?

Log in

No account? Create an account
gwen
gwenix
. ..: .: ..::.: ..:.:.....: ...::: ...::.


April 2011
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

gwen [userpic]
about this airport security...

So, how soon will it be before we can't take any items on board an airplane?

No, seriously. Right now the list is down to.... books, clothes, and laptops/electronics. So the electronics can be obvious about how they can be abused, so that leaves books and clothes. Well, both are flammable, and can be used to make a fire without too much else needed, right?

And does this really help us be more secure?

Now, can I posit this? Liquids are easily tested for what is in them. Why not just put the stuff through tests to determine that they are, in fact, HAND LOTION or WATER. You know, items that are useful when flying on an overly-air-conditioned plane! But, you know, that wouldn't be FEAR enough, nor would it allow the airlines to "supply" you with these products.... for a modest (over-)price.

*shakes head*

Current Mood: cynicalcynical
Comments

Actually- flights out of the UK were only permitted to bring into the cabin their passport, boarding pass, and house key in an airline supplied clear plastic bag. All other items including books, newspapers, purses, etc. were required to be checked.

Gd help the menstruating woman on one of those flights, if it was headed here.

Geez, an 8 hour flight without reading materials. I'd go insane.

The thing is, the UK is likely to lift that back up, because they do. The USA has a more specific list, and is more likely to leave that list in place after the current scare is done. So one by one, we lose the ability to have any items on board, permanently, here.

Yah, sure, that makes sense.

(no subject) - (Anonymous)   Expand  

I figure a couple more incidents like this and we're all flying in the nude. While I'm all for nudity on my own, I'm not sure I'm ready for everyone else's nudity. x_x

yah, I was commenting yesterday at work that soon, they will have every one check in nude, sedate us, then stack people like cordwood.

Secure, cheap, and no crying babies. Problem solved!

erm....

No watches either. Even the batteries in there can be used to trigger a device. The only way to make the skies safe is keep people out of the damn skies! Back to the ground you bastards!

p.s. the grey on grey for the cursor does make it a bit hard to see what you are editing in here.

Hey, my cursor is BLACK, like the GOTH SOUL I AM!

Uhm, I've been meaning to overhaul my LJ look for a while, but I haven't really had time to do so. So, you get to deal with it like this for a while longer. :p

While I'm in completely in favor of complaining about ineffective security (and this certainly falls primarily in that category) I am, at least, a little hopeful that this will be temporary.

Why? Two reasons:

1) They implemented this draconian policy because they weren't 100% certain they caught everyone in the plot, and since they knew the method they were planning on using, they wanted to make sure they kept that method from occuring until they could put in a more viable long-term solution.

2) Chertoff, while not someone I would trust any farther than I could throw him, has stated to the papers that this is a temporary measure until they can get better detection mechanisms in place.


Of course, I'll also note that despite the Bush Administration's insistence that things like the NSA wiretapping, harsh interrogation techniques, and other civil liberty-infringing techniques are all protecting us from terror, this plot was blown open by Pakistani intelligence. Funny how human intelligence still works, but the restriction of freedoms doesn't...

Other people said what I was going to point out, but yeah, I get the sense that this is a temporary measure, until they figure out something better long term (like perhaps implementing the tests you mentioned). You can't really blame them for not having these things on hand. At least they adapted to the threat at hand, and no one got blown up. Also, it sounds like no liquids are getting on the planes at all, at least not at PHL. So it's actually HURTING the businesses past the security checkpoints, not helping them, since no one can buy something to take with them.

I hope so, but my problem is that "temporary" measures in the past have turned permanent.

Puzzled

Why not just put the stuff through tests to determine that they are, in fact, HAND LOTION or WATER.

You aren't seriously saying, test the water bottles, deodorant, shampoo, hand cream, toothpaste et alia et varia, of every passenger's hand luggage on every flight at every airport to see that it's what the label says it is and nothing's been added? Just looking at the stuff causes horrendous delays- adding on site testing would surely be worse? 'Oh dear, I must get off to the airport for my security check, I'm leaving in a week.'

Re: Puzzled

We're already at that level of delays. It honestly wouldn't be any worse than we have now.

I'm not talking about reading ingrediants -- the current panic is assuming that liquids inside normal bottles are being replaced. Just take a sample of the liquid and feed it into the testing setup, see if it passes. That's really no different, time-wise, than where they're at now; which is to search every piece of your luggage and inspect every item one by one.

That was probably the gelled perioxide.

I got stuck here in the uk on my way back from mauritius and the clowns on the BBC were saying that it is ok to fly with nothing, and that "we need to stop relying on technology..." Regarding detecting these sorts of things...

Wtf, sheeple everywhere

You know, I don't care terribly much if I can't bring drinks through security. But AT LEAST LET ME BUY THEM PAST SECURITY!!! I don't like to chew gum, and rely on a drink to help me pop my sensitive ears.

As for anything else...fine, it can get checked...although for short trips this can mean the difference in whether you can go carry-on-only or must check bags.