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

They haven't been declared safe. They've been shown to be ineffective. And worst of all, they basically ignore a person's right to privacy. You have that right everywhere you go, no matter what you do, unless you've already been proven guilty in a court of law and even then you have private moments.

edited 12th Dec '10 2:43:54 PM by Star_Kindler

My current view is that they don't offer more benefit than they cost in money, ergo we shouldn't do it.

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

For gathering the information, government intelligence agencies have a rather significant leg up on private companies.

Using that information once it's gathered is, however, another issue entirely, and one where things aren't so clear-cut.

In theory, the advantage of using federal agents for airport security is that they'll be less susceptible to corruption, and less subject to the whims of a company looking to cut a few corners for the sake of the budget. In practice, though, it just means that there's a higher probability of inducing the notion in the heads of said agents that they're able to abuse their power with less chance of getting fired or otherwise seriously disciplined for it.

(Please note that I'm not saying that being an agent will make people think that. Almost nothing involving human behavior can be put in terms of absolutes... including this sentence. )

However, I can easily see airlines and airports being reluctant (at best) to taking up the burden of security themselves. Beside the obvious benefit of not having to pick up the tab, with the government doing the task any complaints about how that task is carried out get aimed at the relevant government agency, not the company. People may not get much of a choice in dealing with the government, but they do get a choice of which airlines/airports to deal with, and vote accordingly with their wallets.

Actually, the most likely effect is that the airlines won't bother with security at all, and just take out insurance against the risk of a loss. After all, airport security is expensive, and nothing the airline can do will affect the risk much anyway.

On second thought, they'll probably do the bare minimum to avoid public outcry. As long as they appear to be doing something, they're a lot less likely to get sued.

edited 12th Dec '10 5:18:29 PM by storyyeller

I like the volenteer thing.

You sign up for some training, you get it, after they vet you into the program. Then, whenever you fly, you are essentially the armed escort for the plane. You would be told who, if any, other armed volenteer escorts were on that flight so you wouldn't end up smacking some dude down only to find that he's on your side.

Side benefit, you fly for a discount, but are otherwise unpaid for your work.

I know a friend in Missisippi who is a volenteer poliece officer - he draws no pay at all. If we can do that for cops, we can do that for airplane security personnel.

I have mixed feelings on the body scanners. Apparently, metal detectors didn't stop the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber. So, ditch them. The x-ray machine will catch the same stuff the metal detector does, so I don't have to get scanned five times only to forget that I'm wearing blue-jeans and that it was the rivets that was setting it off the whole time. (just another reason why my flight clothes are free of metal bits nowadays.)

Will my infant daughter be able to pas through a scanner? No? So, some agent is going to grope my two-month-old daughter for contraband? Basically, my wife is flying in a few weeks and she'll have to get her and both of my kids groped because she isn't going to pass the kids through the scanners.

And I liked that article "the things he carried". Fix the identification loophole.

I don't know the answer, because the statement "you can't please all the people all the time" seems to go double for my fellow americans.

However, so far we've had successes because:

• The other passengers took out the terrorist's bodyguards, so the terrorists decided to kill themselves rather than risk capture.
• The other passengers took out the terrorist before he could get the bomb to go off.
• The CIA got a tip from Saudi intelligence.
• An idiot was tricked into hiring an FBI informant as his bomb designer.

So it seems to me that it might make sense to give passengers not combat training but rudimentary counterterrorist training - i.e., what to look for.

Here's a simple idea: fit all planes with a self-destruct system which the crew can activate at a moment's notice. "Self destruct mechanism. In case of terrorist, break glass." Boom.

Not that simple, most people wouldn't willingly self-destruct the plane.

Besides, blown up planes are still a horrible tragedy, regardless of circumstance.

Yeah, I'm sure outfitting an airplane with an easy self-asplodiation device could never possibly backfire.... ;)

Well, that discourages terrorists from boarding with bombs...

edited 12th Dec '10 10:01:56 PM by Stormtroper

I've got to admit, I don't understand why so many people are so very against pat-downs and being searched. The officers, if they are any sort of decent human being at all, aren't doing it to humiliate you or for sexual satisfaction. They just want to make sure you don't have drugs or a bomb cling-wrapped to your legs or chest.

I mean, I'm sure it's not a pleasant experience. But I would be willing to put up with it in the interests of safety.

Exactly how common are they in American security anyway?

^^

Not really, they know they are going to die going into it. Even if they aren't pulling the trigger, making a plane explode is the goal for them, that would just make it more attainable.

^^ I wouldn't mind much if it actually increased security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration#November_2010_new_screening_procedures

Useful info, Loni, with plenty of citations.

Ya want to know a funny thing about airport security? You can bring down an aircraft with as little as a 2 oz bottle of water and roughly a salt packet from Wendy's sized mass.

How? That salt packet sized mass just so happens to be powdered sodium as in the metal form. All you do is pour the powdered sodium into a 2 oz bottle of water, shake well, expose to air and watch the flames burst. Sodium reacting with water is a hell of an incendiary and powdered sodium in that level is unlikely to be detected on even conventional metal detectors. (The level I'm talking about is less mass than a pants button) Worse you'd have to have a fair amount to raise any kind of suspicion.

You know what's even worse? Metallic sodium isn't hard to get. Thus all that fancy security is defeated by simple knowledge of chemistry.

Sodium isn't as deadly as many people think, but it would certainly cause chaos.

I don't know about that, when we played with sodium in chemistry class all it did was fizzle and then go out with a loud bang, and that was a fairly good strip of it. Then again I remember hearing somewhere that there are some metallic compounds that are much more explosive than sodium.

edit-'dem damn dirty ninjas

edited 13th Dec '10 8:08:08 AM by carbon-mantis

Why not use thermite?

Even if they aren't pulling the trigger, making a plane explode is the goal for them, that would just make it more attainable.

Ehm, that's what I said. They're discouraged from boarding with bombs, because the bomb is already there.

Sometime's it's kind of hard to tell if you're joking or not.

You need a heat source to ignite the thermite.

Yeah, that's the hard part. I wonder if you could use a MRE to ignite it.

I think that the pre-9/11 security is much better than this most recent invasive bullcrap. The body scanners are unconstitutional and are a health risk for frequent flyers, and there have been several reports of the scanners storing the images. The pat-down is slightly less invasive, but I still think it should only be reserved for very suspicious cases, not just for the people who refuse to have TSA workers looking at their naked bodies.

In my opinion, bomb-sniffing dogs should just roam around the airport and tackle anyone who smells like TNT.

So, these scanners are compulsory? You must either be scanned or patted down? I admit that does seem a little over the top.

Most of the problems seem to be not with the proceedures themselves but with the staff carrying them out. Targeting people inappropriately, invasive or wrong pat-downs, that sort of thing.

edited 14th Dec '10 12:21:46 AM by LoniJay

While I can't say I'm enthralled at the idea of being seen naked, I'm much more concerned with the health effects of these scanners. Employ all the passive methods you want- metal detectors, thermal imaging, and how about some chemical sensors (shoot, dogs) that can actually detect bomb materials?