5 ms·

I sincerely hope that enough people push back to make a difference. I think for a lot of people, it's easier to just stop flying---and some people already have

I sincerely hope that enough people push back to make a difference. I think for a lot of people, it's easier to just stop flying---and some people already have---than it is to protest the security theater. If it's clear to the airlines that they're losing a significant number of passengers due to the security measures, I would expect them to lobby against the security measures. Whether or not they will have an effect is another issue entirely. I for one love travelling but hate flying. I see two options for people who enjoy international travel but don't want their privacy invaded by TSA. 1. Travel by boat. You can hitch a ride on a cargo ship to just about anywhere in the world: http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-cargo-ship/ http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-c... It's more expensive than flying and takes longer, so this is probably not an option for most people. 2. Depart from another country. I recently traveled to New Zealand, and when I flew home from the Auckland airport to San Francisco, I had to go through an extra security screening because it was a US-bound flight. I was left with the impression that airport security in the rest of the world is not as draconian unless one of the endpoints of the flight is in the USA. So I suspect if you can drive or take the train to Mexico or Canada, you can avoid an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Last year, I took an Amtrak train from Vancouver to Seattle, and the border crossing was a piece of cake. Edit: Does anyone know how airport security in Mexico or Canada compares to the US?

swombat 16y ago
London is pretty bad too, but we don't have intimate pat-downs yet.
- StavrosK 16y ago
  The most I saw in Heathrow was that they made me take off my shoes, and they wouldn't really make a fuss about it if you didn't do it. The only time they made me take my shoes off was when they found a swiss army knife in my hand luggage (I absent-mindedly took it, along with 15 kg of stuff, from my checked luggage because they were too heavy). Even with a pretty large knife in my luggage, what happened was that I had to go through the metal detector with shoes off, and then I had to wait for the police for 20 minutes. They were very polite and told me that there would be no problem if the knife wasn't a "locking" knife (no idea why that's a problem), but they just kept it and let me go. However, I imagine I didn't look like the typical terrorist, with four bags bursting with clothes as hand luggage.
  - eru 16y ago
    Locking knifes are probably forbidden in Britain.
    - StavrosK 16y ago
      The police said they are illegal, but I don't know why they make a distinction. It wasn't some sword, it was just one of the large swiss army knives.
      - Waywocket 16y ago
        If it has a blade longer than 3 inches, then you need a 'good reason' to be carrying it in public. If not, then under normal circumstances (rule 7 applies) it's fine so long as the blade is capable of folding. A locking catch is fine, but a fixed blade isn't. It seems safe to assume it's just the fact that you were planning to carry it on to a plane that made them unhappy.
        StavrosK 16y ago
        Hmm, I see. I don't know exactly how long it was, but it was maybe 2.5-3 inches. The fact that I was carrying a server, 20 liters of LEGO and a backpack with 3 laptops and another one with underwear probably made it look quite nonthreatening.
        nkassis 16y ago
        I'd have inspected the legos. that seems suspicious enough ;p
        StavrosK 16y ago
        They X-rayed them, they were just mindstorms. Little did they know that they assemble into a killbot, muhahaha.
        16y ago
- joezydeco 16y ago
  I flew through Heathrow post-Lockerbie and was running late for my fight. I kept glancing at my watch and getting pretty nervous at possibly missing the boarding window. A guard nearby saw my body language and pulled me aside instantly. There was a table set up right next to the counter where they did an immediate search of my luggage, asked questions, where was I, etc etc. Nothing harsh, very polite, and I'm sure my reactions and body language were being watched the whole time. Afterward I was given my place back in line with a thanks. That is how airport security should be. I know Israel takes it even 10 notches higher than this, and it seems to work just fine.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  You don't need 'em. You have the mandatory strip-search-scanner right?
marquis 16y ago
Mexico City is fine. Friendly staff, the standard metal detectors. You have to take your shoes off flying into the US.
- X-Istence 16y ago
  I wouldn't want to go to Mexico City though, especially these days with all the unrest in Mexico.
  - samfoo 16y ago
    There's no real unrest in El DF (Mexico City) since it's far enough away from the U.S. border. All of the unrest in Mexico is either far north (Narco terrorists) or far south (Zapatistas). Mexico's an awesome place with a lot of culture, amazing food, cool people, and plenty of stuff to explore. If you're avoiding it because of the press fear-mongering I would urge you to reconsider. (I'm an American who's been all over Mexico on several trips, most recently three months ago)
prawn 16y ago
Is there yet a web site yet that catalogues the security procedures at each airport? If some people consider avoiding flights, they might actually be interested in such info. Not the standard detectors which aren't that annoying, but things like control of liquids, these new scanners, the grope, etc. Can just imagine selling third-party widgets to travel sites: "On this itinerary, you may be subject to these security checks: genitalia scan (arr: LAX) or grope (arr: LAX), liquid check (dep: SYD)."
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Five bucks says you'd be attacked as a terrorist supporter. Damn good idea, though.
  - davidcuddeback 16y ago
    I really like that idea as a way to resist the security theater. It would give travellers the information they need to vote with their wallets for privacy over "security."
  - prawn 16y ago
    Someone downvoted you so I'm voting you back up. I thought the same thing when the concept came to me - the creator would cop a lot of criticism (even be mildly terrorised, funnily enough) from some quarters.
- Artifex 16y ago
  Found this today, actually: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1138014-complete-list-airports-backscatter-mmv-nude-o-scopes.html http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/113801...
- cheald 16y ago
  This is a brilliant idea. If someone else doesn't do it, I may; I travel infrequently, but I sure as hell don't want to be putting my kids through either of the "options" right now. It would be wonderful to know how to route around it.
brc 16y ago
I fly SYD - LAX at least once a year. A few years ago, it was no bottles, shoes off, grope from local version of TSA at SYD. In my recent flight, no bottle restriction, no shoes off, no groping. A couple of small signs talking about liquid amounts but no sign of enforcement. I suspect that periodically the TSA tries to force higher screening on other countries, but for the most part the airlines/airports want to skip the cost (and aggravation for it's customers), and so get lax about it. Someone has to pay for extra floorspace for extra screening on US flights, as well as extra staff, facilities, equipment. When airlines will drop one meal in a flight to drive down costs, adding costs like this to flying has to hurt someone, somewhere, whether it's the airline or the airport. I'm guessing they don't forward the invoices to the TSA. When you think about it, it's a net losing situation for the USA, because they can't possibly force every single country every single day to keep up the standards. And without a blanket coverage on the standards, the cause is hopeless because any wrongdoer is just going to pick an international flight to do the business.

swombat 16y ago

London is pretty bad too, but we don't have intimate pat-downs yet.

StavrosK 16y ago
The most I saw in Heathrow was that they made me take off my shoes, and they wouldn't really make a fuss about it if you didn't do it. The only time they made me take my shoes off was when they found a swiss army knife in my hand luggage (I absent-mindedly took it, along with 15 kg of stuff, from my checked luggage because they were too heavy). Even with a pretty large knife in my luggage, what happened was that I had to go through the metal detector with shoes off, and then I had to wait for the police for 20 minutes. They were very polite and told me that there would be no problem if the knife wasn't a "locking" knife (no idea why that's a problem), but they just kept it and let me go. However, I imagine I didn't look like the typical terrorist, with four bags bursting with clothes as hand luggage.
- eru 16y ago
  Locking knifes are probably forbidden in Britain.
  - StavrosK 16y ago
    The police said they are illegal, but I don't know why they make a distinction. It wasn't some sword, it was just one of the large swiss army knives.
    - Waywocket 16y ago
      If it has a blade longer than 3 inches, then you need a 'good reason' to be carrying it in public. If not, then under normal circumstances (rule 7 applies) it's fine so long as the blade is capable of folding. A locking catch is fine, but a fixed blade isn't. It seems safe to assume it's just the fact that you were planning to carry it on to a plane that made them unhappy.
      - StavrosK 16y ago
        Hmm, I see. I don't know exactly how long it was, but it was maybe 2.5-3 inches. The fact that I was carrying a server, 20 liters of LEGO and a backpack with 3 laptops and another one with underwear probably made it look quite nonthreatening.
        nkassis 16y ago
        I'd have inspected the legos. that seems suspicious enough ;p
        StavrosK 16y ago
        They X-rayed them, they were just mindstorms. Little did they know that they assemble into a killbot, muhahaha.
        16y ago
joezydeco 16y ago
I flew through Heathrow post-Lockerbie and was running late for my fight. I kept glancing at my watch and getting pretty nervous at possibly missing the boarding window. A guard nearby saw my body language and pulled me aside instantly. There was a table set up right next to the counter where they did an immediate search of my luggage, asked questions, where was I, etc etc. Nothing harsh, very polite, and I'm sure my reactions and body language were being watched the whole time. Afterward I was given my place back in line with a thanks. That is how airport security should be. I know Israel takes it even 10 notches higher than this, and it seems to work just fine.
loewenskind 16y ago
You don't need 'em. You have the mandatory strip-search-scanner right?

marquis 16y ago

Mexico City is fine. Friendly staff, the standard metal detectors. You have to take your shoes off flying into the US.

X-Istence 16y ago
I wouldn't want to go to Mexico City though, especially these days with all the unrest in Mexico.
- samfoo 16y ago
  There's no real unrest in El DF (Mexico City) since it's far enough away from the U.S. border. All of the unrest in Mexico is either far north (Narco terrorists) or far south (Zapatistas). Mexico's an awesome place with a lot of culture, amazing food, cool people, and plenty of stuff to explore. If you're avoiding it because of the press fear-mongering I would urge you to reconsider. (I'm an American who's been all over Mexico on several trips, most recently three months ago)

prawn 16y ago

Is there yet a web site yet that catalogues the security procedures at each airport? If some people consider avoiding flights, they might actually be interested in such info. Not the standard detectors which aren't that annoying, but things like control of liquids, these new scanners, the grope, etc. Can just imagine selling third-party widgets to travel sites: "On this itinerary, you may be subject to these security checks: genitalia scan (arr: LAX) or grope (arr: LAX), liquid check (dep: SYD)."

Vivtek 16y ago
Five bucks says you'd be attacked as a terrorist supporter. Damn good idea, though.
- davidcuddeback 16y ago
  I really like that idea as a way to resist the security theater. It would give travellers the information they need to vote with their wallets for privacy over "security."
- prawn 16y ago
  Someone downvoted you so I'm voting you back up. I thought the same thing when the concept came to me - the creator would cop a lot of criticism (even be mildly terrorised, funnily enough) from some quarters.
Artifex 16y ago
Found this today, actually: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1138014-complete-list-airports-backscatter-mmv-nude-o-scopes.html http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/113801...
cheald 16y ago
This is a brilliant idea. If someone else doesn't do it, I may; I travel infrequently, but I sure as hell don't want to be putting my kids through either of the "options" right now. It would be wonderful to know how to route around it.

brc 16y ago

I fly SYD - LAX at least once a year. A few years ago, it was no bottles, shoes off, grope from local version of TSA at SYD. In my recent flight, no bottle restriction, no shoes off, no groping. A couple of small signs talking about liquid amounts but no sign of enforcement. I suspect that periodically the TSA tries to force higher screening on other countries, but for the most part the airlines/airports want to skip the cost (and aggravation for it's customers), and so get lax about it. Someone has to pay for extra floorspace for extra screening on US flights, as well as extra staff, facilities, equipment. When airlines will drop one meal in a flight to drive down costs, adding costs like this to flying has to hurt someone, somewhere, whether it's the airline or the airport. I'm guessing they don't forward the invoices to the TSA. When you think about it, it's a net losing situation for the USA, because they can't possibly force every single country every single day to keep up the standards. And without a blanket coverage on the standards, the cause is hopeless because any wrongdoer is just going to pick an international flight to do the business.