Should Airports Use "Smart Screening"?

[Slantwire]

Originally Posted by nmap

Perhaps part of this is the low-priced ticket model that seems to be in place within the U.S. I cannot help but wonder how the cost of the Israeli model would compare with the current U.S. approach.

If we combined excellent (albeit expensive) security along with a few amenities to make the travel experience more pleasant, we might find that travelers were delighted to make the switch.

Given the cost of the deploying the new scanning equipment du jour nationwide every time someone makes an attempt, I wonder if the Israeli approach is, in fact, more expensive.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by armymom1228

CNN had a vid short on exactly the profiling and procedues to fly out of Israel.
The several levels of security one must get through to fly. It is efficient, to the point, and works. They do profile and they like to talk directly to you, focus on you. Not your shoes, liquids or undies. I like that model and think it should be implemented here in the States. Quite obviously our model involves heavily on reaction rather than proaction. It also is not working, time to look at what does work.

I would, however, like to see a cost comparison analysis of the Israeli vs US current methods of airport security. I bet the Israeli method, over time, is cheaper.

AM

I have to agree with AM,In the long run,I'd bet the Israeli way is better.............

Big Teddy

[Richard]

Based upon my experiences with the TSA, the term 'smart screening' sounds like an update of that most famous of misnomers - 'military intelligence.'

Richard's jaded $.02

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by armymom1228

Is the risk lower? Or are we just deluding ourselves?

I am not in a position to know with any certainty that millimeter-wave screening devices would improve security. I was just pointing out that we do not in fact have a specific right to privacy that would be violated by their use.

One can argue that the scans amount to an unreasonable search; but as others have mentioned we don't have a constitutional right to fly. When I fly now, I am compelled to agree to a search of my belongings that I would not submit to in a routine traffic stop with no probable cause. Constitutional rights are not in jeopardy on this issue.

Again I think we are all in favor of effectively minimizing the jihadist opportunity to perpetrate violence via air travel.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Again I think we are all in favor of effectively minimizing the jihadist opportunity to perpetrate violence via air travel.

If I may quibble a bit...

Do we want to minimize it, or do we want some (supposedly) optimal balance of cost, inconvenience, and risk, or do we want something else?

To minimize the risk is simple enough. Drug the passengers into an unconscious state. Stack the naked bodies in racks. Fly them to a destination. Unload them. Let them dress when they awaken. Clearly, that won't fly (pun intended).

We could use a proved, effective system - as done by El Al. But we don't because of cost.

Perhaps our real problem is that we haven't defined what we want very well, so we aren't generating concise answers. Instead, we're going after gardeners who have jars of honey.

[Richard]

We could use a proved, effective system - as done by El Al. But we don't because of cost.

I'm not sure of the validity of your reasoning here - (1) the complexity and logistics of the issue for us goes beyond mere cost and (2) the appearance of effectiveness by El Al at this point may be due entirely to the perceived level of difficulty and target value in attacking it vs the many less secure carriers.

I would imagine all that would change if the security measures were or were perceived as being equal.

Richard's $.02

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Richard

I'm not sure of the validity of your reasoning here

You make some good points. Still, I have the impression that maximization of security is not really the sole objective. Perhaps it is not even the highest priority. And I cannot help wondering about the efficacy of a system that panics when a gardener attempts to bring some honey on board. Or when a person walks around the security line, thus shutting down an entire airport.

I recall what flying used to be like. One purchased a ticket, got on the airplane, and had a comfortable ride. The airline personnel were nice. The snacks and in-flight meals were, frankly, pretty good. Then came deregulation, and with it cheap tickets. On the one hand, flying became inexpensive and widely available - but there was a price to be paid. The flying experience became steadily worse. The present situation seems to be a culmination of a bad trend.

As matters stand, the passengers get to be electronically strip searched, patted down, inspected, searched, taken aside for special screening, questioned, and so on and so forth into the night. People pay for this? And it gets worse. In other conversations on this forum, it appears that people with TS clearances, people who have literally been personally responsible for the security of our country, are treated to the same indignities. The elderly wheel-chair bound wives of such people have, likewise, been the target of such ill-treatment. The existing security system seems profoundly dysfunctional. Of course, my perceptions may be flawed. It wouldn't be the first time.

I don't claim to know the answer. I'm sure many here have a deeper understanding of security than do I. But it seems to me that there is likely to be a better solution than the current approach. MOO, YMMV.

[ChickenMcFuggit]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/05...own/index.html

[Pete]

So when is viewing children considered safty and when is it considered porn?

So your 14 year old curvey daughter steps through the new body screening area and the beer belly donut eating TSA guard smiles and nods? "Ah, Miss, could you back up a minute. Now turn around slowly."

[Richard]

And so it goes...

Richard's jaded $.02

[G]

Originally Posted by Richard

FWIW - the Israeli model came into existance when it became evident that the Israeli's could trust nobody to look our for their safety/self-interests and their government made the decision to protect their interests no matter the cost. To that end, El Al does the following:

• Their aircraft have specific modifications
• Their agents (world-wide) and crews are Israeli
• Their aircraft are only serviced by Israelis
• Their security personnel (world-wide) are entirely Israeli
• Their citizens and equipment all have military obligations

Expensive - but - a must from their point-of-view.

שלום לכל המבקשים אותו

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

A few reasons why no one else is trusted:

Attack on El Al Check-In, Vienna Airport 27 December 1985 - Even though the airport was full of police and a CT team, not one round was fired by Austrian Police etc. Israeli ground security grabbed magazines from stunned Austrian Police Officers for their Browning P35's when they ran short of ammo. I recall seeing news footage of an Austrian cop recounting how he lay on his police dog "to protect it"

Attack on El Al Check-In, Rome Airport 27 December 1985 - Italian Airport Police open fire indiscriminately with smg's in response to the attack and cause many casualties.

Attack on El Al Check-In, LAX 4 July 2002 - Not one round fired by LAPD / LAX Police - El Al air marshall works his way through the crowd heading to the sound of shooting; neutralises attacker.

Take Care

G

[Richard]

Unforeseen consequences of 'smart screening'...apparently it's not only the small hat sizes which are a problem with TSA screeners.

For Airport Security, Size Matters
Cops: New high-tech screener triggered fight over manhood insult

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...06101tsa1.html

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02