Thoughts on Airport Security Measures

I just booked a flight for the Thanksgiving holiday and I was thinking about the hassle of going through airport security. At the same time I was watching South Park and it was an episode partly about how annoying flying and airline security can be. Anyhow, it was funny because Mr. Garrison invented a 'new form' of transportation, which turned out to be really 'uncomfortable'. Anyhow, it was trying to point out what the people of South Park were willing to do to avoid flying and airports.

So, back to airport security measures...

It seems to me that most of these measures are designed to prevent an airplane being bombed, hijacked or used as a weapon itself. If it is used as a weapon, it would likely cause the greatest harm. If it was bombed it would likely kill all on board and perhaps the debris may cause further deaths and destruction as it falls to earth. If it is hijacked it would perhaps not result in any loss of life...perhaps.
Well, looking at the way security is now, it's unlikely anyone with a bomb or weapon will get on an airplane if they pass through the standard airport security methods. A nefarious employee of the airport/airline might be able to plant a bomb but that isn't the concern of this article, though it is a very valid concern.

One question is how many people are usually packed into the average airport lobby area/check-in area?
This is hundreds upon hundreds, thousands perhaps? If a bad actor wanted to cause terror and destruction, why not just take a cab to the airport while strapped with a bomb under your coat and walk in the airport check-in to the area with the most people and do the evil deed.
So, if this is now the worst case scenario, and it appears there is nothing being done to prevent it, does that make the other over the top security measures a moot exercise? Or does the TSA need to start securing the entire airport?
I doubt that security is ever ever ever going to be reduced, it is only going to get more advanced and further-reaching, so should we expect every airport visitor to be screened in the near future?

I believe in security and prevention of terror acts, however, it appears that no amount of security measures can be 100% effective, no, not even condoms...So, where do we draw the line between safety and futlity?
I'm interested in your thoughts

They have not stopped any terrorist and all they do is upset the public. A terrorist isnt going to try and go through security with a bomb if they know they will be stopped they will just find another way.

Its not about security its about tyranny.

reply to post by TheMindWar


What is an acceptable level of security for the airport? Or is it not even worth it? Just roll the dice?

I'm curious as to where we should draw the line between zero security and full lock down.

reply to post by AutomaticSlim


I think they're more worried about avoiding the national ramifications than any actual loss of life. If that were the case, they would have security everywhere. The last time I went to the airport you could still drive right in without being stopped at any checkpoints. I think checkpoints on the road in are a good idea.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Really, i was under the impression we lived in a free and open society, it's comments like yours that have created the semi-police state we all live in now under the premise of 'security'.

Hows about we stop running round the world blowing people up and telling them how to behave, then we might not need such OTT 'protection' from 'them', the only people who scare the sh*t out of me are our governments and what they do in 'our' best interests

Originally posted by AutomaticSlim

One question is how many people are usually packed into the average airport lobby area/check-in area?
This is hundreds upon hundreds, thousands perhaps? If a bad actor wanted to cause terror and destruction, why not just take a cab to the airport while strapped with a bomb under your coat and walk in the airport check-in to the area with the most people and do the evil deed.
So, if this is now the worst case scenario, and it appears there is nothing being done to prevent it, does that make the other over the top security measures a moot exercise? Or does the TSA need to start securing the entire airport?
I doubt that security is ever ever ever going to be reduced, it is only going to get more advanced and further-reaching, so should we expect every airport visitor to be screened in the near future?

I believe in security and prevention of terror acts, however, it appears that no amount of security measures can be 100% effective, no, not even condoms...So, where do we draw the line between safety and futlity?
I'm interested in your thoughts

edit on 8-11-2011 by AutomaticSlim because: (no reason given)

An attempt was made by terrorists to attack Glasgow Airport in Scotland June 2007 using a 4x4 to ram raid their way into the terminal building which was packed full of people on a holiday weekend queing at check ins.
They didn't succeed, the public attacked them. One member of the public was injured during the fight, one terrorist died from burn injuries after his fire bomb went off and the other is in jail (forever).

Queen honors heroes

The obvious solution therefore, is Scottish ( or Irish ) security guards.

reply to post by TheMindWar


It is because of their presence that no one is going to try and walk through.

Hmm, interesting topic. Coming from the other side of things, I can explain some of the necessities and some of the hinderances that plague airport sec. Currently, I'm in the process of becoming employed by the TSA and am finalizing my degree in Criminal Justice.

Your point on attacking the "hub" instead of the airplane itself is an extremely valid approach to a terroristic act and as such, does require some thought and planning on how to prevent such an attack. But I believe that security measures could be easily reduced / made more efficient and less intrusive if the TSA and other government agencies would simply listen to the people and their concerns. (I mean that is why the agencies were formed after all to protect and serve for the better of public interest)

I find it would be more efficient in providing proper security by checking everyone at the airport entrance. Have people walk through a metal detector, have them wanded, and a simple stop and frisk pat down would be sufficient.

I think all this invasive body scanning and detailed pat down / pocket check / take off your shoes nonsense goes against the 4th amendment rights of an individual. At no point when purchasing a plane ticket, do you sign a waiver stating you waive your 4th amendment rights and due process. I believe that the tactics used in todays airports are intrusive and brutal especially the scripted questions that are asked of you and those dumb body scanners.

Now on the flip side, if the TSA employees learned some customer sensitivity and were taught to be friendly then it would be a much better environment and the use of the current security measures would not feel so intrusive. The air in a sec check in a terminal is that of grumpy impatience followed by embarrassment and sometimes anger. None of them smile and none of them are polite. They all get this security vs the world syndrome and its a horrible approach to a healthy airport community. If you are that damn negative and cannot smile and be happy about your job...change it. The quality of individuals from what I have seen is much to be desired as I cannot fathom why you would hire some of the people you do. Just like any other federal job, a bachelors degree should be required so you receive intelligent hard working people that have chosen to go into that field because they have a passion for it.

I thank you all for your comments so far. I think that if the TSA really wanted to protect the public from terrorist acts, they would do the checks upon entry to the airport premises as well as at the security check point we are familiar with.

Check points do seem to violate our 4th amendment rights, but has the term 'unreasonable' ever been concretely defined by the courts (ugh) regarding 'unreasonable search and seizure.' I personally don't believe that we should be considered guilty until proven innocent which is how most security systems work. It is not easy to balance. And it must be a balance, it can't be all or none, that is not reality. Black and white only exist in our minds anyhow.

We could be completely 'open' to any and all things and let the chips fall where they may (kinda like a laissez-faire situation or caveat emptor so to speak), meaning no security checks anywhere, ever and we all just take our chances when we fly/travel, but that isn't going to happen. Security is something that most people have an innate desire for. Feeling safe is something 98% of people want, its self preservation.

I agree with the post about our present foreign policy contributing to the desire for some people to do us harm, though it isn't the only reason, there are other factors at play. Consider this, even if we just rolled over and played dead, or turned the other cheek each and every time, or kissed everyones' butt, there would still be people who would want to harm the USA. We do make ourselves a target by being willing and able to through our weight around (it seems our foreign policy is "its better to be feared than loved.")

It is a no win situation to me. I don't know any country which is the 'friend' of all other countries and which has no enemies (foreign or domestic), and no worries about terrorist attacks. Psychopaths abound, here and abroad, so nothing can be done about them, unless you want social engineering and the thought police everywhere, no thanks!

On one hand I would like to put the citizens in charge of their own security, but I also have some crazy neighbors who aren't capable of being responsible in this scenario, e.g. carrying side arms. But hey, they are citizens, they have rights, no? Who decides who is 'fit' to carry a weapon? Another can of worms...

It seems to me that the arms race is a zero sum game, and security measures can never be 100% perfect, so my conclusion is essentially that we have the security system that the majority wants. Even though many people here are against the TSA and their 'methods', and the new security measures being considered (highway checkpoints, egads, we have those already, when I drive on Interstate 8 from California to Arizona, what a joke) anyhow, I really don't see enough people fighting to change things because deep down they really have a deep need and innate desire to feel secure, whether or not those measures make them truly secure. Perception of safety satisfies most people because:

The majority of people really don't want to make waves, they just want peace, they want to feel safe, they want comfort, and they fear danger. Basically the majority of people are AVERAGE. That's all it is, it's a friggin bell curve. Average people with average aspirations and average needs and average goals. They simply will go along with the majority (other average people), democracy at work, get used to average results from average people doing average things. The sad thing is that our average is below average of many other countries. Sad. But I digress....

Originally posted by silvertip83

Now on the flip side, if the TSA employees learned some customer sensitivity and were taught to be friendly then it would be a much better environment and the use of the current security measures would not feel so intrusive. The air in a sec check in a terminal is that of grumpy impatience followed by embarrassment and sometimes anger. None of them smile and none of them are polite. They all get this security vs the world syndrome and its a horrible approach to a healthy airport community. If you are that damn negative and cannot smile and be happy about your job...change it. The quality of individuals from what I have seen is much to be desired as I cannot fathom why you would hire some of the people you do. Just like any other federal job, a bachelors degree should be required so you receive intelligent hard working people that have chosen to go into that field because they have a passion for it.

Goodluck with your job endeavours Silvertip, you seem to have the makings of a great TSA employee, I hope you can be a good example to the others.

That being said, it would be nice to have all the TSA be trained by Patrick Swayze's character in Road House, "you are to be nice, until it's time to not be nice." However, most security people, (I know, I worked for a security company for a short time while I was in grad school), are not trained to be nice, they are trained to be firm and even intimidating because intimidation alone can prevent a certain percentage of people from acting up, or misbehaving in the first place. It's simply a method, nice is for doormen, not security personnel. Rude types and bullies and jerks don't apply, they need help, not jobs in security.

reply to post by AutomaticSlim


Personally I think we should sign a waiver stating we are flying at our own risk concerning terrorism. Then go on our way. I realize it is the only way the Obama administration knows how to create jobs is by continuously hiring rent a cops. The rate they are going the entire country will be wearing uniforms taking turns sticking their hands down each other pants.

Originally posted by redrose123
reply to post by AutomaticSlim

 

Personally I think we should sign a waiver stating we are flying at our own risk concerning terrorism. Then go on our way. I realize it is the only way the Obama administration knows how to create jobs is by continuously hiring rent a cops. The rate they are going the entire country will be wearing uniforms taking turns sticking their hands down each other pants.

That's actually not a bad idea, however, it would require an act of congress to protect the airlines and others businesses to block any lawsuits which would be sure to come if there were a terrorist act. Waivers may not be as enforcable as you might think. Kind of like how the pharmaceutical companies are protected from lawsuits brought against them when one of their vaccines kills someone. There is literally a federal vaccine death/injury fund which pays out if someone dies. Though it's very hard to prove your case. I digress again...

Mr. Bush was the first employer of the DHS/TSA rent-a-cops, Mr. Obama is just following the example set by Mr. Bush. I think Mr. Bush was probably responsible for the largest growth of government entities that any other president, though I am speculating, I have no numbers, but damn that DHS is HUGE! One day in the future, if things keep going as they are, the presidental cabinet will be bigger than the senate.