Airport security - when do we say "enough"?

Great Debates
1

The director of Homeland Security says they might ban laptops and tablets from all flights entering the U.S. from foreign countries.

I used to be an airline pilot, now fly on the corporate side. So I’m going to be careful not to divulge anything I’m not supposed to, and will encourage others be similarly cautious. That said, I want to debate when we say “enough is enough” with regard to aviation security.

Ever since 9/11 I haven’t been at all worried about passengers causing serious (as in, crash the plane) problems. The cockpit doors are reinforced, people have been re-trained, but most importantly - other passengers won’t allow it. As for screening of luggage and carry-on… I think we’ve gone off the deep end and in so doing made flying incredibly unpleasant.

Kelly of HS says there are major threats to aviation, and I believe him. But there have always been threats to aviation, and there always will be. Banning electronics from foreign flights will likely create the following problems:

  • Making the whole process of flying even more confusing. I’m a professional, and even I find it confusing when traveling as a “civilian”.

  • It’s a sop to airlines who will get to charge lots of extra fees to check bags, especially at the gate if people neglect to prior to going through security. And / or, it will cause backups at security resulting from having to do something about forgotten laptops and tablets tablets in intended carry-on.

  • People need something to do on flights. Some will say, “Bring a book!”, but frankly I don’t think it should come to that. People work on electronics today, they shouldn’t have to lose that productivity during flight.

  • This will result in MORE non-lethal incidents of passenger disruption, or “air rage” due to travel being made even more unpleasant.

I’m not especially worried when I travel by air, but I’m not a security expert either. Having reached the point of banning electronics, I think it’s a bridge too far. I’m willing to say, “Thanks, but I’ll take my chances.” Let them have their electronics for the sake of humanizing the flight experience, and also as a stop on the slide toward more and more security. No matter what we do, something will eventually happen. I’m sick of flying being such a paranoid, unpleasant experience. No politician wants to stake their career on saying “stop” to security measures, but I feel we need to put the brakes on in some way.

Who thinks I’m nuts? Who agrees? Who has a better idea?

2

The frightened of all things foreign segment of the americans will continue to impose until finally the Americans accept to fly witout any clothes after the first attempt by an al Qaeda to use a charger bomb from inside his own ass…

3

The thing is, a bomb small enough to fit into a laptop isn’t going to be big enough to take down the plane. Yeah, a few people might get killed. So what? A big strong guy could probably kill a couple passengers with his bare hands before being subdued. We’re not going to ban big strong guys, are we?

The threat should be: can this take down the plane? If it won’t take down the plane, then there’s no point in banning it. And that’s why bans on nail clippers are so stupid. Can you kill someone with nail clippers? Yes. So what?

4

I have read the American Homeland Security thinks it faces the threat of the bomb in the laptop or the i-pad that if the laptop or the i-pad is held against the outer skin that if executed githt it could lead to the structural failure if executed at the high altitude.

But then I have read that it is ignoring the next risk, that to set off in the cargo hold - and now the cargo hold which is filled with the explosive batteries thanks to the American policy of all the laptops and all the i-pads and tablets, you have the nice chance of the non controllable explosive and damaging fire in that hold …

So you have only displaced the risk as well as opened up the non terrorist risk of the spontaneous battery failure doing the same by accicdent, which was the reason there was the international policy accord to limit and forbid the shipping of these devices and the batteries by the air in this fashion - and it has even been attributed to the loss of a FedEx plane and another cargo carrier in the recent years (two?)…

So because DAESH and Al Qaeda went BOOO to the new administration, it is the time for the new round of scared and fearful of all things foreign reaction among a certain segment…

5

I am curious why moving the electronics to the luggage area makes them safer. Surely having them blow up in the hold of the aircraft is just as detrimental to the aircraft in flight. If we are really concerned that the laptops will be used in a plot, can’t that be screened for at security so that people can have them on the plane? None of it makes sense to me. (I did think of one scenario involving a team of people, but I don’t think removing the laptops would stop it. They could easily adapt to another method.)

That said, what would push back look like? A refusal by the public to fly overseas and a hit to the economics of those airlines, one would imagine. Is anyone going to refuse to fly because they can’t have their laptop? This seems to be a death by inches.

6

I still wanna know why we have to take off our shoes, but not our underwear! :rolleyes:

Like you said, security was enough when the reinforced cockpit doors. All the rest is theater. But people are sheep. And an astounding (to me) number of folk believe that no inconvenience/expense is too much, if there is a chance it might save one life.

I’d love to see a good accounting of the costs of increased airport security, everything from TSA staffing, to time spent in line.

Really limited in ways to “push back.” The main tool is to decline to fly. But the majority of folk have demonstrated that they are willing to accept increased indignities so long as they get inexpensive airfares.

7

Not wanting to be blown out of the sky myself, I could not care less about how stringent the security measures. People are still less inconvenienced, but generally too spoiled to understand this, than the days when they had to travel weeks in a cramped space to reach their destination. I have no patience for security whiners myself.

8

I always imagined that OBL and/or his Al-Qaeda affiliates must have been ‘laughing their ass off’ watching passengers get inconvenienced at airports across the world from the 100ml (3.4 oz) liquid rule, taking off shoes, and necessary patdowns.

to be honest, this is human nature. So long as humans accept enough crap from other individuals even when there is a better solution, it will continue.

Don’t tell my former father that though, he got surprisingly pissed of when we had a discussion about airport security.

9

Security is one thing, security theater is another. Spend the time and money where it will actually do some good. Makiing people throw away their nail clippers and water bottles and stow their laptops only serves to make the flying public hostile thereby creating an environment where screaming matches and fist fights break out. So in effort to stop a statistically negligible amount of danger to the airplane, they’re creating more danger to individual passengers. The cost/benefit analysis just doesn’t add up.

And if a bomb in a laptop is so dangerous and difficult to detect, why am I forced to take my laptop out of my briefcase and have it scanned separately? If you can detect a bomb in it, why scan it?

mc

10

And they would be rubbing their hands with glee if they were allowed to slip bombs on planes easily. Don’t like security? Then don’t fucking fly anywhere.

11

Then you’re the perfect person to answer my question. What’s too much? At what point would you say it’s gone too far?

Booking flights a month in advance to allow for background checks?

Mandatory strip searches?

Sedating passengers? (I vaguely recall this was actually proposed at some point)

When would you start having patience for “security whiners”?

12

Al Qaeda Boo!

Now you fly naked.

It will be funny when the Al Qaeda move to the bomb component hidden in the anal cavities and the fearful will jump up to volunteer for the anal cavity search

13

As I recall, it is said that the Lockerbie bomb was hidden inside a small tape recorder/boombox sort of thing. Not much larger than a laptop.
And to Llama: I wouldn’t go with “crazy” as my rejection of your reasoning, I would go with “not well enough informed,” perhaps.

The nature of security is that it is an always evolving concern. As defenders erect barriers, attackers work up new methods. Therefore there will always have to be changes made. Therefore it is never logical to say “enough is enough.” We will always have to do something new, and since, as you say well, we periodically do come up with preventions for some things, there will be things which drop off our list of requirements as well.

It isn't clear yet why this latest restriction was put into place, and there is quite a controversy going on about the fact that we know as much about it as we do.  But it has been presented as far as I have heard, as being an expedient of the moment, due to serious threats connected with small computers.  As more is known about it, I expect that alternate ways of managing the concern will be pursued.

Every time something nasty has happened, especially in air transportation, actions have been taken both immediately, and for the long run, to prevent recurrences.

I personally have no sympathy whatsoever, for people who think they must remain electronically connected or entertained at all times. And I do NOT find the notion of reading a book to be the horrific experience that you seem to fear it is.

If a business person finds that being out of touch for a few hours is impossible, then they should not be traveling to begin with. Or sleeping, or eating, or doing any number of other activities which make laptops impossible to use.

Bottom line, while I do fully sympathize with your annoyance at an additional restriction on our lives being caused by terrorists, I disagree with you that a point could ever be reached where it is acceptable or logical to say “okay, from here on out, we accept being murdered as a normal part of flying.”

14

Don’t like security? Don’t go to the fucking theater.

Don’t like security? Don’t go to the fucking mall.

Don’t like security? Don’t take the fucking train or bus to work.

Don’t like security? … Where does it fucking stop?

15

Sounds to me like the terrorists have already won.

16

If we’re willing to accept risk we can.

It’s never clear because the powers that be keep the exact nature of threats secret. To a certain extent, I understand that. This means we can never truly know what the risk really is because it’s classified. It also means there is an implicit need for the public to simply accept any new restrictions because we don’t know the nature of the risk. This circular logic suggests to me there’s no end to potential security measures, and I’m personally less comfortable with that than the idea of being on a plane that’s blown up.

It’s not about that, and I don’t think I claimed reading a book is a “horrific experience”. I always travel with an actual book, along with my iPad. It’s about security creep, and this time it happens to involve electronics.

I personally am at that point. I’m willing to accept the risk, and I suspect if we stopped some of the sillier aspects of TSA security or allowed iPads on flights being murdered would still not be a normal part of flying. I don’t expect everyone to be at this point, which is why I’m interested in the question of what would constitute going too far.

17

of course it is more important than the rational security response analysis, to be oppsitional in culture. What kind of the conformist bourgeouis capitalist needs this dangerous innovations? I made my own pens and their ink, and mash my own paper, after I finish with the home making of the special tomato sauces.

18

To answer the thread-title question, sixteen years ago.

I like planes just fine. I fucking hate air travel though.

19

But do they work? There is a considerable amount of skepticism regarding this. Even among the security community.

mc

20

When we’re able, as a society, to have an honest conversation about how much risk we are willing to take in order to maintain a certain degree of freedom. So, short answer is “never”.