So, Americans, what do you think airport security should be like?

When everyone and their grandma has to go through heavy security, people get angry and say that only suspicious-looking people should be targeted. When only suspicious-looking people get targeted, people (apparently the same people) get angry and say that's discrimination. Some people argue that nobody, suspicious or not, should be getting their junk groped, but I get the impression that if the gropings stopped and somebody actually did sneak in a bomb in his underwear, those same people would be ranting about how the security people should have done something. So, what do you actually want airport security to be and do?

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

It was fine a few months ago before all this new bs patdown xray cap.

My other signature is a Gundam.

What do I want it to do? Stop dangerous things from being arried through airports. If some people have to be patted down for this to be achieved, I'm fine with that. A little bit of dignity is a reasonable sacrifice for security.

EDIT: Wait, though, I'm not American, I'm Australian. Well, I would be expecting the American security systems to be doing their part too.

edited 11th Dec '10 10:16:19 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

pre-9/11 security strength for one. Before all this "War on Terror" BS

WHASSUP....... ....with lolis!

Background check when you get your first ticket after which you have a membership with that airline and don't need to get one again.

Metal detectors. Bomb Detecting Dogs.

Maybe an officer on the plane.

That's it.

| DA Page | Sketchbook |

I know you're asking what we think security should be like, but I also think it's worth noting that the current security measures just don't work.

Some actual suggested improvements, from that article: check against the no-fly list when passing through security, not just at ticket purchase. Check for suspicious behavior, but be aware of potential problems with racial profiling. Spend more money on intelligence operations, because that's how the last dozen plots have been foiled anyways.

Having some kind of officer on the plane might not be such a bad idea either.

edited 12th Dec '10 12:14:21 AM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

I'm not American, but if the security measures don't work, then I say dump them and do some research into finding something that does.

Accidental mistakes are forgivable, intentional ones are not.

Here's how you solve every airline security issue from bombs to hijackings.

Equip every US flight with a highly visible full battlegear fireteam of US Army or Marine infantry. (National Guard if otherwise unavailable)

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

I'm down with this xray thing to be honest, but the pat downs of children and the elderly are going too far. Actual patdowns need to be reserved for actual suspicious cases, but I think people need to quit bitching about the new scanner and get over themselves.

I think that Airport security should be restricted to measures which actually work. Which means getting rid of pretty much everything added since 2001.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

What Storyteller said. Insofar as I'm aware not a single terrorist has been stopped by the airport security methodology people are up in arms about. Safety has a price, yes, but you should always look at the price you pay and ask yourself if it's DOING anything in readily observable terms. And even if it is, there also comes a point where the rights you give up are worth more than the safety you get for trading your rights away. That line is drawn at pat downs for most, if not all people.

In a more general sense, I feel that the major issue is not so much any given security method as the overall organizational structure supporting the new methods. The TSA operates with little oversight, and with much room for abuse, miscommunication, and general incompetence. The whole organization still reeks of post-9/11 governmental kneejerk reaction. It's easy enough to find examples of the organization handling itself poorly; I don't think it needs to be abolished, but evidence is clear that it needs to be restructured and have some form of watchdog over it.

Additionally, while I don't want to jump to any conclusions, I haven't seen any conclusive scientific evidence of the long term safety of the radiation used in scans. It seems like we're just crossing our fingers and guessing. Immense damage can be caused to public safety by jumping ahead and using technology before we fully understand the consequences of it. Remember Radium Water? Yeah, and the nasty thing is that a company in theory has MORE OVERSIGHT over how it treats public safety, because after a few casualties, the government places restrictions on what you can sell to people. Who oversees a government organization charged with the vague task of keeping people safe?

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

I wasn't aware that you could measure terrorist actions that don't happen.

You can measure the number of terrorists caught though.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

^^ But ones that did happen can be measured. Remember the "shoe bomber" and "underwear bomber"? That neither blew up the planes they were on, respectively, was purely a testament to bad luck and/or incompetence on their part, not any effectiveness of post-9/11 Security Theater.

edited 12th Dec '10 9:16:42 AM by Nohbody

All your safe space are belong to Trump

^ Hence the reason why I say equip US flights with an Army or Marine fireteam. In the time it takes to set off supposedly "clever" devices like they did, the average GI would have put 8 or more rounds in him or otherwise defused the situation.

Also would you try hijacking an airplane if you saw fully armed and equipped Marines or Army personnel aboard?

edited 12th Dec '10 9:23:10 AM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Major Tom's solution would be great if it wasn't logistically impossible.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Well, you might- you'd not only get to kill civilians, but you'd also have a chance to kill soldiers.

edited 12th Dec '10 9:29:43 AM by Jordan

Hodor

Tom, aren't the cockpit doors reinforced regardless? No man-portable device would get through that.

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

Another problem is that all the security is aimed at yesterday's attack, not tomorrow's.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Tom, armed military personnel aren't feasible or a solution.

However a volunteer air marshal program between more folks would be feasible. Give military personnel training akin to how the US Marshal service trains their folks, but only the plane portion. Then give them a license to carry a handgun whenever they fly. Make them recertify annually or biannually.

At present, you have Air Marshals, and you also have federal agents. All federal agents are required to carry their duty weapon on any commercial flights they are on with the exception of flights leaving the country, and when female agents are pregnant.(My aunt is DEA, thus she has to carry, and thus I like flying with her)

I think a volunteer program of sorts would definitely be a great solution.

^ And porn scanners used for body scans are?

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

I don't mind the xray, or rather I wouldn't mind them whatsoever if long term health concerns were looked into and it was declared safe. I don't think scanning of aircrew should be mandatory though.

Then again I've already had my body shamelessly examined tons of times through my own government work, so it doesn't bother me much.

Frankly, I don't think we need new security. Ever since 9/11 air travelers have realized they can't let themselves be taken hostage. They'll all fight back or die.

My other signature is a Gundam.

If there is a successful terrorist attack, make the airport pay for wrongful death. Then let them worry about how to do security. When the people providing the security are the ones who pay if something goes wrong, they're a lot more likely to do it right.

Except that national security is not something that can be effectively done at the airport level. It's up to the CIA.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play