Wah, wah, wah?

Whining, or legitimate complaint?

  • Whining

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • Legitimate complaint

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Who cares? Just let me cop a feel...:brow:

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • Total voters
    12
ClaireBear said:
Well I think that is a problem!

It should only be individuals who raise suspicion that are frisked.. or everyone....

Having to endure what could be a very uncomfortable experience because you're the fourth woman in line or have SSSS printed on your card...

Not acceptable in my book!

Perhaps they did raise suspicion? I don't know...I wasn't there...and we are only hearing one side of the story. We also have to remember one thing...some people will always feel that they are more important than others, or that they deserve special treatment. That's what this is about. The ladies doing the complaining in this article are:

1. A lawyer (go figure) and
2. A Grad Student

Now an SSSS can be on your boarding pass for 2 reasons...

1. The computer picks you out at random, or
2. Passenger behavior
 
No, we do have the metal detectors, but not of the variety you see above. That is not simply a metal detector. Normal metal detectors will not detect the presence of C-4. It is not a metal, therefore not detected by a normal metal detector.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Now an SSSS can be on your boarding pass for 2 reasons...

1. The computer picks you out at random, or
2. Passenger behavior
Yep, I noticed that too. Could it be that miss grad student that travels every other week is a bit of a bitch to the crew? Nah, couldn't be. And surely a lawyer doesn't think she's better than everyone else or deserves special treatment.
 
ClaireBear said:
Wow! wow! Hold the phone!!!!!

You guys don't have high powered metal detectors? Explosives and drugs sniffer dogs in terminals? :eek:

The pat down is your only defence?

:rofl:

Not really. We have the standard color x-ray machines, and we have metal detectors, some have the dogs (for drugs), but nobody, before 9/11, had explosive detectors. Until we get covered, pat-downs is what will happen. If people don't like it, they can drive, walk, or take the train. :shrug: That's what happens when you aren't attacked by foreign agents in almost 60 years...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Not really. We have the standard color x-ray machines, and we have metal detectors, some have the dogs (for drugs), but nobody, before 9/11, had explosive detectors. Until we get covered, pat-downs is what will happen. If people don't like it, they can drive, walk, or take the train. :shrug: That's what happens when you aren't attacked by foreign agents in almost 60 years...

Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
 
If you think the pat downs & pre-screening is invasive of your privacy...as I do...don't fly, as I haven't. However, today is the logical extension of the metal detectors of yesteryear, following highjackingsa to Cuba, etc.

If TSA can't grab your crotch or feel your Wonder-Bra filling, then guess where the bad guy hides the tazer.
 
Raven said:
See that right there is a problem. If you don't look suspicious you ain't gonna get frisked so that negates the security teams efforts. Of course the suspicious ones get pulled to one side at some point or another but there needs to be random checks too in the same way that random drugs checks catch people out.

And C4 is very malleable and can be stretched amazinly thinly Claire....you could cover yourself in enough to blow are large (10 footish maybe....extra help please Gato on the actual destructive potential of someone caked in C4 under their clothes :eek6: ) hole in an aircraft in flight.

Let's see...an ounce of C-4, rolled up in a thin rope, and placed inside of a ballpoint pen, detonated at 35,000 feet, wouldn't blow a very large hole in an airliner...but you don't need a large hole. One square foot is all it would take. The plane would crack open like an eggshell, spilling it's contents over a good portion of the countryside. It would be like a balloon filled with air, and somebody just jabbing a pin into the inside...Remember Lockerbie? That was done with one pound, or so, of plastic explosives in the cargo compartment. What's the difference? Pressurization. The cargo compartment of any aircraft designed to fly over 10,000 feet has to be pressurized, or people tend to start dying from lack of oxygen.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
I wonder how many female passengers on the flights that were crashed on September 11 would have traded those seats for a pat-down, if given the choice 30 seconds before impact.


100%? 101%?
 
I gotta say this, but I agree with Gonz here *DAMMIT* ;)

If restrictions are added to the searchable areas, you just make it easier for anyone who wants to launch an attack.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Let's see...an ounce of C-4, rolled up in a thin rope, and placed inside of a ballpoint pen, detonated at 35,000 feet, wouldn't blow a very large hole in an airliner...but you don't need a large hole. One square foot is all it would take. The plane would crack open like an eggshell, spilling it's contents over a good portion of the countryside. It would be like a balloon filled with air, and somebody just jabbing a pin into the inside...Remember Lockerbie? That was done with one pound, or so, of plastic explosives in the cargo compartment. What's the difference? Pressurization. The cargo compartment of any aircraft designed to fly over 10,000 feet has to be pressurized, or people tend to start dying from lack of oxygen.

Thank you Gato!

I'm still yet to board my first ever flight and ... now never will :(
 
Gato_Solo said:
The plane would crack open like an eggshell, spilling it's contents over a good portion of the countryside.


Remember Columbia? From the Californioa desert to the swamps of Lousiana.
 
ClaireBear said:
Thank you Gato!

I'm still yet to board my first ever flight and ... now never will :(

Oh, please. It's always been statistically safer than driving and still is. And that's coming from someone who hates to fly.
 
the Space Shuttle? Wouldnt that result come from much more velocity since it is higher up and has more chance to gain speed before it crashes not to mention entering the atmosphere
 
HomeLAN said:
Oh, please. It's always been statistically safer than driving and still is. And that's coming from someone who hates to fly.

yeah.... but enter that small percentage margin then its sudden death... planes don't have "prangs"
 
ClaireBear said:
Thank you Gato!

I'm still yet to board my first ever flight and ... now never will :(
Sod thinking about it. I was nervous as hell (for those exact reasons) before I boarded my first flight. Then I got on, got up to 36,000 feet and forgot I had left the ground at all. You have as much to fear from aircraft as you do from cars, maybe less.
 
ClaireBear said:
Thank you Gato!

I'm still yet to board my first ever flight and ... now never will :(

Nothing to be frightened of, really. As bad as that sounds, you're still safer flying than being on the road as a driver or passenger. Look at it this way...How many people do you know who have a valid drivers license? Now how many of them would you classify as a 'good' driver? Pilots are hired by the airlines because they are rigorously trained, and have at least 1,000 hours of actual flying time. Most are ex-military, or active reserve/gaurd pilots. They are very skilled, and very good. That's why a plane crash is big news. They hardly ever happen.
 
Yes, the last shuttle was still traveling an estimated 10,000 miles per hour at the time of it's coming apart. That kind of pressure would have torn apart just about anything.
 
you can die at any time. It is better to enjoy life. And flying is no more dangerous than as Homey said driving or even walking.
 
Um, just a quick note.

C4 can easily be inserted into any body cavity too. Vaginal, anal, swallowed. Remember that anyone carrying C4 onto a plane isn't expecting to come back, so certain 'normal' limits would be ignored by them. How about C4 breast implants? The detonator could even be mocked up to pass as a pacemaker. This could be done years in advance, and no trace would be detected by even an ion detector.

On the other hand

'Doofus' travellers carrying saws,mines




WASHINGTON (AP) - Many air travellers in the United States apparently still haven't understood the word about leaving their handguns and knives behind when they go to the airport - not to mention chainsaws, landmines and gunpowder, too.

More than three years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, air travellers still are trying to carry thousands of potentially deadly items on planes every month.

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration, which took over security screening at 450 airports in February 2002, said Tuesday it had confiscated 15.6 million prohibited items, including 2,150 guns, 75,241 boxcutters and 4.7 million knives through the end of October.

A 79-year-old woman was arrested Tuesday at Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Florida after screeners found a single-shot Colt Derringer and seven bullets in her tote bag. She said she forgot it was in the bag, which she tried to carry on the plane, the Broward County sheriff's office said.

Billie Vincent, former security chief for the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, blames stupidity and forgetfulness in most cases.

"How do you deal with people who have to know about 9/11 and, even inadvertently, are still trying to get knives onto planes?" he asked.

Vincent said a prominent Washington lawyer once failed to realize he had his set of compact, mechanical tools in the briefcase he was trying to bring on board.

"It isn't restricted to the farmer or the doofus," Vincent said.

In October alone, screeners seized ammunition 2,000 times, along with 170,940 knives and 73 guns.

TSA spokeswoman Amy von Walter said local law-enforcement officials have arrested people caught with prohibited items in some cases. It's up to local prosecutors to decide on criminal charges, she said.

A college student who hid bags of boxcutters and fake bombs in the lavatories of four Southwest Airlines jets last year pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors.

The student, Nathaniel Heatwole, said he was trying to expose what he called gaps in aviation security. By taking a dangerous weapon aboard an aircraft, he could have been charged with a federal felony that carries a possible 10-year prison sentence.

Government officials believe the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers used boxcutters to commandeer the four jets that crashed that day.

U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio, ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives aviation subcommittee, said most of the seized items are trivial.

"Primarily nail files and small knives and scissors - mostly innocent things," said DeFazio, who has lost several pairs of mustache scissors to the TSA.

Some have not been so innocent.

The TSA has found knives disguised as lipstick, a radio with a handgun inside, a loaded gun stuffed into a teddy bear. Several people have tried to bring chainsaws onto planes. A U.S. army sergeant was kicked off a flight after an inert landmine was found in his checked luggage. One man packed gunpowder and a fuse for his hobby of shooting golf balls out of cannons.

"You name it, we've seen it," said the TSA's von Walter.

They haven't found everything, though.

DeFazio, who has reviewed classified reports on the screeners' performance, said they have trouble finding artfully concealed objects.

"They're crippled with machines that only look at items in one dimension and are very primitive," he said.

"They have 1970s technology to find 21st-century threats."

Better X-ray machines are on the market, DeFazio said but Congress hasn't given the TSA enough money to buy new ones.

Source


'See through clothes' scanner gets outing at Heathrow
By John Lettice
Published Monday 8th November 2004 13:39 GMT
A security scanner that sees through clothes and produces a nude image of passengers has made its debut in a trial at Heathrow Terminal 4, according to a report in the Sunday Times. And was it just the other week we we were saying, "We'll save what happens when people learn these have gone in at an airport for another day"? Yes it was, and that other day has dawned.

It's not clear who the supplier of the Heathrow trial machine is, but it could well be a Rapiscan Secure 1000, which uses a low-energy x-ray beam together with its reflection, or "backscatter", together with imaging software to build a mono picture of the subject's body, complete with guns, knives etc, but not with clothes. The machine has been piloted at a number of airports worldwide, and the Metropolitan Police owns a couple, which have been involved in mobile gun-detecting outings and which have been offered for use in schools in order to detect weapons. The Met has not, as far as we know, adequately explained why it's a good idea to bombard children regularly with "harmless" x-rays, nor how it resolves peering at pictures of unclothed children with its enforcement of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Spyblog, however, has some constructive discussion of these issues here.

Aside from the backscatter x-ray machines, there's also QinetiQ's millimetre wave scanning, which has been tested at Eurotunnel Calais, and at Gatwick Airport. Oh, yes it has - "QinetiQ conducted a trial of a prototype imager at Gatwick airport in 2002, with favourable response from both passengers and operating staff", it says here. Note the picture of the naked robowarrior - we'll get back to that. QinetiQ is also building MMW systems for the Met.

Despite the alleged enthusiasm of the good transiters of Gatwick for nude scanning, we very much doubt the general public will, if you'll pardon the expression, wear this. Not that this necessarily matters, but we think it's significant that there has not been any dramatic uptake of this variety of scanner in airports, despite backscanning having been available, and used for baggage screening, for quite some time. Trials in Orlando, covered here and here, didn't lead to a deployment, although the TSA is still trying.

You'll note that the picture in the second link shows Susan Hallowell baring her all in the name of security, and displaying her concealed hardware. But rewind - why is she packing? The only metal detectors currently deployed at airports that aren't going to find a rod that size are surely ones that aren't switched on. And if that's a jacket pocket she's been carrying it in, then the airports we're familiar with these days would have that jacket going through the hand baggage scanner. As indeed would they have the QinetiQ guy's handily-placed newspaper.

Frankly, from the terrorist's perspective it makes a heap of a lot more sense to put your pistols, knives and bombs into your hand baggage these days, because they stand a lot better chance of escaping detection than they would when carried by a person with no bags and no jacket. At airports specifically, naked scanners look very much like a solution in search of a problem, and just about the only exhibit trotted out in their favour is 'shoe-bomber Richard Reid', whose cunning plan the Rapiscan 1000 would allegedly have detected. One could however observe that if Reid had wanted to get a bomb that probably wouldn't work through airport security, his hand baggage would still have been a smarter and more comfortable place to put it. Baggage scanning in general remains one of the biggest holes in airline security, and as the number of passengers carrying electronic equipment rises, it'll get worse for as long as the scanners can't adequately figure out what hard objects are, and what they contain.

Uptake of naked scanning seems to have been greater in areas where the subjects aren't likely to, or can't, complain. So they could be sold to prison services, in high-security scenarios where there isn't going to be a handy baggage scan conduit through security, and as mobile scanners for police forces. As they're being tentatively applied by the Met (early Rapiscan outing here), they're used in scenarios where an area or venue is cordoned off and the people inside searched for hardware. If the targeting is right (from the Met's point of view, we should stress) then the raid will kick up concealed weaponry, drugs and the odd gun, but the number of venues in the UK where the clientele is heavily armed is surely fairly limited, and more widespread use would look a lot like the fishing expeditions that David Blunkett tells us the police does not engage in.

Plus, the legality of heisting a whole pub and strip-searching it is, to say the least, dubious. Fortunately we in the UK have organisations to defend us against the erosion of our freedoms, and if you look here, down at the bottom, you will read Barry Hugill of Liberty fearlessly commenting: "It is difficult to see a problem with technology that can actually locate guns and can help protect both police officers and the public from harm." Morning, Barry, nice nap?

Presuming Liberty does rouse itself and the counter-productive nature of scanner-equipped area stop and search becomes clear to the security services, there remain other applications they can still get interested in. How about scenarios where the people you're scanning don't have to know you're doing so? We'll leave you with this interesting concept, the Backscatter Drive-By Screening System. This you'll note is in use by the US Department of Homeland Security and "allows one or two operators to conduct x-ray imaging of suspect vehicles as they pass by... The system is unobtrusive, as it maintains the outward appearance of an ordinary van." And here you can see some examples of its photography
source
 
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration, which took over security screening at 450 airports in February 2002, said Tuesday it had confiscated 15.6 million prohibited items, including 2,150 guns, 75,241 boxcutters and 4.7 million knives through the end of October.
I just have to wonder, are there that many stock boys that fly around the country?
 
Back
Top