That prompted me to ask this:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11487186#post11487186
This would still give you the opportunity to remove or alter items from your luggage during the inspection cycle, which would be inherently insecure. If they are going to perform a security inspection, it should be done rigorously. It is also not always possible to tell what is identified on the scanner; indeed, this is generally the reason TSA inspectors look in luggage; not that they have identified a weapon or other contraband, but that they can’t clearly identify an item.
Honestly, the really secure thing to do would be to separate luggage and passengers entirely, at least for major city-to-city flights (probably impractical for commuter flights), and allow no non-pharmaceutical liquids or gels on the aircraft. Of course, this would be majorly inconvenient and would be of only marginal security benefit. If the flight deck doors had been secured on aircraft prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks the sum total damage would have been at most a few dozen people slashed and no way for the terrorists to access control of the plane. Instead of realizing that the damage wrought in the attack was due to a gross oversight in basic security (one pointed out by security experts for at least a couple of decades), the media and government reacted in hyperbolic fashion, spinning a known but limited terrorist menace into this overarching web of sleeper cells.
The truth is, of course, that there are no sleeper cells of highly trained and dedicated suicide bombers looking for any opportunity to slip through the cracks of an otherwise impenetrable security system. Instead, there are a bunch of semi-trained, poorly funded young men who have been cowed or hyped into performing marginally effective acts of terrorism. The threat, such as it is, is that we will reflexively overreact to a manageable threat that has the potential to cause less death than the number of passengers who die every month in prosaic automobile accidents.
Stranger
Because they don’t know what is in your bag. I’ve had this happen with an odd shaped deodorant container. It looked like a 40mm shell launched from a grenade launcher. They poked around in the bag for a while and couldn’t find what was on the screen, holding up the line and annoying the hell out of everyone waiting behind me. Finally, they showed me the screen. I stuck my hand in the bag and pulled out what they were looking for instantly. At that point they all agreed that was the item they were looking for. My point being, if they could identify everything in my bag on the scanner then I’d not be stopped. If they can identify everything except one thing, then show me what it is and I’ll pull it out. At that point everything is identified and I should be able to carry on. If they don’t agree then that the item is the one they are looking for then have at it. Otherwise, they are just going on an Easter Hunt.
On flights from Panama to the US, security in Panama City does not require shoes to be removed (or some other things required in the US, such as removal of a laptop from its bag). Odd if they require Canada to comply by US rules, but not other countries.
Don’t blame Richard Reid. Blame the powers that be for instituting this silly policy.
To show how silly it is, I read a while back that they made Al Gore take off his shoes when going through the security checkpoint. Gore said that it was only fair that he had to do it if everyone else did.
So security is about fairness? Now, as much as I dislike Al Gore politically, he is not a terrorist and any millisecond spent screening him is a millisecond that is misdirected from catching the real bad guys. It is all about the illusion of safety.
I don’t know – he was working hard to overthrow the Bush regime!
True, but for every Al Gore that you know is safe to let through there is a hundred borderline cases that could or could not be safe to skip. Where do you draw the line? Doing everyone makes life easier for those making the decisions.
Our airport security system is reactive and is a dog and pony show.
When a threat is discovered, we make pretense that we’re now screening for that threat. Why the liquids? Because a group of people were allegedly working on a plot to assemble a bomb via liquid components that they would mix on the plane. Most explosive experts claim that this really wouldn’t work, but the TSA decided to ban liquids on planes.
However, a complete ban on liquids was impossible. People complained about not being able to take medicine or lotions. Being unable to carry some shampoo in your luggage, etc. The first thing the TSA did was print an actual list of allowed vs. not allowed liquids. (And, one of the allowed was personal lubricant which means the mile high club must have pretty good lobbyists).
Later, instead of a strict list, the TSA came up with the three ounce rule. Later, it was modified to allow three ounce bottles carried inside of a quart baggie to limit the number of three ounce bottles you’re allowed to carry. They figured that medical needs could be met by these smaller bottles while still limiting larger amounts of liquids.
Thanks to the TSA, we will never fear someone sneaking aboard large quantities of refreshing beverages again.
Then again, imagine what would happen if the TSA suddenly decided they had to check passengers for this?
Really? Reeeeeeally? :dubious:
I’m fine with drawing the line at former Presidents, Vice-Presidents, and First Ladies, personally.
Then again, I’d argue that anyone who has an active Top Secret/SCI security clearance is presumptively not-a-terrorist enough to not have to go through the bullshit of taking their shoes off and bringing mini-toothpaste tubes, but that’s just me.
Ok, Top Secret Clearance sounds like a reasonable standard (and it extends well beyond former presidents, btw. My SIL has all levels of Top Secret Clearances being ex-Army and now Army contractor). You still need to make a working ID that marks her as such and train the TSA to validate them but that is close to trivial.
Saying Presidents and First Ladies is silly because then you have speaker of the House, Executive cabinet, etc who are just as logically in that category and someone else would roll eyes at checking them. This is what I mean by always having someone in a not-a-terrorist enough next down level.
But I like the idea of Top Secret. Heck, I would skip all military personnel also, no matter what their clearance. This is also a clearly defined and easy to ID group.
This is the problem, right here. If any group is made exempt, then you’ve opened the door. So the next terrorist just needs to wear some military clothes and bring a fake id to walk onto the plane unsearched?
How would you feel if you and your loved ones are killed by someone who got past security because they are in the [insert your favorite exemption] group?
Celebrities? Oops – they didn’t search someone who merely looked like Al Gore. Little old ladies? A plant recruited by Al Qaeda specifically to pass security.
Pregnant lady? Concealed bomb.
Oi! Deshoing is easy. Whats worse is being asked to remove the blazer, the shoes, the trouser belt and empty your pockets. Try walking through the scanner holding up your trousers with one hand, your shoes in another, the blazer wrapped over your shoulder, all the while looking at the basket which contains the contents of your pockets, your wallet, your watch, your passport.
Thats degrading.
Right. That’s the strongest argument for searching everybody. Can you positively ID any of the exception groups? This means creating forge proof ID and training your screeners to validate them. Possible but not trivial and not fail proof.
Pretty much been there. I had to fly in a suit once and when I wear a suit I usually use braces instead of a belt. I took off the coat and shoes, didn’t have anything really to empty because I always put those sorts of things (phone, money, keys, and so on) into my carry-on for security as it’s easier and I’m less likely to get any of my stuff stolen. I figured I was home free. Nope, as they had the sensitivity on that thing set way high and it went off on the little metal loops on the braces. I was asked if I could just take them off and I said no, since they were buttoned in and taking them off would make my pants fall down. Luckily, that was enough to just get wanded and get on my way.