241–250 of 266 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great idea--simple, inexpensive, highly effective when considered relative to its small cost. Therefore I never expect to see this in a US airport.
"inexpensive" Just wait until TSA vendors out the development of it :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely that would just defer the problem? Plus, the airlines now have to buy all their own equipment, train their own staff. At the moment, they are 'outsourcing' their airport security to the TSA. I suppose they could each choose which security checks they are going to carry out, but how would they choose? Based on recommendations from something that looks like the TSA? It's not clear to me that the airlines would w…
> Surely that would just defer the problem? Plus, the airlines now have to buy all their own equipment, train their own staff. At the moment, they are 'outsourcing' their airport security to the TSA. An obvious solution: outsource to not-the-TSA. Say, local security contractors at the airports they operate at, possibly pooling resources with other airlines if there's economies of scale to be had there. Or perhaps a s…
This is bad statistics. The TSA 'failed to detect 95% of airport breach tests' does not mean it fails to prevent 95% of would-be attacks. Just by being there, it prevents some attacks - those people who consider it too difficult to get round the TSA, or those who end up coming up on the NSA's radar as they research ways to do so.
Saying we could just "throw it all away because what's the worst that can happen" is much like a developer saying "let's do a complete rebuild" and we all know how that usually turns out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great idea--simple, inexpensive, highly effective when considered relative to its small cost. Therefore I never expect to see this in a US airport.
"inexpensive" Just wait until TSA vendors out the development of it :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> I don't get why this was deemed an accident. Reading the story, there is this little voice saying in the back of my head, "They don't want to treat it as a crime because they know who has it and they're in cahoots."
I would really, really doubt this. My assumption is that they either: 1. They have statistics that they have to keep up, and having a ding like "a crime was committed on your watch" isn't a good thing, so they try to avoid it, or 2. Classifying it as a crime versus an accident comes with a load of paperwork and hassle for everybody involved that no one wants to do. I really don't think this was malicious in the manne…
Just curious, do you say that with knowledge of the fact that is on record happening multiple times? Or are you just unaware?
Two weeks ago I traveled in the US and after the scan they first handed me my own computer and then a minute later someone else's MacBook Pro. I said that the Mac isn't mine, and you know what, they didn't believe me. I had to tell them several times that I don't own a Mac and I had to show them that I had already received my own computer. I think they didn't want to look for the owner and just wanted to get rid of t…
ouch I know airport personnel are very sensitive to unclaimed bags, etc., so they may look with suspicion on a "that's not my bag" claim, though presumably the TSA has just verified that this item is "safe".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would really, really doubt this. My assumption is that they either: 1. They have statistics that they have to keep up, and having a ding like "a crime was committed on your watch" isn't a good thing, so they try to avoid it, or 2. Classifying it as a crime versus an accident comes with a load of paperwork and hassle for everybody involved that no one wants to do. I really don't think this was malicious in the manne…
> I would really, really doubt this. Just curious, do you say that with knowledge of the fact that is on record happening multiple times? Or are you just unaware?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What actually happened on 9/11 really doesn't help us draw forward conclusions, because the people on these flights had less scope of the big picture. Each operated in a vacuum, it'd be difficult for them to know they were 4 planes. After that we have a much more reliable track record. The "shoe bomber" was subdued with the assistance of passengers. The "underwear bomber" was subdued with the assistance of passengers…
ceejayoz isn't saying the 9/11 flights proved that passengers won't sit quietly anymore. He's saying that, as a result of 9/11, passengers won't sit quietly anymore, which seems to be exactly what you're saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The airlines actually care about the safety of their planes, because failures have a significant impact in the marketplace. TSA staff don't care to anything like the same extent. If they screw up, they probably get more money and more power, not less. I suspect you'd get better results if you moved the responsibility to people who care more, and away from people who care less. Some US airports have opted out of TSA s…
They would have a serious conflict of interest between getting people on the plane ASAP and checking safety. I already see this when staff are lenient with checking passports and boarding passes. On top of this, most airlines have terrible customer service, so there's no reason to believe they would provide a better service than the TSA. The TSA clearly has many faults, and nor can it take all the credit for the lack…
> most airlines have terrible customer service
It varies. I've been through lots of airline-run security checks outside the USA and they've all been fine.