Electronic Devices Carrying Bombs [Archive]

Andy Sjostrom

08-05-2003, 08:22 AM

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/airline.warning.intl/index.html' target='_blank'>http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/08/0...intl/index.html</a><br /><br /></div>CNN's article <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/airline.warning.intl/index.html">"Airline alert over gadget threat"</a> says "U.S. officials are preparing a warning to airlines alerting them to watch out for travelers carrying electronic devices that may be carrying small weapons or bombs". I travel quite frequently, both in Europe and the US. While trying to pack as little as possible, I most often bring my laptop, some Pocket PCs, a Smartphone and accessories. So far, I've been surprised how easy it's been to pass through security checks with all my equipment. I mean, all these devices must look like a total mess on the X-ray machine screens. The article suggests I should expect more attention when travelling.<br /><br />"The hijackers may attempt to use common items carried by travelers, such as cameras, modified as weapons... One airport official, who did not want to be identified, said the new advisory could lead to more delays at checkpoints in the busiest time of the year for airlines. ... The measures under consideration, he said, include "subjecting these individuals and their baggage to far more rigorous screening than ever before." <br /><br />Terrorism is scary so I don't mind more screening if they do to others what they do to me. But it is a nuisance to miss flights because of looooong lines to security checks.

aviator

08-05-2003, 08:43 AM

Newsboy

08-05-2003, 08:52 AM

Contrary to what this article suggests, I would not expect excessive delays because of this policy. I speak from experience, I've flown about 40 times in the past year alone, to and from JFK.

Whenever security finds a PocketPC or laptop in my bag now, they generally tend to pull the bag aside, and rather than search it, they simply run it through the bomb sniffer. A small strip is rubbed against the zippers and surfaces of a bag, put into a machine that detects explosive residue, and scanned for common explosive materials.

The whole process takes less time than it takes me to put my shoes back on and tie them, about 30-60 seconds. I've never experienced an excessive delay because of it, and would much rather be safe than dead, frankly.

Andy Sjostrom

08-05-2003, 09:15 AM

would much rather be safe than dead, frankly.

Frankly, I would to!

ricksfiona

08-05-2003, 09:41 AM

When I usually leave from San Francisco International, I usually have to take my laptop, cellphone and PDA out from my briefcase and put them in a separate plastic bin to be screened. That's it.

Do I mind the screening process? Not really. Do I mind usually being the one they pull from the crowd to be individually searched. Hell yes! I look more Italian than middle-eastern, though I'm neither. I'm not sure why they select me to be searched. Though I've seen them pull out 40'something blonde hair, blue eyed mother of 3 to be individually searched. I don't know what algorithm they are using to pull people out of the boarding line. But then again, those security people have never really impressed me.

Scared about terrorist? Nope. Totally, totally overblown. What happened on September 11th was completely horrible. But there are a ton of other things that can happen to you on a daily basis that get you closer to the death factor and have nothing to do with terrorist. Heck, walking across a busy street..... I'd rather deal with terrorist than walk through any one of the 1/2 dozen neighborhoods I can name in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Let's get real folks.

rhmorrison

08-05-2003, 10:01 AM

I fly regularly to Frankfurt and on departure they very often have me switch my laptop and ipaq on, presumably to confirm that it really is a laptop or pda. This assums though that any mods that a terrorist might make to a real laptop would interfere with the normal operation of the pc so it is not completely sound.I fly frequently out of Frankfurt and find this check to be ridiculous. It might stop a mentally deranged passenger but certainly not a determined terrorist. They only wanted to see the DOS boot sequence and didn't wait for windows to boot. If I was a terrorist I would make a new laptop case out of plastic explosive plus the battery, CD-ROM and insides of the unit and only have a postage stamped sized DOS computer hooked up to the screen and keyboard. Anything other than the sniff/strip test method for determining if explosives are contained within the device are IMHO useless. It's like a locked door, it only keeps the honest people out - NOT a real professional thief.

bjornkeizers

08-05-2003, 10:21 AM

Ed Hansberry

08-05-2003, 12:27 PM

I have to agree that extra checks, while certainly meant well, don't really mean anything in terms of increased safety. If you'd really want to, you could always find a way.
I agree, but the point of safety checks is not to guarantee no weapons make it on board. It is to reduce the chances, just like the locks on your house are there to reduce the chances of you getting robbed. You can add a security system and your chances go down, but not away. You can add a wall, moat and a few guard dogs and your chances go down even more, but not away.

It is good to see the airports adding these dogs, walls and moats. It doesn't mean nothing will happen, but it does mean that guy carrying a camera converted to a stun gun is more likely to be caught since security knows what to look for.

GoldKey

08-05-2003, 12:44 PM

Ed Hansberry

08-05-2003, 12:49 PM

Wouldn't a terrorist just say that the laptop is broken, they are bringing it home to have it repaired. Or just say the battery is dead.
I had this happen to a friend when we were traveling. They made him get his electrical cord out of his bag and find an outlet to prove the battery was dead and the laptop did work. I suspect if he had been unable to do that, it would have escalated the situation to bomb sniffing dogs.

shekondar

08-05-2003, 01:47 PM

I have to agree that extra checks, while certainly meant well, don't really mean anything in terms of increased safety. If you'd really want to, you could always find a way. And if not you.. who's to say the pilots, or cabin crew, or ground crew, or cleaners, or maintenance people aren't up to something. How difficult would it be to put a block C4 somewhere in the fuselage? Landing gear? Cargo? Not that hard, I can tell you. If you're a determined terrorist, you sure as hell would choose a better method then walk through security with a block of C4 strapped to your chest or shoved up a body cavity...
At least here in the US, the majority of all mail is carried on commercial flights -- which means that if you really wanted to blow up a plane, it would be a LOT easier to just stick a bomb in a box, take it to the post office, and tell them to send it by first class/priority (air) mail... Not only would you not have to worry about getting it through security, you've saved the cost of a plane ticket!

GoldKey

08-05-2003, 02:06 PM

shekondar

Just because it is mail does not mean it does not go through the security checks at the airport.

08-05-2003, 02:10 PM

At the moment, most air cargo is never screened at the airport.
The TSA wants to change this, but most airports do not have the equipment to comply and are complaining about the cost.

aroma

08-05-2003, 02:25 PM

The House just recently (in the last few weeks) passed a bill that requires all cargo (mail, etc) carried on passenger planes to be screened.

- Aaron

kaiden.1

08-05-2003, 03:21 PM

I am from Utah. Because the 2002 winter olympics were held in my state, we were granted to have all the fancy electronic equipment that is used to check practically anything before anyone else did. It is nice to be able to get through the check points and not feel like your delayed. I am in and out and on the plane usually within 35 min. Granted the traffic is not as busy as other larger cities, but having things manually checked vs. electronically checked can mean a world of difference in speed. Bags are checked 3 or more times, all electronically, and then randomly checked manually.

I travel a lot too for my job. I have noticed that there are several airports around the country that do not have all the necessary electronic equipment needed to properly check bags etc. This just means longer security lines because everthing has to be manually checked by hand etc. I also think that many airports are not adequately built for having large enough security areas to handle the amount of traffic moving through many of the different airports.

I am glad to have the right security. It is a good thing for sure!

Talyn

08-05-2003, 04:36 PM

Leaving White Plains, NY yesterday was the first time TSA ever cared that I carry a PDA. They had me take it out, along with my phone, and send it through the X-ray separately. No big deal, but I suppose it's all due to the recent terrorist alerts.

And yes, the whole 'random' screening is absurd. I've seen them pick 3 year old kids, and senior citizens in wheelchairs or with walkers, who were physically unable to stand with their arms outstretched. Pure stupidity...

Now if I could just find a nice pair of black shoes with no damn steel shanks...!!!

aroma

08-05-2003, 04:43 PM

Now if I could just find a nice pair of black shoes with no damn steel shanks...!!!

I agree here... When I travel I typically wear low cut hybrid hiking boot type of shoes, and between the metal "eye" holes for the strings and metal shanks, I never can make it through security withought taking them off... :(

whydidnt

08-05-2003, 04:52 PM

I'm a frequent traveler and have never had security ask me to remove my PDA or Cell Phone from my briefcase. If I need to remove more from my bag it will only serve to delay things more. It takes time to remove these things, take off my shoes, jacket, etc. and then repack and get situated. If everyone has to do this it will only make the problem worse.

The biggest problem with airport security today is that it takes a lowest common denominator approach to security, assuming everyone is a potential terrorist, so everyone must go through the same scrutiny. There should be a way to "opt-in" for an annual security screening. People that go through this background check would be able to use an "express" line at the airport that does not routinely require random searches, or the unpacking of packed electronics. In today's world we are devoting 99% of our security resources to people that we KNOW aren't security threats, such as three year olds and 86 year old grandmothers. Lets devote those resources to the real potential threats.

Whydidnt

ctmagnus

08-05-2003, 05:12 PM

There should be a way to "opt-in" for an annual security screening. People that go through this background check would be able to use an "express" line at the airport that does not routinely require random searches, or the unpacking of packed electronics.

Two words: identity theft.

(or retinal scans, which would equate to
big bucks to implement.)

aroma

08-05-2003, 05:29 PM

assuming everyone is a potential terrorist, so everyone must go through the same scrutiny.

Everyone IS a potential terrorist, are they not? Take the increase in school/work shootings over the past few years. In a lot of these cases, most of these people were considered harmless until they walked into work with an shotgun and started mowing people down. Me, I'll take delays for the increased security.

- Aaron

Kati Compton

08-05-2003, 07:01 PM

I don't mind some added delays for security. What I do mind is when some of the security people are just plain rude. I realize it's an important job, but I don't want to feel like they're assuming I'm a criminal until I prove otherwise. I should feel like it's a "just in case" not a "because we know you want to" type of thing. I've encountered security personnel that are still doing their job, but manage to be polite about it. To me, that makes the experience feel much different. Less accusatory.

daS

08-05-2003, 07:08 PM

... the point of safety checks is not to guarantee no weapons make it on board. It is to reduce the chances, just like the locks on your house are there to reduce the chances of you getting robbed. You can add a security system and your chances go down, but not away. You can add a wall, moat and a few guard dogs and your chances go down even more, but not away.

The problem with the current system is that there is no sense of proportion. Why is it that most people lock their homes and cars but don't have moats and private armed guards? It's a matter of diminishing returns and cost. But governments rarely think about such things when the emotion of the public is involved. The current airport security system is an expensive joke. But it makes people feel safer so that's all that matters. Doesn't anyone realize that we are acting as the instrument of the terrorists by disrupting travel and our economy due to the fear of an attack? :| As others here have pointed out, with just a reasonable level of security, I'm far safer flying than driving to and from the airport in LA traffic. :?

Ed Hansberry

08-05-2003, 07:15 PM

But it makes people feel safer so that's all that matters.
Often times that is the point.

daS

08-05-2003, 07:34 PM

Me, I'll take delays for the increased security.

The problem is that we get the delays without the increased security. We have the same rent-a-cops that were paid minimum wage by private security companies now Government employees at greater cost, but not greater quality. We still have guys "accidentally" carrying guns onto planes, and all sorts of other failures of security. But now we get to be publicly molested and made to partially undress (opening belts and unbuttoning pants) in the middle of airport terminals - most often without any privacy provided - because it makes most people think that it increases security. :roll:

Kaber

08-05-2003, 07:59 PM

I just refuse to fly anymore. Its all a huge hassle and none of the increased security makes me feel any safer considering every single security procedure in place on the ground and in the air on 9/11 just magically failed in the perfect order to the benefit of the attackers.

davidspalding

08-05-2003, 09:23 PM

My wife and daughter traveled to California in March, and got a chuckle at the security check. Seems the "tinkle bird" toy (an 8" egg-shaped thing that rocks on its bottom and bells chime inside) looked "exactly like a bomb" on the airport x-ray machine. Security people had a "moment" in which they had to verify beyond any doubt that it was, indeed, a baby's toy.

ctmagnus

08-05-2003, 10:42 PM

Kati Compton

08-05-2003, 11:49 PM

Please let's not turn this into a political discussion at that level.

And for future reference, if you think in advance your post will be moderated, best to tone it back a bit before posting.

maximus

08-06-2003, 12:10 PM

I dont know, maybe I watched too many plane hijacker movies, but I think that the airport personnels (cleaners, waste handlers, gardeners, electricians, etc.) are the people who should be observed more. They have access to the whole airport, and since they work in the airport, they must know an access into the airport that is not covered by security (a hole in a wall, a hole above the roofing, etc.)

whydidnt

08-06-2003, 07:40 PM

Everyone IS a potential terrorist, are they not? Take the increase in school/work shootings over the past few years. - Aaron

On face value this statement is true. However, there are varying degrees of potential. In most cases, if you looked at the background for the school/work shootings we could have or should have seen it coming.

I am not advocating zero security check for those that have been pre-screened. Just a common sense approach to it all. As much as some people seem to want to hate to admit it...there are certain people who are more liekly to be terrorists than others. Those are the people we should be dedicating the largest part of security resouces to, not Joe Flyer who passes through the airport with an overnight bag every single week.

The current system is a tremendous waste of resources and time, regardless of whether or not it makes you feel more secure. You really aren't, you're just more inconvenienced.

Whydidnt

Kati Compton

08-06-2003, 10:04 PM

On face value this statement is true. However, there are varying degrees of potential. In most cases, if you looked at the background for the school/work shootings we could have or should have seen it coming.
I don't know about that. I think if you look back AFTERWARDS you can see hints. But there are many people that could have similar backgrounds that *don't* react the same way - you'd end up with more false predictions than true ones. I mean, most kids I grew up with had the same "warning signs" that school shooters did. But to my knowledge, none of them ever did anything like THAT. I mean, are we going to arrest kids (or adults) anytime they say they hate someone/something?

I mean, how many people here AREN'T/WEREN'T picked on in school?

A lot of this, I feel, is a faulty argument. While it is likely true that all school/work shooters are angry people, not all (or even a large number of) angry people are going to do anything close to that drastic.

And anyway, that type of info would be very difficult to track for security checks. "Driver's license number Xxxx-xx-xxxx, Joe Smith. Wears black. Was beat up and molested as a child. Okay, search him!" Not only would that be a SERIOUS invasion of privacy, but would also be completely impractical to implement.

Jacob

08-06-2003, 10:17 PM

I don't know about that. I think if you look back AFTERWARDS you can see hints. But there are many people that could have similar backgrounds that *don't* react the same way - you'd end up with more false predictions than true ones. I mean, most kids I grew up with had the same "warning signs" that school shooters did. But to my knowledge, none of them ever did anything like THAT. I mean, are we going to arrest kids (or adults) anytime they say they hate someone/something?

I agree.

There also are a lot of people looking at some things that were not valid warning signs.

Like after columbine they banned trench coats. I wore a trench coat in high school and I wasn't gonna do that! That's the same with a number of my friends.

Also, again they linked music to the killings - I'm sorry, but KMFDM and Rammstein did not cause the violent actions.

whydidnt

08-06-2003, 11:17 PM

I can agree that the blanket statement-- we could have or should have seen the shootings coming is probably not accurate in every case. :oops:
I also agree that we need to be careful not to be "thought" police and trample any civil liberties. Just realize that Security and Personal Freedom are two exact opposites and it's very difficult to find a happy middle with these two ideas.

I'm not advocating arresting anyone who doesn't fit the mold, or says they hate someone. However, in the context of this conversation which is airport security, we are really talking about terroristic threats to our security, and subjecting those who have not undergone a recent background check to a more thorough airport screening, while allowing those that have to pass through a less obtrusive screening.

The school and workplace shootings are not random in that they were directed at a specific institutions that the shooters felt harmed them in some way. The airplane hijackings were random in that the other passengers were not known to the hijackers. The hijackers weren't singleing out the passengers on those planes. I find it difficult to beleive that the same people who perpitrated the school/workplace violence would attempt to fly a plane into a building. We need to focus our resources on those that would rather than laying a blanket over everyone.

If you aren't comfortable subjecting yourself to a more thorough background check then you get to wait in the long line.... :wink:

Whydidnt

maximus

08-07-2003, 01:48 AM

I mean, most kids I grew up with had the same "warning signs" that school shooters did. But to my knowledge, none of them ever did anything like THAT. I mean, are we going to arrest kids (or adults) anytime they say they hate someone/something?

Sounds like Minority Reports to me ... The kind of future that I'd rather not live in.

eric linsley

08-07-2003, 04:45 AM

i actualy had my pda checked by security beofre 9-11 to see it it was working.

i think they just wanted to play with it.

in all truth im not surprised they are checking devices.

eric linsley

08-07-2003, 05:10 AM

Warning: This post may offend some readers!

If the moderators feel it needs to be moderated, let that be the case.

...every single security procedure in place on the ground and in the air on 9/11 just magically failed in the perfect order to the benefit of the attackers.

Not to sound rude or un-neighbourly or anything, but do ya think it's a conspiracy? I honestly knew as soon as {political statement removed-eh email me if you have a problem with it.} .

Consiracy? CONSPIRACY?????
then you should the first episode of the Xfile spin off "The Lone Gunmen"

mind you this series came out before the attacks.

http://www.realnews247.com/'lone_gunmen'_series_presaged_911.htm

or for more detail on it.

http://www.xfiles.stylicious.com/lonegunmen/1aeb79.php

Spooky. 0X 8O