Post by: Scout26 on December 21, 2007, 03:47:06 PM
)http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071221/us_nm/security_airports_dc
Quote
No proof airport security makes flying safer:study
Thu Dec 20, 9:29 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Airport security lines can annoy passengers, but there is no evidence that they make flying any safer, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.
A team at the Harvard School of Public Health could not find any studies showing whether the time-consuming process of X-raying carry-on luggage prevents hijackings or attacks.
They also found no evidence to suggest that making passengers take off their shoes and confiscating small items prevented any incidents.
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration told research teams requesting information their need for quick new security measures trumped the usefulness of evaluating them, Eleni Linos, Elizabeth Linos, and Graham Colditz reported in the British Medical Journal.
"We noticed that new airport screening protocols were implemented immediately after news reports of terror threats," they wrote.
"Even without clear evidence of the accuracy of testing, the Transportation Security Administration defended its measures by reporting that more than 13 million prohibited items were intercepted in one year," the researchers added. "Most of these illegal items were lighters."
The researchers said it would be interesting to apply medical standards to airport security. Screening programs for illnesses like cancer are usually not broadly instituted unless they have been shown to work.
"We'd like airport security screening to be of value. As passengers and members of the public we'd like to know the evidence and the reasoning behind these measures," Linos said in a telephone interview.
"Can you hide anything in your shoes that you cannot hide in your underwear?" they asked.
TSA spokesman Christopher White said the agency has not had a chance to read the article.
"If anyone has questions about whether our efforts have been fruitful over the past five years -- come on," White said in a telephone interview.
"While we can't publicize everything that we've done, every event, we can say definitively that our efforts over the last five years have not been for nothing," White added.
With $5.6 billion spent globally on airport protection each year, the public should be encouraged to query some screening requirements -- such as forcing passengers to remove their shoes, the researchers said.
White said the agency has pictures of shoe bombs on its Web site at (http://www.tsa.gov/) and welcomes people to examine them. "We encourage a legitimate public dialogue. We want passengers to understand why we do what we do," he said.
(Reporting by Maggie Fox, editing by Eric Walsh)
Post by: Paddy on December 21, 2007, 04:02:22 PM
But, nooooooo, we'd rather spend trillions on an Iraq occupation.
When the gov get serious about border security, maybe I'll take a second look at this 'war on terra'. Until then, it's all about war profiteering and stealing public money AFAICT.
Post by: grampster on December 21, 2007, 04:52:55 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on December 21, 2007, 04:56:34 PM
Quote
A team at the Harvard School of Public Health could not find any studies showing whether the time-consuming process of X-raying carry-on luggage prevents hijackings or attacks.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's the same "school" that issues lots of "research" that "proves" guns cause crime, and ought to be taken away from commoners.
That said", the obvious solution to the problem of hijacking would be to issue every second or third passenger boarding an aircraft a knife. We might, in fact, have the occasional attempted hijacking, but national morale would soar. The leftist extremists would have hissing fits to end all hissing fits.
What kind of stupidity is this?
Quote
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Post by: atomd on December 21, 2007, 05:35:44 PM
Post by: Paddy on December 21, 2007, 05:50:32 PM
Quote
Ahem, cough, er, ahhh, Riley. Aren't you the one who wants to turn health insurance over to these same government officials?
No, I want a single payer system that is accountable to We the People. I suggest Medicare because it's already up and running, existed before TSA, and will be around long after TSA bites the dust.
Post by: member1313 on December 21, 2007, 07:52:46 PM
Let's be honest: if someone wants to commit a terrorist act involving public transportation, they're going to do it one way or the other. This is why I think it is the responsibility of the citizen and consumer to be vigilante. If you see something suspicious that's worthy of involving airport security/law enforcement, then report it.
Security guards and law enforcement officers are bound by the same physical and cognitive restrictions as everyone else. They are going to space out while on the job; they are going to make mistakes; people will still get on planes with restricted items.
Perfection is a utopian ideal; expecting perfection from public security employees is thus flawed logic.
Post by: seeker_two on December 22, 2007, 02:54:19 AM
Ahem, cough, er, ahhh, Riley. Aren't you the one who wants to turn health insurance over to these same government officials?
Say it ain't so, Riley......
The thing that made me feel safer on my last flight was sitting a row behind a young Muslim fellow with shifty eyes while I held my bag of Realtree Ham Jerky and whispered in his ear, "If anything happens, you go first...."
Nothing happened......
Post by: InfidelSerf on December 22, 2007, 06:04:29 AM
Then it's just a dog and pony show.
My wife is a flight attendant for the only airline making a profit. She has to deal with it on a regular basis. It's a complete and utter joke.
She went through a background check more thorough than your average LEO, yet is treated like a potential terrorist by a HS dropout that is now getting paid 3 times what he got paid when it was a private sector job. The only difference now is he has a gubermint title on his uniform and took an addition 8hrs of B.S. training.
The TSA is one big joke put on just to make the sheeple feel better about themselves and make it look like the gubermint actually cares.
Until we start taking lessons from El Al, we will never be safer in the air. If anything it's less safe since 9/11 because we are wasting all the man hours on people searching little old ladies and two year olds.
When I used to work for a major airline I identified a way one could LEGALLY board any flight in the nation without going through security. I doubt that loophole has been changed even post 9/11 and even after I notified the authorities in the week after 9/11 as to the loophole.
Security on mass transit will always be a show for the masses until "CarryAir" is developed and we support each individuals right to defend themselves.
Post by: Paddy on December 22, 2007, 07:15:43 AM
Post by: InfidelSerf on December 22, 2007, 11:20:37 AM
Nevermind that the Aviation and Transportation Safety Act was passed after the Dems won control of the senate in 2001
Nevermind that the Dems pushed to unionize the TSA (of course you are probably in favor of that)
Nevermind that neither party stands for what they originally stood for.
Nevermind that they are BOTH screwing us equally, just on different issues.
Post by: Paddy on December 22, 2007, 11:43:34 AM
Quote
Nevermind that neither party stands for what they originally stood for.
Nevermind that they are BOTH screwing us equally, just on different issues.
Nevermind that they are BOTH screwing us equally, just on different issues.
Exactly right. Which is why as many of us as possible need to re-register, and vote, INDEPENDENT.
Post by: InfidelSerf on December 22, 2007, 11:49:36 AM
Problem is in most states as an Independent you can not vote in primaries.
Now to get the thread back on track... please explain to me how this makes any sense and makes us safer?
Post by: 280plus on December 22, 2007, 12:07:18 PM
I thought I'd have a little fun when I had to declare my NITRO GLYCERINE tablets, but nobody batted an eye...
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 22, 2007, 01:02:57 PM
It is security theatre, pure and simple.
I'd rather have no screening of passengers at all, say like back in 1961, and have them put a little more effort into screening the ground crews. Like the, what, 12 Chicago employees found to be illegal immigrants using stolen SSN's.
It's crap, they know it and we intelligent folks know it. We are not one whit safer today due to passenger screening than we were in Aug. 2001.
It's only the ignorant and credulous who buy into the "security" mantra.
Post by: Tallpine on December 22, 2007, 01:22:22 PM
Quote
Exactly right. Which is why as many of us as possible need to re-register, and vote, INDEPENDENT.
But then you'd just be "wasting your vote"
Post by: InfidelSerf on December 23, 2007, 12:05:06 PM
Quote
But then you'd just be "wasting your vote"
Since there are not any Independent candidates (none that I'm aware of, and if so none that have any serious traction)Then I don't see how it would be wasting a vote. Since changing ones party affiliation to Independent simply means you aren't identifying yourself with either of the parties/
(Third parties are a joke.. let's just all agree there)
As an Independent I am cut out of the primaries, and simply get to vote in the general election only.
That is a choice I just have to live with. I feel the small consolation to my conscience is worth that price. Since there hasn't been a serious reform candidate since, well my lifetime.
Just once I'd like to see a candidate who's entire platform would be to pretty much repeal 90% of all laws passed since 1907 (I figure the basics were pretty well covered up to then)
I'll be voting Republican no matter who is nominated. Who get's the nomination just determines how bad of a taste I'll have in my mouth.
Because we can all agree that not one of the candidates the Dems are offering would be even remotely considered by any of us.(ok ok.. us being defined as all BUT McRiley :p )
Post by: Tallpine on December 23, 2007, 12:21:31 PM
Quote
I don't see how it would be wasting a vote. Since changing ones party affiliation to Independent simply means you aren't identifying yourself with either of the parties
Great! Now you can choose between the same two worthless bums (or bumettes) as the rest of us. Don't you feel better now?
Post by: Paddy on December 23, 2007, 01:48:13 PM
Quote
I'll be voting Republican no matter who is nominated. Who get's the nomination just determines how bad of a taste I'll have in my mouth.
I will definitely NOT be voting Republican, unless RP is nominated (fat chance)
Quote
Because we can all agree that not one of the candidates the Dems are offering would be even remotely considered by any of us.(ok ok.. us being defined as all BUT McRiley :p )
The only way I'd vote Democrat is if it's Giuliani v Edwards. I DO NOT want to see that sleaze Rudy in the WH.
Post by: Thor on December 23, 2007, 02:53:31 PM
Post by: jefnvk on December 23, 2007, 04:34:34 PM
Quote
Like the, what, 12 Chicago employees found to be illegal immigrants using stolen SSN's.
What checks do the ground, or for that matter flight, crews have to go through to get access to the aircraft? How about security?Heck, for that matter, seems like it would be real easy to toss a package over a fence to someone working in the airport.
Post by: Bogie on December 23, 2007, 06:03:56 PM
Why?
I think an airplane is FAR more likely to catch a Stinger than be blown up or re-routed by passenger activity.
Because, say what you will about 'em, airline passengers as a whole aren't that stupid, _or_ politically correct, and when AbDuhl stands up on his two hind legs, and announces that he wants to reroute the flight to Mecca, the passengers are going to start pulling pieces off. I think the whole reason the "shoe bomber" survived was that the whole mess was just so ludicrous.
Post by: Tallpine on December 24, 2007, 07:40:38 AM
Post by: Scout26 on December 24, 2007, 10:43:16 AM
Airline hijackings ended on 9/12/2001. Flight 93 has pretty much guaranteed that no airliner will ever be hi-jacked again.
Post by: El Tejon on December 24, 2007, 11:25:47 AM
1. Terrorists run a successful play over and over.
2. A UPS or FedEx plane would be a soft target and do the same damage.
3. Easier to get a Canadian, South/Central American or European plane as it enters US airspace, whack the crew and fly it into something big and New Yorkish.
Still think a cargo plane in March of '09 will be the attack. Guess we'll wait and see.
After TSA stole my knives and ammo in Indy when I was going to Dallas, I do not want TSA eliminated, I want them whipped and salted without end.
Post by: Warren on December 24, 2007, 03:38:28 PM
Post by: seeker_two on December 25, 2007, 02:20:05 AM
I wonder if there is any evidence that government provided security at any level or point of society makes us safer.
Prisons, perhaps?.....
Post by: seeker_two on December 25, 2007, 02:21:23 AM
And don't forget TSA is a creation of a REPUBLICAN majority Congress and a REPUBLICAN President. So keep voting REPUBLICAN ye suckers so's you'll have something to bitch about on internet boards.
To heck with the Republicans......how do you feel about conservatives?
Post by: cordex on December 26, 2007, 05:59:18 AM
Airline hijackings ended on 9/12/2001. Flight 93 has pretty much guaranteed that no airliner will ever be hi-jacked again.
For perhaps one generation.