Air Insecurity

[vakkotaur]

Between jmaynard's encounter with supposed air travel security and jugularjaguar's posting a link to an article that brings up a few points, despite its general dismissal as alarmist, and the news coverage of the September 11 commission's report, I've been reminded of a few things.

Last year Jay and I flew to NYC and back. At LaGuardia the security check seemed to border on, if not delve right into, paranoia. Everything was scanned and any metal had to be sent through the x-ray lest it set off the metal detector. That, in itself, wasn't bad. Sure, we had to remove our belts because of the buckles, but what was screwy was that we only had to do that at LaGuardia. We did not need to do so in Minneapolis, nor in Philadelphia the week before. However, the real corker was that later a woman got on a plane, departing from apparently paranoid LaGuardia, with a knife and stun gun that had not been detected.

There's a couple problems here. One is that the security at LaGuardia looked good, but evidently wasn't (isn't?) actually effective. Another is that procedures vary from airport to airport. That generates frustration for travelers who would like some uniformity of procedure. Since once past the security gate at one airport, one is (generally?) not screened again at other airports as long one stays in the supposedly secured areas, someone bent on causing trouble could slip in where procedures are more lax and bypass a stricter check.

Getting back to the article linked above, what it has inspired if not brought up itself is the question of how to balance alertness with tolerance. On the one hand, this is supposed to be a free and tolerant land, where differences are at least put up with if not actually welcomed. On the other hand, the constant message - especially when it comes to air travel now - is to be alert for suspicious activity and things out of the ordinary. What's suspicious? For many, air travel itself is rather out of the ordinary. Using myself as a handy example, I have yet to fly at all this year and at the moment it looks doubtful that I will be flying at all this year.

The commission report mentions a "failure of imagination" and the article linked above mentions the possibility of bombs being built in flight. One of the unintended side effects of making things more secure, or appearing to, or trying to, is that it provides a problem or puzzle. And airports generally involve a lot of waiting without too much to do. A puzzle plus relative boredom means that eventually the mind will consider the problem. I have no desire to sneak anything aboard a plane when I fly (or when I don't, for that matter). I have an interest in not having anyone sneak anything aboard. That, however, doesn't keep me from thinking, "Okkay, how could a person get things where they should not be?" That exercise was rather disappointing. Not because it was too hard, but because it was too easy. I won't go into details, but a little observation and a little imagination can reveal some uncomfortable possibilities. What's scary is not just that I came up with something. What's scary is that it came as quickly as it did. I don't normally think about this stuff. I don't want to, but if one person can think of something, so can another. And that other might be spending a lot more time on it.

We seem to now have the worst of all worlds. There are security checks that manage to be both invasive and ineffective. There is an atmosphere of paranoia that can plague innocent people with unwarranted scrutiny, suspicion, and delays. At the same time, complacency isn't exactly a survival trait. There could well be a Boy Who Cried Wolf effect taking place. I don't know what, if anything, bad will happen next. I just hope we haven't been setting ourselves up for it - and eroding freedoms in the process - while pretending we've been preventing it from happening

Comments

[wendyzski.livejournal.com]

I well know how much airport security varies. Remember all my complaints in May about Midway (where rude people went through my luggage 3 out of the 4 times I traveled). Contrast that with Kansas City, where I did get screened pretty well sometimes yet they had enough of a sense of humor to let me take photos of Teddy The Traveling Faire Bear riding in the little tub through the x-ray machine, and even wanded his little bear-feet for me.

I guess I'm just fatalistic about this - screening is going to keep most of the garden-variety wackos out but really won't do anything to keep out really well-organized terrorists. It's a big expensive emotional band-aid, spending millions of our dollars to make us feel better. That's politics. arrgh.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Borrowing a quote from (I think) Bob Dylan: "It's all symbolic, man."

Airport security is really no better today than it was five years ago; or for that matter, 30+ years ago, when I boarded a plane at the tiny airport in Lansing, Michigan (two gates, both of which consisted of swinging gates in a cyclone fence and were only ten feet apart) only after having every wrapped Christmas package in my luggage opened and guffawed over.

The idea is merely to fool the unthinking public into BELIEVING that there has been an improvement and that they are safer. As you point out, it would be next to impossible to really make things secure unless truly draconic measures (strip searches of all passengers, no carry on luggage permitted, etc.) were undertaken. It's all about politics, not reality. Anyone who thinks US politics have much to do with reality needs to wake up.

[shelbystripes.livejournal.com]

Obviously there's a problem; however, I'm fearful of the oft-alluded-to answer. Nobody says it directly; they just allude to it. That article you linked to is a good example. But basically, what's being talked about is implementing a policy of active discrimination in this country as a defense mechanism.

I have to object to the concept, not only because I think it's wrong in the abstract sense, but I know what it feels like. I went through that after 9/11; I flew on over a dozen different flights, and (this was the transition phase where the airlines were doing at-the-gate security checks as well as the airport screeners doing their at-the-terminal-entrance checks) I got picked for a "random search" every time I flew. Once I got searched three times on a flight; entering the terminal in Vegas, boarding the plane in Vegas, and boarding the plane on the connecting flight in Phoenix.

Oddly, since the TSA took over screening, I haven't been "randomly checked" once.

I agree that something serious has to be done. I just hope we as a nation are intelligent enough to choose the right something.

[melskunk.livejournal.com]

I've never been particularly impressed that the weak point in airpoirt security is the poorly paid, poorly watched people handling your bags after they go through the checkpoints. I've seen several news programs over the years with hidden cameras showing baggage handlers going through bags and taking things, how much harder is it for them to put something in?

[kinkyturtle.livejournal.com]

Ooo, and dontcha just love how it's come to this:

Before 2001-09-11, the advice for all travelers was: Lock your bags. Put padlocks, combination locks, what have you, on the zippers. You're a fool if you don't lock your bags.

Now, the advice is: Don't lock your bags. If you do, the TSA will destroy your locks and remove them with the full blessing of the US government.

[captain18.livejournal.com]

Apart from the question of effectiveness, airport screeners wind up in much the same category as rent-a-cops. As long as they're not power tripping, they're usually decent to deal with in my experience.

My most invasive search took place when I flew out of Newark in November 2002. My luggage during that phase was always one carry-on plus my backpack, which had my FD-88, cell phone, and all related cables. Something aroused their curiosity, and my stuff was passed to an older lady for thorough inspection. She spent nearly ten minutes going through my backpack, and consulted with the guy who did the X-Ray twice. For a moment it seemed like they wanted to check my backpack for hidden pockets the hard way (ie, with a knife), but the woman quietly insisted that there was "nothing like that" in my stuff. Thank God I was early!

The amusing part was when she held up the tin I keep in the pocket of my backpack. "What's in here?" she asked, starting to fumble with opening it. "Um, that's my contraceptives. You know, my condoms." She about dropped it and blushed. I was actually surprised that she no longer felt the need to open it.

The annoying part is they wouldn't tell me what they thought I had. On the one hand, I can appreciate that from a security standpoint; but on the other hand, if I could figure out why my things looked suspicious I could reorganize them to save everyone some time. Because that X-Ray guy was really agitated.