Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: After John Tyner: A Five-Step Plan to a Sane Airport Security System
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/ ... rJones.com+%257C+MoJoBlog%2529
Published: Nov 20, 2010
Author: Nick Baumann
Post Date: 2010-11-20 11:25:26 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 5612
Comments: 14
In late October, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which handles airport security in the US, began offering passengers a choice: either submit to being imaged by the new, invasive, "backscatter" scanners, which show your genitals to the security officers manning the machine, or risk having your junk touched by those same officers. New regulations require that the TSA perform "enhanced pat-downs"—which some critics have described as "groping"—of anyone who declines the controversial full-body scan. If you decline both procedures, as Californian John Tyner did this week, you can be investigated and face fines up to $11,000. Although a recent poll showed that over 80 percent of Americans are okay with the new scanners, the forced choice between the "naked" imaging and the new pat-downs has a vocal group of fliers and airport security reformers up in arms. On October 29, Atlantic magazine writer Jeff Goldberg, who's cultivated a sort of side-career as an airport security reformer, wrote a hilarious blog post about his experience with the new pat-downs. The post, in which Goldberg banters with TSA officers about his testicles, was widely circulated on the Internet. But it wasn't until John "Don't Touch My Junk" Tyner taped his own encounter with the TSA that the story really took off, fuelling criticism of the TSA across the media and political spectrum. My colleague Kevin Drum is tired of hearing the complaints. So on Monday, he issued a challenge: [W]hat I haven't seen is an informed take on what airport security ought to look like. We all hate taking off our shoes and pulling out our laptops and being limited to three ounces of liquid and not being allowed to meet people at the gate anymore — we hate all of that. But if it's all useless, what should we do instead? Shouldn't someone write that article? Ever dutiful, I set out to complete Kevin's assignment. I asked Goldberg, security expert Bruce Schneier, and airline pilot (and security critic) Patrick Smith about what their ideal airport security schemes would look like. After speaking to them, I think Kevin is missing the point: the elimination of existing useless security procedures is the heart of the plan. It's not about doing something "instead" of the current system—it's about not doing things that are wasting money and time and not making us safer. It's quite possible that we're already as safe as we're going to get—and every subsequent airport security "improvement" is just reducing our freedom without improving security. Schneier is famous for explaining that "exactly two things have made us safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door and convincing passengers they need to fight back. Everything else is a waste of money." All three experts favor scrapping most of the security measures that people hate—and not necessarily replacing them with anything. Ideally, the money that was saved wouldn't be spent on airport security at all: it would be spent on trying to stop terrorists before they got to the airport. That means better-funding law enforcement and intelligence. All that said, Goldberg, Schneier, and Smith did offer some suggestions for new or different security procedures to use "instead" of the methods we're currently relying on. Here are a few options: 1. Enhance baggage security. All three experts mentioned this. Baggage is where the greatest danger is, and where airport security resources should be focused. "Right now the biggest threats are still bombs and explosives. That's the path of least resistance," Smith says. "All luggage going on passenger planes should be treated the same, and scanned," says Schneier. Making sure that a passenger's bags never, ever fly if he doesn't is also key. And we could do more. Here's an excerpt from a 2006 article by Schneier: 2. Pay more attention to airport workers. Schneier was an early advocate of background checks and increased screening for airport employees. If you're screening pilots, it's "completely absurd" not to screen the guy who is loading food on the plane, Smith says. This has improved in recent years, and the TSA now conducts random screening of airport employees. That could be broadened. Goldberg suggested considering biometric IDs for airport employees. 3. Randomize enhanced screening. Schneier has suggested that any "enhanced" screening of passengers be "truly random." That means that while the majority of passengers wouldn't face the invasive security checks they face now, every passenger would face the risk of a thorough search. Terrorists can't avoid or plan for truly random enhanced searches, like they can with protocol-, background-, and profiling-based searches. You don't want terrorists to be able to plan their way around your security. You want them to have to get lucky. 4. Make security lines less vulnerable. The huge lines of people waiting in airport security lines are themselves a huge target. "If you want to terrorize the country, you don't have to take down an airplane, you can just take people down in a security line," Goldberg says. "All these people packed in tightly waiting and waiting and waiting... The next day all the airports in America will be closed." Moving people through security quickly and efficiently will make the security lines themselves less of a target. 5. The Israeli model is unworkable on a large scale. But that doesn't mean you can't replicate parts of it. Some people believe that America should move to the Israeli model of airport security: intense screening based on asking passengers many, many questions and assessing their responses. But the experts I spoke to don't think that plan is workable in the United States. Israel has one medium-sized airport, and it would be next to impossible (and incredibly expensive) to enact Israeli-style security procedures in a country the size of the US. But that doesn't mean you couldn't have more (well-trained!) people observing passengers' behavior or asking key questions of randomly selected passengers.
If I were investing in security, I would fund significant research into computer-assisted screening equipment for both checked and carry-on bags, but wouldn't spend a lot of money on invasive screening procedures and secondary screening. I would much rather have well-trained security personnel wandering around the airport, both in and out of uniform, looking for suspicious actions.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: go65 (#0)
(Edited)
The bushbots should love this NWO communist plan. It's packed full of statism, just like the patriot act. Do you prefer the left boot on your neck, or the right one?
NWO communist plan? Did you even read the article? And the problem with allowing everyone to bring guns on a plane is that a terrorist will simply sit over the gas tank and empty his magazine into it.
LOL, that's the goofiest terrorist plot I've ever heard of. Don't quit your day job. The only one getting hurt in that scenario would be the terrorist, after the passengers get a hold of him. Planes have reserve fuel tank(s), and there's jet fuel in there, not gas.
Ever hear of rapid decompression due to a puncture of the fuselage? Just one yahoo firing a gun at 30,000 feet would do it.
Hmmm, and "it" didn't happen with the Quantas flight that sent shrapnel through 'fuel tanks' on that Air Bus A380 ...
An inspection of the plane on the tarmac found a 1 foot by 2 foot hole just behind the forward door on the left side of the fuselage. That this is fatal, is an urban legend, popular among anti civil rights statists. Yes, there was a movie like that, but that's not real life. A passenger jet landed in hawaii with most of the top missing, a few years back.
With a flight attendant sucked out into space when the top ripped off. Also, this flight was not flying at 30,000+ feet.
the flight, the Boeing B-757-223 experienced a rapid decompression at about 31-thousand feet. This one was, no serious injuries or deaths.
This is the incident I'm referring too. "Article: Roof Ripped Off Jet in Apparent Structural Failure; Flight Attendant Lost, 61 Injured The Washington Post Article date: April 30, 1988 Author: Laura Parker A huge section of the roof of an Aloha Airlines jet, which safely made an emergency landing on a Hawaiian island Thursday, tore loose and peeled off over the Pacific after an apparent structural failure weakened its fuselage, accident investigators said yesterday. A flight attendant, Clarabelle Lansing of Honolulu, was sucked through the opening, and 61 of the 94 others aboard were injured-one critically-as the pilots maneuvered the plane down from 24,000 feet and landed with an engine on fire at Kahului Airport on Maui Thursday afternoon.
That Qantas flight came pretty close to going down. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/world/asia/20qantas.html Now do you want to take a chance that a terrorist armed with the proper weapon, sitting in the proper seat, couldn't take down a plane by pumping several rounds into the floor before anyone knows what is going on?
If one or perhaps more than one terrorist decide to start shooting into the floor, windows, etc., you have absolutely no idea what damage they could cause.
The aircraft was FUBAR on take off. Several gunshots wouldn't have changed a thing IMO.
Most likely a lot less than flying into buildings. Catastrophic decompression is a myth. If an airliner loses cabin pressure, the oxygen masks drop, and it descends to 10k feet, automatically with no human intervention. It happens relatively frequently, will almost no ill affects to the passengers and crew.
True, but five terrorists opening fire into fuel tanks on five separate planes will be enough to shut down air travel for a while.
Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress
The correct plan is for government to butt out, and respect our inalienable (civil) rights.
#2. To: hondo68 (#1)
Schneier is famous for explaining that "exactly two things have made us safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door and convincing passengers they need to fight back. Everything else is a waste of money." All three experts favor scrapping most of the security measures that people hate—and not necessarily replacing them with anything. Ideally, the money that was saved wouldn't be spent on airport security at all: it would be spent on trying to stop terrorists before they got to the airport. That means better-funding law enforcement and intelligence.
All that said, Goldberg, Schneier, and Smith did offer some suggestions for new or different security procedures to use "instead" of the methods we're currently relying on. Here are a few options:
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#3. To: go65 (#2)
(Edited)
a terrorist will simply sit over the gas tank and empty his magazine into it.
#4. To: hondo68 (#3)
#5. To: go65 (#2)
And the problem with allowing everyone to bring guns on a plane is that a terrorist will simply sit over the gas tank and empty his magazine into it.
#6. To: Skip Intro (#4)
rapid decompression due to a puncture of the fuselage? Just one yahoo firing a gun at 30,000 feet would do it
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, Flight 1640 left Miami International Airport at about 10 p.m. Approximately 30 minutes in the flight, the Boeing B-757-223 experienced a rapid decompression at about 31-thousand feet. Oxygen masks were deployed inside the aircraft as the captain declared an emergency and returned safely to Miami.
#7. To: hondo68 (#6)
A passenger jet landed in hawaii with most of the top missing, a few years back.
#8. To: Skip Intro (#7)
this flight was not flying at 30,000+ feet.
#9. To: hondo68 (#8)
#10. To: _Jim (#5)
(Edited)
Hmmm, and "it" didn't happen with the Quantas flight that sent shrapnel through 'fuel tanks' on that Air Bus A380 ...
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#11. To: hondo68, skip intro (#6)
That this is fatal, is an urban legend, popular among anti civil rights statists. Yes, there was a movie like that, but that's not real life. A passenger jet landed in hawaii with most of the top missing, a few years back.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#12. To: Skip Intro (#9)
Investigation by the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the accident was caused by metal fatigue exacerbated by crevice corrosion (the plane operated in a coastal environment, with exposure to salt and humidity).[3] The root cause of the problem was failure of an epoxy adhesive used to bond the aluminum sheets of the fuselage together when the B737 was manufactured. Water was able to enter the gap where the epoxy failed to bond the two surfaces together properly, and started the corrosion process. The age of the aircraft became a key issue (it was 19 years old at the time of the accident and had sustained a remarkable number of takeoff-landing cycles — 89,090, the second most cycles for a plane in the world at the time — well beyond the 75,000 trips it was designed to sustain). Aircraft now receive additional maintenance checks as they age.
#13. To: go65 (#11)
If one or perhaps more than one terrorist decide to start shooting into the floor, windows, etc., you have absolutely no idea what damage they could cause.
#14. To: hondo68 (#13)
Most likely a lot less than flying into buildings.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]