Pilot Stands Up To TSA And Refuses Full Body Scan(expressjetpilots.com)
expressjetpilots.com
Pilot Stands Up To TSA And Refuses Full Body Scan
http://www.expressjetpilots.com/the-pipe/showthread.php?39523-Well-today-was-the-day
19 comments
While I agree there is some sort of 'mass psychology' at work here, I believe there are some additional (and more important factors).
There is certainly a lot of irrationality in people who accept these things and who have no direct/executive power to change them. But is there irrationality in the people who decided to put these policies into place? I don't believe it. Quite the contrary, I believe the politicians who created and support these laws have other, unacknowledged interests, that are concealed behind the "terrorism prevention" mantra.
There are so many other things that can be put into place, why are these guys deciding on these particular ones?
A couple of things: money and control. I'm not a journalist, but it would be great if an investigative journalist analyzed the people and the interests behind these regulations. I suspect they would find connections with the companies who provide the screening equipment, and the policy decision makers.
As to the 'control' aspect, this is more related to the psychological idea. The people in power crave control, so they will generally tend to favor policies in that direction. Which is why their power must be constantly monitored and kept in checked by us the people. Without that we can't have any long-lasting liberty.
Your post only focuses on risk of death, and from that standpoint I agree 100% that it is rational to spend money elsewhere.
However, people are fundamentally irrational and emotional. It would be irrational to stop flying due to 9/11. The risk of an attack on your flight is negligible. Yet, airlines lost a lot of passengers due to 9/11! If a second successful attack occurs, many people would lose their confidence not only in airlines, but in their government to protect them.
The government is really in a lose-lose situation here. Do nothing, and they are perceived as weak on terrorism. Do what people say they want the gov't to do - protect the airlines - and suddenly more invasive searches are required. Either way, they will have a very vocal group against them.
However, people are fundamentally irrational and emotional. It would be irrational to stop flying due to 9/11. The risk of an attack on your flight is negligible. Yet, airlines lost a lot of passengers due to 9/11! If a second successful attack occurs, many people would lose their confidence not only in airlines, but in their government to protect them.
The government is really in a lose-lose situation here. Do nothing, and they are perceived as weak on terrorism. Do what people say they want the gov't to do - protect the airlines - and suddenly more invasive searches are required. Either way, they will have a very vocal group against them.
Those are not the most evil words - "if you have nothing to hide, why are you against..." are. "I am just doing my job" can easily be countered with "Yep, thats what Eichman/other nazi said too; he was hung too" or if you don't care about the person to whom you are speaking "Yep ,thats what Eichman/other nazi said too. I look forward to seing you on the gallows".
You sir, should run for office. Unfortunately we live in a democracy.
We don't live in a Democracy. Its suppose to be a Republic. But that died a long time ago. Even Google says so. In fact that's the whole point of the pilots protest.
I'm a pilot, a libertarian, and somebody who believes that it is a fair trade to temporarily trade freedoms for security, such as when governments institute blackout laws during air-raids when the nation is at war.
But this virtual strip-searching is going too far. Somebody needs to be a grownup and stop abusing the public in return for the promise of a risk-free travel experience.
The problem, from a political perspective, is this is one of those "clean water" issues -- an issue with only one side. Who wants to be in favor of dirty water? Yet the real question facing governments is what kind of trade to make between tax revenue and water treatment plants, what kinds of burdens to put on industry to not pollute (too much), etc. The real question is very nuanced and involves lots of trade-offs and discussions about private property rights and the public good. But the problem is, even though it's a trade-off, there's no upside to taking the other side of the issue.
Let's suppose somebody gets elected on the platform to eliminate body scanners. All the scanners get eliminated and the public cheers.
The next month there is a terrible attack -- one that could have been prevented by the use of body scanners.
I know what the logical response is, but what do you think the actual response from the public will be? It's going to be to get rid of that foolish politician who's reckless ways caused so much harm and misery.
And to DavidW's point, yes, I think this is a HN issue, although it is also emotionally-charged. It's a hacker issue because it gets to the heart of all hacking: just because you can do something, should you? If I can create a mind-reading device to stop terrorists, should I? It also addresses the ways people can create organizational systems without balance -- systems that continue growing ad infinitum. I would expect this virtual strip-searching to be only the beginning: as terrorist defeat these (by the use of rectally-planted explosives, as the pilot points out) then government will up the ante and find a way to give rectal exams. They'll have to. It's a one-sided issue.
But this virtual strip-searching is going too far. Somebody needs to be a grownup and stop abusing the public in return for the promise of a risk-free travel experience.
The problem, from a political perspective, is this is one of those "clean water" issues -- an issue with only one side. Who wants to be in favor of dirty water? Yet the real question facing governments is what kind of trade to make between tax revenue and water treatment plants, what kinds of burdens to put on industry to not pollute (too much), etc. The real question is very nuanced and involves lots of trade-offs and discussions about private property rights and the public good. But the problem is, even though it's a trade-off, there's no upside to taking the other side of the issue.
Let's suppose somebody gets elected on the platform to eliminate body scanners. All the scanners get eliminated and the public cheers.
The next month there is a terrible attack -- one that could have been prevented by the use of body scanners.
I know what the logical response is, but what do you think the actual response from the public will be? It's going to be to get rid of that foolish politician who's reckless ways caused so much harm and misery.
And to DavidW's point, yes, I think this is a HN issue, although it is also emotionally-charged. It's a hacker issue because it gets to the heart of all hacking: just because you can do something, should you? If I can create a mind-reading device to stop terrorists, should I? It also addresses the ways people can create organizational systems without balance -- systems that continue growing ad infinitum. I would expect this virtual strip-searching to be only the beginning: as terrorist defeat these (by the use of rectally-planted explosives, as the pilot points out) then government will up the ante and find a way to give rectal exams. They'll have to. It's a one-sided issue.
> It's a hacker issue because it gets to the heart of all hacking: just because you can do something, should you?
That's much more of a political problem though, and really is so vague as to make most anything you want a 'hacker issue'.
That's much more of a political problem though, and really is so vague as to make most anything you want a 'hacker issue'.
A sensible reply, Daniel, but I'm on the other side of the fence. I think hard objects and explosives scanning technology is going to be standard in the future. We've only got primitive and crude versions right now, but I think this sort of scanning technology is the answer to the problem. With good enough technology and alerts system, security at all high risk venues could proceed automatically with a few people monitoring outputs and response teams nearby.
Implemented as well as it could be, this seems like it'll be less intrusive than the current way of lining up for metal detectors. Also, less expensive and less invasive. From the comments, I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm for this kind of technology.
Implemented as well as it could be, this seems like it'll be less intrusive than the current way of lining up for metal detectors. Also, less expensive and less invasive. From the comments, I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm for this kind of technology.
I'm not sure that I'm convinced that technology is really the answer here. Sure it can work if everyone is scanned and the monitors watched but will that always 100% be the case?
I've worked on scanning systems before for security purposes (festival id tags, I appreciate, a lesser concern) and there are almost always ways around the system, be it accidental or intentional. But if those ways round are abused the technology completely fails to fulfil its intended purpose if that one person is missed.
The issue with airport security and kabooms is can certainly be just that one person who has the kaboom and such an instance would take us right back to square one.
As a brief example might I state that diplomats have immunity from these scanning systems and are allowed to bypass them.
I've worked on scanning systems before for security purposes (festival id tags, I appreciate, a lesser concern) and there are almost always ways around the system, be it accidental or intentional. But if those ways round are abused the technology completely fails to fulfil its intended purpose if that one person is missed.
The issue with airport security and kabooms is can certainly be just that one person who has the kaboom and such an instance would take us right back to square one.
As a brief example might I state that diplomats have immunity from these scanning systems and are allowed to bypass them.
It's a one-sided issue which our government has said that they're gonna fix - small cost to attack, enormous cost to defend. The US had no other choice though. If one vulnerability is found, terrorists will just continue to exploit it, and it will erode trust in our transit networks.
Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes? Are alternative scanning methods just as effective? Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe? It's a tricky issue.
Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes? Are alternative scanning methods just as effective? Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe? It's a tricky issue.
> Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes?
Isn't that how TSA already operates? Someone sneaks a bomb into their shoe and TSA makes me take my flip-flops off through the metal detector. Someone tries to blow up a plane with "gels" and TSA bans sealed water bottles. Someone stitches a bomb in their underwear and TSA sets up virtual strip-searches.
Until TSA mandates that everyone be stripped naked, anesthetized, and sealed in blast-proof capsules for the length of the journey, there will always be a way to sneak something deadly onto a plane. As terrorists get more clever, TSA will continue to fix the holes the terrorists find with continually more invasive, illogical, and civil-liberty-stripping mandates in the name of safety.
Isn't that how TSA already operates? Someone sneaks a bomb into their shoe and TSA makes me take my flip-flops off through the metal detector. Someone tries to blow up a plane with "gels" and TSA bans sealed water bottles. Someone stitches a bomb in their underwear and TSA sets up virtual strip-searches.
Until TSA mandates that everyone be stripped naked, anesthetized, and sealed in blast-proof capsules for the length of the journey, there will always be a way to sneak something deadly onto a plane. As terrorists get more clever, TSA will continue to fix the holes the terrorists find with continually more invasive, illogical, and civil-liberty-stripping mandates in the name of safety.
>> Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes?
That's exactly what happens now. The changes in TSA policy come after an attempted attack, and focus on what could have been done in the past to prevent that attack. As a member of the public, I've never seen the TSA actually put meaningful thought into how to make their procedures more effective, only more politically correct and politically 'safe'.
>> Are alternative scanning methods just as effective?
I'd like to point out that a bomber boarded an airplane, tried to attack it, failed, and burned his private parts, and upon landing was met by law enforcement. That's a success, as far as I'm concerned, and an opportunity for some laughs at his expense. It was so hard to get a bomb on an airplane that he took a low-quality, faulty explosive that he couldn't get to work.
>> Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe?
Honestly, I'd prefer the police and TSA respect their rights, and that people not live in panic or fear of terrorist attacks. A suicide attack happens so rarely and so unpredictably, so how are my freedoms any more protected if I submit to unreasonable searches?
In my opinion, trained psychological profilers would be much more effective.
That's exactly what happens now. The changes in TSA policy come after an attempted attack, and focus on what could have been done in the past to prevent that attack. As a member of the public, I've never seen the TSA actually put meaningful thought into how to make their procedures more effective, only more politically correct and politically 'safe'.
>> Are alternative scanning methods just as effective?
I'd like to point out that a bomber boarded an airplane, tried to attack it, failed, and burned his private parts, and upon landing was met by law enforcement. That's a success, as far as I'm concerned, and an opportunity for some laughs at his expense. It was so hard to get a bomb on an airplane that he took a low-quality, faulty explosive that he couldn't get to work.
>> Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe?
Honestly, I'd prefer the police and TSA respect their rights, and that people not live in panic or fear of terrorist attacks. A suicide attack happens so rarely and so unpredictably, so how are my freedoms any more protected if I submit to unreasonable searches?
In my opinion, trained psychological profilers would be much more effective.
Isn't that the best solution for them (putting people to sleep for the flight)? I'm still waiting to see what will happen when someone plays a terrorist by:
- using broken glass bottle (can be bought in the duty-free area)
- breaking one-time shaving razor you can buy on the airport and making a DIY knife
- stealing kitchen utensils from bars at the airport
- putting lighter gas into a small perfume container which you can take onboard, making spark from a normal battery, using some flamable spray to get more fuel
- disassembling some on board electric device (even stuff like lights) and warning to short it (that should cause some serious panic even if it's pretty safe in reality... who's actually aware of separate circuits?)
etc. at some point, people will start to realise that there are so many dangerous items on the airport itself, you don't need to bring anything with you. What will the TSA limit then?
- using broken glass bottle (can be bought in the duty-free area)
- breaking one-time shaving razor you can buy on the airport and making a DIY knife
- stealing kitchen utensils from bars at the airport
- putting lighter gas into a small perfume container which you can take onboard, making spark from a normal battery, using some flamable spray to get more fuel
- disassembling some on board electric device (even stuff like lights) and warning to short it (that should cause some serious panic even if it's pretty safe in reality... who's actually aware of separate circuits?)
etc. at some point, people will start to realise that there are so many dangerous items on the airport itself, you don't need to bring anything with you. What will the TSA limit then?
Yes, and the latest round of terrorists seem to be incapable of detonating anything. You think they're just incompetent, or they've figured out that the damage inflicted is greater with an unsuccessful attempt that generates a flurry of new TSA procedures than with a successful one that just gets attributed to mechanical failure?
You're assuming that these measures are foolproof though. These will catch the stupid terrorists, but the smart ones will still get through.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2008/11/the-things...
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2008/11/the-things...
> If one vulnerability is found, terrorists will just continue to exploit it, and it will erode trust in our transit networks.
I don't see this. We have had one 9/11. We had one 7/7. Certainly RE: 7/7 that kind of stuff is VERY hard to prevent (no scanning possible) and UK society and public transport has changed _very_ little since this, if not at all. However we are not seeing more 7/7 attacks.
Terrorists are in incredibly limited supply, certainly competent ones (Edinburgh Airport anyone? :D). We should possibly consider that we might see exactly the same number of terrorist attacks even if we had zero security.
It worth considering as opposed to being convinced that the barbarians are _definitely_ at the gates.
I don't see this. We have had one 9/11. We had one 7/7. Certainly RE: 7/7 that kind of stuff is VERY hard to prevent (no scanning possible) and UK society and public transport has changed _very_ little since this, if not at all. However we are not seeing more 7/7 attacks.
Terrorists are in incredibly limited supply, certainly competent ones (Edinburgh Airport anyone? :D). We should possibly consider that we might see exactly the same number of terrorist attacks even if we had zero security.
It worth considering as opposed to being convinced that the barbarians are _definitely_ at the gates.
Looking at this 'from the outside' (US), some of this stuff is absolutely shocking. How scared is the average person to continue tolerating stuff like this? And when/where does it stop?
The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is this: Will there every come a point where the government will say "Ok, the world is safe again, we're giving you your liberties back."?
The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is this: Will there every come a point where the government will say "Ok, the world is safe again, we're giving you your liberties back."?
> The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is this: Will there every come a point where the government will say "Ok, the world is safe again, we're giving you your liberties back."?
I think I know the answer to that one but you will not like it one bit.
What's the last time a country repealed a law that limited citizens rights somehow without there being a confrontation about it?
I think I know the answer to that one but you will not like it one bit.
What's the last time a country repealed a law that limited citizens rights somehow without there being a confrontation about it?
Confrontations happen with every political change. The real question is whether it's feasible to repeal laws that limit citizens rights; the US presents numerous examples that suggest it is.
In 1972 the draft ended. In 1996 export of strong cryptography from the US was legalized. Since the 1990's, 18 states have either decriminalized marijuana or legalized medicinal marijuana. A couple states during that time span legalized assisted suicide. Judicial rulings in the past ten years alone have overturned laws banning firearms and sodomy, and in five states, same sex marriage was legalized.
In 1972 the draft ended. In 1996 export of strong cryptography from the US was legalized. Since the 1990's, 18 states have either decriminalized marijuana or legalized medicinal marijuana. A couple states during that time span legalized assisted suicide. Judicial rulings in the past ten years alone have overturned laws banning firearms and sodomy, and in five states, same sex marriage was legalized.
Define confrontation.
Because I would argue that the end of the legal limits on the price you could charge on things in most of Europe was just such an event.
Because I would argue that the end of the legal limits on the price you could charge on things in most of Europe was just such an event.
You forget the "if it's working, let's not fix it" thinking.
I can see it from both perspectives. It is shocking, but the government isn't just doing full body scans for kicks. Airlines are ridiculously hard to secure - if terrorists use another one as a bomb after the US has spent so much money already protecting them, then we're in big trouble. Not only would more terrorists try to hijack planes, but we would lose some standing with other countries because of "insecure" transit systems.
The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is: Will there ever come a point where our airlines WILL be safe again? If there is ever a lapse in our security, will someone new try to embarrass us using the same attack? Will the world ever be safe?
The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is: Will there ever come a point where our airlines WILL be safe again? If there is ever a lapse in our security, will someone new try to embarrass us using the same attack? Will the world ever be safe?
I have a friend who regularly talks about how easy it would be to 'destroy' (kill power grid, poison water supply bomb pretty much anything) NYC (he's from up there) without using the airlines.
Even before 9/11, it was by far much easier to 'destroy' a city than it is to hijack an airplane to do whatever.
Even before 9/11, it was by far much easier to 'destroy' a city than it is to hijack an airplane to do whatever.
The government isn't just doing full body scans for kicks - they're doing it for kickbacks.
personally I feel like the whole threat of terrorism is overblown. If they were a real threat we'd see more attacks on U.S. soil. There are a ton of soft targets like malls, subways, schools that aren't protected.
Instead the only attacks on the U.S. soil, seem to come from people who think they are joining a movement. It's always some incompetent dumbass, who got brainwashed by the media frenzy, with no actual connections to actual terrorists.
Hell, the reason 911 happened was because everyone in this country was told to just sit down and wait to get rescued. If someone tried to hijack a plane now with box cutters, they'd get their asses kicked by everyone on the plane.
Instead the only attacks on the U.S. soil, seem to come from people who think they are joining a movement. It's always some incompetent dumbass, who got brainwashed by the media frenzy, with no actual connections to actual terrorists.
Hell, the reason 911 happened was because everyone in this country was told to just sit down and wait to get rescued. If someone tried to hijack a plane now with box cutters, they'd get their asses kicked by everyone on the plane.
9/11 was a game changer. Up to that point, planes were kidnapped for hostages. In that scenario, the best to do is not to confront the highjackers.
I'm not really sure if I'm going to be able to effectively fly any more. Every time I go through these lines, I get noticeably and visibly upset. I keep my mouth shut, but the combination of being subversive looking and noticeably agitated means I get picked out for secondary screening a lot. :/
It makes my blood boil every single time. I feel so ashamed that I basically am forced to support this kind of behavior by needing to fly at times, and feel totally helpless about doing anything about it. I'm seriously wondering if I'm going to be able to continue traveling as these shenanigans get worse and worse.
I see a lot of driving in my future. :/
It makes my blood boil every single time. I feel so ashamed that I basically am forced to support this kind of behavior by needing to fly at times, and feel totally helpless about doing anything about it. I'm seriously wondering if I'm going to be able to continue traveling as these shenanigans get worse and worse.
I see a lot of driving in my future. :/
Take the train, if possible. Its not quite as convenient, but at least it is leisurely.
In the US at least going by train is about like walking. Going from Dallas to Austin is about 3-4 hours by car a short enough trip you wouldn't think about flying but long enough that you would like to avoid driving. By train that is 7 hours. Looking at Dallas to Denver a 12-14 hour car trip, something where the few hour flight would be an option. By train that is 48hrs one way. so to visit a friend my options are: 24hours in a car, 4 hours by plane, and 4 days on a train. The train ride would cost about the same amount as the plane ride, and the car ride would be dollars spent cheaper but not by much.
That would work great if America still had a train system.
I always worried about this when we lived in Puerto Rico. Due to the Jones Act, there are no passenger ships to the island - to leave, you have to fly.
I always worried about this when we lived in Puerto Rico. Due to the Jones Act, there are no passenger ships to the island - to leave, you have to fly.
There's nothing i can find on the Jones Act banning passenger ships - only making Puerto Ricans US citizens - can you elaborate?
Ah. The Jones Act also specifies that all ships traveling between American ports must be (1) made in America, (2) registered in America, (3) owned by Americans, and (4) crewed by Americans. The consequence is that the market can't actually bear passenger travel between American ports. So there isn't any. At all. Hasn't been for decades. Unless you own and sail your own boat, you can't get there from here except by air.
Weird - and definitely an unintended consequence. The Puerto Ricans are quite aware of it. But as long as shipyard labor on the East Coast continues to support protectionism no matter how meaningless, there will continue to be no passenger shipping to Puerto Rico.
Weird - and definitely an unintended consequence. The Puerto Ricans are quite aware of it. But as long as shipyard labor on the East Coast continues to support protectionism no matter how meaningless, there will continue to be no passenger shipping to Puerto Rico.
By way of a control, is there passenger ship traffic to Jamaica, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, other islands in that region, or Cancun?
I don't actually know - I never lived in those places. The situations are complex, though: Haiti and the Dominican Republic are very poor and might not have the market, and Jamaica and Cancun are further from the mainland, thus shipping would be disproportionately slower.
It might be interesting to look at when passenger routes died out. For instance, there is only intermittent ferry trade with the Bahamas from Florida, even though they're very close - but the market is marginal given the low cost of air travel right now. I would guess that passenger routes to Puerto Rico were eliminated before those to the Bahamas, but ... I don't really know. This is an interesting point - but wow, it would take a lot more research than I'm able to do in order to answer it.
It might be interesting to look at when passenger routes died out. For instance, there is only intermittent ferry trade with the Bahamas from Florida, even though they're very close - but the market is marginal given the low cost of air travel right now. I would guess that passenger routes to Puerto Rico were eliminated before those to the Bahamas, but ... I don't really know. This is an interesting point - but wow, it would take a lot more research than I'm able to do in order to answer it.
Nitpicking: Cancun is closer to Miami than Puerto Rico by my reading of a map, and Jamaica is about the same distance if you consider that you'd have to sail around Cuba to get to it.
I regularly drive from Boston to Toronto these days. Cheaper, I get real food, I can leave/come back when I want, take more luggage, and door to door it is only about a half hour longer. Crossing the border by car is still sane.
I drive anywhere east of (and including) the line from Chicago to St. Louis to New Orleans... just because of the incredible hassle. Plus I like the convenience of being able to overpack (personally or technologically), if necessary... and being able to take side trips on the way there and back again.
It's interesting that people like this story because what I see is a pilot who first refused the body scanner and then refused the alternative (a pat down) and was refused entry to the airport. I don't see this as a big deal. He wasn't arrested and appears to have been dealt with politely by all concerned. The "stands up to the TSA" in the headline makes it sound like he's frikkin' Gandhi standing up the British. And I'm probably going to burn karma for saying this but, welcome to Reddit.
A pilot does not need concealed weapons to crash a plane...?!? He pilots the damn machine.
You strip search him, find nothing, let him go, and then he takes command of the plane and can crash it anywhere, any time. How obvious is this??
The link you posted below, to the "FedEx Express Flight 705" incident is completely irrelevant since Mr. Calloway was not in charge of steering that plane. Had he been, he would not have tried to kill the crew.
You strip search him, find nothing, let him go, and then he takes command of the plane and can crash it anywhere, any time. How obvious is this??
The link you posted below, to the "FedEx Express Flight 705" incident is completely irrelevant since Mr. Calloway was not in charge of steering that plane. Had he been, he would not have tried to kill the crew.
Not to mention there is a big axe in the cockpit.
What's more is that for some time they allowed pilots to carry handguns in the cockpit (federal flight deck officers). I always found it amusing when one of the pilots got waved through carrying a firearm while the other had to go through secondary screening.
First, I don't agree with the use of full body scanners.
To be fair, the TSA doesn't know that the guy is a pilot - only that he has the uniform and some sort of identification that says he is - both of which could be faked.
Unfortunately nothing is likely to change until it's not isolated incidents of people refusing to go through the full body scanners but rather 10% or more of the flying public. --I'm estimating, of course, but can you imagine the backlogs if just 10% of passengers refused every day and forced the TSA to spend time frisking them?
To be fair, the TSA doesn't know that the guy is a pilot - only that he has the uniform and some sort of identification that says he is - both of which could be faked.
Unfortunately nothing is likely to change until it's not isolated incidents of people refusing to go through the full body scanners but rather 10% or more of the flying public. --I'm estimating, of course, but can you imagine the backlogs if just 10% of passengers refused every day and forced the TSA to spend time frisking them?
Or people will just stop using planes. I started driving when I need to go anywhere now. I really enjoy it. I can make it from my place in Florida to my fathers home in Montreal Canada in less than 2 days. That's no worse than spending an entire day in the airport. At least in the car I get a comfortable seat, radio, and a nice scenery.
> Or people will just stop using planes.
Unfortunate and ironic from a safety POV since driving is much more dangerous than flying on commercial flights.
Unfortunate and ironic from a safety POV since driving is much more dangerous than flying on commercial flights.
That's so very true. Maybe someone should explain that to the people in charge of making policies. They are putting people in danger ;p
Then how does he get on the fligth deck?
If his ID isn't sufficient to avoid screening - but it is sufficient to allow him to sit in the front seats ?
It's no different than passengers going through screening - the TSA ID checkers aren't likely to catch a high quality fake ID, and we know that boarding passes can be faked. That's one of - if not the best - arguments as to why it's pointless for the TSA to be checking IDs anyway.
The point still stands though. A fake pilot in the cockpit is as dangerous as a passenger with grenades strapped to his chest. More so.
When you're sitting in the driver's seat, who cares if you have any weapon you want? Ergo, anything that can get you in the driver's seat should be good enough to get you past security, faked or not.
When you're sitting in the driver's seat, who cares if you have any weapon you want? Ergo, anything that can get you in the driver's seat should be good enough to get you past security, faked or not.
Taken to extreme it would be like the Secret Service checking the president for a swiss army knife before letting him into the big red button room.
So who does check the ID?
If it's not the super trained government appointed guardians of our safety - the clerk at the departure gate ?
Surely there should also be a TSA agent standing behind each pilot throughout the flight if they can't be sure of the pilots identity?
If it's not the super trained government appointed guardians of our safety - the clerk at the departure gate ?
Surely there should also be a TSA agent standing behind each pilot throughout the flight if they can't be sure of the pilots identity?
I flew yesterday, and arrived early enough to watch the crew get onto the plane. There was a cursory check of their IDs, but very cursory. The main thing seemed to be that everyone knew each other; the crew had worked together before, and the flight agent who checked their IDs knew them. I would not be surprised if the flight agent was given pictures of the pilots as well as their names, though, which would probably provide the greatest security (identity verified by a trusted third party, the airline, without any chance for the pilot to interact with the verifying document, as happens with passports or other ids. If you never get to see it, you can't tamper with it).
Except that in the US (unless you are at the airline's home base) the checkin+gate staff are probably on contract from some staffing agency or rented from the airport.
The 'Delta connection' flight you are on is sub-contracted out to a 2 man outfit with a single regional jet.
Pay and conditions are so poor that staff turnover is huge and the number of staff is reduced so that people barely have time to glance at the person.
It's one of the hidden costs of replacing the company security guard with the cheap outside agency.
The 'Delta connection' flight you are on is sub-contracted out to a 2 man outfit with a single regional jet.
Pay and conditions are so poor that staff turnover is huge and the number of staff is reduced so that people barely have time to glance at the person.
It's one of the hidden costs of replacing the company security guard with the cheap outside agency.
Did you notice there are at least two people in the cockpit?
Not at all times and even then lots of disasters happened because the first officer didn't correct (even major) mistakes by the captain (or vice versa) - EgyptAir 990 comes to mind
True. I thought about EgyptAir and Aeroflot cases too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but both planes didn't have FBW flight envelope protection either? That might have prevented pilot/child from upsetting planes attitude irrecoverably.
And EgyptAir co-pilot actually tried to overcome captain and recover till the end.
But I think those cases neither validate nor invalidate the need to screen the pilots?
Certainly they validate the case to have co-pilots.
And EgyptAir co-pilot actually tried to overcome captain and recover till the end.
But I think those cases neither validate nor invalidate the need to screen the pilots?
Certainly they validate the case to have co-pilots.
That's what we need to make airline travel safer.
The two pilots both fly with loaded handguns pointed at the head of the other pilot in case they turn out to be a crazy commie/terrorist/(delete as appropriate).
[deleted]
[deleted]
Agreed. I'm actually a supporter of the scanning technology, because I think it will reduce time spent in line at airports. The shoes taking off thing still seems kind of unnecessary and it's gross that everyone walks through the screening area in only their socks.
On a side note, I fly a lot, and it seems like TSA and Homeland Security have gotten much more organized, fast, and polite over the last few years. It was pretty bad 3+ years ago, but the last few flights I took in the USA they were polite and calm and prompt. This piece seems like much ado about nothing - there's legitimate problems in the USA right now, but this event doesn't seem like one of them.
On a side note, I fly a lot, and it seems like TSA and Homeland Security have gotten much more organized, fast, and polite over the last few years. It was pretty bad 3+ years ago, but the last few flights I took in the USA they were polite and calm and prompt. This piece seems like much ado about nothing - there's legitimate problems in the USA right now, but this event doesn't seem like one of them.
Read to the end before you downvote.
It really is a matter of your goals. If your goal is to use the airport for its intended use and you do not really care about your civil rights or you trust the government wholeheartedly then the above makes sense.
I think airport security exists more for the government to save face then anything else. It allows them to take an environment made unsafe in the perception of the public and make it 'safe'. Similar to stationing a squad of police officers at a shady part of town and having them harass everybody. In the short term everybody get harassed, but they have to admit in the long run the police officers 'fixed' the problem. This is also a medium of communicating this type of message that the government has practice and established methods of doing.
It boils down to: They are doing their best. Yes, it is infringing on our rights. The only solution is a drastic change in the american people. All the fear and drama surrounding airports now, is the victory terrorists had in 9/11. It was their goals to make us afraid as a nation, and they succeeded.
It really is a matter of your goals. If your goal is to use the airport for its intended use and you do not really care about your civil rights or you trust the government wholeheartedly then the above makes sense.
I think airport security exists more for the government to save face then anything else. It allows them to take an environment made unsafe in the perception of the public and make it 'safe'. Similar to stationing a squad of police officers at a shady part of town and having them harass everybody. In the short term everybody get harassed, but they have to admit in the long run the police officers 'fixed' the problem. This is also a medium of communicating this type of message that the government has practice and established methods of doing.
It boils down to: They are doing their best. Yes, it is infringing on our rights. The only solution is a drastic change in the american people. All the fear and drama surrounding airports now, is the victory terrorists had in 9/11. It was their goals to make us afraid as a nation, and they succeeded.
Good comment.
> If your goal is to use the airport for its intended use and you do not really care about your civil rights or you trust the government wholeheartedly then the above makes sense.
I'm a big civil liberties guy myself, but I really think this is pretty low on the list of things going wrong in America. If you wanted to take a stand on any of the 20 worst civil liberties violations in America, does airport scanners really come in on that list? I'm much more worried about the rampant corruption and favoritism of giving money to some banks, some activist groups, some states, according to party lines and individual favors. Then you've got companies writing regulation, and the Vice President openly calling for more internet censorship and government control over the net. No one understands the tax codes, which are ridden with loopholes and confusion and bureaucracy. There's no transparency in legislation, and new bills are frequently 10,000 pages long - that's not hyperbole. There's no way citizens can understand what's actually inside one of those bills.
The airports need some security. It's a little too showy right now (liquids and taking shoes off are somewhat ridiculous, in my opinion). But the installation of scanners has got to be pretty low on the list of things that are wrong with the American government. I'm all for drawing lines and holding ground and fighting for civil liberties, but I'm hard pressed to see airport scanners as where to draw the line and fight.
> If your goal is to use the airport for its intended use and you do not really care about your civil rights or you trust the government wholeheartedly then the above makes sense.
I'm a big civil liberties guy myself, but I really think this is pretty low on the list of things going wrong in America. If you wanted to take a stand on any of the 20 worst civil liberties violations in America, does airport scanners really come in on that list? I'm much more worried about the rampant corruption and favoritism of giving money to some banks, some activist groups, some states, according to party lines and individual favors. Then you've got companies writing regulation, and the Vice President openly calling for more internet censorship and government control over the net. No one understands the tax codes, which are ridden with loopholes and confusion and bureaucracy. There's no transparency in legislation, and new bills are frequently 10,000 pages long - that's not hyperbole. There's no way citizens can understand what's actually inside one of those bills.
The airports need some security. It's a little too showy right now (liquids and taking shoes off are somewhat ridiculous, in my opinion). But the installation of scanners has got to be pretty low on the list of things that are wrong with the American government. I'm all for drawing lines and holding ground and fighting for civil liberties, but I'm hard pressed to see airport scanners as where to draw the line and fight.
Hey, hold on guys. I'm writing that:
-I'm in favor of scanners because I think they'll speed things up.
-Taking shoes off seems unnecessary and counterproductive
-I fly a lot, and anecdotally it seems like TSA has improved in etiquitte and service quality
-In my opinion, this doesn't seem like an area worthy of much concern
People who disagree are welcome to express their disagreement, ideally with a reasoned, unemotional argument instead of flicking the button because you disagree with someone's reasoned point of view.
-I'm in favor of scanners because I think they'll speed things up.
-Taking shoes off seems unnecessary and counterproductive
-I fly a lot, and anecdotally it seems like TSA has improved in etiquitte and service quality
-In my opinion, this doesn't seem like an area worthy of much concern
People who disagree are welcome to express their disagreement, ideally with a reasoned, unemotional argument instead of flicking the button because you disagree with someone's reasoned point of view.
You don't get the choice of metal detector or scanner, you get to do both or metal + pad down. I fail to see how this could speed things up.
Considering he's a pilot that flies the airplane, do you think he would need to conceal objects from security scanning to crash that airplane into a building?
Boy, those Sep 11 attacks where like a needle straight to the heart ;)
Boy, those Sep 11 attacks where like a needle straight to the heart ;)
What it comes down to is that there is no system in place for TSA to determine whether a pilot is actually a pilot. See this essay [1] for a clear argument.
[1] http://www.schneier.com/essay-130.html
[1] http://www.schneier.com/essay-130.html
How much do you wanna bet that pilot's uniform he was wearing got him a calmer treatment than, say, a shaggy kid carrying a backpack?
The backpacker would have been tasered and thrown in jail after the first "no".
The backpacker would have been tasered and thrown in jail after the first "no".
This is one of those stories that looks like it's designed to get you hot and bothered about a topic that is not very related to tech and startups. In other words, I think there are other sites that are better choices for long, far ranging discussions about things like civil liberties, terrorism, and so on and so forth.
This story is relevant to HN because 80% of the posts here are about building businesses and this often requires air-travel. Refusing to be X-raped by the TSA could have negative long term repercussions on your ability to travel efficiently.
By that measure, 100% of businesses here are run by people who breathe air and drink water, so articles about environmentalism are pertinent too. Likewise, most of us are human beings with sexual and emotional needs, which, if not met, might lead to frustrations that could damage businesses, so "how to score with hot chicks" is on-topic too.
I call that game "7 degrees of hacker news".
I call that game "7 degrees of hacker news".
Absolutely!
Everyone interested in relevant discussion can go to airliners.net where this is top story for few days now:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re...
Another relevant site is pprune.org:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/430970-pilot-challenges-t...
Those are the places where real pilots and aviation professionals discuss the issue. One excellent quote from PPRune:
"What you have here is an idiot with an agenda. Fortunately he's likely so early in his career, he may not have thrown that much away, but he did make good inroads at getting stuck on TSA's watch list."
Totally irrelevant to HN.
Everyone interested in relevant discussion can go to airliners.net where this is top story for few days now:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re...
Another relevant site is pprune.org:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/430970-pilot-challenges-t...
Those are the places where real pilots and aviation professionals discuss the issue. One excellent quote from PPRune:
"What you have here is an idiot with an agenda. Fortunately he's likely so early in his career, he may not have thrown that much away, but he did make good inroads at getting stuck on TSA's watch list."
Totally irrelevant to HN.
Here's how it works:
Am I willing to risk my job standing up for my beliefs? No.
I'm not even willing to risk being late for dinner. Given a choice, I always opt for the fastest, regardless of what I believe in. Even if I'm right, what do I win by missing my plane?
That's what they're counting on.
- x-ray machine: 30 seconds
- full body scan: add 30 seconds
- pat down: add 5 to 20 minutes
Am I willing to risk my job standing up for my beliefs? No.
I'm not even willing to risk being late for dinner. Given a choice, I always opt for the fastest, regardless of what I believe in. Even if I'm right, what do I win by missing my plane?
That's what they're counting on.
My apologies and I wish no ill will or to cause flames, but your comment makes me sad and reminds me of "First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
I only wish to be at least half as noble, brave and bold as some who have come before me.
And, I am grateful that our forefathers of the United States were willing to risk their LIVES (forget dinner or jobs) to stand up for what they believed in to make this country independent. Also, while I never really bought into the notion--rather the ideal, if it weren't for those who lost their lives in WWII we would all be speaking German or possibly be slaves or dead if we didn't fit the ideal of one man or group's belief is the perfect race.
I am just as guilty as I find your comment, as so far I have just sat by (but have at least talked about to whoever listens) as our freedoms are stripped away, but I realize my fault and hope to change it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
I only wish to be at least half as noble, brave and bold as some who have come before me.
And, I am grateful that our forefathers of the United States were willing to risk their LIVES (forget dinner or jobs) to stand up for what they believed in to make this country independent. Also, while I never really bought into the notion--rather the ideal, if it weren't for those who lost their lives in WWII we would all be speaking German or possibly be slaves or dead if we didn't fit the ideal of one man or group's belief is the perfect race.
I am just as guilty as I find your comment, as so far I have just sat by (but have at least talked about to whoever listens) as our freedoms are stripped away, but I realize my fault and hope to change it.
Sure, but do you honestly think that use of full body scanners before boarding flights is remotely linked to the threat of oppressive rulers targeting unpopular minorities? Or that the levels of bravery involved in missing your flight really compare with the people who died to stop dictators enslaving the human race? You can accept irritation whilst remaining committed to stand up to evil.
I realise that the levels of airport security might be verging on excessive (pilots don't exactly need to be carrying banned sharp items to seriously threaten passenger safety on board an aircraft anyway...), but for some reason I find the equivocation of freedom fighting and moaning about being mildly hassled at an airport more objectionable than the airport officials themselves. Coming across as paranoid and self-righteous* every time law enforcement comes up with any new directive detracts from legitimate criticism of more disturbing trends and behaviour.
If you're really afraid of the power of government then security personnel asking to see your genitals without asking you taking your clothes off ought to be the least of your concerns. A healthy majority of American citizens think the government has the right to take away people's _lives_ (should they be convicted of a capital crime).
*this isn't intended as a direct personal criticism either of you or the pilot; merely an observation of how it potentially appears to a large swathe of the general public. The "boy who cried wolf" analogy sounds more apt than any Godwin's-law-invoking slippery slope arguments.
I realise that the levels of airport security might be verging on excessive (pilots don't exactly need to be carrying banned sharp items to seriously threaten passenger safety on board an aircraft anyway...), but for some reason I find the equivocation of freedom fighting and moaning about being mildly hassled at an airport more objectionable than the airport officials themselves. Coming across as paranoid and self-righteous* every time law enforcement comes up with any new directive detracts from legitimate criticism of more disturbing trends and behaviour.
If you're really afraid of the power of government then security personnel asking to see your genitals without asking you taking your clothes off ought to be the least of your concerns. A healthy majority of American citizens think the government has the right to take away people's _lives_ (should they be convicted of a capital crime).
*this isn't intended as a direct personal criticism either of you or the pilot; merely an observation of how it potentially appears to a large swathe of the general public. The "boy who cried wolf" analogy sounds more apt than any Godwin's-law-invoking slippery slope arguments.
My apologies and I wish no ill will or to cause flames, but your comment makes me sad and reminds me of "First they came..."
My comment makes me sad, too. I think my actions and beliefs today would probably disappoint the "10 years ago" instance of myself.
A little background...
The incident in question happened 4 weeks ago, when I had an extra 2 hours before my flight. Sure, I had plenty of time to stand up for what I believe in.
On Friday, I was running late because of traffic and crowds. If I had refused the naked machine, I would have missed my flight, and I would have missed Startup School.
Funny how strongly we believe in something until it's our turn to act. That's when we find out, for better or worse, who we really are.
My comment makes me sad, too. I think my actions and beliefs today would probably disappoint the "10 years ago" instance of myself.
A little background...
The incident in question happened 4 weeks ago, when I had an extra 2 hours before my flight. Sure, I had plenty of time to stand up for what I believe in.
On Friday, I was running late because of traffic and crowds. If I had refused the naked machine, I would have missed my flight, and I would have missed Startup School.
Funny how strongly we believe in something until it's our turn to act. That's when we find out, for better or worse, who we really are.
1776: "Then it's agreed, gentlemen, in order to secure our rights as a free people, we will risk embarrassment, imprisonment, expropriation, bankruptcy, bodily harm, exile and hanging."
2010: "Of course I'll waive my rights. I don't want to miss my connecting flight."
2010: "Of course I'll waive my rights. I don't want to miss my connecting flight."
Except that over years of flying I was never patted down, and since the naked scan has started, I've been through that more than the metal detector (6 times v. 2 times in the last two months). This thing was supposed to be used for additional screening, in place of more invasive searches, and now it's used in place of less invasive searches. I find it difficult to tolerate that I'm now expected to show somebody my bean bag in order to travel. In fact, if I were to drop my pants in the middle of the security line, I'd be arrested, but the TSA can drop my pants for me without recourse.
As you say though, fighting it just isn't worth it right now. The last thing I need is one if the geniuses that work security arresting me, even under false pretenses, because I won't consent to a strip search.
As you say though, fighting it just isn't worth it right now. The last thing I need is one if the geniuses that work security arresting me, even under false pretenses, because I won't consent to a strip search.
>In fact, if I were to drop my pants in the middle of the security line, I'd be arrested, but the TSA can drop my pants for me without recourse.
There is actually a hilarious idea buried here. An interesting way to protest full-body scans would be to walk through security naked to make the point about what is really happening in the machine. Done en masse, it could probably get some media attention. And to make it legal, you could probably just wear some minimal fleshtoned bits taped over the right parts, which is supposedly all the machine does to make it "legit" for TSA employees to watch.
There is actually a hilarious idea buried here. An interesting way to protest full-body scans would be to walk through security naked to make the point about what is really happening in the machine. Done en masse, it could probably get some media attention. And to make it legal, you could probably just wear some minimal fleshtoned bits taped over the right parts, which is supposedly all the machine does to make it "legit" for TSA employees to watch.
The German Pirate Party organized a protest like that a while ago: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl...
What about your increased cancer risk due to daily (assuming you're a pilot) exposure to ionizing radiation? Does that matter to you? Remember that risk is proportional to cumulative radiation dose. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a pilot to refuse to be irradiated daily as a required condition of employment.
If you are not willing to risk anything for your beliefs, you do not deserve the benefit of your beliefs.
The pat down does not add 5 to 20 minutes. It's exactly the same secondary screening they give you if you set off the metal detector, performed by exactly the same person; if it took 20 minutes, the whole line would bottleneck.
My pat down did take 20 minutes. It was done by another person while the original person kept their original job. There was a backlog of people who refused to go through the "naked machine". And, yes, the whole line did bottleneck.
That's never happened to me. Sorry it happened to you. I invariably refuse the strip search.
My pat down and search of everything on me took a good 15 minutes. When standing in line they asked each one of us if we wanted the xrays or patdown (they installed it just days before) and I was horrified when the person in front of me said "Oh I don't care" and the person in front of them simply said "that line looks faster". I couldn't believe they were so willing to take whatever security measure was added. I can only imagine what they are going to do next.
On a moral level, I think it's excessive and abusive to use the backscatter machines and people should have the right to fly on airplanes without going through that process. On a personal level, I don't really care who sees me naked, much less faux-naked. And on a different personal level, getting into a confrontation with apathetic bureaucrats about my civil rights is never going to have any actual impact on my or anyone else's civil rights.
Normally, I'd agree with this. Here, I strongly disagree. Strip search opt-outs cost time and money. The fact that most people aren't opting out is what allows the TSA the fig leaf of "it's optional", a fig leaf that will eventually drop once people acclimatize themselves to the idea of minimum-wage-earning TSA agents handling nude pictures of them.
The time to force the issue over this (by making "optional" strip searches prohibitively expensive) is now.
The time to force the issue over this (by making "optional" strip searches prohibitively expensive) is now.
Hey, if you want to DDoS the TSA sometime, I'm in. Get a bunch of people together on the same day and clog up a major airport (or, more ambitiously, all the major airports) by going through the opt-out line sounds effective. When it's just me and I don't personally care, it's a lot less convincing.
Hm. I'm flying to Philly at the end of the week; I'll give myself an extra 20 minutes or so. Thanks.
Wow, what a story and what a composure that pilot has. If it were me you would have been able to see steam coming from my ears.
There was a cartoon a couple of years ago that showed nude people in line for a pat-down as the only way to get on board an airplane. We're not there just yet but we're getting there. I really wonder how long all this security theater is going to continue. And I also hope that this brave man will not lose his job for standing up to this abusive behavior, and if he does that all his colleagues will walk out with him.
There was a cartoon a couple of years ago that showed nude people in line for a pat-down as the only way to get on board an airplane. We're not there just yet but we're getting there. I really wonder how long all this security theater is going to continue. And I also hope that this brave man will not lose his job for standing up to this abusive behavior, and if he does that all his colleagues will walk out with him.
Forgive my being dense, but where was the abusive behavior, exactly?
They asked him to take a full body scan. He declined. They offered him an "alternative option"-- to get frisked. He declined. The security folks refused to let him board the plane without either a) or b) above. At the end of this impasse, they asked him a few questions to file an incident report.
Pain in the ass? Sure. Abuse? I don't see it.
They asked him to take a full body scan. He declined. They offered him an "alternative option"-- to get frisked. He declined. The security folks refused to let him board the plane without either a) or b) above. At the end of this impasse, they asked him a few questions to file an incident report.
Pain in the ass? Sure. Abuse? I don't see it.
The abusive behavior is in insulting a man that on a daily basis carries the responsibility for the lives of a few hundred people with having to comply with idiotic rules like these.
If you do not consider it abusive that's fine with me but I can fully understand his position.
All he needs to do damage are his hands and his head, and he doesn't even have to take off for that, all he has to do is not brake on the pad in line for takeoff. Are you going to read his mind to make sure he has no bad plans?
What's next ? Are we going to strip-search busdrivers ? Captains of ocean liners ?
I used to visit the US on a very regular basis, a few years ago I decided I'd had enough of the insults and the power trips these TSA types go through, I'm very happy that someone with some visibility finally has enough of it and steps up.
What bugs me a lot more is all the people that stand by and let it happen. That's being complicit to some extent.
That war on terror was won long ago. But not by who you think.
If you do not consider it abusive that's fine with me but I can fully understand his position.
All he needs to do damage are his hands and his head, and he doesn't even have to take off for that, all he has to do is not brake on the pad in line for takeoff. Are you going to read his mind to make sure he has no bad plans?
What's next ? Are we going to strip-search busdrivers ? Captains of ocean liners ?
I used to visit the US on a very regular basis, a few years ago I decided I'd had enough of the insults and the power trips these TSA types go through, I'm very happy that someone with some visibility finally has enough of it and steps up.
What bugs me a lot more is all the people that stand by and let it happen. That's being complicit to some extent.
That war on terror was won long ago. But not by who you think.
I've traveled all over the world, I've encountered both incompetent and paranoid border guards - but only in the US do they enjoy it.
Best border I've been through recently would be Estonian - but living next door to Finland, they've no doubt seen it all...
Best border I've been through recently would be Estonian - but living next door to Finland, they've no doubt seen it all...
I'm not sure I fully agree that the rules in this case are idiotic.
Certainly, a pilot is able to do damage without bringing any devices with him.
However, if we waive all security for people holding a pilot's badge, we create an extreme incentive for identity theft.
I'm not suggesting we strip-search anybody.
What I am suggesting is that for security measures to be effective, they either have to be a) random, or b) universal.
I used to visit the US on a very regular basis, a few years ago I decided I'd had enough of the insults and the power trips these TSA types go through
I feel your pain--but are you sure you aren't projecting a bit in this case? As I said before, I don't see any evidence of "insults or power trips" in this case at all. In fact, I see a reasonable attempt at accommodation on the part of the TSA types.
Certainly, a pilot is able to do damage without bringing any devices with him.
However, if we waive all security for people holding a pilot's badge, we create an extreme incentive for identity theft.
I'm not suggesting we strip-search anybody.
What I am suggesting is that for security measures to be effective, they either have to be a) random, or b) universal.
I used to visit the US on a very regular basis, a few years ago I decided I'd had enough of the insults and the power trips these TSA types go through
I feel your pain--but are you sure you aren't projecting a bit in this case? As I said before, I don't see any evidence of "insults or power trips" in this case at all. In fact, I see a reasonable attempt at accommodation on the part of the TSA types.
[deleted]
I lived in Israel for 6 years. I do not want to have an Israel/Palestine debate, I just want to talk about airport security. I go insane at airports in the US because these people do not know what they are doing. In Israel, they hire the best and the brightest just out of their army service to do airport security. They have their pick of applicants because the jobs are well-paid, and offer fantastic benefits, one of which is the chance to live abroad in the various countries served by El Al. Housing and stipend paid for.
I understand that much of what El Al does for security screening amounts to racial profiling. But surely we can take what they have established and work with them to make it better and conform to US laws and civil rights. I am sad because we don't even try.
Instead, we have underpaid dolts who don't know what a bookmark is (happened to me).
I understand that much of what El Al does for security screening amounts to racial profiling. But surely we can take what they have established and work with them to make it better and conform to US laws and civil rights. I am sad because we don't even try.
Instead, we have underpaid dolts who don't know what a bookmark is (happened to me).
Soon to get on a plane we'll have to get naked and be sedated. The airlines will just stack people along with the cargo and revive them at the destination.
Doesn't sound that worse than the last time I flew couch...
The complicating factor here is not that he not only refused a Full Body Scan, but that he refused to be frisked as well:
On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had “opted out” of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined.
On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had “opted out” of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined.
All he'd have to do to create considerable trouble is to comply with all this nonsense and then fly the plane in to the first target of opportunity.
Really, this stuff is not effective against those that you will have to trust eventually anyway.
Really, this stuff is not effective against those that you will have to trust eventually anyway.
The man is a pilot. If he ever intends to kidnap or blow up a plane, no amount of frisking will stop him.
What's the next step? Functional MRI?
What's the next step? Functional MRI?
So, anyone holding a pilot's ID card should get waived through security?
If a pilot thinks he needs explosives to crash a plane, he may be overlooking something.
You just need to ID him, not search him. Check his badge, call it in if you're not sure, done.
Congratulations. You've just introduced a single point of failure to the system: anyone with a badge forged well enough to fool a security guard now has carte blanche.
[deleted]
You don't search pilots, they're gonna be getting into the cockpit to fly the plane! They are uniformed, they carry clear identification badges that can be verified easily, and they probably know half the people working in the airport. You can't expect them to be groped several times a day for no good reason just to do their jobs.
So what do you do about a deadheading pilot in uniform with ID who's decided to crash the plane? Sorry, you should search everyone (or search totally randomly).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express_Flight_705
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express_Flight_705
Calloway was not flying the plane!
From the Wikipedia article you linked to (twice) but apparently did not care to read:
"The scheduled three-man flight crew consisted of 49-year-old Captain David Sanders, 42-year-old First Officer James Tucker, and 39-year-old Flight Engineer Andrew Peterson."
"About twenty minutes after takeoff, as the flight crew carried on a casual conversation, Calloway entered the flight deck and commenced his attack."
This incident is therefore entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
- - -
It's interesting, though, to find (articulate) American people who actually approve of the TSA methods, because I thought it was the TSA vs. the rest of the public (cf. "Ask the Pilot" Salon column for instance).
It's interesting, but disheartening, because it means the TSA and its gropers and thugs are really here to stay.
From the Wikipedia article you linked to (twice) but apparently did not care to read:
"The scheduled three-man flight crew consisted of 49-year-old Captain David Sanders, 42-year-old First Officer James Tucker, and 39-year-old Flight Engineer Andrew Peterson."
"About twenty minutes after takeoff, as the flight crew carried on a casual conversation, Calloway entered the flight deck and commenced his attack."
This incident is therefore entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
- - -
It's interesting, though, to find (articulate) American people who actually approve of the TSA methods, because I thought it was the TSA vs. the rest of the public (cf. "Ask the Pilot" Salon column for instance).
It's interesting, but disheartening, because it means the TSA and its gropers and thugs are really here to stay.
"Calloway was not flying the plane!"
Yes, that's the meaning of the word deadheading. Before you complain someone didn't read an article, you might want to make sure that you understand what they did say.
Yes, that's the meaning of the word deadheading. Before you complain someone didn't read an article, you might want to make sure that you understand what they did say.
You're right! I didn't know this word and assumed, wrongly, that it meant something like "deadbeat". I should have checked first; got caught up in the heat of the discussion.
However, that makes the reference to this incident even more incomprehensible. Who said anything about off-duty pilots?
Being a qualified pilot (or dressed as one) is not the point; the point, as has been stated many times now in this discussion, is that:
1. whoever is flying the plane today does not need to go through security, because they'll end up in the cockpit anyway
2. whatever piece of ID is enough to get someone at the commands of a commercial airliner today should also be enough to get past ordinary security procedures designed for passengers
However, that makes the reference to this incident even more incomprehensible. Who said anything about off-duty pilots?
Being a qualified pilot (or dressed as one) is not the point; the point, as has been stated many times now in this discussion, is that:
1. whoever is flying the plane today does not need to go through security, because they'll end up in the cockpit anyway
2. whatever piece of ID is enough to get someone at the commands of a commercial airliner today should also be enough to get past ordinary security procedures designed for passengers
That's the thing. Deadheading pilots are not off duty. A duty segment for a pilot can include, flying (as pilot) from LA to Dallas, deadheading to Chicago, flying to NY, then deadheading to Miami and finally flying back to LA. Not a very efficient use of the pilot's time, but still possible and they're paid by the airline for the whole thing and are on duty.
He used his privileges as a pilot to bring the concealed weapons on board. How the fuck is that not relevant to the discussion?
"Movie plot threat" anyone? Sigh...
That's not a movie plot threat. The FedEx example was a real example of a disgruntled employee trying to crash a plane.
Yes, and he was a passenger, not one of the pilots scheduled for the flight.
But the point is: he was impersonating a pilot.
If pilots didn't have to go through security, we'd presumably see a lot more of this.
Security checks on the pilots are not attempting to prevent pilots from causing harm-- they are attempting to close a loophole which would allow people impersonating pilots to do harm.
If pilots didn't have to go through security, we'd presumably see a lot more of this.
Security checks on the pilots are not attempting to prevent pilots from causing harm-- they are attempting to close a loophole which would allow people impersonating pilots to do harm.
> Security checks on the pilots are not attempting to prevent pilots from causing harm-- they are attempting to close a loophole which would allow people impersonating pilots to do harm.
Wouldn't fingerprints be enough to avoid identity theft?
Wouldn't fingerprints be enough to avoid identity theft?
Among less or more technical means to clone somebodys fingerprints to fool the reader there is circumventing method involving the axe.
I've heard this method was used in Asia by some car thieves.
I've heard this method was used in Asia by some car thieves.
Gasp! :-|
However, security officers would block anyone trying to pass past security checks using chopped off fingers or fake ones.
However, security officers would block anyone trying to pass past security checks using chopped off fingers or fake ones.
How is scanning his body and frisking him going to help identifying him?
It's not going to help identify him.
It's going to help limit the damage if somebody impersonates him, by making sure they don't have a bomb/gun/what-have-you.
You do get this, don't you?
It's going to help limit the damage if somebody impersonates him, by making sure they don't have a bomb/gun/what-have-you.
You do get this, don't you?
Of course he does, but he won't admit it because it dents his argument and won't get him any upvotes.
They hopefully would've noticed the speargun he was carrying?
He was in uniform, maybe, but he was not in charge of flying anything that day. So he was a passenger that day (in a pilot uniform).
I call out BS.
"Prior to the departure of this flight on April 7, 1994, Mr. Calloway presented himself at the plane in full flight gear and with carry-on items. Although he was not a member of the flight crew, he entered the cockpit and began adjusting instruments and controls as if he were."
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/116/116.F3d.1129.95...
"Prior to the departure of this flight on April 7, 1994, Mr. Calloway presented himself at the plane in full flight gear and with carry-on items. Although he was not a member of the flight crew, he entered the cockpit and began adjusting instruments and controls as if he were."
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/116/116.F3d.1129.95...
Yes, he did stuff he was not supposed to do, but on that flight he was a passenger. That he knew his way around the aircraft and that he knew exactly how to misbehave is exactly what I meant when I wrote that you are going to have to put trust in people at some point.
Pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met and in general will not get up to stuff like this nearly as often as 'regular' folks do.
If they did there would be suicide induced plane crashes every other day with the number of pilots in active service.
Incidents will always happen, the question is if you think that it is worth draconian safety measures to get the incident level down an unmeasurable fraction.
Again, all it would take for a major accident is for one guy to lift his foot for 2 seconds while taxiing.
You could not stop that if you wanted to.
Pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met and in general will not get up to stuff like this nearly as often as 'regular' folks do.
If they did there would be suicide induced plane crashes every other day with the number of pilots in active service.
Incidents will always happen, the question is if you think that it is worth draconian safety measures to get the incident level down an unmeasurable fraction.
Again, all it would take for a major accident is for one guy to lift his foot for 2 seconds while taxiing.
You could not stop that if you wanted to.
I don't think you're an idiot, so stop pretending like you don't realize that he used his special privileges as a pilot to get concealed weapons onto the plane.
And stop advocating for lifting security requirements off pilots with ridiculous arguments like "pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met" and "he already has full control of the plane, so heck, he should be allowed to bring whatever the fuck he wants onboard anyway".
And stop advocating for lifting security requirements off pilots with ridiculous arguments like "pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met" and "he already has full control of the plane, so heck, he should be allowed to bring whatever the fuck he wants onboard anyway".
Did you read at least some of the most prominent articles from Schneier on security? Do it, it's worth it. The basic tenet is this : filtering potential threats at the bottom of the plane is almost useless, but makes a nice "security theater". Investigating the menace is harder, doesn't show off as well as nice big machines in airports, but it's efficient.
Scanning people shoes is useless. Full body scanners are useless. As the pilot said, what will they do when someone try to blow up a plane with dynamite in his rectum? Rectal check for everyone? This is absurd, expensive and serves only one purpose : covering TSA officials' asses.
See for instance some of these: http://www.schneier.com/essays-airline.html
Scanning people shoes is useless. Full body scanners are useless. As the pilot said, what will they do when someone try to blow up a plane with dynamite in his rectum? Rectal check for everyone? This is absurd, expensive and serves only one purpose : covering TSA officials' asses.
See for instance some of these: http://www.schneier.com/essays-airline.html
I read Schneier all the time and agree with him most of the time.
Not once did he advocate not screening pilots, did he?
Not once did he advocate not screening pilots, did he?
Please read carefully :
http://www.schneier.com/essay-304.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-245.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html
Security in airports is already much too high, too annoying and too costly. There must be a point when it stops getting tighter and tighter. It won't catch the next terrorist anyway. We need a better use of resources and people (better than taking away mineral water bottles, and full-body scanning everyone and his dog).
http://www.schneier.com/essay-304.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-245.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html
Security in airports is already much too high, too annoying and too costly. There must be a point when it stops getting tighter and tighter. It won't catch the next terrorist anyway. We need a better use of resources and people (better than taking away mineral water bottles, and full-body scanning everyone and his dog).
> So what do you do about a deadheading pilot in uniform with ID who's decided to crash the plane.
>> Calloway's plan was unsuccessful. The crew was able to fight back despite severe wounds, subdue him, and safely land the aircraft. <<
Apparently you beat the crap out of him.
>> Calloway's plan was unsuccessful. The crew was able to fight back despite severe wounds, subdue him, and safely land the aircraft. <<
Apparently you beat the crap out of him.
>>> Severe wounds
>>> The crew was left with permanent, disabling injuries and have not flown professionally since.
>>> The crew was left with permanent, disabling injuries and have not flown professionally since.
EPIC, along with Bruce Schneier and Chip Pitts, is suing to stop the use of the body scanners
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_...
you can help out by donating -- they're a 501c3, so it's tax-deductible
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_...
you can help out by donating -- they're a 501c3, so it's tax-deductible
If everyone refuses the body scan in favor of a "pat down" the TSA would be forced to modify the plan, since that would require 4x as much time or 4x as many agents.
Too many guinea pigs wanting to help answer the question if long term exposure to naked body scanning machine x-rays cause cataracts or worse.
Too many guinea pigs wanting to help answer the question if long term exposure to naked body scanning machine x-rays cause cataracts or worse.
The privacy group EPIC is leading the litigation against these abusive scanners. You can learn more and support their efforts with donation:
http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/
http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/
So they're looking for bomb making things (etc) on him, yet when he's on the plane he's going to be the pilot. I don't think he needs to bring things with him to bring the plane down...
Why do they need to search the pilot in the first place? So that he doesn't hijack the plane? He already controls the plane.
I wonder if some of this discussion would have trended in a different way if the pilot's post wasn't festooned with the markings of a "tea party-er?"
Am I the only one who actually thinks that searches should be more thorough? Airplanes are instruments that people like to target, and I'd not be comfortable flying unless people are properly screened. It's scary enough with the possibility that the plane could drop out of the sky, but adding an additional threat of someone blowing up the plane would make it a terrible experience.
You are a nice person, your friends probably, but there are a lot of crazy people out there that would hijack or bomb planes, given the chance.
You are a nice person, your friends probably, but there are a lot of crazy people out there that would hijack or bomb planes, given the chance.
Why only search passengers on planes then? I don't have this kind of hassle whenever I get on a train or a bus.
The relative infrequency of terrorism incidents in insecure places leads me to believe that either a) our intelligence services are extraordinarily effective, or b) the number of "crazy people" wiling and able to do such a thing is extraordinarily small.
The relative infrequency of terrorism incidents in insecure places leads me to believe that either a) our intelligence services are extraordinarily effective, or b) the number of "crazy people" wiling and able to do such a thing is extraordinarily small.
That's because dying in a plane is much scarier than dying in a bus. I mean, think about it, you're trapped up there... if the plane blows up, you blow up with it. If you're on a bus... oh wait, you also die in a fire. But on the news the plane crash looks scarier -- more people can see it, and more people are irrationally afraid of flying.
Think about how Americans handle risk; the risk of dying in a plane hijacking is very low. The risk of dying of heart disease if you don't eat well is very high. So we spend a ton of time, effort, and money on preventing plane hijackings, but we eat tons and tons of unhealthy food. You'd think that the reason we have security is to prevent ourselves from dying, but if that's the case, we're doing it very wrong. The reason we have airport security is so that some bureaucrat can get a promotion; armed guards with high-tech tools make people feel like their government loves them. (Except for people with a brain, who think it's a little scary to have to show the cops your charlie browns every time you board a plane.)
I don't even want to think about how much healthy food we could buy with the money we spend on full-body imagers.
Think about how Americans handle risk; the risk of dying in a plane hijacking is very low. The risk of dying of heart disease if you don't eat well is very high. So we spend a ton of time, effort, and money on preventing plane hijackings, but we eat tons and tons of unhealthy food. You'd think that the reason we have security is to prevent ourselves from dying, but if that's the case, we're doing it very wrong. The reason we have airport security is so that some bureaucrat can get a promotion; armed guards with high-tech tools make people feel like their government loves them. (Except for people with a brain, who think it's a little scary to have to show the cops your charlie browns every time you board a plane.)
I don't even want to think about how much healthy food we could buy with the money we spend on full-body imagers.
In Spain, there are metal detectors and x-ray machines at the gates to the train platforms. In Israel, there are metal detectors and x-ray machines at the bus terminals. Security seems to be mostly reactive - people blow up a train (Spain), you get frisked boarding an intercity train. People blow up buses (Israel), you x-ray luggage and pat down people entering the bus terminal.
It's awfully hard to crash a train into a building :-)
The guy is a pilot. There's no point whatsoever in searching him more thoroughly before he flies a plane because he already has control over it.
> he already has control over it
so does co-pilot and auxiliary crew
so does co-pilot and auxiliary crew
Your point? I'm pretty sure he can crash the plane on his own.
More often than not he can. But there were successful cases of other crew subduing him and recovering the plane.
Anyway, the fact that pilot is in full command of the plane doesn't mean that he should be able to bring onboard whatever he desires, does it?
Anyway, the fact that pilot is in full command of the plane doesn't mean that he should be able to bring onboard whatever he desires, does it?
>> Anyway, the fact that pilot is in full command of the plane doesn't mean that he should be able to bring onboard whatever he desires, does it?
Do you take whatever you desire to work? No, because you don't want to lose your job because you brought in a playmate of the month calendar and a gun.
Its a job to them same as anyone else.
Do you take whatever you desire to work? No, because you don't want to lose your job because you brought in a playmate of the month calendar and a gun.
Its a job to them same as anyone else.
Aha, we should leave it to pilot to decide what he brings onboard. After all he doesn't want to lose his job, right?
We may also totally skip flight school certification requirement - after all pilots don't want to die either, right?
We may also totally skip flight school certification requirement - after all pilots don't want to die either, right?
I'm really not surprised that you missed the context all together.
Interesting.
I don't remember if it's a real quote or if it's from a movie, but an elected official said once (again, a real official or an actor, I'm not sure): "let's have two planes; to get aboard plane A, nobody's searched or even asked a single question; to get aboard plane B you're submitted to the current TSA procedure and more; let's see how many people are willing to fly on plane A".
The answer seems obvious: nobody will ever take plane A (or, only terrorists).
But I'm not so sure. People do very dangerous things all the time. I drive a motor bike in Paris (also when it rains or snows): it's is much more frightening than flying in a commercial airliner, and statistically much more dangerous. But I can't stand the metro, however safe it is.
The point is, there are many motor bikes and bicycles in Paris, so many people make the same trade-off between security and convenience, and prefer convenience.
So, why not try it? You want to be searched and safe, take plane B; make sure to get to the airport 4 hours in advance, though, and to wear clean underpants.
You don't care: take plane A.
I don't remember if it's a real quote or if it's from a movie, but an elected official said once (again, a real official or an actor, I'm not sure): "let's have two planes; to get aboard plane A, nobody's searched or even asked a single question; to get aboard plane B you're submitted to the current TSA procedure and more; let's see how many people are willing to fly on plane A".
The answer seems obvious: nobody will ever take plane A (or, only terrorists).
But I'm not so sure. People do very dangerous things all the time. I drive a motor bike in Paris (also when it rains or snows): it's is much more frightening than flying in a commercial airliner, and statistically much more dangerous. But I can't stand the metro, however safe it is.
The point is, there are many motor bikes and bicycles in Paris, so many people make the same trade-off between security and convenience, and prefer convenience.
So, why not try it? You want to be searched and safe, take plane B; make sure to get to the airport 4 hours in advance, though, and to wear clean underpants.
You don't care: take plane A.
I would be taking plane A. No question about it. I simply don't believe that there are enough terrorists in the world to make flying with them more dangerous than walking across the street - on average. And I still think fellow passengers are more effective against terrorists than all the money the TSA can throw at their BFF vendors.
Anaphylaxis. This whole thing is anaphylaxis.
Anaphylaxis. This whole thing is anaphylaxis.
Everyone would take plane A. The question is already being asked:
A Go through the scanner and be done in two minutes. B Get a pat down and be done in 10-20 minutes.
People just want to get somewhere faster. Many will already take A because it is faster (I know I heard them say it). Plane A would probably be cheaper and faster.
A Go through the scanner and be done in two minutes. B Get a pat down and be done in 10-20 minutes.
People just want to get somewhere faster. Many will already take A because it is faster (I know I heard them say it). Plane A would probably be cheaper and faster.
It's completely the wrong question, anyway, for two reasons.
1. If some flights have security procedures and some don't, obviously all malefactors will be attacking the ones that don't. So they'll be more dangerous than if no flights had security procedures.
2. No one is really suggesting having no security procedures at all, so far as I know. The question is how much security overhead we're prepared to put up with, and how much benefit in safety we're actually getting.
I might be reluctant to get on flight A. But if the great majority of flights had simpler quicker security procedures only -- say, 1/4 of the way from flight A to flight B -- then I bet I'd be about as safe on them as I am now with all flights being like flight B.
Back of envelope calculation. Suppose I value my life at $10M, and my time at $50/hour. Then I should be prepared to put up with an hour's timewasting if it saves a 1/200,000 chance of death. The actual rate of violent death for aeroplane passengers over the last half-century or so has never been higher than about 1/5,000,000 per flight (in the 1940s and 1960s; it's been much lower since then even counting 2001-09-11; even if you include non-passengers, who of course made up most of the 9-11 deaths, the figure is still lower for the 2000s than for the 1940s and 1960s), meaning that I should be willing to put up with about 2 minutes of security overhead per flight. In practice, reducing the amount of security checking would probably increase the danger somewhat, so the correct figure is probably more than 2 minutes. I doubt it's more than 15.
1. If some flights have security procedures and some don't, obviously all malefactors will be attacking the ones that don't. So they'll be more dangerous than if no flights had security procedures.
2. No one is really suggesting having no security procedures at all, so far as I know. The question is how much security overhead we're prepared to put up with, and how much benefit in safety we're actually getting.
I might be reluctant to get on flight A. But if the great majority of flights had simpler quicker security procedures only -- say, 1/4 of the way from flight A to flight B -- then I bet I'd be about as safe on them as I am now with all flights being like flight B.
Back of envelope calculation. Suppose I value my life at $10M, and my time at $50/hour. Then I should be prepared to put up with an hour's timewasting if it saves a 1/200,000 chance of death. The actual rate of violent death for aeroplane passengers over the last half-century or so has never been higher than about 1/5,000,000 per flight (in the 1940s and 1960s; it's been much lower since then even counting 2001-09-11; even if you include non-passengers, who of course made up most of the 9-11 deaths, the figure is still lower for the 2000s than for the 1940s and 1960s), meaning that I should be willing to put up with about 2 minutes of security overhead per flight. In practice, reducing the amount of security checking would probably increase the danger somewhat, so the correct figure is probably more than 2 minutes. I doubt it's more than 15.
I somewhat doubt your point 1.
Terminology: type 1 flight, no security. Type 2 flight, security.
A. When bad things happen on type 1 flights, people will say 'thats what they get', and not worry too much. Type 2 flights being targeted have more impact.
B. Type 1 flights will presumably be under more scrutiny as a flight -- they will be 1. more restricted in airspace, and 2. be more likely to be shot down in response to deviant behavior, as such less likely usable to reach bad guy goals.
C. Airplanes are expensive enough that the airlines would need to figure out ways to minimize bad guy impact on thier type 1 flights, rather than just hope the security measures are good enough.
Terminology: type 1 flight, no security. Type 2 flight, security.
A. When bad things happen on type 1 flights, people will say 'thats what they get', and not worry too much. Type 2 flights being targeted have more impact.
B. Type 1 flights will presumably be under more scrutiny as a flight -- they will be 1. more restricted in airspace, and 2. be more likely to be shot down in response to deviant behavior, as such less likely usable to reach bad guy goals.
C. Airplanes are expensive enough that the airlines would need to figure out ways to minimize bad guy impact on thier type 1 flights, rather than just hope the security measures are good enough.
As per your second point, maybe we could actually go like this: every new invasive TSA procedure would be A/B tested on similar flights (same departure and destination, comparable times, same price).
Do people want to be strip searched? Well, let's find out. You can take flight A where nobody is strip searched, or flight B where everyone is (all other existing security measures unchanged).
If nobody (but me) is willing to take flight A, we have the answer we're looking for.
My point was that everyone assumes that nobody will take flight A, but in fact we don't really know.
Do people want to be strip searched? Well, let's find out. You can take flight A where nobody is strip searched, or flight B where everyone is (all other existing security measures unchanged).
If nobody (but me) is willing to take flight A, we have the answer we're looking for.
My point was that everyone assumes that nobody will take flight A, but in fact we don't really know.
Which one has a shorter line?
How will you ever know if you can trust the pilot? Are you going to dissect their brain before take-off?
You can't, you can never completely trust people. A few years ago there was an incident where an Egyptian airline pilot suddenly screamed "Allahwakbar!" and put the plane in a nose dive. Everybody died.
But that's not the point. The point is, there will never be complete safety. It's physically impossible. However, that answer is considered heretical. And while we're at it: the security measures at the airports do exactly nothing to make us any safer either. They're not even designed to do that. They are designed to impress politicians. All that gestapo compliance crap is just a nasty side effect.
As far as this guy is concerned, it's just another variant of "rage quit", because he essentially did this to quit his job. There is no way in hell he didn't know exactly what would happen. After years and years of going through all the motions of Security Theater he chose to do all the things that get you red-flagged. His point was of course to demonstrate that we don't live in a free society anymore. But we knew that for some time now.
But that's not the point. The point is, there will never be complete safety. It's physically impossible. However, that answer is considered heretical. And while we're at it: the security measures at the airports do exactly nothing to make us any safer either. They're not even designed to do that. They are designed to impress politicians. All that gestapo compliance crap is just a nasty side effect.
As far as this guy is concerned, it's just another variant of "rage quit", because he essentially did this to quit his job. There is no way in hell he didn't know exactly what would happen. After years and years of going through all the motions of Security Theater he chose to do all the things that get you red-flagged. His point was of course to demonstrate that we don't live in a free society anymore. But we knew that for some time now.
Zimbardo showed that the inevitable consequence of unchecked authority is abuse. Milgram showed that a large proportion of us will do just about anything to our fellow man because someone with a clipboard says so. Asch showed us that we will swear that black is white if we are surrounded by people who tell us so.
This isn't about emotion or politics, it is about some basic psychological facts. If you give a man a badge and a hat he will start beating people down the moment you turn your back. If you give a man the authority to do "whatever is necessary", that authority will be extended to dominate and control as far as is possible. If you tell a man "You have no other choice, you must go on", he will kill in cold blood.
All preventable deaths are unfortunate, but deaths due to terrorism are incredibly rare. Even in the most violent and chaotic places on earth, road traffic accidents dwarf the death toll due to terrorism. If we cared about the preservation of human life, we would spend the TSA's budget on eliminating malaria, tuberculosis and infant diarrhea. If we cared about saving western lives, we would spend the money on public health education and support, road traffic safety, school meals and so on.
It is clear that we're not acting rationally. In response to an extremely rare risk, we are spending countless billions on largely ineffective responses and sacrificing civil liberties on a grand scale. This isn't just about body-scanners, it's about extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the criminalisation of photography and who the hell knows what else. Whatever argument might be made for the TSA, it is absolutely bogus to suggest that they are in any way a rational or proportional response to risk.
Every dollar that we spend on building scanners or spying on students is a dollar that we can't spend on feeding schoolkids or preventing diabetes or making roads safer. Government spending is finite and every dollar of the TSA's budget is money that could be spent much more effectively and save far more lives.