Airplane searches

[andrewducker]

Would anyone be able to find me some figures on how many people are actually _caught_ with weapons at customs?

Because as far as I can tell people are either caught in advance (like the plotters for the recent not-actually-reached-the-attempt-stage attack) or intercepted once on board when they do something obvious (like my clone, Richard Reid).

This being the case, all the increased security at customs does is act as a deterrent for people bringing really blatant things on board. Which doesn't strike me as worth the vast amount of hassle. If airport security were actually finding even the odd person tryng to smuggle sticks of TNT on board then I'd be all for it, but they don't seem to be there for that at all...

Comments

[call-waiting.livejournal.com]

That's 'cause it's not security, but security theatre...

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Heh. What an excellent expression. :)

Freedom lines!

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

Americans are so willing to line up like sheep for hours and to surrender hundreds of dollars of liquid personal care and bottles of spring water to semi-literate former prison inmates hired by the Department of Homeland Defense to paw through their underwear because otherwise THE TERRORISTS WIN! WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF FREEDOM, ANDREW? WHY?

Because, you know, Proactiv skin care can be combined with certain other products which have never been named to make a substance that may or may not actually be flammable that can then, in the event that everyone on the plane is in a coma and has no problem with the bathroom cube being used as a chemistry lab then the results being set aflame in front of them, make a terrible mess in coach. But then again, since no one can carry water on planes anymore, who could put the possibly flammable results out? So it all makes sense. See?

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

Look at the glass box with all the items in it that passengers have left just before going through the security checks, next time you're in an airport.

Do you REALLY think people got that far and then though "Oh, better drop off my commando knives in the box?"

Yeah sure, a few of the cuticle trimmers are for reals, but most of it is just the watchamacallit - like the first few coins a busker will put in his hat to encourage people to give money...

[andrewducker]

It wouldn't surprise me if the occasional person didn't think "I'm not packing my samurai sword in the hold, I'll carry it through to make sure it doesn't get damaged." - but that's because the world is full of idiots.

But I feel sure that not as many as it looks like from the glass box, no.

[oldbaldchris.livejournal.com]

Curiously enough , I did once see someone telling check-in that there was no way he was putting his valuable harpoon gun in the hold , he wanted it as hand luggage. (He was a diver) .This was shortly after Sep 11th and they didn`t let him - but not on security grounds , rather because it was too big.
I work at an airport and I see rank stupidity on both sides most days of the week , however my alltime favourite was last year while escorting one of our freighter captains through security. He set the metal detector off and a quick check revealed the cause to be his penknife , security told him the knife was not allowed as hand luggage. He was in uniform and with crew ID but this made no difference to this particular idiot guard who said he could use it to threaten the pilot or a passenger. The captain explained he was the pilot and it was a freighter so there were no passengers and asked what the guard intended to do with the penknife. The guard sealed it in an envelope and said it would be handed to me (as the ramp agent) to be given to the captain. He then gave it to me , I gave it straight to the captain , we looked at the guard who nodded and opened the barrier to let us through????? What a f**king ass.
This shows the general intelligence level of security and for me goes to prove the old adage "pay peanuts , get monkeys". Happy travels everyone!

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Um, according to Heathrow, lots: they're forever talking about all the stuff that gets let onto departing flights that they pick up at customs on arrival.

[andrewducker]

But if they're finding it after people get off at this end (without the plane being blown up, etc.), doesn't that just reinforce the idea that terrorists are caught by police investigation/surveillance work in advance, not at the point where they try to actually board the plane?

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

I'd be very surprised if there were robust figures about it available to the likes of us ordinary mortals.

If you assumed the utmost good faith in the spooks who are there to protect us, you'd know that they couldn't release the full details of what and who they've foiled successfully, and when and how, simply because it would make their job so much harder and increase the risk. (And that's assuming they take the time and trouble to collect robust data.) So, even with that assumption, you'd be pretty confident that the public information was not the complete picture.

If you had slightly less than total trust in them and the purity of their methods (never mind intentions) ... then you really wouldn't believe a word of what they told you.

[azalemeth.livejournal.com]

I've made trinitrotoluene (Trinitromethylbenzene) in the lab once, albeit in small quantities. It needs to be detonated in order to explode - otherwise it will combust, slowly. It's a nice, stable explosive that is relatively nontoxic and doesn't smell that bad - and it's also liquid and in solution when you make it. Given the current overreaction paranoia, I see no reason why you couldn't literally fill a baby bottle with infant powder, milk, water, and TNT (wash out all the conc. acids first!), drink it happily in front of security staff, have some detonators in your shoes, and go out with a bang in the toilets. I can't honestly think that these measures would stop a dedicated bomber at all (What about wearing a nappy soaked with $EvilStuffThatLetsTheTerroristsWin and claiming to be incontinent?) - but, if they sate the daily mail...

However, they do give the perception of being able to stop the dedicated bomber (and give that perception to other bombers) - which is, I suppose, crucial.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

I agree with you completely. It's a show, put on for the benefit of people who would be too afraid to fly if told that there wasn't a whole lot that security can do against madmen determined to kill them.

[drainboy.livejournal.com]

Has it never occurred to you that people don't try to walk onto planes with guns and explosives strapped to themselves because they know they'll never make it through security?

Could what you're saying be the equivalent of floating in space thinking "I've never heard of anybody in space suffering explosive decompression so I might as well take my space suit off"?

All you need to do is compare the number of hijackings in countries with worse security than us to the number of hijackings of planes originating elsewhere in the world. If you look here then you'll note that not a single one of the recent "well-known" hijackings since 1958 originated in England (one in Dublin but that's as close as it gets).

QED?

[andrewducker]

QED my foot.

You'd have to show that this wasn't just because (until recently) people in the UK didn't want to hijack planes.

Not a single one of those hijackings happened in Belgium, for instance, or Switzerland.

There _may_ be a detterent effect, and I'm not saying we should switch off the x-ray machines. Just that catching them at the airport isn't the most likely way to do it.

And if you note bohemiancoast's comment above, people frequently board UK flights from the other end with all sorts of stuff - and yet they don't get blown up...

[darkoshi]

Last year, my bro and his gf were caught with cigarette lighters in their carry ons. However, that was on their return trip. The other direction, they had them and either security didn't notice or didn't care.