Airport Security Absurdity

[Anonymous Bosch]

Courtesy of Christopher Hitchens writing for Slate, on the absurdity of our airport security:

It's getting to the point where the twin news stories more or less write themselves. No sooner is the fanatical and homicidal Muslim arrested than it turns out that he (it won't be long until it is also she) has been known to the authorities for a long time. But somehow the watch list, the tipoff, the many worried reports from colleagues and relatives, the placing of the name on a "central repository of information" don't prevent the suspect from boarding a plane, changing planes, or bringing whatever he cares to bring onto a plane. This is now a tradition that stretches back to several of the murderers who boarded civilian aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001, having called attention to themselves by either a) being on watch lists already or b) weird behavior at heartland American flight schools. They didn't even bother to change their names.

So that's now more or less the routine for the guilty. (I am not making any presumption of innocence concerning Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.) But flick your eye across the page, or down it, and you will instantly see a different imperative for the innocent. "New Restrictions Quickly Added for Travelers," reads the inevitable headline just below the report on the notoriety of Abdulmutallab, whose own father had been sufficiently alarmed to report his son to the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, some time ago. (By the way, I make a safe prediction: Nobody in that embassy or anywhere else in our national security system will lose his or her job as a consequence of this most recent disgrace.)

In my boyhood, there were signs on English buses that declared, in bold letters, "No Spitting." At a tender age, I was able to work out that most people don't need to be told this, while those who do feel a desire to expectorate on public transport will require more discouragement than a mere sign. But I'd be wasting my time pointing this out to our majestic and sleepless protectors, who now boldly propose to prevent airline passengers from getting out of their seats for the last hour of any flight. Abdulmutallab made his bid in the last hour of his flight, after all. Yes, that ought to do it. It's also incredibly, nay, almost diabolically clever of our guardians to let it be known what the precise time limit will be. Oh, and by the way, any passenger courageous or resourceful enough to stand up and fight back will also have broken the brave new law.

For some years after 9/11, passengers were forbidden to get up and use the lavatory on the Washington-New York shuttle. Zero tolerance! I suppose it must eventually have occurred to somebody that this ban would not deter a person who was willing to die, so the rule was scrapped. But now the principle has been revisited for international flights. For many years after the explosion of the TWA plane over Long Island (a disaster that was later found to have nothing at all to do with international religious nihilism), you could not board an aircraft without being asked whether you had packed your own bags and had them under your control at all times. These two questions are the very ones to which a would-be hijacker or bomber would honestly and logically have to answer "yes." But answering "yes" to both was a condition of being allowed on the plane! Eventually, that heroic piece of stupidity was dropped as well. But now fresh idiocies are in store. Nothing in your lap during final approach. Do you feel safer? If you were a suicide-killer, would you feel thwarted or deterred?

Why do we fail to detect or defeat the guilty, and why do we do so well at collective punishment of the innocent?

While I don't often find myself agreeing with Hitchens, I think he nails this particular issue. The notion that we have a Homeland Security Secretary who initially tried to claim "the system worked" (in reference to the Christmas bombing attempt) is about as reassuring as the TSA's handling of classified screening manuals.

[LawBeefaroni]

I avoid flying whenever I can. No because I'm terrified but because of the undue burden of proving I'm not going to blow up the aircraft. Unproven, ineffective, reactionary security is really no security at all.

Every time our liberties are erroded, we're handing a win to the terrorists.

I heard one of the Sunday pundits stating that the big failure here was that the guy wasn't on the US no fly list. His solution? Increase the size of the no-fly list. I mean hey, he was on the UK no-fly list.

[Holman]

Honest question: I understand how US airlines make the conduct rules on US flights, and I understand how they can run US no-fly lists and such at the gate. But doesn't the x-ray/pat-down/etc main line of defense belong to *airport* security, not *airline* gate security? If so, how much influence do we have over what the Dutch (or anyone else) are doing to catch terrorists at their airports?

For example, do the airport authorities in Bangkok not care if US airlines install their own x-rays and strip searches at gates that serve US flights? How does this work?

[LawBeefaroni]

For a flight to enter US airspace it has to originate from known and an approved origination point. Part of that approval probably includes a miniumum standard of security. What that is I don't know.

[Defiant]

Unproven, ineffective, reactionary security is really no security at all.

I agree whole heartedly with this.

Every time our liberties are erroded, we're handing a win to the terrorists.

I disagree with this, however. Security needs to be a weighed between the liberty of the passengers with the security of those passengers as well as others who may be affected, not one extreme or the other. Do you think we should never have started screening baggage?

[Holman]

For a flight to enter US airspace it has to originate from known and an approved origination point. Part of that approval probably includes a miniumum standard of security. What that is I don't know.

Amsterdam is obviously on that list. So what happened?

[LawBeefaroni]

Every time our liberties are erroded, we're handing a win to the terrorists.

I disagree with this, however. Security needs to be a weighed between the liberty of the passengers with the security of those passengers as well as others who may be affected, not one extreme or the other. Do you think we should never have started screening baggage?

I don't consider baggage screening an errosion of liberty. Full body scans or refusing someone access because of their name I do. Random strip searches I do. Am I willing to give up some of my personal security on an airplane so no one gets randomly strip searched? Yes. Some people aren't. "He who trades liberty" etc. Besides, I'm talking about changes in reaction to terrorist threats, not good standard practice.

For a flight to enter US airspace it has to originate from known and an approved origination point. Part of that approval probably includes a miniumum standard of security. What that is I don't know.

Amsterdam is obviously on that list. So what happened?

Hmmm...

Seriously though, either someone probably screwed up big time or this guy had his "explosive device" well hidden.

[qp]

It's clear we're headed for nerve stapling before all flights!

[silverjon]

You could mandate that everyone on the plane other than the crew has to be in stasis for the entire duration and I'm sure somebody would still figure out how to rig themselves to explode.

I was ready to commit to 3oz bottles of shampoo, but since I have to check my bag now anyway, it doesn't matter.

[Defiant]

I don't consider baggage screening an errosion of liberty.

I see. so you wouldnt mind having your belongs examined every time you entered/exited a bus/train/subway? Or lets make it simple, just every time you entered and exited your home? Or how about having your passport checked randomly at different locations? "Papers please!"

It's an errosion of liberty, the question is the degree to which it is acceptable given other considerations.

Besides, I'm talking about changes in reaction to terrorist threats, not good standard practice.

What do you think Baggage screening was a response to? People accidentally bringing 50 tons of luggage that would prevent the plane from flying? Making sure the flyer hadn't forgotten to bring their camera on their trip?

[Zarathud]

I'm dreading checking my CPAP machine as carry-on luggage later this month. The internal components always show up as dangerous enough that they swab it every time -- even when they know what it does (sleeping breathing machine).

I am not going to depants in order to enter the airplane. That's a dealbraker for me.

[ImLawBoy]

I'm dreading checking my CPAP machine as carry-on luggage later this month. The internal components always show up as dangerous enough that they swab it every time -- even when they know what it does (sleeping breathing machine).

We were pleasantly surprised that we got a fetal heartrate monitor through security (twice) without even a double check. We brought the manual with just in case. I just hope I'm not jinxing us for our trip this weekend!

I am not going to depants in order to enter the airplane. That's a dealbraker for me.

Oddly, I refuse to wear pants when I enter an airplane.

[craterus]

flying nude is the only real way to solve this problem - and anal probes for all passengers before each flight...

i suppose its worth it - safety is our #1 goal - right?

[Holman]

I wonder what would happen if someone started up "Liberty Airlines," featuring swift check-ins and minimal passenger inconvenience due to bare minimum security procedures (plus an insurance waiver, of course).

How many people would fly it? I guess a lot, at least until the first bomb brought down a plane. The real problem would be recruiting skilled employees: a mere passenger only rolls the dice once, but pilots and crew have to go up with new passengers many times every week.

[tjg_marantz]

flying nude is the only real way to solve this problem - and anal probes for all passengers before each flight...

Hmmm, make every seat a symbian machine and we're all set...

[Defiant]

I wonder what would happen if someone started up "Liberty Airlines," featuring swift check-ins and minimal passenger inconvenience due to bare minimum security procedures (plus an insurance waiver, of course).

How many people would fly it? I guess a lot, at least until the first bomb brought down a plane. The real problem would be recruiting skilled employees: a mere passenger only rolls the dice once, but pilots and crew have to go up with new passengers many times every week.

Even if the government would allow them to do this, I guess it would probably mean higher prices for that very reason. And if people had the choice between faster less inconvenienced trips and saving a few bucks, I think more than a few would choose to save a few bucks.

Of course, they could put former president James Marshall on the crew..

[LawBeefaroni]

I don't consider baggage screening an errosion of liberty.

I see. so you wouldnt mind having your belongs examined every time you entered/exited a bus/train/subway? Or lets make it simple, just every time you entered and exited your home? Or how about having your passport checked randomly at different locations? "Papers please!"

It's an errosion of liberty, the question is the degree to which it is acceptable given other considerations.

When I leave my house, I'm not putting unattended bags on someone else's multimilion dollar aircraft.

Besides, I'm talking about changes in reaction to terrorist threats, not good standard practice.

What do you think Baggage screening was a response to? People accidentally bringing 50 tons of luggage that would prevent the plane from flying? Making sure the flyer hadn't forgotten to bring their camera on their trip?

Hijacking. Which wasn't usually terrorism in the 60s, it was theft and/or kidnapping. It wasn't federalized until 2002.

[LawBeefaroni]

flying nude is the only real way to solve this problem - and anal probes for all passengers before each flight...

i suppose its worth it - safety is our #1 goal - right?

THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF UMAR Farouk Abdulmutallab's failed Christmas Day attempt to blow up a Northwest flight on its way from Nigeria via Amsterdam to Detroit, we fearlessly forecast, will be huge and lasting.

At least, the Department of Homeland Security in its frantic efforts to avoid a repeat of the horrifying episode with a less happy ending will hand down a ukase that only nudists will be permitted to fly. That truly distressing prospect is apt to curb airlines' passenger revenues and, we fear, their stock prices as well. On the other hand, think of the money that'll be saved by eliminating the need for those costly devices that perform full-body scans.

[Defiant]

It's an errosion of liberty, the question is the degree to which it is acceptable given other considerations.

When I leave my house, I'm not putting unattended bags on someone else's multimilion dollar aircraft.

As I said, it's an errorision of liberty, the only issue is the degree it's acceptale given other considerations.

Besides, I'm talking about changes in reaction to terrorist threats, not good standard practice.

What do you think Baggage screening was a response to? People accidentally bringing 50 tons of luggage that would prevent the plane from flying? Making sure the flyer hadn't forgotten to bring their camera on their trip?

Hijacking. Which wasn't usually terrorism in the 60s, it was theft and/or kidnapping. It wasn't federalized until 2002.

[/quote]

Oh, I see. It's ok to errode liberty if it's being done to prevent hijackings, just not to prevent terrorist threats. Because that would offer them a win.

[Holman]

Even if the government would allow them to do this, I guess it would probably mean higher prices for that very reason. And if people had the choice between faster less inconvenienced trips and saving a few bucks, I think more than a few would choose to save a few bucks.

Of course, it would be less than a week before a Liberty Airliner lost a plane. Such a security policy would be like offering all terrorists a free upgrade to first-class.

For me, I'm quite pleased that the government doesn't allow such an airline to operate. Some people might say that the low-security risk is one freely taken by the airline and the passengers, all volunteers. But people who live beneath the airport flight path might disagree.

[Holman]

It's an errosion of liberty, the question is the degree to which it is acceptable given other considerations.

We face innumerable "erosions of liberty" every single day. I can't accompany my kid's class on a school field trip without having my background checked for child-abuse offenses. I can't punch my neighbor in the face, even if everyone knows he deserves it. I can't walk around naked and screaming in public, even if it is necessary to my very important message. I can't drive in the oncoming traffic lane, even though my car is awesome.

Having your baggage checked before getting on a plane is closer to mandatory drivers license exams than it is having the secret police hustle you into a dark alley and demand your I.D. papers.

[Brian]

flying nude is the only real way to solve this problem - and anal probes for all passengers before each flight...

i suppose its worth it - safety is our #1 goal - right?

It's all the rage in Germany right now.

[noxiousdog]

Of course, it would be less than a week before a Liberty Airliner lost a plane. Such a security policy would be like offering all terrorists a free upgrade to first-class.

For me, I'm quite pleased that the government doesn't allow such an airline to operate. Some people might say that the low-security risk is one freely taken by the airline and the passengers, all volunteers. But people who live beneath the airport flight path might disagree.

And yet we don't lose buildings, bridges, and trains and none have anywhere near the security policy procedures of planes. Are planes an infinitely greater target?

Please.

I blame Isgrimnur for my post.

[Malificent]

I don't mind security procedures. I just mind stupid, knee-jerk, ineffective ones.

[Defiant]

Having your baggage checked before getting on a plane is closer to mandatory drivers license exams than it is having the secret police hustle you into a dark alley and demand your I.D. papers.

Actually, checking in is exactly like being demanded your papers because checking in requires your ID papers. It's just a matter of frequency (unless it's the dark alley that's your issue and you would have no problem with being demanded your ID on a street corner in broad daylight to get to the other side.)

[Holman]

Having your baggage checked before getting on a plane is closer to mandatory drivers license exams than it is having the secret police hustle you into a dark alley and demand your I.D. papers.

Actually, checking in is exactly like being demanded your papers because checking in requires your ID papers. It's just a matter of frequency (unless it's the dark alley that's your issue and you would have no problem with being demanded your ID on a street corner in broad daylight to get to the other side.)

Except that no one is making me go the airport, and I know well beforehand what will be involved. Sudden random checks on the street are a completely different species of "erosion of liberty." The TSA is not the KGB, nor does any slippery slope lead from one to the other.

[Holman]

Of course, it would be less than a week before a Liberty Airliner lost a plane. Such a security policy would be like offering all terrorists a free upgrade to first-class.

For me, I'm quite pleased that the government doesn't allow such an airline to operate. Some people might say that the low-security risk is one freely taken by the airline and the passengers, all volunteers. But people who live beneath the airport flight path might disagree.

And yet we don't lose buildings, bridges, and trains and none have anywhere near the security policy procedures of planes. Are planes an infinitely greater target?

Please.

I blame Isgrimnur for my post.

I'm honestly confused. Are you arguing that all airport security measures are offensive to your liberty and should be abolished, or just certain dopey ones to be named later?

[Defiant]

Except that no one is making me go the airport, and I know well beforehand what will be involved.

No one is forcing you to go accross the street, either, and I'm warning you ahead of time what will be involved.
Why is it an errosion of liberty if you're trying to cross the street but not if you're trying to cross the country? At what point does it flip? State lines?

[Defiant]

And yet we don't lose buildings, bridges, and trains and none have anywhere near the security policy procedures of planes. Are planes an infinitely greater target?

I don't follow. If we lose planes more frequently than the rest, doesn't that make them a bigger target? (or at least more vulnerable)

[noxiousdog]

And yet we don't lose buildings, bridges, and trains and none have anywhere near the security policy procedures of planes. Are planes an infinitely greater target?

I don't follow. If we lose planes more frequently than the rest, doesn't that make them a bigger target? (or at least more vulnerable)

Do we lose them more frequently? I think that's a tenuous assessment at best. Since 1933 there's been less than 30 bombings on aircraft world wide. If you include hijackings, the list gets longer, but it's no match for car and truck bombings.

[Defiant]

And yet we don't lose buildings, bridges, and trains and none have anywhere near the security policy procedures of planes. Are planes an infinitely greater target?

I don't follow. If we lose planes more frequently than the rest, doesn't that make them a bigger target? (or at least more vulnerable)

Do we lose them more frequently? I think that's a tenuous assessment at best. Since 1933 there's been less than 30 bombings on aircraft world wide.


If you include hijackings, the list gets longer, but it's no match for car and truck bombings.

In the US? I can only think of McVeigh and the first WTC attack. If you include attacks on us elsewhere, that number goes up, but those are often against embassy or military targets, which I would think do have high security.

[RLMullen]

And yet we don't lose buildings, bridges, and trains and none have anywhere near the security policy procedures of planes. Are planes an infinitely greater target?

I don't follow. If we lose planes more frequently than the rest, doesn't that make them a bigger target? (or at least more vulnerable)

Do we lose them more frequently? I think that's a tenuous assessment at best. Since 1933 there's been less than 30 bombings on aircraft world wide.


If you include hijackings, the list gets longer, but it's no match for car and truck bombings.

In the US? I can only think of McVeigh and the first WTC attack. If you include attacks on us elsewhere, that number goes up, but those are often against embassy or military targets, which I would think do have high security.

I'm not sure where ND and others were going with this, but...

What if the number of truck/car bombs in the US went from ~0 to something analogous to what was seen in Iraq pre-surge? How much erosion of liberty.... oops, security would we be willing to accept? Would you be fine with multiple checkpoints on your daily commute? How many "license checks" would you be willing to deal with to get to and from the grocery store? When the hastily trained bomb dog gets a blunt under your seat confused with explosives, are you going to happily watch the "authorities" rip your car to shreds? (FWIW... they won't find the blunt. The dog will eat is while the humans are looking for explosives.)

I know what my answer is, and I know that I'd probably be one of the first US citizens shot in the back of the head by DHS Police.

[noxiousdog]

In the US? I can only think of McVeigh and the first WTC attack. If you include attacks on us elsewhere, that number goes up, but those are often against embassy or military targets, which I would think do have high security.

Non-aircraft >> aircraft

We have very little to fear from aircraft terrorism, but think of the number of government jobs it creates. And no one thinks to oppose it because they just don't have to put up with the inconvenience all that much.

[Holman]

I think the logic is supposed to go like this: Homeland security is to terrorist attack what the US military is to foreign invasion. When you've been threatened with invasion, you beef up the military; when you've been threatened with terrorism, you beef up homeland security. The absence of terrorist attacks is no more an argument for dismantling homeland security than the absence of invasion is an argument for dismantling the military.

Discuss. Mr. Eisenhower, I see you've raised your hand...

[Defiant]

In the US? I can only think of McVeigh and the first WTC attack. If you include attacks on us elsewhere, that number goes up, but those are often against embassy or military targets, which I would think do have high security.

Non-aircraft >> aircraft

We have very little to fear from aircraft terrorism, but think of the number of government jobs it creates. And no one thinks to oppose it because they just don't have to put up with the inconvenience all that much.

How many "buildings" were lost and how many used car or truck bombings? I took "lost" as a euphemism for "big attack".

I would assume that an airplane is a lot more sensitive to an attack, and more likely to result in the deaths of all on board in such an attack. Even ignoring that it can also be used to attack other targets.

How many people have died as the result of an attack that airport security may have been able to prevent vs attacks they couldn't? (ignoring, for the moment, that one would hope that good quality airport security could also catch some foreign terrorists that are traveling into the country to plan an attack, rather than to carry out one on the plane).

[Defiant]

What if the number of truck/car bombs in the US went from ~0 to something analogous to what was seen in Iraq pre-surge? How much erosion of liberty.... oops, security would we be willing to accept?

I don't know for sure, but I would support more than now. I have no illusions that it isn't an erosion of liberty, nor do I cheer for it, but as I said at the start, it should be a compromise between effective security and liberty.

I suspect most would do the same. After all, as I subtly joked some posts ago, I wouldn't be surprised if people gave up liberty for a few bucks.

[craterus]

slightly off topic.... but related to airline security for sure...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/05/d ... complaint/" target="_blank

so we have a plan in place when there are hijackings that are not being followed and we still have to take off our shoes and roll down our belt buckle so some slack jawed idiot can tell me I am safe to fly - awesome!

[Holman]

How many people have died as the result of an attack that airport security may have been able to prevent vs attacks they couldn't? (ignoring, for the moment, that one would hope that good quality airport security could also catch some foreign terrorists that are traveling into the country to plan an attack, rather than to carry out one on the plane).

You'll need to factor in the deterrent effect of airport security. Presumably there are people out there who would have committed attacks if they thought they had a 100% chance of getting their bomb onto the plane. No self-respecting terrorist wants to suffer a take-down at the x-ray machine.

As for the question "why airplanes?":

Airplanes *are* more vulnerable than major domestic targets because they (well, international flights anyway) are a way of striking at America right at the door, so to speak. A terrorist who wants to blow up a major bridge would first need to get access to the country and then gather his materials domestically without raising suspicion and being caught. A terrorist who wants to bring down a plane just needs to get past airport security and into his seat. It's a question of deciding whether you can fool the TSA more easily than the FBI.

There's also the fact that planes are an easy target: delicate machines with lots of potential victims packed tight together. A device that can bring down a plane doesn't need to be very large--apparently you can hide one in your underwear. The same device wouldn't do much more than wreck the lobby of a building, and it wouldn't even scratch the paint on a bridge.

[silverjon]

And you can fly them into stuff, don't forget.

[The Preacher]

What if the number of truck/car bombs in the US went from ~0 to something analogous to what was seen in Iraq pre-surge? How much erosion of liberty.... oops, security would we be willing to accept?

I don't know for sure, but I would support more than now. I have no illusions that it isn't an erosion of liberty, nor do I cheer for it, but as I said at the start, it should be a compromise between effective security and liberty.

I suspect most would do the same. After all, as I subtly joked some posts ago, I wouldn't be surprised if people gave up liberty for a few bucks.

I gave up liberty for convenience at a cost of a few bucks. I did the now forsaken Clear program. Since I was traveling multiple times per month, the ability to skip most of the security lines was worth the "cost" of a retina scan, fingerprint and background check (oh and $200).

Screw Ben Franklin!