airport see thru scanners

[bobnoorduyn]

yup, that's right...... as long as it IS shampoo in the bottle. I guess the "powers that be" decided that it would be more cost effective to restrict bottled liquids to check in bags rather than spending the time verifying each bottle of liquid in a carry-on.

Three or four people can carry individual innocuous items on board which combined can make a particularly nasty device. To do so beforehand and check is as baggage will probably alert someone as it goes through the x-ray, and yes, domestic checked bags are also x-rayed.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Pretty much. It's nannyism at its finest. People are like children, with the governments acting like parents and scaring people into behaving by using the fear of the boogeyman. It's hilarious in a sense. Rather pathetic in another sense.

Pretty sad in yet another sense.

 

[TenPenny]

Paranoid?

Nope.

Past caring, don't give a **** anymore.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

I beg to differ. Ray Charles was a significant threat to the US and they were perfectly right to pull him out of an airport line up and search him. What a whack...er...crack job these fine folks do.

Yup, and Cat Stevens was denied passage to the US too. Oh sorry, what's his name now, Joe Muslim, Josef Islam? I guess that moon shadow finally caught him.

 

[Cannuck]

Remember the guy with the explosive shoes?

Yes and this technology would do nothing to ensure that that never happened again. You don't need an x-ray machine to check peoples shoes. It just goes to show that the powers that be are too interested in relying on suspect technology rather than using simple problem solving techniques and common sense.

 

[AnnaG]

Except the ones who do it for a living, anyway, the likelyhood of Richard Reid, or anyone else getting caught simply by the random use of this scanner is pretty remote. Terrorists are one step ahead of technology and this is just another peice that will be circumvented. Good old fashioned intel, observation, and reporting are still needed. As I said, all this security hocus pocus is window dressing and optics because it targets the wrong people.

Actually no. Terrorists are continually inventing methods. The rest of us develop technology to adapt to what the terrorists do and then the terrrorists figure out ways around it or move on to different methods.
That is the main reason why I said they have won. We can only react unless we do the same as they do ... enact terror on their loved ones, like Bush did in his imcompetent manner.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Actually no. Terrorists are continually inventing methods. The rest of us develop technology to adapt to what the terrorists do and then the terrrorists figure out ways around it or move on to different methods.
That is the main reason why I said they have won. We can only react unless we do the same as they do ... enact terror on their loved ones, like Bush did in his imcompetent manner.

Terrorists, in this case at least, are like ants looking for an entry point or vulnerability. My statement that they are one step ahead could also be taken as we are one step behind. When the idea that terrorists could hijack aircraft and use them as missiles was first suggested it was met with guffaws and harrumphs. The idea was so low tech it was laughable. Myself and many others were laughed out of boardrooms for pointing out many shortcomings of security. Hell, these guys didn't need to smuggle box cutters in because you could buy knives in the gift shops at US airports, all of which were inside the security checkpoints. But a 9-11 attack, along with the attempted manufacture of explosives on board are pretty much one trick ponies. While I suspect there'll still some attempted, and possibly successful security breaches, I'm prepared to bet the next major threat will come from the outside, one that will be much harder to defend against, especially when we're looking the wrong way. I just hope I'm wrong this time.

BTW, the purpose of terrorism is to make the populace fearful of normal everyday activities, if we are fearful then yes, they have won.

 

[AnnaG]

Terrorists, in this case at least, are like ants looking for an entry point or vulnerability. My statement that they are one step ahead could also be taken as we are one step behind. When the idea that terrorists could hijack aircraft and use them as missiles was first suggested it was met with guffaws and harrumphs. The idea was so low tech it was laughable. Myself and many others were laughed out of boardrooms for pointing out many shortcomings of security. Hell, these guys didn't need to smuggle box cutters in because you could buy knives in the gift shops at US airports, all of which were inside the security checkpoints. But a 9-11 attack, along with the attempted manufacture of explosives on board are pretty much one trick ponies. While I suspect there'll still some attempted, and possibly successful security breaches, I'm prepared to bet the next major threat will come from the outside, one that will be much harder to defend against, especially when we're looking the wrong way. I just hope I'm wrong this time.

Yes but you said that terrorists are technologically ahead. They usually aren't.

BTW, the purpose of terrorism is to make the populace fearful of normal everyday activities, if we are fearful then yes, they have won.

Yes, I said that.
Just look what happens if someone mentions bomb, powder in an envelope, strange smell in a closed area, etc. People fly off the handle and think there are boogeymen around every corner and in every shadow. As I said, they have won. And I think they will keep winning because they are always at least one step ahead.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The point remains that terrorist use what is best known "allowed items" to pass onto aircrafts.

If kirpans are allowed onto certain aircrafts you can bet I will not fly that airline.

But this is beyond security measure as the scanners are used to look for objects that are then patted down anyway ??

There is no security that will be 100% fool proof because it is administered by people that can be bought. That is a reality of our world.

Again the terrorist have won..

Francis, my understanding is that when these scanners are implemented, there will be no pat downs (Except for those who refuse to go through the scanners). Scanners are much quicker than the pat downs.

As to kirpan, I don’t think they permit Sikhs to take them on airplanes.

As to your point about terrorist using the allowed items, you have a point there (although the 9/11 terrorists smuggled the box cutters on board). That is why they were experimenting with liquid explosives. Now that liquids are banned, no doubt they will try to find another hole in the security system. It is a never ending game.

Incidentally, why is your ISP displayed in your post? Are you OK with that?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Shampoo isn't a threat when left in your carryon bag, either.

Well, yes. But how do they know that it is a shampoo and not a liquid explosive? Incidentally, here is a thought. I assume they will let you take water bottles or other liquids into the stadium. If a terrorist wants to cause a real mayhem, why wouldn’t he take liquid explosives into the stadium? That way he will be able to cause some real damage. What would be the point in carrying a kirpan, which would cause only a minimal damage?

It doesn’t make any kind of sense for a terrorist to dress up as a Sikh and carry a kirpan. There are much easier methods a terrorist can use, which would cause a much heavier damage, injuries, than a kirpan. Terrorist angle is simply a red herring, nothing more.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You're seriously stating that it's okay to allow a particular religious group to carry weapons into public events, because they're special in your opinion, while at the same time, actions of some of these same religious people have caused the general public in Canada all sorts of inconvenience due to 'security' measures imposed on everyone who 'chooses' to fly.

You're cute, you are.

Now you are talking nonsense, TenPenny. Are you seriously claiming that Sikhs are the reasons we have to take all these security measures when flying?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So everyone has to be restricted from carrying shampoo or bottled water onto a plane, because it's too hard to verify, but it's okay to allow a kirpan at the Olympics, because....

The reason is simple, TenPenny. It is very difficult to ascertain what is contained in a bottle, whether it is a shampoo, skin care cream or an explosive. But it is very easy to ascertain if a kirpan is being carried safely, one only has to look at it.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Yes but you said that terrorists are technologically ahead. They usually aren't.

Umm, no, I think I said terrorists are one step ahead of technology, big difference. Low tech methods can still be ahead of the technology employed to detect them.

Yes, I said that.
Just look what happens if someone mentions bomb, powder in an envelope, strange smell in a closed area, etc. People fly off the handle and think there are boogeymen around every corner and in every shadow. As I said, they have won. And I think they will keep winning because they are always at least one step ahead.

Depends on whether you mean personally or collectively. Terrorism has certainly inconvenienced our lives collectively, and unfortunately many folks have succumbed to the hysteria. Personally, yes, I feel greatly inconvenienced by the counter measures put into practice because I have to live with them every work day, (where most folks only have to deal with them when they travel), but otherwise I don't alter my beliefs or allow myself less enjoyment out of life because of it. The likelihood of being a victim of terrorism is small compared to the likelihood of being a victim of a crackhead looking for his next fix or any other type of random violence. I guess it's a matter of perspective and if you allow yourself to feel terrorized.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

The reason is simple, TenPenny. It is very difficult to ascertain what is contained in a bottle, whether it is a shampoo, skin care cream or an explosive. But it is very easy to ascertain if a kirpan is being carried safely, one only has to look at it.

Well at least you can't carry a kirpan onto an airplane.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Except the ones who do it for a living, anyway, the likelyhood of Richard Reid, or anyone else getting caught simply by the random use of this scanner is pretty remote. Terrorists are one step ahead of technology and this is just another peice that will be circumvented. Good old fashioned intel, observation, and reporting are still needed. As I said, all this security hocus pocus is window dressing and optics because it targets the wrong people.

Terrorists are not one step ahead of the technology, bob. Don’t exaggerate. In case you haven’t noticed, we have not had any terrorist attacks on airplanes since 9/11 (except the attempt by the shoe bomber), the British caught the attempt to smuggle the liquid explosives on to planes just in time.

So whatever the security forces are doing worldwide, it is clearly working. It is not the question of terrorists staying one step ahead of the technology, but the question of security staying one step ahead of the terrorists. To that end, security forces have to try newer, better, quicker and more reliable techniques. The X ray scanner is part of the ongoing process.

Good old fashioned intel is still needed. But newer techniques also are important. It is all part of the same process.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Well at least you can't carry a kirpan onto an airplane.

No you can’t, but TenPenny’s question was why are we banned form carrying liquids onto airplanes, yet they are permitting kirpans into Olympic stadium. The answer is that simple visual inspection is enough to see if the kirpan is being carried safely.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Terrorists are not one step ahead of the technology, bob. Don’t exaggerate. In case you haven’t noticed, we have not had any terrorist attacks on airplanes since 9/11 (except the attempt by the shoe bomber), the British caught the attempt to smuggle the liquid explosives on to planes just in time.

Well, if you believe what you say, then there is no need for these scanners. The other two attempts you mention were not thwarted by technology, one was by sheer luck and the other by prudent observance, and some luck. There have been many security breaches, most we don't hear about, and most are accidental and innocent. But while we expend precious resources to make one target undesirable we risk leaving others ill protected. Just like thieves will pass on the house with the ADT sign, terrorists will pass on airplanes. Remember, they were just the tools on 9-11, buildings were the targets. And yes, terrorists are one step ahead, or maybe just adapting, they just set their sights on less protected targets.

A determined terrorist cell will find a way to penetrate any secure system; but why not look for something easier? What I'm trying to say is that there are many holes to be filled but they don't fit with the "airport must be a fortress made so by impenetrable security" model. They don't fit with the optics of seeing to be doing something, much different that from actually doing something. Of course I'm not going to say where those holes lie publicly, but they're there and may be exploited while everyone is looking the other way, or the way we're looking right now.

 

[Blackleaf]

Politically correct Manchester Airport has banned the use of such scanners for searching children, just in case the operators are paedophiles.

So if any Islamic terrorist (or Irish terrorist or, of course, ANY terrorist) wants to blow up a plane, all they have to do is strap explosives to a child underneath the child's clothes and board a plane at Manchester Airport. Easy peasy.

 

[Francis2004]

Francis, my understanding is that when these scanners are implemented, there will be no pat downs (Except for those who refuse to go through the scanners). Scanners are much quicker than the pat downs.

As to kirpan, I don’t think they permit Sikhs to take them on airplanes.

As to your point about terrorist using the allowed items, you have a point there (although the 9/11 terrorists smuggled the box cutters on board). That is why they were experimenting with liquid explosives. Now that liquids are banned, no doubt they will try to find another hole in the security system. It is a never ending game.

Incidentally, why is your ISP displayed in your post? Are you OK with that?

Hello SJP.. Did you watch the clip I attached from CBC many posts back.. It shows how the new scanners will be used and how people will be patted down if an object is detected on them ?

As to Kirpans on Airplanes I doubt they exist since 9/11 but would not put it past anyone. My feeling would be to change any flight I planned if I found out the policy of the airline had recently changed to allow. These policies constantly change with many of us not being advised..

Liquids are no longer banned on Canadian flights as per my last flight out within limitations.. They were still if you went to the US but not within Canada. It always amazed me how they would let women on flights with makeup and all sorts of "liquid" stuff on the name of fashion thru security yet would remove a small container of anti-deodorant.

Terrorist pick not the best but rather the most terrifying targets ( best graphic impact ). It would make much more sense to hit a football stadium then an airplane or even building. But the impact is much more terrifying to have as a thought to be stuck in an airplane at 35,000 or 40,000 feet with no escape then in a football stadium that is wide open in many cases.

And yes they will always remain a step ahead by using conventional items. While security is distracted looking for guns, bombs and such others it is much easier to slip thru with items that no one is looking for. In any planned event such as these, would you want to make 99.9% sure most people have no reason to feel out of place.. This is what scares me the most and why I think this over security is scary. People get a false sense they are protected..

PS That is not my IP but yours.. Each person should be seeing their own IP, Browser, Running System. The box mirrors what it sees from you..

 

[Cannuck]

PS That is not my IP but yours.. Each person should be seeing their own IP, Browser, Running System. The box mirrors what it sees from you..

Then you need to get it fixed because it's wrong.