But, in a way, didn’t he win? Sure, he didn’t bring the plane down, but he can sit in his cell every day knowing that the thousands of Americans passing through airport security ALL have to remove their shoes because of him.
And the best thing is: we did this to ourselves!
Other’s have alluded to this, but I am glad that he didn’t have the device shoved up his rectum. How far will we go in the name of security?
With the declaration that planes can no longer carry people. You can send your luggage, but you personally have to find another way to your destination.
Just yesterday, I flew home from Cozumel. While in Cozumel, I bought a kitschy little candle as a present for my house/dogsitter. I forgot to put it in my checked dive bag, and it got noticed in the x-ray machine in Cancun. They made me throw it away 'cause it had a gel in it.
The worst thing about it? Not fifteen feet away, inside the security area, they were selling the exact same candle. Oh, and lots and lots of nice, flammable alcohol.
It’s just security theater, nothing else.
“American Airlines is pleased to welcome Amtrak and Greyhound to its list of partner transportation companies…”
This would be a good observation except that TSA agents receive very little in the way of behavior/observational analysis training and no cognitive interview training at all. Despite the pretense of being an ostensible law enforcement agency these people are less professional than a second-rate private security company.
The plastic bag is actually one of the more sensible rules, which ensures that the products to be inspected are both visible to inspectors and (hopefully) sealed from contaminating equipment and other passenger’s luggage. However, the “3.4 oz” rule is a strictly arbitrary figure converted from an initial recommendation of limiting liquids to 100 mL. Since the liquids from three or four passengers could be combined into a large enough explosive (especially if placed in a shaped container near a structural element) to damage an aircraft beyond recovery, it is hardly prohibitive to professional and well-trained attackers. Of course, this would ignore the fact that the September 11th attackers and other would-be Al-Qaeda-supported groups are neither professional or well-trained, and the claim that they are is simply played up to engender public support for on-going security efforts, whether necessary or not.
Stranger
To add to this, to be granted an exemption to the 3oz rule is laughably easy: contact lens solution is a “medicine” and thus merely has to be segregated from the 1 quart bag and mentioned to the security screener
so you could bring a coke bottle’s worth of “liquid” and no one will question it so long as it has “Bausch and Lomb” written on it
as has been mentioned - security theater.
You sure? I lost a 6 oz bottle of contact lens solution because the container size was larger than 3 oz. Fortunately, it was also about 3/4 empty, but that just enhanced the irony for me.
When I got to my destination, I stopped at the first drug store I could find and bought the convenient “travel size” that had two 3 oz bottles in it.
You should’ve put up a fight:
Travelers with Disabilities and Medical Conditions
Medications
You may bring all prescription and over-the-counter medications (liquids, gels, and aerosols) including petroleum jelly, eye drops, and saline solution for medical purposes.
Additional items you may bring include:
* Liquids including water, juice, or liquid nutrition or gels for passengers with a disability or medical condition;
* Life-support and life-sustaining liquids such as bone marrow, blood products, and transplant organs;
* Items used to augment the body for medical or cosmetic reasons such as mastectomy products, prosthetic breasts, bras or shells containing gels, saline solution, or other liquids; and,
* Gels or frozen liquids needed to cool disability or medically related items used by persons with disabilities or medical conditions.
You are not limited in the amount or volume of these items you may bring in your carry-on baggage. BUT if the medically necessary items exceed 3 ounces or are not contained in a one-quart, zip-top plastic bag, you MUST declare to one of our Security Officers at the checkpoint for further inspection.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1059.shtm
So, before this rule equipment was being contaminated? The only way it could be if it was taken out of your bag or some goomba sticks his hands into your bag and messes stuff up.
The messing things up is another thing that annoys me. If they’ll just tell me what they think they see on the scanner, I’ll get it for them instead of them spreading my stuff all over the place.
Before this there weren’t restrictions on the amount of liquids or gels that could be carried through security checkpoints. Now that there are (whether this is useful or not from a security standpoint) it does make sense to have the items in question located in a sealed, clear plastic bag, rather than loose and potentially leaking inside the scanner.
While I regard most of the security measures taken post-September 11th as being “security theater”, it also wouldn’t make much sense to have people essentially self-inspecting their own luggage, or allowing travelers to play sleight-of-hand with the contents of their baggage.
Stranger
Not that I disagree with your general assessment of security theater, but if one were taking security precautions seriously, that’s exactly what I’d expect them to do. That candle you’re bringing on board has been out of their control. That gel might be the original gel that came in the candle, or it might be some Super Dangerous High Explosive™ you’ve substituted in to sneak past security. That candle inside the security area is, presumably, filled with the original material so they’re comfortable selling it to you.
Now, is there a real threat that can be sneaked in in such a matter? I have no idea. But the logic behind it seems sound to me. Although I assume there’d be easier ways to sneak such a thing onboard, if such a thing existed, than going the route of putting it in a gel in a candle. Like, for example, sticking it up your rectum or otherwise hiding it on your person.
But they are usually looking for a specific item that stood out on the scanner. If I show them the item they are looking for, that matches what was on the scanner, then they should be happy, shouldn’t they?
And it is mostly theater. Standing in line, one of the things I do is figure out ways I could hide things if I was inclined to do so. It wouldn’t be terribly hard. I think it would be hard to smuggle items, or enough of an item, that could seriously damage a plane, though.
I always thought that the liquid restrictions were the result of this bomb plot and not because of Richard Reid.
You are correct. The liquid limit is because of that plot; the removing of shoes is because of Richard Reid.
Of course, the airport where Reid originated (LHR) does not require you to remove your shoes.
Puhleeeze. :rolleyes:
Plastic bags or sheeting and duct tape is an excellent way to seal off your house and make it somewhat airtight, which is important for certain air based gas attacks.
We got the idea from the Israelis, who use it for the same thing, and they sure as fuck aren’t getting campaign contributions from the Duck Tape dudes.
Shows that the left can come up with as crazy stuff as the Birthers on the Right.
It varies at Heathrow. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t.
Flying out of Cancun, there was a sign which specifically said that we didn’t have to take off our shoes. Everyone was surprised to learn that they didn’t have to de-shoe.
De-shoeing is one of the most annoying and degrading security measures ever. Thanks a lot, Richard Reid.
If you need to take your shoes off for a flight in Canada, it is probably because the flight is going to the US, flies over the US at some point, or has a US airport as a potential alternate in case of trouble or bad weather. You want to do any of that, you play by US rules.
There was a case recently where a Canadian flight going from Halifax on the east coast to central Canada was turned back while flying over New England (the most direct route between the two points) and had to return to Halifax because one passenger was on a US watch list.
Naw, I mostly fly over Northern Canada and Iceland as I’m transiting through Europe. Nowhere near the US. I haven’t had to do it in quite a while, though.