However, freedom of travel is a right, and I think that having all means of travel reasonably available should be a right.
That's where we get murky. You know what you can do? Charter a plane. You can't afford it? Get a better job. If you don't have the cash to live and travel the way you want, then that's your problem, not the government's, nor the airline's.
As flight is the only reasonable means of travel to many places on earth
Take a boat - it's slower, but the food is better and you're travelling in relative luxury. If it's on the same continent, you can take a car, or a bus, or a train. Christ, even in India, you can catch a train to most major destinations, even if there is more pricks on the train than In it. You can Charter a light plane, or a jet, or a chopper, if you have the scratch, and that tops off the list of places you can get to - especially considering that if you want to fly to many places which it's not reasonable to get to any other way, you're not going through the TSA, nor are you going to be getting a regular Jet-blue bus-with-wings flight. You're confusing "Reasonable" with "What is Convenient for Scott Rubin".
Also, I think that people who do not fly often should shut up when it comes to flying.
Airline Professionals often think the same way about people who are not in the Airline Industry, no matter how often they fly. Don't think that "I fly a lot" is really that privileged of a status, because all it means is that you're an experienced PASSENGER. You don't really have that much more insight than your generally attentive and mentally competent Average Joe, you've just had more time to learn it, and work out your own system for being a good passenger for the way you normally fly. Sorry, man - I'm not trying to be a bastard about it, but it's just how it is - You're probably a very good traveller, but in the end, that's all you got - You're a PAX, not a Pro.
And you need to read what Adam posted - unless you are making the assertion that flying is a right, rather than a choice, or a private business transaction between you and the airline.
By the current law, flying is not a right. However, freedom of travel is a right. As flight is the only reasonable means of travel to many places on earth, I do think there should be some sort of right to fly.
Please elaborate on your position that freedom of travel is a right. Is it a right the federal government must protect? What about deportation of foreign nationals? When the U.S. deports a foreign national, is the U.S. infringing upon that person's freedom of travel?
If a person is invested with some sort of right, must that person be provided with the most convenient means to exercise that right? I have a right to speak freely. However, my speech can only be heard by a few people at a time. It would be really convenient if CNN were to grant me some airtime to disseminate my views. As you say "flight is the only reasonable means of travel to many places on earth", CNN is the only reasonable means to disseminate my views to many places on earth. Since you derive a right to fly from flight being the only reasonable means of travel to many places on earth, shouldn't I have a right to airtime on CNN?
Really? Pop Quiz, Hotshot. You Just swallowed a half-kilo of plastic wrapped plastic explosive. What do you do, Hotshot, WHAT DO YOU DO?
Well, if I were like the guy who did so in 2009 and nearly killed a Saudi Prince in charge of anti terrorism, I'd swallow a detonator that's cell phone activated. IF you read the BBC article I linked you would have found that there is a gentleman from King's College who believes that metal detectors in airports wont detect such a thing. At worst you can say "I had an accident man years ago and had many metal pins used to fix the bones".
As for dogs, in all of the airports I have been in, admittedly I've only flown 20 times or so in my life, I have never seen a single dog in any of them.
I have only seen one person swabbed for explosives.
Well, if I were like the guy who did so in 2009 and nearly killed a Saudi Prince in charge of anti terrorism, I'd swallow a detonator that's cell phone activated. IF you read the BBC article I linked you would have found that there is a gentleman from King's College who believes that metal detectors in airports wont detect such a thing. At worst you can say "I had an accident man years ago and had many metal pins used to fix the bones".
I read it - Again. And still, nothing about how that guy was trying to get on a plane, only that he tried to blow up a Saudi Prince.
As for the Expert Gentleman at King's College, I'm afraid that while he's good, I reluctant to take his word for it without any corroborating evidence - And yes, he certainly is an expert in Political science and War Studies, with a Focus on Strategy, Democracy and Terrorism, that doesn't make his word law about what an Airport scanner will or won't pick up, Especially without evidence of any sort to back up his opinion. An opinion given as an out of context, cut down quote in a newspaper article. I've seen a hand-held Wand pick up much smaller objects in the body, and I've seen a child who had swallowed some coins set off a metal detector in the airport - Happily, the family had a doctor's signed note, so after a quick phone call to confirm, they were let through - but knowing both explosives and airport security in detail, I've little doubt that it's very likely a detonator would be picked up by the metal detectors.
As for "I had an accident many years ago and had many metal pins used to fix my bones" - well, you'd better have a doctor to verify that. I can't speak for how it is in the states, but if you try to tell Airport security that you're setting off the metal detector because of pins in your bones, then unless you've a signed declaration from your doctor that this is the case - and yes, they do quite often call up to check even if you have one - especially around the abdomen, then you're not getting on the flight. Further - the only place around there that you'd have pins in sufficient quantity to set off the detector around your stomach would be in your spine or very close to it, and a once-over with the wand would be able to pin-point if it was or not - if you did have pins in your spine, they'd give a stronger reading from next to your spine than from your front.
Oh, and last of all? I'm pretty sure, considering the circumstances of the blast, that the bomber didn't swallow the explosives, but in fact, shoved them up his arse - a much easier plan, and less likely to fail - and further, if he didn't get to see the prince as he had planned, then he could...retrieve the explosives, rather than dying a painful, useless death by essentially ingesting poison.
As for dogs, in all of the airports I have been in, admittedly I've only flown 20 times or so in my life, I have never seen a single dog in any of them.
They are reasonably common, but they are not in EVERY airport ALL the time, and you're not going to see them every time, as airports are not exactly the smallest places, and the airports where they are small enough that you'd see them damn near all the time if they were there do not always have them. There are only so many dogs, and they are also tasked with sniffing bags and passengers incoming through customs. But they are most certainly there.
I have only seen one person swabbed for explosives.
I've seen plenty - but mostly, they save that for when the dog has detected you, at least, they do down here - or if you're committing some other suspicious behaviour. They have similar devices in customs, to check your bag for drugs and explosives.
I can't speak for how it is in the states, but if you try to tell Airport security that you're setting off the metal detector because of pins in your bones, then unless you've a signed declaration from your doctor that this is the case
My father has had a knee replacement. His left knee is essentially now a friction-driven titanium hinge. Following the surgery he was issued several certificates to keep for his own records as well as a wallet-sized card that he has to carry with him in the event that any kind of proof of his operation is required. If he's going to be going through any security checkpoints (for flight or otherwise) he has to present that card and get wanded or patted-down because the walk-through metal detectors will essentially shit themselves.
I read it - Again. And still, nothing about how that guy was trying to get on a plane, only that he tried to blow up a Saudi Prince.
Never used it as an example of on a plane, only that the scanners in question will not detect it, nor will the junk touching.
As for the Expert Gentleman at King's College, I'm afraid that while he's good, I reluctant to take his word for it without any corroborating evidence - And yes, he certainly is an expert in Political science and War Studies, with a Focus on Strategy, Democracy and Terrorism, that doesn't make his word law about what an Airport scanner will or won't pick up, Especially without evidence of any sort to back up his opinion. An opinion given as an out of context, cut down quote in a newspaper article.
True, however he says "If it really is true that the metal detectors couldn't detect this person's hidden explosive device, that would mean that the metal detectors as they currently exist in airports are pretty much useless" And other articles repeat statements that the assassin had already passed through the security check to get to said prince. Those initial reports say that he had the bomb affixed to his body.
As for "I had an accident many years ago and had many metal pins used to fix my bones" - well, you'd better have a doctor to verify that. I can't speak for how it is in the states, but if you try to tell Airport security that you're setting off the metal detector because of pins in your bones, then unless you've a signed declaration from your doctor that this is the case - and yes, they do quite often call up to check even if you have one - especially around the abdomen, then you're not getting on the flight. Further - the only place around there that you'd have pins in sufficient quantity to set off the detector around your stomach would be in your spine or very close to it, and a once-over with the wand would be able to pin-point if it was or not - if you did have pins in your spine, they'd give a stronger reading from next to your spine than from your front.
It is not terribly hard to fake a doctors note about such things, people do so to get scripts for narcotics here.
Oh, and last of all? I'm pretty sure, considering the circumstances of the blast, that the bomber didn't swallow the explosives, but in fact, shoved them up his arse - a much easier plan, and less likely to fail - and further, if he didn't get to see the prince as he had planned, then he could...retrieve the explosives, rather than dying a painful, useless death by essentially ingesting poison.
This is interesting. These men are prepared to die. They are not reasonable people. They are expendable tools. What do the people carrying out the plan care if a tool is broken? Even more so when you're using that tool in such a way that you know it will not be usable in the future? Why hold back? Why care if he dies of poisoning later? Just get another guy to do it. They have camps full of people ready to be called to die.
I agree that given the blast went straight down, they probably did just shove them up his ass.
They are reasonably common, but they are not in EVERY airport ALL the time, and you're not going to see them every time, as airports are not exactly the smallest places, and the airports where they are small enough that you'd see them damn near all the time if they were there do not always have them. There are only so many dogs, and they are also tasked with sniffing bags and passengers incoming through customs. But they are most certainly there.
For the past two years that my sister has been working at an "International" airport (I say international in quotes because they only keep that distinction because they still have flights to canada, Syracuse NY hasn't been a hub in a decade or two) and never once in all of her stories of the TSA being incompetent and thuggish, of customers being berating assholes, of her coworkers hi-jinks, has she ever mentioned a bomb sniffing dog. Chemical sniffing machines, wands, walk through metal detectors and xray machines, but no dogs. I'm asking her specifically right now though, so I'll update when she gets back to me.
I've seen plenty - but mostly, they save that for when the dog has detected you, at least, they do down here - or if you're committing some other suspicious behaviour. They have similar devices in customs, to check your bag for drugs and explosives.
Just different experiences,? I've only ever flown after 9/11 here so I have no reference how things were previously. I have only ever flown in Canada and the US so I can't speak to how any other countries do their security.
I admit I don't know everything about airport security, you seem to be far better versed than I.
My father has had a knee replacement. His left knee is essentially now a friction-driven titanium hinge. Following the surgery he was issued several certificates to keep for his own records as well as a wallet-sized card that he has to carry with him in the event that any kind of proof of his operation is required. If he's going to be going through any security checkpoints (for flight or otherwise) he has to present that card and get wanded or patted-down because the walk-through metal detectors will essentially shit themselves.
Ah, I suspected it was that way, But I couldn't say for sure, since I (surprisingly) Don't have any pins, plates, or artificial anything that a metal detector would pick up.
Didn't read every post, but here's my take on the whole opt-out protest: Everyone involved is being a whiny bitch. There are people out there willing to have bombs strapped to their schwantz in order for a small chance to murder you and everyone you know. Do you want the TSA to stop them? Then shutthefuckup and let them scan you. Whine #1: But they might be able to see my naughty bits! Response #1: Then submit to the pat down. Whine #1a: But then they might touch my naughty bits! Response #1a: Then don't fly. No one has a right to fly, and this is how we're protected. Suck it up, pussy. Whine #2: My religion prevents me from being scanned or patted down! Response #2: Then don't fly. No one has a right to fly, and this is how we're protected. Suck it up, pussy. Whine #3: X-rays are dangerous because I fly a bajillion times a year!! Response #3: Then submit to the pat down. Whine #4: Bawwww my children baawwwww. Response #4: Then don't fly. No one has a right to fly, and this is how we're protected. Suck it up, pussy. Also, everyone hates your kids on the plane.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. - Benjamin Franklin was here
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
Better? ;^)
Honestly, I have little respect for anyone who's actually afraid of "terrorists" in the United States. 9/11 couldn't happen again: the Zebra Storyteller took care of that. More people die from drug violence, bathroom accidents, driving errors regularly in the US than have ever been killed by terrorists.
Being afraid of this sort of thing is pathetic. There are no viable binary explosives that wouldn't have been caught by existing means. Taking our shoes off is a reactionary waste of time after one idiot failed in an attempt to make a shoe bomb.
I'm willing to risk the tiny, tiny chance of danger to not have to submit to intrusive and ineffective "security" every time I travel, and I call anyone who feels otherwise in the US out as a coward.
I'm willing to risk the tiny, tiny chance of danger to not have to submit to intrusive and ineffective "security" every time I travel, and I call anyone who feels otherwise in the US out as a coward.
In return, I call you out as an supercilious git, without nothing more than his own convenience in mind, and not enough knowledge or experience to give even an informed opinion on the topic, let alone make any sort of judgement on the topic. You fly a lot. Good for you. As I said to Scott, that makes you an experienced Passenger, and nothing more.
Honestly, I have little respect for anyone who'sactuallyafraid of "terrorists" in the United States. 9/11 couldn't happen again: the Zebra Storyteller took care of that. More people die from drug violence, bathroom accidents, driving errors regularly in the US than have ever been killed by terrorists.
Afraid is different to Prepared. I'm not afraid of snakes, but it would be stupid to go into their environment without knowing how to prevent getting bitten, and how to treat a bite if you do get bitten. I'm not afraid of Crocodiles, but I'm also not stupid enough to go jumping into every waterhole and creek I see. I'm not afraid of violence, but I'm also prepared to defend myself with competency if necessary. I'm not afraid of explosives, yet I still take precautions and great care while handling them. In short, Preparation for an unfortunate event does not automatically indicate fear.
I'm actually a little disgusted and disappointed in you - you seem unable to think beyond your own convenience, and how unlikely it is for you personally to be caught up in one of these things. Yep - it's unlikely you personally will be caught up in any attack. But you seem unable to conceive of the idea that even if you personally are not caught up in it, if a plane is successfully bought down, that's anywhere from 150 to 850 or so people who are going to die. But you don't give a bloody fuck about anyone else, you just don't want to be personally inconvenienced. So, tell me - are you happy with the idea of a group of people possibly being caught up in this sort of thing for your own convenience, even if it is unlikely?
Admittedly, you could argue that it could still happen while you are being currently inconvenienced, however, I can tell you that it is - despite there being quite a bit of security theatre that raises the chances of a plan coming together successfully if attempted - much, much harder than it would have been previously. Shit, pre-9/11, you could have wrapped up a block of Plastic explosive in a marzipan wrapper, put a little marzipan around it for style and concealment, hidden the detonator and power sources in other devices, assembled it on the plane and made a pretty big fireworks display trivially. Nowdays? Not nearly as easily.
Being afraid of this sort of thing is pathetic. There are no viable binary explosives that wouldn't have been caught by existing means. Taking our shoes off is a reactionary waste of time after one idiot failed in an attempt to make a shoe bomb.
Now this, this is correct.
Taking off the shoes is ACTUAL security theatre. Shoes which are rigged to blow with enough force to take down a plane will most likely set off a metal detector, which would warrant a closer examination - again, most explosives with enough power to make it a sure thing require a detonator, very few of which would get through current screening procedures undetected. The liquids thing? Yeah, within reason, It's security theatre - again, if it sets off a security measure in place, it should be examined, but in general, it's not going to do anything, and the method of disposal of the fluids is ludicrous - a chemical agent could easily be dispersed with the current system, and while a bomb would be marginally harder, it would still be quite possible to set off quite a powerful bomb in the screening area.
Even your point on Binary explosives is half-way correct. While you could get PLX - a pretty powerful binary explosive - though security without that much effort, less effort previously, but it still would be far from impossible - what would be harder would be getting the blasting cap required to set it off through security. Though, if you were able to get that blasting cap through, or another similar ignition device - again, at the level of security before now, and especially before 9/11, an activity which would be far from impossible - you could trivially take down a plane. The trick is not the explosive, the trick is getting all of the parts in place that you could make it viable.
The problem you're running into is essentially that you're dismissing a great deal more as security theatre than is correct. For example, a Backscatter machine isn't security theatre any more than a metal detector, though it's not ideal on it's own, a combination of the two would be a decent enough idea. There are improvements that could be made to the process to make it much more streamlined - for example, without a great deal more expense or vast changes, you could have a system of Bag on conveyor with laptop out, and whatever else is necessary on the belt > metal detector > Backscatter or Millimetre wave > retrieve baggage > on your way. Fail one of those, and you get a more extensive examination. Don't fail any of them, and you're on your way in about two minutes. Combine that with stricter oversight on the TSA agents, and much more clear rules and guidelines for them to follow, and reasonably strict certification of understanding of those rules. Blanket rules and enforcement thereof across all airports and states within reason wouldn't hurt.
What would be helpful would be the deployment of chemical sniffers in some form. The technology is there, and hell, if that fails, using dogs is always an option, and IIRC, it works well enough to use - but I don't know if or why-not-if-not it's deployed in the states.
This is as opposed to Laptop out, shoes off, belt off, etc etc etc, and on the belt > Toss out liquids > metal detector and a pat down if you fail, or backscatter and a patdown if you fail or refuse the scanner > Wait a bit while the TSA taffs about > Deal with whatever whims of the TSA person you're dealing with has at that moment > Retrieve baggage, put everything back in if your bag isn't being searched by hand, put on shoes, put on belt, and generally clog up the area till you're done getting back in order, and then get on your way. An inefficient, clumsy system, subject to the whims of whatever TSA drone is applying it to you, where not even the people administering these tests know exactly what is going on.
The system needs to be improved and refined, but not demolished or nearly eliminated as you seem to suggest - As much as being afraid is foolish, is is orders of magnitude more foolish thinking that proper precautions enacted to the best of our ability are not necessary, just because a particular occurrence that you're trying to prevent is not an everyday occurrence.
Also, the funny thing? It would be much, much easier for a baggage handler to put a bomb onto a plane, and successfully bring it down, than it would be for a passenger, but I don't see any of you saying we should really tightly screen, watch and regulate baggage handlers.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. - Benjamin Franklin was here[Citation Needed]
You know, I don't think this quote has ever officially been attributed to him.
You're probably correct.
"Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY" is a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759).
Published by Franklin, arguably penned (or not) by him.
That said, the statement stands on its own merits, and doesn't really need an appeal to authority to be true.
"Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY" is a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759).
Published by Franklin, arguably penned (or not) by him.
That said, the statement stands on its own merits, and doesn't really need an appeal to authority to be true.
Thank you. Doesn't make your point as neatly, but it still works much as I assume you intended. Doesn't make it any better of an argument - We could argue all day about what's an Essential Liberty when considering a private transaction of business between you and an airline, one you're undertaking with knowledge of what it entails, and by your own choice - but still, I respect that you have the balls to correct yourself.
(Edited to correct the quote from Jason after he expanded his post)
Jesus Churba, I don't want to get rid of security, I just want to see it implemented more efficiently. I want to catch threats to safety effectively, but most of the egregiously bothersome measures they put in place don't actually help do much of anything. The scanners are a lobbyist boon, not a major help to our safety in the air.
This is as opposed to Laptop out, shoes off, belt off, etc etc etc, and on the belt > Toss out liquids > metal detector and a pat down if you fail, or backscatter and a patdown if you fail or refuse the scanner > Wait a bit while the TSA taffs about > Deal with whatever whims of the TSA person you're dealing with has at that moment > Retrieve baggage, put everything back in if your bag isn't being searched by hand, put on shoes, put on belt, and generally clog up the area till you're done getting back in order, and then get on your way. An inefficient, clumsy system, subject to the whims of whatever TSA drone is applying it to you, where not even the people administering these tests know exactly what is going on.
In return, I call you out as an supercilious git, without nothing more than his own convenience in mind, and not enough knowledge or experience to give even an informed opinion on the topic, let alone make any sort of judgement on the topic.
I don't think he's a git. I think that we, in the United States, have been subjected to ludicrous, poorly implemented measures by unprofessional workers. Talking to Rym yesterday, I believe that what he objects to is not screening as a whole, but the sort of ineffectual implementation of it we deal with in airports.
Thank you. Doesn't make your point as neatly, but it still works much as I assume you intended. Doesn't make it any better of an argument - We could argue all day about what's an Essential Liberty when considering a private transaction of business between you and an airline, one you're undertaking with knowledge of what it entails, and by your own choice - but still, I respect that you have the balls to correct yourself.
(Edited to correct the quote from Jason after he expanded his post)
If it's a business transaction between you and the airline why the fuck is the government getting involved? Let the airlines employ their own security forces or contract out to security companies.
Let the airlines employ their own security forces or contract out to security companies.
Airports already can opt out of the TSA, but the private security firm has to follow the same regulations and do the same bullshit security theater procedures. The only benefit is that maybe the private security people will have better training. From seeing private security in action at many conventions, quality varies wildly.
Jesus Churba, I don't want to get rid of security, I just want to see it implemented more efficiently.
I was arguing with Rym - I don't really know your personal position on the issue till now. And I don't recall Rym stating his position terribly clearly either, as the whole time it's seemed to me like Rym would be happy with a guy who looks you up and down and goes "Eh, whatever." I'm not talking like the Israelis, either - I mean just some guy who looks at you to see if you look like you're meant to be there, and dismisses you almost immediately. He doesn't want to submit to intrusive an ineffective security - but really, that's anything that he views as an inconvenience to him, because he just doesn't have the knowledge or experience to tell what's effective an ineffective. For one example - There's no viable Binary explosives? PLX Plus blasting cap. PLX is a pretty powerful explosive, and hard to detect. About the colour of mountain dew, when mixed, and reasonably stable, though some caution is necessary. A solid pack electric blasting cap that would set it off is about the thickness of a pencil, and about the length of my little finger, easy enough to conceal if you know where to put it. Between the throw in a power source for your dets, can you take down a plane? Bet your ass. How hard would it be to get it onto a plane, in the days of "Metal detector, bag scanned, that's all"? All but trivial. How hard would it be now? Tricky, but do-able, if you're slick and lucky.
I don't think he's a git. I think that we, in the United States, have been subjected to ludicrous, poorly implemented measures by unprofessional workers. Talking to Rym yesterday, I believe that what he objects to is not screening as a whole, but the sort of ineffectual implementation of it we deal with in airports.
He's essentially saying there "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a coward", and he seems to presume that because he takes a larger number of flights per year than average, he's an expert in how airport security should be handled. That's why he's being a git. Not because of his opinions on the issue.
I think that we, in the United States, have been subjected to ludicrous, poorly implemented measures by unprofessional workers.
Yep.
Talking to Rym yesterday, I believe that what he objects to is not screening as a whole, but the sort of ineffectual implementation of it we deal with in airports.
That's fair enough - but again, the problem is that he doesn't know enough to be able to judge what IS effective.
If it's a business transaction between you and the airline why the fuck is the government getting involved? Let the airlines employ their own security forces or contract out to security companies.
Because the government essentially says "Our Airspace, Our Rules" - Just the same as on the road, you have to have a licences driver, a road-legal car, follow the road rules, and have the correct safety equipment in place, and the system is policed by, well, the police. If you hire a professional driver, or catch a cab, then they still have to follow the road rules, too.
Airports already can opt out of the TSA, but the private security firm has to follow the same regulations and do the same bullshit security theater procedures. The only benefit is that maybe the private security people will have better training. From seeing private security in action at many conventions, quality varies wildly.
Yep. As it stands, the TSA is undercutting private security firms, and the airports like that quite a bit - every little bit of profit helps. You'll get one or two that opt to use private security instead of the TSA, but as to the effectiveness of that, well, that is another issue.
EDIT - Looks like national Opt Out day Fizzled badly. None of the promised protesters were in evidence, and Zero airports had any reported delays as would be expected by a large - or even signifigant - number of people opting out of the scanners. In fact, the airport with the most scanners had better than average line waiting times, and customer complaints were below average.
That said, the statement stands on its own merits, and doesn't really need an appeal to authority to be true.
I've thought about this. It's a nifty saying and all, but I don't know about it. Taken to its logical conclusion, the only people who deserve either are anarchists.
I've thought about this. It's a nifty saying and all, but I don't know about it. Taken to its logical conclusion, the only people who deserve either are anarchists.
Depending on how broadly you want to define "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" maybe not even Anarchists.
Comments
Sorry, man - I'm not trying to be a bastard about it, but it's just how it is - You're probably a very good traveller, but in the end, that's all you got - You're a PAX, not a Pro.
If a person is invested with some sort of right, must that person be provided with the most convenient means to exercise that right? I have a right to speak freely. However, my speech can only be heard by a few people at a time. It would be really convenient if CNN were to grant me some airtime to disseminate my views. As you say "flight is the only reasonable means of travel to many places on earth", CNN is the only reasonable means to disseminate my views to many places on earth. Since you derive a right to fly from flight being the only reasonable means of travel to many places on earth, shouldn't I have a right to airtime on CNN?
As for dogs, in all of the airports I have been in, admittedly I've only flown 20 times or so in my life, I have never seen a single dog in any of them.
I have only seen one person swabbed for explosives.
As for the Expert Gentleman at King's College, I'm afraid that while he's good, I reluctant to take his word for it without any corroborating evidence - And yes, he certainly is an expert in Political science and War Studies, with a Focus on Strategy, Democracy and Terrorism, that doesn't make his word law about what an Airport scanner will or won't pick up, Especially without evidence of any sort to back up his opinion. An opinion given as an out of context, cut down quote in a newspaper article.
I've seen a hand-held Wand pick up much smaller objects in the body, and I've seen a child who had swallowed some coins set off a metal detector in the airport - Happily, the family had a doctor's signed note, so after a quick phone call to confirm, they were let through - but knowing both explosives and airport security in detail, I've little doubt that it's very likely a detonator would be picked up by the metal detectors.
As for "I had an accident many years ago and had many metal pins used to fix my bones" - well, you'd better have a doctor to verify that. I can't speak for how it is in the states, but if you try to tell Airport security that you're setting off the metal detector because of pins in your bones, then unless you've a signed declaration from your doctor that this is the case - and yes, they do quite often call up to check even if you have one - especially around the abdomen, then you're not getting on the flight.
Further - the only place around there that you'd have pins in sufficient quantity to set off the detector around your stomach would be in your spine or very close to it, and a once-over with the wand would be able to pin-point if it was or not - if you did have pins in your spine, they'd give a stronger reading from next to your spine than from your front.
Oh, and last of all? I'm pretty sure, considering the circumstances of the blast, that the bomber didn't swallow the explosives, but in fact, shoved them up his arse - a much easier plan, and less likely to fail - and further, if he didn't get to see the prince as he had planned, then he could...retrieve the explosives, rather than dying a painful, useless death by essentially ingesting poison. They are reasonably common, but they are not in EVERY airport ALL the time, and you're not going to see them every time, as airports are not exactly the smallest places, and the airports where they are small enough that you'd see them damn near all the time if they were there do not always have them.
There are only so many dogs, and they are also tasked with sniffing bags and passengers incoming through customs. But they are most certainly there. I've seen plenty - but mostly, they save that for when the dog has detected you, at least, they do down here - or if you're committing some other suspicious behaviour. They have similar devices in customs, to check your bag for drugs and explosives.
I agree that given the blast went straight down, they probably did just shove them up his ass. For the past two years that my sister has been working at an "International" airport (I say international in quotes because they only keep that distinction because they still have flights to canada, Syracuse NY hasn't been a hub in a decade or two) and never once in all of her stories of the TSA being incompetent and thuggish, of customers being berating assholes, of her coworkers hi-jinks, has she ever mentioned a bomb sniffing dog. Chemical sniffing machines, wands, walk through metal detectors and xray machines, but no dogs. I'm asking her specifically right now though, so I'll update when she gets back to me. Just different experiences,? I've only ever flown after 9/11 here so I have no reference how things were previously. I have only ever flown in Canada and the US so I can't speak to how any other countries do their security.
I admit I don't know everything about airport security, you seem to be far better versed than I.
- Benjamin Franklin was here
Honestly, I have little respect for anyone who's actually afraid of "terrorists" in the United States. 9/11 couldn't happen again: the Zebra Storyteller took care of that. More people die from drug violence, bathroom accidents, driving errors regularly in the US than have ever been killed by terrorists.
Being afraid of this sort of thing is pathetic. There are no viable binary explosives that wouldn't have been caught by existing means. Taking our shoes off is a reactionary waste of time after one idiot failed in an attempt to make a shoe bomb.
I'm willing to risk the tiny, tiny chance of danger to not have to submit to intrusive and ineffective "security" every time I travel, and I call anyone who feels otherwise in the US out as a coward.
You fly a lot. Good for you. As I said to Scott, that makes you an experienced Passenger, and nothing more. Afraid is different to Prepared. I'm not afraid of snakes, but it would be stupid to go into their environment without knowing how to prevent getting bitten, and how to treat a bite if you do get bitten. I'm not afraid of Crocodiles, but I'm also not stupid enough to go jumping into every waterhole and creek I see. I'm not afraid of violence, but I'm also prepared to defend myself with competency if necessary. I'm not afraid of explosives, yet I still take precautions and great care while handling them.
In short, Preparation for an unfortunate event does not automatically indicate fear.
I'm actually a little disgusted and disappointed in you - you seem unable to think beyond your own convenience, and how unlikely it is for you personally to be caught up in one of these things. Yep - it's unlikely you personally will be caught up in any attack. But you seem unable to conceive of the idea that even if you personally are not caught up in it, if a plane is successfully bought down, that's anywhere from 150 to 850 or so people who are going to die. But you don't give a bloody fuck about anyone else, you just don't want to be personally inconvenienced. So, tell me - are you happy with the idea of a group of people possibly being caught up in this sort of thing for your own convenience, even if it is unlikely?
Admittedly, you could argue that it could still happen while you are being currently inconvenienced, however, I can tell you that it is - despite there being quite a bit of security theatre that raises the chances of a plan coming together successfully if attempted - much, much harder than it would have been previously.
Shit, pre-9/11, you could have wrapped up a block of Plastic explosive in a marzipan wrapper, put a little marzipan around it for style and concealment, hidden the detonator and power sources in other devices, assembled it on the plane and made a pretty big fireworks display trivially. Nowdays? Not nearly as easily. Now this, this is correct.
Taking off the shoes is ACTUAL security theatre. Shoes which are rigged to blow with enough force to take down a plane will most likely set off a metal detector, which would warrant a closer examination - again, most explosives with enough power to make it a sure thing require a detonator, very few of which would get through current screening procedures undetected. The liquids thing? Yeah, within reason, It's security theatre - again, if it sets off a security measure in place, it should be examined, but in general, it's not going to do anything, and the method of disposal of the fluids is ludicrous - a chemical agent could easily be dispersed with the current system, and while a bomb would be marginally harder, it would still be quite possible to set off quite a powerful bomb in the screening area.
Even your point on Binary explosives is half-way correct. While you could get PLX - a pretty powerful binary explosive - though security without that much effort, less effort previously, but it still would be far from impossible - what would be harder would be getting the blasting cap required to set it off through security. Though, if you were able to get that blasting cap through, or another similar ignition device - again, at the level of security before now, and especially before 9/11, an activity which would be far from impossible - you could trivially take down a plane. The trick is not the explosive, the trick is getting all of the parts in place that you could make it viable.
The problem you're running into is essentially that you're dismissing a great deal more as security theatre than is correct. For example, a Backscatter machine isn't security theatre any more than a metal detector, though it's not ideal on it's own, a combination of the two would be a decent enough idea.
There are improvements that could be made to the process to make it much more streamlined - for example, without a great deal more expense or vast changes, you could have a system of Bag on conveyor with laptop out, and whatever else is necessary on the belt > metal detector > Backscatter or Millimetre wave > retrieve baggage > on your way. Fail one of those, and you get a more extensive examination. Don't fail any of them, and you're on your way in about two minutes. Combine that with stricter oversight on the TSA agents, and much more clear rules and guidelines for them to follow, and reasonably strict certification of understanding of those rules. Blanket rules and enforcement thereof across all airports and states within reason wouldn't hurt.
What would be helpful would be the deployment of chemical sniffers in some form. The technology is there, and hell, if that fails, using dogs is always an option, and IIRC, it works well enough to use - but I don't know if or why-not-if-not it's deployed in the states.
This is as opposed to Laptop out, shoes off, belt off, etc etc etc, and on the belt > Toss out liquids > metal detector and a pat down if you fail, or backscatter and a patdown if you fail or refuse the scanner > Wait a bit while the TSA taffs about > Deal with whatever whims of the TSA person you're dealing with has at that moment > Retrieve baggage, put everything back in if your bag isn't being searched by hand, put on shoes, put on belt, and generally clog up the area till you're done getting back in order, and then get on your way. An inefficient, clumsy system, subject to the whims of whatever TSA drone is applying it to you, where not even the people administering these tests know exactly what is going on.
The system needs to be improved and refined, but not demolished or nearly eliminated as you seem to suggest - As much as being afraid is foolish, is is orders of magnitude more foolish thinking that proper precautions enacted to the best of our ability are not necessary, just because a particular occurrence that you're trying to prevent is not an everyday occurrence.
Also, the funny thing? It would be much, much easier for a baggage handler to put a bomb onto a plane, and successfully bring it down, than it would be for a passenger, but I don't see any of you saying we should really tightly screen, watch and regulate baggage handlers.
"Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY" is a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759).
Published by Franklin, arguably penned (or not) by him.
That said, the statement stands on its own merits, and doesn't really need an appeal to authority to be true.
(Edited to correct the quote from Jason after he expanded his post)
He doesn't want to submit to intrusive an ineffective security - but really, that's anything that he views as an inconvenience to him, because he just doesn't have the knowledge or experience to tell what's effective an ineffective.
For one example - There's no viable Binary explosives? PLX Plus blasting cap. PLX is a pretty powerful explosive, and hard to detect. About the colour of mountain dew, when mixed, and reasonably stable, though some caution is necessary. A solid pack electric blasting cap that would set it off is about the thickness of a pencil, and about the length of my little finger, easy enough to conceal if you know where to put it. Between the throw in a power source for your dets, can you take down a plane? Bet your ass. How hard would it be to get it onto a plane, in the days of "Metal detector, bag scanned, that's all"? All but trivial. How hard would it be now? Tricky, but do-able, if you're slick and lucky. He's essentially saying there "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a coward", and he seems to presume that because he takes a larger number of flights per year than average, he's an expert in how airport security should be handled. That's why he's being a git. Not because of his opinions on the issue. Yep. That's fair enough - but again, the problem is that he doesn't know enough to be able to judge what IS effective. Because the government essentially says "Our Airspace, Our Rules" - Just the same as on the road, you have to have a licences driver, a road-legal car, follow the road rules, and have the correct safety equipment in place, and the system is policed by, well, the police. If you hire a professional driver, or catch a cab, then they still have to follow the road rules, too. Yep. As it stands, the TSA is undercutting private security firms, and the airports like that quite a bit - every little bit of profit helps. You'll get one or two that opt to use private security instead of the TSA, but as to the effectiveness of that, well, that is another issue.
EDIT - Looks like national Opt Out day Fizzled badly. None of the promised protesters were in evidence, and Zero airports had any reported delays as would be expected by a large - or even signifigant - number of people opting out of the scanners. In fact, the airport with the most scanners had better than average line waiting times, and customer complaints were below average.