5 ms·

The problem with airport security in America is that they search for "Dangerous Items", not "Dangerous People". A dangerous person is allowed on an American fl

by maeon3 15y ago

The problem with airport security in America is that they search for "Dangerous Items", not "Dangerous People". A dangerous person is allowed on an American flight if he/she doesn't have any dangerous items with him. In my opinion, a motivated group of guys could take a plane hostage with nothing but car keys, ju jitsu and some creative thinking. I'm not saying searching for the dangerous person is superior to searching for the dangerous item. But I think TSA needs to be reminded that weapons don't kill people, its the people that do the killing. Safe person + Dangerous Items = Safe. Dangerous Person + Safe items = Unsafe.

bruce511 15y ago
Actually, they only search for dangerous items coming through one door. Do you think every person, product or vehicle that enters an airport goes through the same scrutiny as the passengers? It's like having a bank, where the front door is policed by an army, but the backdoor is wide open for employees, and every window in the place is open every day. Given the amount of theft from airport bags, and hence stolen goods _leaving_ the airport, do you think it's any harder to bring illicit stuff in?
- demallien 15y ago
  Well, just to play devil's advocate, I don't get patted down leaving the airport, so I'm not terribly sure that your point about baggage theft is relevant...
- corin_ 15y ago
  If I see someone holding a laptop I don't immediately think "crime", if I see someone holding a gun... There's a big difference between looking for certain objects that are banned, and looking for objects that are perfectly allowed but might be in the hands of someone other than the owner.
iwwr 15y ago
What constitutes a 'dangerous person'? There is already an extensive no-fly list in place, which incidentally is secret and gives people no avenue for appeal if they have been wrongly put on it.
- swombat 15y ago
  Israeli airports use extensive profiling to identify potential suicide bombers, from car checkpoints away from the airport to airport staff instructed to look people in the eye and ask them how they're doing (people about to blow themselves up tend to act differently from normal people). They definitely seem to focus on identifying people rather than things. Seems to work ok for them under much harsher conditions than the US has ever or, hopefully, will ever know.
  - smhinsey 15y ago
    The TSA already seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for their screeners. Given the tremendous discrepancy in the number of airports in Israel vs. the United States, how are we supposed to come up with enough people who are as qualified as the ones Israel can handpick for their airports?
    - cema 15y ago
      The number of airports is consistent with the number of people. But who in his right mind would want to work in TSA if they can find a respected job elsewhere? Israeli screeners, on the other hand, are respected.
      - smhinsey 15y ago
        To be clear I didn't mean that there are not literally enough people to hire to do the job. I should've been a bit clearer but what I was really getting at was the massive scope and cost of such an agency with staffing requirements like that. We're talking about something on par with or larger than the FBI.
        chopsueyar 15y ago
        There is only a $1 billion difference between the two agencies budgets (2010). TSA is $8billion, FBI is $9billion, DHS is $55billion. As the US military uses less air conditioning in Afghanistan, that should free up at least a couple billion.
robriggen 15y ago
Don't forget that they aren't even able to find the dangerous items. Their system frequently allows box cutting razor blades onto airplanes. How do I know? It happened to me: http://bit.ly/if5XDR http://bit.ly/if5XDR after experiencing a traumatic "enhanced" pat down procedure. After my incident I went to both of my Senators and my Congressman (in person) and recounted my story. I also followed the TSA procedures for reporting civil abuses, which incidentally was a completely worthless excercise. Their written response to my Congressman's letter to them was, "We followed procedure".
btilly 15y ago
NOT TRUE! They also try to identify dangerous people. That is what the TSA "no-fly" list is all about. The fact that it worked so poorly is evidence that trying to identify dangerous people has been even less effective than identifying dangerous things, and has a greater impact on civil liberties. Furthermore your opinion about what a small group of dangerous people can do is over-inflated. FAA regulations mandate a locked pilot cabin during flight. This lock is strong enough that an unarmed man, no matter how motivated, should be unable to get into the cockpit. This does not make breaching the cockpit impossible, but it makes it harder. Particularly since, following the initial attacks on 9/11, on multiple occasions it has been demonstrated that people on airplanes will take extraordinary risks to subdue attempted terrorists.

by maeon3 15y ago

bruce511 15y ago

Actually, they only search for dangerous items coming through one door. Do you think every person, product or vehicle that enters an airport goes through the same scrutiny as the passengers? It's like having a bank, where the front door is policed by an army, but the backdoor is wide open for employees, and every window in the place is open every day. Given the amount of theft from airport bags, and hence stolen goods _leaving_ the airport, do you think it's any harder to bring illicit stuff in?

demallien 15y ago
Well, just to play devil's advocate, I don't get patted down leaving the airport, so I'm not terribly sure that your point about baggage theft is relevant...
corin_ 15y ago
If I see someone holding a laptop I don't immediately think "crime", if I see someone holding a gun... There's a big difference between looking for certain objects that are banned, and looking for objects that are perfectly allowed but might be in the hands of someone other than the owner.

iwwr 15y ago

What constitutes a 'dangerous person'? There is already an extensive no-fly list in place, which incidentally is secret and gives people no avenue for appeal if they have been wrongly put on it.

swombat 15y ago
Israeli airports use extensive profiling to identify potential suicide bombers, from car checkpoints away from the airport to airport staff instructed to look people in the eye and ask them how they're doing (people about to blow themselves up tend to act differently from normal people). They definitely seem to focus on identifying people rather than things. Seems to work ok for them under much harsher conditions than the US has ever or, hopefully, will ever know.
- smhinsey 15y ago
  The TSA already seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for their screeners. Given the tremendous discrepancy in the number of airports in Israel vs. the United States, how are we supposed to come up with enough people who are as qualified as the ones Israel can handpick for their airports?
  - cema 15y ago
    The number of airports is consistent with the number of people. But who in his right mind would want to work in TSA if they can find a respected job elsewhere? Israeli screeners, on the other hand, are respected.
    - smhinsey 15y ago
      To be clear I didn't mean that there are not literally enough people to hire to do the job. I should've been a bit clearer but what I was really getting at was the massive scope and cost of such an agency with staffing requirements like that. We're talking about something on par with or larger than the FBI.
      - chopsueyar 15y ago
        There is only a $1 billion difference between the two agencies budgets (2010). TSA is $8billion, FBI is $9billion, DHS is $55billion. As the US military uses less air conditioning in Afghanistan, that should free up at least a couple billion.

robriggen 15y ago

Don't forget that they aren't even able to find the dangerous items. Their system frequently allows box cutting razor blades onto airplanes. How do I know? It happened to me: http://bit.ly/if5XDR http://bit.ly/if5XDR after experiencing a traumatic "enhanced" pat down procedure. After my incident I went to both of my Senators and my Congressman (in person) and recounted my story. I also followed the TSA procedures for reporting civil abuses, which incidentally was a completely worthless excercise. Their written response to my Congressman's letter to them was, "We followed procedure".

btilly 15y ago

NOT TRUE! They also try to identify dangerous people. That is what the TSA "no-fly" list is all about. The fact that it worked so poorly is evidence that trying to identify dangerous people has been even less effective than identifying dangerous things, and has a greater impact on civil liberties. Furthermore your opinion about what a small group of dangerous people can do is over-inflated. FAA regulations mandate a locked pilot cabin during flight. This lock is strong enough that an unarmed man, no matter how motivated, should be unable to get into the cockpit. This does not make breaching the cockpit impossible, but it makes it harder. Particularly since, following the initial attacks on 9/11, on multiple occasions it has been demonstrated that people on airplanes will take extraordinary risks to subdue attempted terrorists.