For that matter, even if we surrendered all our freedoms, anointed Dick Cheney Fuehrerduce Maximo with the absolute power he dreams of, and created the ultimate Police Security State with continual surveillance of every aspect of our lives, terrorists would still find ways to wreak destruction (beyond that caused by the government in instituting the Police Security State).

So indeed, what passes for airport security today has more to do with providing the appearance of safety (and giving them an excuse to insitute tyranny) than with anything effective. We're just supposed to have faith that it's effective and necessary.

The real question is how much dubious hassles to they have to add before a critical mass of people decide that flying isn't worth it? Obviously, if they make flying so inconvenient that nobody wants to fly, the administration can certainly claim credit for closing off a known terrorist target.

gutdoc56

JBH, I do like your style and I am inclined to agree with you.

Does anybody wonder what evil lies in the uninspected cargo containers? Or is placed in the hold by bad people with fake airport credentials and even a modicum of ingenuity while we are standing around shoeless holding our baggies? I am more concerned by the general cargo that is loaded onto passenger planes than by any of my fellow passsengers. With a locked cockpit, air marshalls, and post 9-11 passengers, a hijacking or bombing attempt from the cabin would have (IMHO) a low probability of success. I'd bet the bad guys know this. Security guys, like generals always seem to be fighting the last war. I would rather see more effort at securing these more invisible areas of air travel.

On the brighter side, I think it is only a matter of time before random upper and lower GI endoscopy will be a regular part of the screening process. Maybe there is a future at TSA for old gastroenterologists!

JBHapgood

gutdoc, you're right on target. The TSA focuses on intrusive passenger screening because it gets them the best "bang for the buck" when it comes to visibility and appearances, and also implementing the administration's strategy of keeping the public continually afraid.

Meanwhile, they do nothing about screening cargo at airports and seaports, ignore the risks at chemical plants and refineries due to "lack of resources," and make Homeland Security funding decisions based on political concerns. But if we're kept occupied with removing our shoes, complying with continually-changing rules about liquids, and spending increasing amounts of time in airport queues and terminals, maybe we'll think they're protecting us effectively and we'll ignore the holes and incompetence the "liberal media" continually reports.

And never mind the threat the TSA's &quot;security&quot; system <i>creates</i> when it makes passengers gather in large crowds at screening checkpoints and at baggage claim. That risk is obvious to anyone who sees it, but apparently not to TSA officials.

As you note, the only truly effective security enhancements since 9/11 are the hardened cockpit doors and the vigilance of passengers. Shoe inspections and lip gloss confiscations are merely window dressing to make us feel safe (if they hassle us enough, it <i>must</i> be effective, right?).

xyz123

Nah...what they want to institute are retinal scans...if they had their way on all foreign visitors first to go with the idiotic pictures and fingerprints (really making visitors to the USA feel so welcome to be there) {of course it doesn't bother anybody that no other country in the world has had to resort to that] but I assure you retinal scans are coming...and probably will be implemented at the boarding areas of international flights destined to the USA..I'm sure that will stop all the terrorists from daring to try.

Carrybean

So are you all saying there should be no screening at all &amp; that we should just show up at the airport 15 minutes ahead of departure &amp; get onboard?

rkkwan

I just want to add that most of the hijacking and bombing of commercial aircrafts in the history of aviation do not involve US or European flights. Unfortunately, we live in a dangerous worlds with lots of crazy people.

Jed

Will someone please explain to me why Dick Cheney wants absolute power? Why does he wants us to surrender all freedoms? What would he do with it? For those who think so, please explain. Thanks

JBHapgood

And also note that the British authorities foiled the liquid bomb plot through &quot;human intelligence&quot; and detective work, not airport &quot;security&quot; screening.

Worktowander

I'm calmer now, so let me present my view - which I understand is not necessarily anyone else's - again:

I do not believe that airport screening should be banned or ended.

I believe it should be improved.

I believe that the system now in place is better at looking as if it provides security than actually providing it.

For instance, what's to say my 3 oz. of explosive liquid (or 21 oz., if I fill my whole baggie with bottles of it) can't be combined with a partner's 21 oz. in flight, and another's, etc., until we have enough to do something dastardly?

For secondance: Why would I, (a theoretical terrorist) brave the passenger screening system when it would be just as effective and less chancy to check a bag or ship some cargo, neither of which are effectively screened or tracked/matched to a passenger? (Or get a job at the airport and load something horrible aboard at will?)

For thirdance: Why, if the TSA is so worried about liquid explosives, are our quart-sized liquid-holding baggies <i>not screened for explosives?</i>

And there are more examples after more examples. And I'm just a nonviolent little girl from the Midwest. Think what the terrorists can do with holes in the system like that.

The system doesn't work.

If thought that providing information about seat numbers, meal choices or car rentals would help - and wouldn't become part of some Total Information Awareness file - I'd be all for this.

But recent history has not convinced me that this would be the case.

And so, before supporting another round of &quot;tell us this and you'll be safe,&quot; I'll wait.

JBHapgood said it better than I can: &quot;The administration is insisting that we pay for our security by surrending privacy and liberty. All I ask for is some assurance that I'm getting value for money, since I consider the price rather high. &quot;

We get the government service we demand.

Cheers, all

Worktowander

Final thought, after realizing I hadn't offered a constructive corrective measure, as requested:

Honestly?

I want us to do our best with reasonable screening of cargo, bags and passengers; reasonable tracking of passenger data (one-way tickets, flying patterns, etc., although I don't have much faith that it helps anymore - don't you think the bad guys know we're onto those tactics? ), and reasonable profiling (although this one is very, very hard to implement fairly and effectively).

And then I want an acceptance of the fact that we cannot eliminate the risk. We can only eliminate most of the holes - which were <i>not</i> doing now. And I want a politician honest enough to say so. Being lied to is a drag.

Surrendering our rights and/or privacy one by one - even about something as silly as what meal we eat on a flight - won't make me safer.

saharabee

Anyone here ever heard of HASSP? It's a food inspection protocol that assumes that since the government can't inspect every molecule of every bite that we eat, it had better put most of its energy into inspecting the highest risk items. Not perfect, but not bad either - unless you want to pay 20$ for a bag of spinach!

So:

1) If Big Brother can't prove to me that a certain number of &quot;grannie looking&quot; old ladies have blown up planes, I rather resent them spending money to body search grannies. Ditto for low sodium diet choices.

2) Someone tried to blow up a shoe. OK - fine with the shoe and lighter laws!

3) Does anyone here think for a second that some fundamentalist lunatic is actually going to request ahead &quot;Muslim only food&quot; or &quot;nothing but fish on Friday - I'm IRA&quot; ???

I have absolutely no problem with submitting to higher levels of security, even personally intrusive ones. But please, show me logistics to prove its got a basis in reality.

As someone on a forum (not sure which) said - If enough money is put into physical security screening, it doesn't much matter whether your seatmate is Osama Bin Laden or Mother Theresa - What's he gonna do - fart you to death?

Sue_xx_yy

While I agree that security measures are often not validated scientifically, I disagree that it doesn't matter whether one's seatmate is OBL or Mother Theresa.

Mother Theresa is already dead. On the other hand, were OBL to try to fly on an American plane these days, I rather suspect he soon would be. Which might upset those who wanted to interrogate him first.

Of course, that various passengers would find a way to do him in with or without the presence of contraband (where there's a will, there's....) it does rather prove the point that screening for contraband isn't an absolute guarantee of safety - for anyone.

Girlspytravel

Sarabee-you're being ignorant. If you were watching the British bomb plot details unfold, you would know that they picked up a young 20 something pregnant woman and charged her as a conspirator in the plot, okay? Also, there are teddy bears that have gone through screening, and, lo and behold! Someone sewed a revolver into jolly little teddy! Plastic explosives have been found in the steel casings of a wheelchair of a passenger flying through Tel Aviv, and guess what? El Al didn't pick it up until after the wheelchair had gone through screening!

Shock, shock, even grannies have been known to be perpetrators and accomplices of murder/terrorist plots-not to mention the use of children as &quot;mules.&quot;

Really, are people STILL that naive to think that certain ethnic or gender or age groups are excluded from participating in murder plots?

Wake up and smell the coffee, because such sentiment as yours clearly borders on the inane.

The term is called &quot;cleanskins.&quot;