The answer is in the article: > The machines can be programmed to find cash, but they aren’t because they are operated by airport-security agents, responsible for passenger safety, not customs and immigration officials. As to why the UK government doesn't pass a regulation that airport security is also responsible for detecting large amounts of cash, I have no idea.
Separation of duties. Airport security do one job, border farce/customs do the other. Turning airport security into customs and excise agents would be legally challenging. Same way TSA in America largely don’t give a flying fuck when Amercians from legal states board international flights with cannabis products such as gummies or vape pens - that’s a problem for the customs people on the other side. I should note her…
despite the separation of duties, at first glance, it would appear worthwhile to me for the customs agencies to buy access to the CT scanners or just the output from the security agencies so they could easily detect the cash
maybe there are laws regarding privacy or just bureaucratic challenges that prevent this though
> Most airports worldwide, including in the U.S., don’t scan passenger luggage for cash, a costly undertaking in equipment and personnel. This is the only shocker for me. Can anyone elaborate? I've always assumed x-ray scanners can't figure out the amount of cash, but shouldn't they be able to detect giant stacks of cash?
I'm also surprised by that claim. Every time I've flown with a thick book in my carryon, it's been flagged for inspection. One of the staff told me once that it's because thick stacks of paper look a lot like plastic explosive on an X-ray. I have to imagine a suitcase full of cash would look the same way.
Boston, along with many Democrat strongholds in America, is strongly in favor of disarming the public, including law abiding citizens. The fact that this is normalized, including confiscation from a law abiding citizen, is absurd. There is an important legal document which states: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " Nevermind the fact that legal gun owners and especially CHP holde…
TSA agents are federal employees and federal law prohibits carrying-on ammunition on planes. It is not Boston specific other than that's where OP got caught. You can still check it if you want. I assume the reason is to reduce the chances of accidental discharge causing risk to the plane and/or the prevent one part of a weapon that could be used for hijacking. Even if laws allowed you to take bullets into airports, I have no doubt that the airlines (private business people choose to patronize) would prohibit you from carrying ammunition onto their planes and they'd have every right to do so.
Boston, along with many Democrat strongholds in America, is strongly in favor of disarming the public, including law abiding citizens. The fact that this is normalized, including confiscation from a law abiding citizen, is absurd. There is an important legal document which states: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " Nevermind the fact that legal gun owners and especially CHP holde…
I believe you are mistaken, as so very many people are, about that document. If you are quoting an important legal document, it's important, wouldn't you agree, to get the exact text correct, otherwise the meaning might change? Especially if the text is used for justification to allow a wide, practically unregulated population to be armed? Let's see, I am willing to bet the following statement is the actual quote from the document you reference, which says something quite different (to me). Here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." nevermind that the more legal gun holders there are, the more opportunities for criminals to get guns. Legal gun owners routinely do not secure their weapons in the manner prescribed for responsible gun ownership(I grew up in the south, I can count the number of gun safes I've seen in houses on 1 hand). In fact, many decry the safeguards as imperiling their lives should a crisis spontaneously occur. I argue that those individuals are in fact responsible for a non-negligible amount of crime, since their actions (purchasing a firearm and then failing to secure it against threats) directly leads to more gun crime. But undoubtedly these reasonable arguments and facts will do nothing to move your position, so I guess I just wasted both our times.
> Most airports worldwide, including in the U.S., don’t scan passenger luggage for cash, a costly undertaking in equipment and personnel. I think this is false. Anytime I've flown with cash in my checked in luggage, it was always stolen and it was obvious someone went through my suitcase. Then I stopped doing that obviously. (happened in U.S. and Indonesia)
I concur, any person putting cash or anything of value inside of a suitcase at an airport and then checking that in (i.e. not carrying it with them), is just asking for trouble. I'm surprised any of the money arrived at the destination, because in the US all of that money would have been stolen by the baggage handlers in the holding area before getting routed to the actual airplane.
3750 for committing serious crimes seems so low, one can only imagine the desperation or lack of value understanding involved with participants. Or coercion.
I think it’s pretty simple. To many people, $3,750 is a huge amount of money. It’s easily several months salary. I think a lot of people would be relatively unaware of how illegal a given thing is and would instead see the amount of money being offered as representative of the risk. Too much and they would get suspicious.
This was the UK. I don’t think $4k is “many months salary” for a lot of people in the UK.
The answer is in the article: > The machines can be programmed to find cash, but they aren’t because they are operated by airport-security agents, responsible for passenger safety, not customs and immigration officials. As to why the UK government doesn't pass a regulation that airport security is also responsible for detecting large amounts of cash, I have no idea.
Separation of duties. Airport security do one job, border farce/customs do the other. Turning airport security into customs and excise agents would be legally challenging. Same way TSA in America largely don’t give a flying fuck when Amercians from legal states board international flights with cannabis products such as gummies or vape pens - that’s a problem for the customs people on the other side. I should note her…
This is correct. A friend of ours works at TSA. They saw a sealed envelope that looked like a large amount of cash. Questioned the passenger, he answered “well”, but wasn’t a security threat so they let him through and called the correct authority at his domestic destination.
The answer is in the article: > The machines can be programmed to find cash, but they aren’t because they are operated by airport-security agents, responsible for passenger safety, not customs and immigration officials. As to why the UK government doesn't pass a regulation that airport security is also responsible for detecting large amounts of cash, I have no idea.
As a British citizen, I'm quite happy with the detection of money laundering not being a responsibility of airport security. It might initially make sense to check for cash, because once the money leaves the country it's much harder to track. Yet, that's the same for any time a criminal leaves the country - should airport security be responsible for checking your cases for stolen goods? Imposing such duties onto airp…
> Most airports worldwide, including in the U.S., don’t scan passenger luggage for cash, a costly undertaking in equipment and personnel. This is the only shocker for me. Can anyone elaborate? I've always assumed x-ray scanners can't figure out the amount of cash, but shouldn't they be able to detect giant stacks of cash?
I'm also surprised by that claim. Every time I've flown with a thick book in my carryon, it's been flagged for inspection. One of the staff told me once that it's because thick stacks of paper look a lot like plastic explosive on an X-ray. I have to imagine a suitcase full of cash would look the same way.
US currency is made with a mix of 75% cotton and 25% linen fibers, rather than wood pulp like paper. They're less dense so they probably don't look the same on an xray.
How dare you question the TSA, the best and brightest of us. \s As a funny counter, I recently traveled through 6 TSA checkpoints with a loaded magazine in my bag. I had it from when I was at my farm, oops. Was a little concerned because I was in Boston when they found it (I’m based out of Tennessee). But they let me go and confiscated it. Point being, if they can’t find a loaded magazine, I doubt they’d be able to f…
About 15 years ago my dad accidentally carried a pocket knife in his carry-on for about half a dozen different business trips before the TSA found it (he had used the same bag for a camping trip a month or two before). That it took so long to find destroyed what little trust we already had that the TSA was any more than security theater.
I used to frequent a firearms related forum and someone asked if anyone had accidentally travelled with a firearm and there were plenty of stories.
Lots of examples of traveling with ammunition either loose or in magazines and it not being caught on airport x-ray. But also stories of people grabbing something from a carry-on and realizing they forgot their loaded handgun was in there.
Normally it's not that big a deal if you're flying within the US (though NY and NJ can be dicey), but I also recall a story where someone flew international and the destination was a country that would put you in prison for a long time even if you came forward (I think it was Japan or China).
They were asking advice on what to do and I think in the end they unloaded it, took the gun apart (barrel, slide, frame, etc) and dumped each part in a separate trash bin far, far apart.