BF2S Forums "We've got an OPT OUT!!!"

DrunkFace wrote:

Kmar wrote:

I don't think this does much to ensure safety to be honest. Adopting a procedure similar to Israels would be more effective. In Isreal it is interrogation before you can get on a plane. However, that requires actual training. Isreals security officials must learn to pickup on body language, what questions to ask, etc. However, I do recognize that would be difficult to initiate in a country that has a lot of Air Travel.

Effective, yes. Feasible no. Spending 3 hours interviewing, testing, scanning, retesting an reinterviewing every single passenger isn't going to make for an efficient or cost effective service.

I agree .. hence the last sentence. I was thinking more like 10-15 minutes though. .. about the time I spend going through customs.

With one TSA employee yea. FFS I spend more time then that at the ticket counter.

Kmar, we have no need for any of that. 9/11 was an isolated incident, turtling means the terrorists have won. It means they've managed to steal away part of our freedom. The advent of the TSA and it's ever growing power over passengers has become the real deleterious effect of 9/11, not the loss of the WTC.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Effective, yes. Feasible no. Spending 3 hours interviewing, testing, scanning, retesting an reinterviewing every single passenger isn't going to make for an efficient or cost effective service.

I agree .. hence the last sentence. I was thinking more like 10-15 minutes though. .. about the time I spend going through customs.

So for a plane carrying 200 passengers, it would take 33-50 hours to clear them all. Makes sense, I'm down.

Hmmm, I didn't read the link in kmars post. What I was explaining is what El Al Airlines does over and above standard Israeli security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al#Security

Passengers are asked to report three hours before departure. All El Al terminals around the world are closely monitored for security. There are plain-clothes agents and fully armed police or military personnel who patrol the premises for explosives, suspicious behavior, and other threats. Inside the terminal, passengers and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats. Passengers will be asked questions about where they are coming from, the reason for their trip, their job or occupation, and whether they have packed their bags themselves. The likelihood of potential terrorists remaining calm under such questioning is believed to be low (see microexpression).[38]

At the check-in counter, passengers' passports and tickets are closely examined. A ticket without a sticker from the security checkers will not be accepted. At passport control passengers' names are checked against information from the FBI, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Scotland Yard, Shin Bet, and Interpol databases. Luggage is screened and sometimes hand searched. In addition, bags are put through a decompression chamber simulating pressures during flight that could trigger explosives.[39] El Al is the only airline in the world that passes all luggage through such a chamber.[40] Even at overseas airports, El Al security agents conduct all luggage searches personally, even if they are supervised by government or private security firms.

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar wrote:

I agree .. hence the last sentence. I was thinking more like 10-15 minutes though. .. about the time I spend going through customs.

So for a plane carrying 200 passengers, it would take 33-50 hours to clear them all. Makes sense, I'm down.

Hmmm, I didn't read the link in kmars post. What I was explaining is what El Al Airlines does over and above standard Israeli security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al#Security

Passengers are asked to report three hours before departure. All El Al terminals around the world are closely monitored for security. There are plain-clothes agents and fully armed police or military personnel who patrol the premises for explosives, suspicious behavior, and other threats. Inside the terminal, passengers and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats. Passengers will be asked questions about where they are coming from, the reason for their trip, their job or occupation, and whether they have packed their bags themselves. The likelihood of potential terrorists remaining calm under such questioning is believed to be low (see microexpression).[38]

At the check-in counter, passengers' passports and tickets are closely examined. A ticket without a sticker from the security checkers will not be accepted. At passport control passengers' names are checked against information from the FBI, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Scotland Yard, Shin Bet, and Interpol databases. Luggage is screened and sometimes hand searched. In addition, bags are put through a decompression chamber simulating pressures during flight that could trigger explosives.[39] El Al is the only airline in the world that passes all luggage through such a chamber.[40] Even at overseas airports, El Al security agents conduct all luggage searches personally, even if they are supervised by government or private security firms.

Yeah no thanks. Where I am coming from, the reason for my trip, and my occupation are my own business and not the governments. Fuck that noise.

They can scan my luggage and search if they have suspicion, but I also don't want some minimum wage flunky pawing through my things.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar, we have no need for any of that. 9/11 was an isolated incident, turtling means the terrorists have won. It means they've managed to steal away part of our freedom. The advent of the TSA and it's ever growing power over passengers has become the real deleterious effect of 9/11, not the loss of the WTC.

I agree. I think the odds of drowning in a bathtub are much higher than being attacked by a terrorist. I was just giving an example of what would be more effective ... in the face of a consistent threat. As mentioned before .. it's all about passengers feeling better right? Well.. maybe it's about selling scanners also.
Check out @5:30

Kmar wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar, we have no need for any of that. 9/11 was an isolated incident, turtling means the terrorists have won. It means they've managed to steal away part of our freedom. The advent of the TSA and it's ever growing power over passengers has become the real deleterious effect of 9/11, not the loss of the WTC.

I agree. I think the odds of drowning in a bathtub are much higher than being attacked by a terrorist. I was just giving an example of what would be more effective ... in the face of a consistent threat. As mentioned before .. it's all about passengers feeling better right? Well.. maybe it's about selling scanners also.
Check out @5:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mL_PkMybno

Ahh, ok. You weren't actually advocating it. Bee stings my friend, bee stings.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I agree that it doesn't.   However, doing the math reveals that, with the volume of flights that occur annually, there is bound to be another hijacking in the near future.

I seriously doubt anything as complicated as 9/11 will occur again, but a bombing on a plane or a hijacking certainly isn't out of the question.

Basically, it's just a matter of odds.  The chances of you being on a hijacked flight are infinitesimal, but all it takes is one hijacking for the public to call for more security.

I can't believe that I missed this gem. Are you seriously implying that since one cannot guarantee that there will not be another plane based terror attack, we should accept this bullshit security? 

If you run the numbers, you realize that you cannot rule anything out. Ever.

You guys seem to be assuming that I support kneejerk reactions.  In fact, ironically, you seem to be making one yourself.

What I was explaining was how the public reacts to security threats.  I'm not saying I support all of the hysteria.

Rational people don't jump to support more security measures just because of one terror group slipping through, so I can assure you that I'm not fond of the TSA either.

JohnG@lt wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I agree that it doesn't.   However, doing the math reveals that, with the volume of flights that occur annually, there is bound to be another hijacking in the near future.

I seriously doubt anything as complicated as 9/11 will occur again, but a bombing on a plane or a hijacking certainly isn't out of the question.

Basically, it's just a matter of odds.  The chances of you being on a hijacked flight are infinitesimal, but all it takes is one hijacking for the public to call for more security.

I can't believe that I missed this gem. Are you seriously implying that since one cannot guarantee that there will not be another plane based terror attack, we should accept this bullshit security? 

If you run the numbers, you realize that you cannot rule anything out. Ever.

You are statistically more likely to die from a bee or wasp sting than on an aircraft. 30-120 (average of 66) people die annually in the United States from stings. There are 58.55 annual deaths due to aviation (9/11 included) over the past 20 years. So, statistically, we're better off equipping everyone with bee keepers garb to wear while outdoors than worrying about increased security on our planes.

I think you may have found the only real benefit to full female Muslim garb.

SenorToenails wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You are statistically more likely to die from a bee or wasp sting than on an aircraft. 30-120 (average of 66) people die annually in the United States from stings. There are 58.55 annual deaths due to aviation (9/11 included) over the past 20 years. So, statistically, we're better off equipping everyone with bee keepers garb to wear while outdoors than worrying about increased security on our planes.

so maybe the security does work?

Just because you correlate the fact that the security exists with such a low chance of dying in an aviation related death does not mean there is causation.

erm

11 Bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

I can't believe that I missed this gem. Are you seriously implying that since one cannot guarantee that there will not be another plane based terror attack, we should accept this bullshit security? 

If you run the numbers, you realize that you cannot rule anything out. Ever.

You are statistically more likely to die from a bee or wasp sting than on an aircraft. 30-120 (average of 66) people die annually in the United States from stings. There are 58.55 annual deaths due to aviation (9/11 included) over the past 20 years. So, statistically, we're better off equipping everyone with bee keepers garb to wear while outdoors than worrying about increased security on our planes.

so maybe the security does work?

Newp. It's a giant waste of money.

I was under the impression that the Israeli system is actually much more efficient (in terms of how long security screenings take) than ours due to the "interrogation" processes that they use, and that those very processes are what makes it more efficient on the whole, because the essentially useless "security theatre" is avoided. 

NOT relying on minimum wage flunkies to do this job allows for this increased efficiency...they use people with extensive experience in military/security settings to do these checks, and this experience enables them to quickly size up potentially threatening individuals quickly...more importantly, it enables them to detect suspicious behavioral mannerisms that no electronic device is going to pick up on.

My biggest problem with the TSA and security in America in general is that very issue...we throw high tech gadgets at a bunch of poorly trained people and expect them to somehow make everything better, when it would ultimately be more effective in nearly every aspect to simply have better-trained individuals.

The last time I flew, the two security personnel I dealt with were both overweight and probably in their 40s, and I'm guessing that the only thing they're truly great at securing are their asses to chair seats.



The public needs to accept that nothing the TSA ever does will truly prevent terrorism from happening, or being able to happen.  The TSA is well aware of this, and I think that  they simply pick the most visible sign they can come up with that will ostentatiously signify that they're hard at work spending our taxpayer dollar to protect us.