Airline security is "security theater"

Old Dec 6th, 2006, 04:05 AM
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airline security is "security theater"

According to one expert heard on NPR this morning, the 32 oz. bag of liquid containers is 100% irrational, as the contents of said bag could bring down an airliner. What we have is "security theater" meant not to keep flying safe, but to fool the public into thinking they're safe.

I don't mean to ruin my fellow travellers' day, but was curious about peoples' reaction to this.
Cimbrone is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 04:08 AM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Last lot of experts I heard was telling us you couldn't pack enough liquid explosive to bring down a toy balloon.
flanneruk is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 04:27 AM
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Security and rationality have to be balanced. The only way to approach 100% safety is make everyone get on the airplane naked, undergo xrays to be sure nothing is hidden in their bodies, and ban all luggage whether carryon or in the hold.

Yes, that baggy of bottles could carry some bad stuff, but it's still somewhat better than allowing gallon ugs of whatever.

And the security screenings people go thru are not 100% effective, but they have stopped people with guns, knives, etc. trying to get onto aircraft.

Barring the naked traveler without luggage scenario, we just have to accept that there will be some risks.
RufusTFirefly is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 04:46 AM
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>>What we have is "security theater" meant not to keep flying safe, but to fool the public into thinking they're safe.
<<

And Queen Anne's dead, so I'm told.
PatrickLondon is online now  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 04:58 AM
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Translation, Patrick, please...

I'm guessing, "Why state the obvious?"
Cimbrone is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 05:01 AM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I think the decided that what could fit into the one bag couldn't crash a passenger jet.

Not sure what the threshold on that was or if multiple passengers combining their bag's contents was also a non threat or not. In fairness, about 50% of the things we're told throughout life are complete bs. Security is just like anything else, but as long as they're screening the bags carefully and using the metal detector like they always have, I'm fine with and generally shrug off whatever other assurances the system wants to spin for us.
Clifton is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 05:19 AM
  #7  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Amazing how authoritative a lack of knowledge can sound. I guess no one here has ever seen what a handful of Semtex or C-4 can do, nor remembers that an explosive inside a handheld transistor radio brought down the 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
One must always remember that, what you are not aware of, does not necessarily not exist.
tomboy is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 05:49 AM
  #8  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I heard that report this morning also, and I admit that I was taken with the phrase "security theater."
missypie is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 05:50 AM
  #9  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One more comment: Perhaps security theater isn't entirely worthless. I bet that it does cut down a bit on the rank amateur criminals.
missypie is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 06:11 AM
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Remember the recent thread on which someone alleged that unfriendly/rude Immigration + Customs agents would do a better job of keeping undesirables out?

If the TSA people "don't know" how much explosive it would take to "bring down an airliner" that apparently hasn't stopped them from deciding how much can be allowed on a plane.

Perhaps there is a "wheel of fortune" in the main TSA Headquarters office and they spin it periodically and whatever number comes up, THAT'S the one they go with.
Dukey is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 07:56 AM
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On the precautionary principle, anything explosive *might* bring a plane down, even if it's engineered to much higher standards than we imagine, so I wouldn't blame the powers that be for being ultra-restrictive in that area.

But "security theatre" is also important - there's nothing worse for security than people in a panicky mood, so I've always assumed most of these operations have a strong element of general reassurance rather than a serious expectation of trapping a genuine terrorist(and yes, "Queen Anne's dead" is an old phrase for "Tell me something I don't know").
PatrickLondon is online now  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 11:05 AM
  #12  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dukey, my point on that thread was to remind people that the behaviour of customs agents can't be evaluated in the same light as, say, that of tourism officials, since the job of the former is to get information, not dispense it. Probing questions are rude if one is in a social situation or in a conversation with someone meant to help one, as a tourist official is, but not if one is being interviewed by a customs or immigration agent. It's likely just another interrogation tactic, but either way, not to be taken personally.

Now, to return to the topic at hand: notwithstanding my feeling that a lot of security isn't very effective,I have to say I find the idea of transport officials sitting around thinking up ways to fool people ranks right up there with tales relating how someone met Elvis on the road to Sacramento last January.

There are different kinds of trust, and a mistrust of the competence of this or that agency does not necessarily warrant a mistrust of their intentions or goals.



Sue_xx_yy is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 11:32 AM
  #13  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And of course I trust EVERYTHING I hear on NPR. Might as well use John Kerry and Howard Dean as your source.
Zeus is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 11:37 AM
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Zeus - I suppose you think the "unbiased and honest" FOX Network is better? HAHAHA
Curt is offline  
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 12:02 PM
  #15  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What a preposterous statement, Zeus! NPR actually played a clip of an official at a hearing--it wasn't their own commentary.

If it were, I can assure you that it would be more trustworthy than what Rush or O'Reilly or the Liar-in-Chief spouts on a daily basis.
Cimbrone is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
speckles
United States
9
May 6th, 2008 01:56 PM
socaltraveler
Air Travel
5
Dec 24th, 2007 11:28 AM
ljc4creb
Air Travel
4
Jun 20th, 2007 05:02 PM
lucky
Air Travel
5
Jun 28th, 2003 10:59 AM
bajaflash
Air Travel
6
Jun 9th, 2003 07:59 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -