Dave Miller said:
Tom, given the number of people that have been tricked into carrying packages with illegal contents onto aircraft, many of whom are languishing in prisons around the world, I think you are misguided.
Devices need not be user operated at all, but can (and have) been triggered by timers and altitude. Considering the fact that you need a lot more than an IPOD sized amount of explosives to take down an aircraft...(let alone a credit card sized amount) I can only assume that the extent of the restrictions are based upon fear that a smalll innocous 'thing' could conceal an initiator (as it would be too small as a device), such as a key fob based device used to open garage doors. This could detonate a larger device in the hold (or elsewhere), hence the requirement to control even very small items carried on board (all of which could therefore easily be secreted within the body!!).
As for the idea that items be placed in a secured overhead locker and retrieved later...what does this stop? Certainly does not stop them going bang on a timer or bang due to altitude. You dont 'need hands on' so what does this achieve..esp as even if you DID need to physically trigger it, the initiator is only a trip to the restroom away?
Assuming that the threat really is primarily liquids because previous and existing security measures would not detect them, then a ban on everything makes little sense (as one must assume they
were effective against non-liquid threats...with the proper training that is). If the threat extends beyond liquids, how on earth were the existing security measures ever effective in the past? It is either a case of "liquids can get thru therefore no liquids allowed or an admission that lots of things could get thru in which case security has always been poor". I dont know which it is.
Tricked or not....if liquids are a threat which cannot be detected and must be banned, then fine, nobody takes them on board. If 'Sally' can be tricked into taking a new ticking dolly on board then it should be picked up on the Xray as it always should have been. I hope you follow my logic here??..??
In keeping with your drug parallel, why not swallow the device or insert it into an orifice rendering current 'emergency' searches all but futile? A person can carry many kilos this way and possibly 'enough'.
Why in this age of willing suicide attackers would you have to trick someone to bring it on board? You can take it on yourself (hold baggge, inside your body...)...unless you are more liklely to be screened in detail for reasons mentioned before. If you did decide to trick someone else to take it on board...this exact same vulnerability has always existed and if current security measures are effective it should not be a problem...apart from for liquids.
Bear in mind that poeple who are tricked tend to be cultivated for some time beforehand (normally women who are besotted with their 'romantic foreign boyfriend'). If there is a need for a person to activate the device you not only have to cultivate the person but travel on the same flight and access the concealed device. This is now getting very complicated and has far more variables than terrorists tend to like. It is also vertually impossible to do on a large scale or in a remotely coordinated fashion. It is a far cry from giving the 'momento' full of drugs which is retrieved the other end. If it does not require human intervention, you dont need anyone to carry it on for you. Conceal it, check it...or have it placed in one of those 'secure overhead lockers' where it will blow up at the appropriate time or altitude.
We seem to have forgotten that 911 required no explosives, no guns.
Anyone ever been stabbed by a 4H pencil before? Its as good as a dagger and a good number would fit up your..derriere. Cant say I know how many air marshals there are but I doubt enough.
I would love to know how strong the locks are on the now locked cockpit doors - anyone know?
Part of my job is to think like a terrorist and figure out how to break into or attack high and low security targets, mobile and static. It is normally very easy, in part because security staff think like western security staff, not like opportunistic terrorists...."
if its not on the list its not coming though!" Real threats are sometimes ignored bcause they feel 'alien' and unrealistic threats given air time when they just are not going to happen, because they feel familiar.
You have a play with an Xray machine. There are a multitude of substances and 'things' which a) do not show up as a threat when they are b) show up as a threat when they are not. Terrorists will quite quickly find a way to circumnavigate even these procedures (assuming airlines are still in business) or move on to another opportunity. Access to Xray machines and detectors and you are days away from a plan.
I still say profiling* (inclusive or exclusive) resulting in detailed searches in tandem with a ban on certain items which cannot presently be detected, along with thorough checks might be sensible. Oh, and ban jelly babies everywhere.
* we are not talking TV cop show style "
The bomber will have a tatoo on his left forearm, walk with a lofty gait, have a fixation with vintage vehicles and probably be wearing a Kylie T-shirt......", but simple stuff. Sven the norwegian 6 year old boy and Hatty the 78 year old Lincolnshire gran are searched as normal (to deal with the possible proxy threat etc)....leaving more time for those who cannot so easily be disregarded. The result would be percieved as racist I am sure. Personally I would fully understand if security officals conducted a more detailed search of my wife, as would she. Everyone including my wife would benefit. Just as I would I not be miffed that Guram Rasoul was not screened in detail if the IRA resurfaced as a serious threat and we are about to get on a flight from Liverpool to Belfast International and I was!
The present situation cannot be maintained. More threats will result in more liberties being removed until someone decides that we should no longer squander valuable time searching/stopping/checking people who do not represent a threat just to make everyone feel fluffy.
The situation will only get worse and I in part agree with Roger Hicks, in that if this is the way we are going and continue to do so, we are handing terrorists a victory in kind.
