Airport scanners a waste of money

[Topaz]

A security specialist says Canada spending big buck for the scanners are a waste and that he could still blow up a plane after going through one. Baird, are you listening? http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/airport+security+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+security+specialist/2939730/story.html

[ToadBrother]

A security specialist says Canada spending big buck for the scanners are a waste and that he could still blow up a plane after going through one. Baird, are you listening? http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/airport+security+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+security+specialist/2939730/story.html

It's called security theater. Everyone involved goes through these incredibly awkward and bothersome motions so that people will feel safe, even if they never in that much danger to begin with and the measures will have little or no effect on safety anyways.

[Handsome Rob]

It's called security theater. Everyone involved goes through these incredibly awkward and bothersome motions so that people will feel safe, even if they never in that much danger to begin with and the measures will have little or no effect on safety anyways.

This pleases me, knowing I'm no longer alone with this idea. Individuals with this POV are difficult to find.

[bush_cheney2004]

Airline safety and security can be related but are not the same thing. There is no such thing as 100% safety or security, only probability and statistics. Anybody who frets over airline safety only to jump in their car for a trip understands neither.

Edited April 23, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

It's called security theater. Everyone involved goes through these incredibly awkward and bothersome motions so that people will feel safe, even if they never in that much danger to begin with and the measures will have little or no effect on safety anyways.

Not entirely so. Some is theater and some is not and some of the theater can be aggravating to be sure. There will never be any guaranty of complete safety but if you believe airport security is useless, just consider why it came about in the first place. Aircraft hijackings became rampant in the 70's. After airport security was brought in, they were nearly non existent until 9/11 and changes made since then have so far stopped a recurrence. Security at Heathrow stopped the liquid bombers. Scanners are just one part of a security system that will never be completely fool proof no matter how hard you try. Like any game of cops and robbers it comes down to bad guys finding new ways to defeat the system and good guys finding ways to counteract them.

[wyly]

A security specialist says Canada spending big buck for the scanners are a waste and that he could still blow up a plane after going through one. Baird, are you listening? http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/airport+security+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+security+specialist/2939730/story.html

soemone will always find a new way to threaten air travel but it will catch less sophisticated attacks...it's an expensive inconvenience but what else do you suggest? a full nude body search? any effort is better than none...

[ToadBrother]

Not entirely so. Some is theater and some is not and some of the theater can be aggravating to be sure. There will never be any guaranty of complete safety but if you believe airport security is useless, just consider why it came about in the first place. Aircraft hijackings became rampant in the 70's. After airport security was brought in, they were nearly non existent until 9/11 and changes made since then have so far stopped a recurrence. Security at Heathrow stopped the liquid bombers. Scanners are just one part of a security system that will never be completely fool proof no matter how hard you try. Like any game of cops and robbers it comes down to bad guys finding new ways to defeat the system and good guys finding ways to counteract them.

Security generally means vigilance. A lot of what has passed for security in the last decade (and really, even before that) has been a lot more about show. Scanners that can see your nards, dogs that can sniff out cocaine, aggressive customs agents, pointless bans of various items. The way to stop 9-11s is not by banning boxcutters from airlines, it's by properly funding and training your intelligence agencies so they can monitor the activity of terrorist cells.

9-11 wasn't a failure of airport security. It was a failure of American and Western intelligence.

Edited April 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Sir Bandelot]

9-11 wasn't a failure of airport security. It was a failure of American and Western intelligence.

9-11 was a failure of the imagination

[Wilber]

9-11 wasn't a failure of airport security. It was a failure of American and Western intelligence.

It was both. Look at security as a stack of disc's with holes in them. Not all the holes on the disc's line up so nothing can get through all the disc's without encountering one that has no hole in front of it. The first disc would be intelligence and the last would be the deadbolt on the bullet proof cockpit door. In between would be all the other steps plus the training and vigilance of everyone involved including the passengers themselves. If any one of the disc's stops the process, the system worked.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....In between would be all the other steps plus the training and vigilance of everyone involved including the passengers themselves. If any one of the disc's stops the process, the system worked.

Maybe...but this is wishful thinking. There was no such coordinated "system", and the exact same thing could still happen today with determined cockpit actor(s), diverting from a normal approach to an airport. There are other "missing" discs as well.

[Wilber]

Maybe...but this is wishful thinking. There was no such coordinated "system", and the exact same thing could still happen today with determined cockpit actor(s), diverting from a normal approach to an airport. There are other "missing" discs as well.

Not wishful thinking, just reality. There is some truth to what you say but the point I am trying to make is that there is no one culprit or silver bullet when it comes to security. It has to be a combination of many different parts. Whether all the disc's are there or whether they are coordinated or not is certainly open to debate and should be, but to maintain that one particular part is useless or the answer itself is wishful thinking.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Whether all the disc's are there or whether they are coordinated or not is certainly open to debate and should be, but to maintain that one particular part is useless or the answer itself is wishful thinking.

Agreed...but there are still some people who want/need to believe that they can be insulated and protected from a "reality" that is warped when it comes to aviation and risk management. "Terrorism" doesn't even make it to the top ten for actuaries.

[maple_leafs182]

9-11 wasn't a failure of airport security. It was a failure of American and Western intelligence.

No, it was a failure of America's foreign policy. They should stop messing around in other countries affairs. They are pissing people off by starting wars in other countries. If they continue with their current foreign policy which it seems like they will, expect more terrorist attacks.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, it was a failure of America's foreign policy. They should stop messing around in other countries affairs. They are pissing people off by starting wars in other countries. If they continue with their current foreign policy which it seems like they will, expect more terrorist attacks.

Correct...."they" will continue just as before. So when will the Haitian terrorists attack Canada?

[charter.rights]

Correct...."they" will continue just as before. So when will the Haitian terrorists attack Canada?

HEY! Anything that allows one to scan through clothes and see beautiful women in the nude, can't be all that bad.

[Wilber]

Agreed...but there are still some people who want/need to believe that they can be insulated and protected from a "reality" that is warped when it comes to aviation and risk management. "Terrorism" doesn't even make it to the top ten for actuaries.

I think what many people want is a system that works but doesn't require anything from them. Dream on.

[Handsome Rob]

Not entirely so. Some is theater and some is not and some of the theater can be aggravating to be sure. There will never be any guaranty of complete safety but if you believe airport security is useless, just consider why it came about in the first place. Aircraft hijackings became rampant in the 70's. After airport security was brought in, they were nearly non existent until 9/11 and changes made since then have so far stopped a recurrence.

Locking the flight deck door is the single biggest measure in these preventions.

Security at Heathrow stopped the liquid bombers.

The individuals were under surveillance and stopped before getting anywhere near airport security barriers.

Scanners are just one part of a security system that will never be completely fool proof no matter how hard you try. Like any game of cops and robbers it comes down to bad guys finding new ways to defeat the system and good guys finding ways to counteract them.

They don't really need to invent new ones, one need only apply for a job as a baggage handler to be handed a pass and given access in the same day. Success rate of screening is less than 60%, and no I can't source that, such materials aren't to be released.

[Handsome Rob]

Agreed...but there are still some people who want/need to believe that they can be insulated and protected from a "reality" that is warped when it comes to aviation and risk management. "Terrorism" doesn't even make it to the top ten for actuaries.

To add:

You're statistically far more likely to be struck by lightening or eaten by a shark than fall victim of violence in the sky's before even talking about airport security, it doesn't change those odds much.

You're far more likely to fall victim to mechanical failure than anything else.

[Wilber]

Locking the flight deck door is the single biggest measure in these preventions.

Against taking over an aircraft probably but not preventing someone from getting explosives on board.

The individuals were under surveillance and stopped before getting anywhere near airport security barriers.

Heathrow security screening has found explosives in the past not just since 9/11 but when the IRA was their biggest threat. I'm not sure what you are advocating. That there be no passenger screening at all?

They don't really need to invent new ones, one need only apply for a job as a baggage handler to be handed a pass and given access in the same day. Success rate of screening is less than 60%, and no I can't source that, such materials aren't to be released.

Couldn't tell ya but if you can't source a number, why quote it? All I know is that there was a lot more information required the last time I was issued an ID than the previous times, including things like the date and place my mother entered the country when she immigrated from the UK in 1946.

My quesstion to you would be, if it is so easy, why hasn't someone done it?

[Wilber]

You're far more likely to fall victim to mechanical failure than anything else.

You need procedures to deal with mechanical failures, why do you assume you don't need any to deal with people trying to destroy your aircraft.

[Goat Boy©]

,

Edited April 24, 2010 by Goat Boy©

[Born Free]

HEY! Anything that allows one to scan through clothes and see beautiful women in the nude, can't be all that bad.

Soon to be appearing on a You Tube theatre near you...

[Handsome Rob]

Against taking over an aircraft probably but not preventing someone from getting explosives on board.

Heathrow security screening has found explosives in the past not just since 9/11 but when the IRA was their biggest threat. I'm not sure what you are advocating. That there be no passenger screening at all?

Entirely true. I'd agree that some elements of screening are absolutely necessary, but the road we're going down...billion dollar budgets, we have to recognize placebo when we see it or it will never stop.

The full body scanner...it's rather convenient that manufacturers will not release the output power, and we're still studying the effects of such radiation on our bodies. It's entirely possible that such equipment will pose far more danger that what's it's apparently in place to prevent.

Binary explosives(The underwear bomber), full body scanner is useless, none of our technology stands a chance against something like this.

Things like profiling & the further use of trained dogs will do far more to secure aviation than any technology, but our cultural & human rights barriers will never allow it.

Us VS Israel - A place with far more signifgant threats.

The Fifth Estate Does Airport Security

Couldn't tell ya but if you can't source a number, why quote it? All I know is that there was a lot more information required the last time I was issued an ID than the previous times, including things like the date and place my mother entered the country when she immigrated from the UK in 1946.

Oh yeah, they'll background check you. You walk in, fill out an extensive application, 5 years of passed history, addresses, employers, educational institutions....hand the form in and it goes off to Ottawa for extensive background check, but before you leave they print you the pass, and you're given complete access while they run their checks.

My quesstion to you would be, if it is so easy, why hasn't someone done it?

No idea.

You need procedures to deal with mechanical failures, why do you assume you don't need any to deal with people trying to destroy your aircraft.

Completely agree.

[Smallc]

Entirely true. I'd agree that some elements of screening are absolutely necessary, but the road we're going down...billion dollar budgets, we have to recognize placebo when we see it or it will never stop.

Just a bit of a correction - airport security is no longer funded by the taxpayer, but instead by the travellers.

[Handsome Rob]

Just a bit of a correction - airport security is no longer funded by the taxpayer, but instead by the travellers.

http://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/File/Library/9/English/Annual%20Report%202009.pdf

Page 62.