# New "Security" Regulations



## Talent312 (Dec 26, 2009)

*Airlines: New rules keep passengers in seats*
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing

Air Canada said in a statement that new rules imposed by the Transportation Security Administration limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in U.S. airspace. The airline said that during the final hour of flight passengers must remain seated. They won't be allowed access to carryon baggage or to have any items on their laps.

Flight attendants on some domestic flights are informing passengers of similar rules. Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows....

------------------------------------
Hopefully, no one will feel the need to relieve themselves during this time.
Perhaps they'll be kind enuff to announce a "last call."


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Dec 26, 2009)

*Gotta go, gotta go..*

On many flights there is very little time that the fasten seat belts sign is off. Again, we have jumped to a "solution" for preventing a similar occurence that preboarding security systems currently in place should have detected!

Time for Depends!


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 26, 2009)

I am always surprised how often people are jumping up to go to the lavatory just after the plane is in the air and the seat belt sign is still lit. It is like people wait to get on the plane to use the restroom or something. Just because the flight attendants are moving around doesn't mean passengers should be also. They even state this but people ignore it. I am sure this change is reactive (as all changes in security are) to the Christmas Day events on approach of the Delta/NWA flight in to Detroit.


----------



## Fern Modena (Dec 26, 2009)

So if you are flying LAX --> LAS  or LAX --> SFO, they may as well just lock the loo.  By the time the seat belt light would normally go off, no more than an hour would be left.

What happens if you really have to go???

Fern


----------



## caribbean (Dec 26, 2009)

Gee, so because this jerk waited till the plane was decending to try to blow the plane up, they put rules new in place for the last hour of flight. Guess the next jerk will make his/her move earlier in the flight. Why one hour??? Totally reactive. Do I feel safer?? NO


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 26, 2009)

caribbean said:


> Gee, so because this jerk waited till the plane was decending to try to blow the plane up, they put rules new in place for the last hour of flight. Guess the next jerk will make his/her move earlier in the flight. Why one hour??? Totally reactive. Do I feel safer?? NO



If it was done 55 minutes in to a US flight, they would be limiting activity in the first hour of a flight. If this is reactive to Friday's events, I don't see how this helps make anything safer.

Almost every safty measure is reactive.

Remove your shoes to be x-ray'ed.
The 311 rule.
Color threat levels.
No box cutters or other sharp objects.

Shouldn't some of these things be thought of before something actually happens?


----------



## LAX Mom (Dec 27, 2009)

I read they intend to search all carry-ons before boarding. Can you imagine how long that will take? 

It is frustrating that air travel has changed so much since 9-11. However, I don't think it will ever return to the carefree days of years ago. The threat of terrorism will continue and there will always be some risk involved in travel. 

Personally I'm willing to remove my shoes, travel without liquids and stay in my seat if it will help keep the flights safe.


----------



## Jimster (Dec 27, 2009)

*searching*

As far as searching all carry ons goes, they already do that in Hong Kong.  No problem but they have a lot of screeners.


----------



## LAX Mom (Dec 27, 2009)

Jimster said:


> As far as searching all carry ons goes, they already do that in Hong Kong.  No problem but they have a lot of screeners.



I don't recall ever having all carry-ons searched. I guess if they are doing it in Hong Kong it can be done in an efficient manner. It seems like it would take many more employees than TSA currently has available.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Dec 27, 2009)

More TSA screeners = more fees.  Look for this latest change/improvement to hit us in the pocketbook again!


----------



## Bruce W (Dec 27, 2009)

caribbean said:


> Gee, so because this jerk waited till the plane was decending to try to blow the plane up, they put rules new in place for the last hour of flight. Guess the next jerk will make his/her move earlier in the flight. Why one hour??? Totally reactive. Do I feel safer?? NO



So the guy was sitting in his seat when he tried to ignite the bomb, what would making the passengers sit do for that. I know he went to the lavatory and stayed in there 20 min, isn't that a "red flag".

Speaking from experience, many folks get a little "hyper" rush before take off and landing which necessitates a trip to the Lavatory. Will it be like the amusement park, where if you are already on line when the closing hour is near, you get to stay?

We all want to be safe, but, reactionary measures do no good and will likely cause other problems not associated with terrorism ( is that the word nowadays, I am so confused)


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 27, 2009)

I used to joke about showing up in a bathrobe and slippers.
Maybe that's not so outlandish, after all.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 27, 2009)

Whatever it takes is OK by me. If I want to fly, it is part of the deal.

What I read was the one hour deal is for flights entering the USA, not domestic but who really knows. It will take at least a month to get the rules really in place.

Maybe fewer people will be flying now and I can get more Upgrades and FF Seats. 

Say Talent 312, you going to the Sugar Bowl? I will be there for the game as a Bearcat to see an UC Alum coach his last game. 

Cheers


----------



## caribbean (Dec 27, 2009)

The bad thing is that so many of these reactionary rules are all for show. They have no real effect, just keeping the honest people honest. I have heard it called theatre security. It is primarily done to make people think they are safer when the reality is that those that want to do harm will find a way. 

I take 4-5 trips a year. I figure since 9-11 I have been on at least 65 flights. I carry a mini laptop computer which is about 7.5" X 3.5" in my pocketbook. Until my last flight returning from Jamaica, it has gone right through security in my pocketbook without anyone ever even asking what it was. Now how secure is that? They make you take the laptops out, but don't even question my Jornada. In Jamaica, the agent removed it from my pocketbook and asked me what it was, but never even asked me to open it up, she just noded and handed it back to me.

I also carry 3 small bottles of liquid in my pocketbook every day, hand lotion, eyedrops, and nasal spray. I never take them out of my pocketbook and have never been questioned. So apparently they can't see them during screening.

This guy apparently went through security with some amount of liquid and a syringe. Go figure.

Theatre security. I quietly put up with all of their requests, but it in no way makes me feel any safer, nor do I think it is of any value. I noticed yesterday that initial broadcasts complained that there were no updated security measures.  Then several hours later we start hearing about the new rules. I thought it was laughable that TSA reacted to the complaints and issued new rules just to make the public feel safer that they were reacting.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 27, 2009)

BTW, it is much more likely you will be in an accident going to or coming from the airport in your car than any kind of incident on the aircraft. If it takes another 15 minutes to board, no big deal to me.

So I don't worry at all about security or safety on airplanes and try and keep my eye out for drunks and crazies on the highways.  

Cheers


----------



## Jimster (Dec 27, 2009)

*Security*

I fly often and it is true security is rather lax-at least in this country.  I am never questioned about the insulin I take through security even though it is liquid.  I also never put it in one of the plastic baggies but rather carry it often in a syringe.  I am sure the security does thwart people taking many questionable items on board although I don't think they very often are designed for a terrorist attack.  Even if they did a superb job with the carry on luggage, the truth is only about 10% of the checked luggage is screened.  You can carry more in checked luggage and it can do more damage than the carry on luggage so it really means little in terms of safety.

As I said in a prior post, however, in Hong Kong they search everything.  They literally go through each piece of carry on-no matter how long it takes.  Terrorists know which airports have lax security and those that don't.  Thus, thwarting any real security precautions.

Having said that, the elimination of all security would send the wrong message too.  I think as technology becomes more efficient and pervasive we someday soon will see meaningful security.  I also wouldn't mind a much more rigorous search as long as it was done quickly and efficiently.  Right now the worst thing about security is the infrequent traveler.  In "Up in the Air" George Clooney's character takes pot shots at the people who just can't figure it out.  I am with him 100%.  These people are the real menance!  I admit the security is not good but why do we have to lose so much time because people are clueless? These would include the people who pack too much, the people who don't know the rules and have to be prompted to take off their coat, their shoes, and to pull out their computer.  The people who wander, stroll, and absent mindedly amble through security.  The people who travel with kids and can't keep them under control or figure out how to collapse their stroller and hold everyone else up.  Maybe these people should all stand off to the side and watch a video of how to go through a security line before they actually get in one.  Thank god most airports now have Premier security lines but even there you get many of the same.  Maybe you are not in a hurry-I get that.  However, many  people behind you in line are-so do us a favor and move along quickly.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 27, 2009)

Jimster said:


> Having said that, the elimination of all security would send the wrong message too.  I think as technology becomes more efficient and pervasive we someday soon will see meaningful security.  I also wouldn't mind a much more rigorous search as long as it was done quickly and efficiently.  Right now the worst thing about security is the infrequent traveler.  In "Up in the Air" George Clooney's character takes pot shots at the people who just can't figure it out.  I am with him 100%.  These people are the real menance!  I admit the security is not good but why do we have to lose so much time because people are clueless? These would include the people who pack too much, the people who don't know the rules and have to be prompted to take off their coat, their shoes, and to pull out their computer.  The people who wander, stroll, and absent mindedly amble through security.  The people who travel with kids and can't keep them under control or figure out how to collapse their stroller and hold everyone else up.  Maybe these people should all stand off to the side and watch a video of how to go through a security line before they actually get in one.  Thank god most airports now have Premier security lines but even there you get many of the same.  Maybe you are not in a hurry-I get that.  However, many  people behind you in line are-so do us a favor and move along quickly.



Well said. Thanks

Cheers


----------



## Dave M (Dec 27, 2009)

I went through security this morning in San Francisco and flew to Chicago today on my way back to SC. 

Confirming what X3 Skier stated above, most of the new security measures are for international flights, especially those flights coming into the U.S. 
For international flights, passengers must remain in their seats for the last hour of flight without any personal items (e.g., a laptop) on laps. Also, again for international flights, there is a new limit of one carry-on (compared to the current rule of one carry-on and one personal item).

Those changes were confirmed by an article in today's San Francisco Examiner, although the TSA site has no details as yet. However a statement on TSA's blog says, "These measures are designed to be unpredictable, so passengers should not expect to see the same thing everywhere."

There is no new rule requiring the search of every carry-on item at gates, as is done in Hong Kong. My carry-ons (a small roller-board suitcase and my computer bag) were not searched at SFO after I went through normal security, although there was a gate announcement warning us that some carry-on items might be searched before boarding.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Dec 27, 2009)

Jimster said:


> I fly often and it is true security is rather lax-at least in this country.  I am never questioned about the insulin I take through security even though it is liquid.  I also never put it in one of the plastic baggies but rather carry it often in a syringe.  I am sure the security does thwart people taking many questionable items on board although I don't think they very often are designed for a terrorist attack.  Even if they did a superb job with the carry on luggage, the truth is only about 10% of the checked luggage is screened.  You can carry more in checked luggage and it can do more damage than the carry on luggage so it really means little in terms of safety.
> 
> As I said in a prior post, however, in Hong Kong they search everything.  They literally go through each piece of carry on-no matter how long it takes.  Terrorists know which airports have lax security and those that don't.  Thus, thwarting any real security precautions.
> 
> Having said that, the elimination of all security would send the wrong message too.  I think as technology becomes more efficient and pervasive we someday soon will see meaningful security.  I also wouldn't mind a much more rigorous search as long as it was done quickly and efficiently.  Right now the worst thing about security is the infrequent traveler.  In "Up in the Air" George Clooney's character takes pot shots at the people who just can't figure it out.  I am with him 100%.  These people are the real menance!  I admit the security is not good but why do we have to lose so much time because people are clueless? These would include the people who pack too much, the people who don't know the rules and have to be prompted to take off their coat, their shoes, and to pull out their computer.  The people who wander, stroll, and absent mindedly amble through security.  The people who travel with kids and can't keep them under control or figure out how to collapse their stroller and hold everyone else up.  Maybe these people should all stand off to the side and watch a video of how to go through a security line before they actually get in one.  Thank god most airports now have Premier security lines but even there you get many of the same.  Maybe you are not in a hurry-I get that.  However, many  people behind you in line are-so do us a favor and move along quickly.



I really don't think the "seasoned/business traveller" line is much better than the other lines. I was in the business traveller lane with another lady and we were getting lectured by a guy in front of us, you know the wanttobe "World traveller" about how to go through security.   Slower than a slug, couldn't remember what pocket he had his laptop in, 5 minutes unloading his pockets.

We just  at him. Same trip on the other end had a woman unload a DVR, 2 laptops and an Xbox in the business traveller line! She was solo, which I found amusing with the amount of stuff.

At the North terminal at Detroit Metro, my sons(13 and 8) we're pointed out by a TSA agent to another family on how kids need to behave in a security line(and help with the bags).


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 27, 2009)

x3 skier said:


> Say Talent 312, you going to the Sugar Bowl? I will be there for the game as a Bearcat to see an UC Alum coach his last game.



We couldn't get away for the bowl game... but we are heartened by Meyer's reported change of mind to take a leave of absence, instead of quit altogether.


----------



## Patri (Dec 27, 2009)

dioxide45 said:


> Almost every safty measure is reactive.
> 
> Remove your shoes to be x-ray'ed.
> The 311 rule.
> ...



OK predict the next new stunt a terrorist will pull and let us know, so the security can get into place now.
Hindsight is always easy. Who would have ever thought shoes would be associated with a weapon? (Except Maxwell Smart  )


----------



## happybaby (Dec 27, 2009)

Bruce W said:


> So the guy was sitting in his seat when he tried to ignite the bomb, what would making the passengers sit do for that. I know he went to the lavatory and stayed in there 20 min, isn't that a "red flag".



That reminds me of our flight out of Phoenix this past fall where a guy went into the lavatory  about an hour before we were landing and he was in there for a good 10 minutes.   GOSH was I getting nervous, sweating, heart palpitations , etc.   I nudged DH and he noticed also and was also nervous.

He finally came out with this smirky , cocky, dah dah dah  look.   Yes he was foreign!!!     I should have turned him in, but I'm sure the flight attendants were aware of this because it seemed all of them were up front near the cockpit.   I could still kick my butt for not going to someone when we landed.  I could still see his face plain as day!!!!!!!!!!

I don't understand why they permit lighters and other items that were restricted before.


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 27, 2009)

happybaby said:


> ... a guy went into the lavatory  about an hour before we were landing and he was in there for a good 10 minutes... He finally came out with this smirky, cocky, dah dah dah  look... I could still kick my butt for not going to someone when we landed...



Sorry for being crude, but...
You were going to turn the guy in for masturbating in the lavatory?


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 27, 2009)

Patri said:


> OK predict the next new stunt a terrorist will pull and let us know, so the security can get into place now.
> Hindsight is always easy. Who would have ever thought shoes would be associated with a weapon? (Except Maxwell Smart  )



Its not about predicting what they will do, it is about discovering the holes they have in their own security measures. These are the people that our tax dollars go to to be protecting the flying public. The money should be spent to keep bad people off of planes, not bad items. You, me and thousands of other people could take weapons, peroxide, or any other item currently banned and there wouldn't be a problem. All it takes is that one dangerous person to take them on and there are problems. The time and energy of the security charade is all being misdirected.

Stopping thousands of the flying public from getting up or using the restroom for the last hour of the flight accomplishes nothing.


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 27, 2009)

The Consumerist website is now reporting a ban on electronic items in the cabin for flights coming into the U.S. from foreign lands. If this extends to domestic flights I guess flying is all but over for us. As it is I was looking at cutting our flights by 50% (from 6 down to 3 per year). I will NOT allow my expensive electronics to go through baggage handlers when it's well known who poorly luggage is handled and the advice is never pack something you'd hate to have stolen. 

It's getting to the point where you can't secure you checked luggage with locks, you can't carry on expensive electronics onto the plane, you can't go to the bathroom on flights less than 2 hours (how long is that seat belt sign off on those short flights), you can't have a blanket on your lap, you can't have a pillow, you can't access your carry on luggage, you can only have one carry on item, the airlines are charging for checked baggage and the list will go on.

Sorrry but it's looking like driving for 12 to 20 hours will be more enjoyable than taking a 2 hour flight that could end up taking 4 to 5 hours just to check in, get through security and then be made as uncomfortable as humanly possible while you're on the plane. Unless things change, we'll be making plans to change how we travel.

The sad part, NONE of these changes will make any of us feel more secure and safe. It won't improve security nor will it keep these meatballs from coming up with another way to make an attempt on the airline industry.


----------



## Dave M (Dec 27, 2009)

I believe the "ban on elctronic items in the cabin" was an unsubstantiated rumor. Here is the guidance to travelers issued by TSA earlier this evening. It includes the following with respect to international flights to the U.S.:





> Passengers flying into the United States from abroad can expect to see additional security measures at international airports such as increased gate screening including pat-downs and bag searches. During flight, passengers will be asked to follow flight crew instructions, such as stowing personal items, turning off electronic equipment and remaining seated during certain portions of the flight.


A requirement for "turning off electronic equipment during certain portions of the flight" (presumably during the last hour) is much different than an outright ban on such equipment or on its use.


----------



## Rose Pink (Dec 27, 2009)

dougp26364 said:


> ...Sorry but it's looking like driving for 12 to 20 hours will be more enjoyable than taking a 2 hour flight that could end up taking 4 to 5 hours just to check in, get through security and then be made as uncomfortable as humanly possible while you're on the plane. Unless things change, we'll be making plans to change how we travel.


 
Maybe we'll discover new places along those long drive routes.  New routes, new routines, new adventures.  Could be a good thing.


----------



## djs (Dec 28, 2009)

Perhaps we all ought to be required to fly naked.  Hooters' Airlines might just have been ahead of their time.


----------



## amanven (Dec 28, 2009)

When we flew from Toronto to Washington DC 4 years ago, we were sent to a seperate boarding lounge away from the regular boarding area.  A police officer was posted in that particular lounge watching everyone the entire time we waited to board.  We were not allowed to leave that particular boarding lounge.  It had it's own washrooms to ensure no one left to find a washroom.   I lost count of how many times we had to show our passports to someone during the wait.  When we boarded the plane we were informed we were not allowed to stand up during the last half hour of the flight.
Leaving Washington to go back to Toronto was an eye opener.  There was a little less security at the boarding lounge but the 30 minute no stand up rule was still in place and was announced, this time at the beginning of the flight (until we would be well away from the capitol).  Now, there is always someone who either doesn't believe rules apply to them or doesn't listen so of course someone stood up soon after the flight had taken off.  I have never seen a flight attendant blow up at a passenger like I did on that flight.  From the front of the plane she pointed at him and screamed that if he didn't sit down immediately she would have the pilot turn the plane around.  She then charged down the aisle toward him and ordered him to sit down. By then everyone on the fight was looking at him so needless to say he sat down..... quickly. 
I don't know if those Washington security measures have remained in place since back then but some of these rules we are hearing about now don't seem all that "new" but rather a broader application of some pre existing security measures. 
If the TSA wants to cut the amount of carry on then it's about time the powers that be leaned a bit harder on the airlines to improve their baggage handling practices and reduce their fees for checked baggage.  Half the reason people take so much carry on is to avoid the fees and the other half is because they don't trust the airlines to take care of their baggage.
I particularly don't like the fact that airlines are allowed to forward your luggage on other flights while you are still scrambling to rebook after your flight is cancelled. I would be more than happy to check all my luggage if there was enough airline personel to check in luggage in a timely manner, if I could be reasonably sure my valuables and electronics wouldn't be stolen or carelessly thrown around and if I could get my checked bags back if I opted for another mode of transport should my flight be cancelled.  Unfortunately that seems to be too much to ask of many airlines. 
The proposed passenger bill of rights seems to be all the more important to have now because without it, the airlines will blame some of their short comings on the new TSA rules and make no effort to make a difficult situation easier to live with.  I hope the TSA plans on hiring a lot more screeners!


----------



## dive-in (Dec 28, 2009)

I've always heard El Al has tremendous security...for obvious reasons.  Has anyone ever experienced their security?  What do they do?  How long does it take?  Is it feasible for all airports?


----------



## Keitht (Dec 28, 2009)

I haven't travelled El Al but my understanding is that even pre-911 it was necessary to be checked in at least 3 hours before flight time in order to get through the other security checks.


----------



## fivepennies (Dec 28, 2009)

*New security-screening device: invasion of privacy?*



caribbean said:


> The bad thing is that so many of these reactionary rules are all for show. They have no real effect, just keeping the honest people honest. I have heard it called theatre security. It is primarily done to make people think they are safer when the reality is that those that want to do harm will find a way.
> 
> Theatre security. I quietly put up with all of their requests, but it in no way makes me feel any safer, nor do I think it is of any value. I noticed yesterday that initial broadcasts complained that there were no updated security measures.  Then several hours later we start hearing about the new rules. I thought it was laughable that TSA reacted to the complaints and issued new rules just to make the public feel safer that they were reacting.



Thank you! I was reading through the posts waiting for a comment like this to come up, otherwise I would have had to post it myself. I love how you called it "theatre security" because it's sooo true. They have to take some kind of action otherwise a lack of action would reflect a lack of concern, or a lack of social responsibility. 

As for the new regulations, it's not fair that the rest of us have to suffer because the TSA can't do their job right at security check. Now we have a potential privacy issue on the rise. According to an article in the New York Times, a new security-screening device that uses so-called milimeter waves to create an image of a person's body underneath their clothes is slowly being introduced at 19 airports. The images are viewed in private and are supposedly not stored. 

If they consider using this special machine for routine passenger screening, I don't think I'd feel very comfortable knowing that someone can see my naked body (assuming this equipment is Superman status, which is how I'm imagining it based on the description alone). I hope legislation doesn't make this a standard protocol.


----------



## love2travelguy (Dec 28, 2009)

*Obama Orders Airline Security Review*

On Sunday, President Obama ordered a review of two major components of airport security: watch lists and the equipment use at airport security check points. 

So why wasn't this terror suspect stopped? If you read this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/us/28terror.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp), you'll see that the answer may be quite obvious. Security officials slacked off and failed to acknowledge the warning signs (ie. paid cash for ticket, no checked baggages, on a watch list...)

No wonder I prefer road trips. Less hassle.


----------



## drguy (Dec 28, 2009)

TSA has no authority in Nigeria, nor does it have authority in any other country.  TSA only has authority in the USA.  TSA does cooperate with airport authorities in other countries.


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 28, 2009)

According to this article, these idiotic knee jerk reaction "rules" have already been eased.  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/28/national/main6030609.shtml

The TSA is a sham. It's a low cost way to make us believe the government is doing something. They've never really taken time to address the situation and eventually we'll get hit again. 

George Carlin said it best BEFORE 9/11 on his You're All Diseased CD. This is all just entertainment. The previous post which labled it as theater security is closer to correct than what the government would have us believe.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 29, 2009)

Looks like its time to move this to the Political Section of the BBS. 

Cheers


----------



## markbernstein (Dec 29, 2009)

The generally used term is actually "security theater", and was coined in 2003 by Bruce Schneier, a security expert and an acquaintance of mine.  Here's the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

I'll leave it to all of you to decide whether that was educational or pedantic.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 29, 2009)

LAX Mom said:


> Personally I'm willing to remove my shoes, travel without liquids and stay in my seat if it will help keep the flights safe.





dive-in said:


> I've always heard El Al has tremendous security...for obvious reasons.  Has anyone ever experienced their security?  What do they do?  How long does it take?  Is it feasible for all airports?



I travel to Israel sometimes (not on El Al) and Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv has very good security. The El Al security is on top of that - for example I believe they always had at least two undercover armed air marshals on every flight. Keep in mind that Israel is a reltively small country and El-Al is a small airline (less than 50 planes total)

Passengers are required to arrive 3 hours before all flights, not just El Al flights because they may be subject to extensive questoning, screening and search of all bags. This is especially true for non-Israelis. What makes it different from the US is that there is extensive "profiling" and they are not shy about asking many personal questions about the purposes of your visit, your religion etc. On the other hand, I never had to take off my shoes or throw away my bottled water in what is considered one of the most secure airports... so in response to LAX Mom - there are probably more effective ways than having hundreds of millions of people take off their shoes each year... 

Here are two interesting articles on the topic:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...6/08/23/what_israeli_security_could_teach_us/
http://securitysolutions.com/news/security_exposing_hostile_intent/


----------



## geekette (Dec 30, 2009)

the shoes and liquids crap was always ridiculous.  It's reactionary.  There is no way to screen for every possible way to smuggle a bomb on, so, best they could do was use hindsight to make it look like something was happening, so that at least some subset of the flying public would feel safer.  

I didn't read the new regs, but don't understand how not using the can an hour before landing helps anything.  If my devious dirty work needs to be done in there, why wouldn't I just go in an hour _and a half_ before landing??

seemed a very mean thing, too.  A few 'incidents' would reverse that one.  My poor mother, for example, would simply not make it!


----------



## geekette (Dec 30, 2009)

fivepennies said:


> Thank you! I was reading through the posts waiting for a comment like this to come up, otherwise I would have had to post it myself. I love how you called it "theatre security" because it's sooo true. They have to take some kind of action otherwise a lack of action would reflect a lack of concern, or a lack of social responsibility.
> 
> As for the new regulations, it's not fair that the rest of us have to suffer because the TSA can't do their job right at security check. Now we have a potential privacy issue on the rise. According to an article in the New York Times, a new security-screening device that uses so-called milimeter waves to create an image of a person's body underneath their clothes is slowly being introduced at 19 airports. The images are viewed in private and are supposedly not stored.
> 
> If they consider using this special machine for routine passenger screening, I don't think I'd feel very comfortable knowing that someone can see my naked body (assuming this equipment is Superman status, which is how I'm imagining it based on the description alone). I hope legislation doesn't make this a standard protocol.



These machines have been talked about for a while.  Considering that I would be only one in (tens or hundreds of) thousands going thru that day, I don't really care.  It's far less personal that way, and I choose to believe that those viewing the images would be professional.  Really, they are just body images, so what?  can't imagine I'll get a summons concerning my extra body fat nor any snickers or drooling.  certainly wouldn't be attracting any stalkers.

but this would have found the damned hypodermic.


----------



## x3 skier (Dec 30, 2009)

geekette said:


> These machines have been talked about for a while.  Considering that I would be only one in (tens or hundreds of) thousands going thru that day, I don't really care.  It's far less personal that way, and I choose to believe that those viewing the images would be professional.  Really, they are just body images, so what?  can't imagine I'll get a summons concerning my extra body fat nor any snickers or drooling.  certainly wouldn't be attracting any stalkers.
> 
> but this would have found the damned hypodermic.



+1

Cheers


----------



## Poobah (Dec 30, 2009)

*Body Scanning*

It is very difficult to talk about flight security without getting into politics, because it is political. It is the politics of personal privacy, it is the politics of profiling, it is the politics of free speech, etc., etc.

The scanning technologies, bomb sniffers, and searches are going to become a way of life for the traveler. IMHO there is simply no choice, until the "situation" is resolved and I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.

The fact is that security is expressed in percentages of compromise. We need to do what ever to get that percentage to lots of nines.

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 30, 2009)

Those who want to maintain a semblance of privacy and avoid the hassles  simply have to find aternative means of transit, driving longer (most likely) or taking trains (where available). As someone pointed out, flying is not a public right

However, for many, the speed or labor-saving adavantage of air-travel is an overriding factor. For those of us, we may as well cast aside any pretense of privacy and just suffer the indignities. Full body cavity search? Hey, if it means a "safer" flight, I'm gonna grin and bear it.


----------



## Poobah (Dec 31, 2009)

*Security*

Did you mean "grin and bare it"?:hysterical: 

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## isisdave (Dec 31, 2009)

My personal theory is that this won't end until we all fly naked and anesthetized. :zzz: 

The airlines will love it.  It'll be more like air freight, which never complains. They'll carry us in nice fleece-lined cigar tubes. No meals will be necessary, no movies, no restrooms either.  100% security (well, externally anyway) and 100% revenue! No one will get upset if we're delayed, and everyone will have a great flight, 'cause they slept through the whole thing.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 30, 2010)

DanCali said:


> I travel to Israel sometimes (not on El Al) and Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv has very good security. The El Al security is on top of that - for example I believe they always had at least two undercover armed air marshals on every flight. Keep in mind that Israel is a reltively small country and El-Al is a small airline (less than 50 planes total)
> 
> Passengers are required to arrive 3 hours before all flights, not just El Al flights because they may be subject to extensive questoning, screening and search of all bags. This is especially true for non-Israelis. What makes it different from the US is that there is extensive "profiling" and they are not shy about asking many personal questions about the purposes of your visit, your religion etc. On the other hand, I never had to take off my shoes or throw away my bottled water in what is considered one of the most secure airports... so in response to LAX Mom - there are probably more effective ways than having hundreds of millions of people take off their shoes each year...
> 
> ...



A more recent article in a Canadian newspaper on this topic...

http://www.canada.com/news/Looking+...curity+Israeli+expert+says/2400590/story.html


----------

