Totally comforting news about airport security

[miron721]

I was on a flight, going from SFO to the Toronto airport. I had gone through security, no problems whatsoever. At the very end of the flight, after sleeping through most of it, I realized I had my keys and my ipod in my pocket. I have like 9 keys on my keyring, and a little chain. I also have a little tritium keychain, it glows because it's _radioactive_. I had the keys and ipod in my back pocket, which I didn't check when I went through the metal detector. It didn't go off at all. I still had my belt on too.
So basically, I got about a pound of metal and some radioactive materials through airport security, accidentally. Now what does that say about airport security?

[Jacque]

Well tritium isn't all that radioactive. Plus, it's used in things like compasses, and the quantity you have in that keychain, were probably talking about micrograms.

[miron721]

True, it isn't all that much, but it still is radioactive. And more radioactive than background radiation. There's also the fact that I managed to have a pound of metal on me and not set off the detector.

[Intercept]

I was on a flight, going from SFO to the Toronto airport. I had gone through security, no problems whatsoever. At the very end of the flight, after sleeping through most of it, I realized I had my keys and my ipod in my pocket. I have like 9 keys on my keyring, and a little chain. I also have a little tritium keychain, it glows because it's _radioactive_. I had the keys and ipod in my back pocket, which I didn't check when I went through the metal detector. It didn't go off at all. I still had my belt on too.
So basically, I got about a pound of metal and some radioactive materials through airport security, accidentally. Now what does that say about airport security?

Tritium!? Dear god, keep Doctor Octopus away from that stuff!

Seriously, That was quite a lot of metal and something that should have still alerted security that you got through ON ACCIDENT. If it was your goal I'm sure it wouldn't be much harder.

[Sir_Elderberry]

Airport security, I've always thought, is there mostly for the public's peace of mind. I know that sounds conspiracy theorists (zomg it's to keep you complacent) but honestly, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to circumvent, but they can't be seen doing nothing.

[miron721]

Honestly, I don't think any of their machines still work. Last year, I had a multi-tool thing (pliers, wirecutters, 2 saws and a knife) in my bag and it went through the machine and didn't alert anyone. And now, my laptop dies and I have no more internet for a while.

[Cheese]

...while sitting in the departure lounge at Edinburgh Airport a few weeks ago waiting for my flight to be called (as it was delayed by four hours or so), I came up with a fairly good example of how airport security is a farce:

The WHSmith shop sold both Diet Coke and Mentos. Most people are now aware of the fact that combining the two can make a the coke bottle explode, if you're quick...

The Duty Free shops were trying as hard as they could to sell Genuine Scottish Whisky^TM to all those tourists who were about to leave the country. In glass bottles. Many of which had screw caps, others were corked.

It wouldn't be too difficult to go to an airport toilet, empty out the whisky, and fill the bottle with coke... then on the plane, add mentos, quickly get the cap on, and get an instant glass bomb, capable of taking out several passengers on the plane.

There's not much point in the removal of all semi-sharp items (including table knives and umbrellas) from people at security (or even letting them walk straight through with their radioactive keychains) if they can buy a make-a-bomb-kit two minutes later...

[trvce]

tritium actually cannot be detected the traditional methods. you actually have to do a "wipe test" in which you physically wipe the contaminated item, then perform fluorography to determine how much is there.

[pkuky]

and if that isn't enough to worry you, my brother got a whole set of fireworks through at zurich.

[Torvaun]

My grandfather got a rifle cartridge through. Protip: Just because the wand gets set off by a metal suspenders buckle, that doesn't mean there isn't anything in the shirt pocket behind it.

[Endless Mike]

...while sitting in the departure lounge at Edinburgh Airport a few weeks ago waiting for my flight to be called (as it was delayed by four hours or so), I came up with a fairly good example of how airport security is a farce:

The WHSmith shop sold both Diet Coke and Mentos. Most people are now aware of the fact that combining the two can make a the coke bottle explode, if you're quick...

The Duty Free shops were trying as hard as they could to sell Genuine Scottish Whisky^TM to all those tourists who were about to leave the country. In glass bottles. Many of which had screw caps, others were corked.

It wouldn't be too difficult to go to an airport toilet, empty out the whisky, and fill the bottle with coke... then on the plane, add mentos, quickly get the cap on, and get an instant glass bomb, capable of taking out several passengers on the plane.

There's not much point in the removal of all semi-sharp items (including table knives and umbrellas) from people at security (or even letting them walk straight through with their radioactive keychains) if they can buy a make-a-bomb-kit two minutes later...

Which do you genuinely believe will occur first: the screw cap or cork will come off the bottle, or the whole bottle will explode? I'd put my bets on the cap, having seen it happen plenty of times even when torqued to a specific spec and wrapped in tape.

[MoonBuggy]

You can't really fault them on not picking up one of those tritium keyrings - if there was actually any radiation penetrating the plastic casing I'd be a little dubious about carrying it around in my pocket every day, so really it's no different to an inert plastic tube in the eyes of a detector.

I don't think the whole 'Coke and Mentos bomb' idea is remotely viable, but I have always said that if they actually cared about blades, they wouldn't let you on with glass. There's no real difficulty in making a very serviceable hand-held weapon from a glass bottle, should you wish to do so. Certainly a lot more dangerous than nail clippers and whatever other crap they take out - to an extent I'm sure there are people in security who are (or believe they are) helping to keep us safe, but I'm sure there will have been a few meetings about 'public perception' and how taking out even innocuous items like that will help to give us the impression that they're being really thorough.

[Galen]

At Heathrow now they have this "biometric" security measure and by biometric I mean they take your picture on a logitech webcam and when you get to the SECOND security checkpoint they make sure you still match your picture.

"Uh sir, we can't let you through as it appears you've sprouted a pair of breasts since you went through our X-Rays."

I couldn't get them to tell me how that makes us any more secure. No one past security could possibly have weapons so who cares which person boards which airplane? Any ideas?

On the day I went through a little old lady was turned back at the second security checkpoint because her picture hadn't been taken. I insisted they drive her back to the first checkpoint so she didn't miss her flight at which point they ignored me and then tersely told me "We're handling this!" Clearly, sir, clearly.

Of course, the absence of her picture means either:

a) They let a little old lady sneak through security (SECURITY BREACH!!! CLEAR THE TERMINAL!!! AHHH!!!)
b) They lost her picture and then made her miss her flight (Bitches.)
c) She's invisible to cameras.

I'm still a bit irrationally angry about the debacle.
Mostly that there's no avenue for installing intelligent security in airports.
Our taxes pay idiots to inconvenience us.

[sparkyb]

c) She's invisible to cameras.

Finally, some airport security doing its job. I don't want no damn vampires on my flight.

Seriously, though, here's my position on airport security (and most security for that matter). It is not possible to make things totally safe. For every item you ban, a dedicated terrorist can come up with a new way to do damage if so inclined. Acting as if we can stop them only serves as a challenge for them to try to prove us wrong. I don't think airport security significantly lowers my risk of being blow up by some nutjob, but it does significantly increase my inconvenience and desire to become said nutjob and take it out on airport security. I would rather have flying be convenient and live with the risks.

Take for some well known changes. Someone tries to blow up his shoe, we scan the shoes, someone tries to bring explosives in water bottles, we ban the fluids. First of all, notice that both of these attempts *failed* because our other methods of catching people who want to do this work, so why do we need these restrictions? Secondly, every time something in banned, something new is found. I'm tired of these reactionary half-measures. Either realize that the only way for us to be safe is to require everyone to fly completely naked and without any personal items (which I would happily agree to just to see it actually happen) or stop harassing us innocent folks, disrupting my like way more than any terrorist ever has.

[Nebuduck]

I think that airport security is meant to catch the unplanned attempts - someone bringing a gun on board, for example (I'm not saying that it's effective at doing this, just that this is it's intended purpose). Things like the shoe-bombing require forethought and planning. Which makes it easier to catch with other methods.

You'll never be able to pre-emptively catch some nut who wakes up one morning and thinks "I know what I'll do today! I'll shoot a load of people on a plane." That's what the metal detectors are for. Equally, no level of scanning will be able to detect everything that could be used to disrupt a flight, but getting the thing to avoid the scanning requires planning. Something that can be pre-emptively detected.

But yes, security does suck. Thank god the world isn't so full of people trying to blow us up as our governments want us to think it is.

[crazyjimbo]

My cousin took a tazer on board an plane once, totally by accident. She forgot it was still in her bag and made it all the way to her destination before she realised. Scary.

I'm torn between wanting to agree that airport security is more to appease to the public than to catch 'bad guys', and also appreciating that I have seen no figures on how many, if any, these measures actually catch. I figure if they catch any that we don't hear about, then they are doing a good job since we would sure hear about if it they didn't get caught and set of their bomb/gun/flock of chickens on the plane.

I don't really find airport security that much of an inconvenience, it's only a matter of chucking the stuff from your pockets into a tray. I guess the waiting can be a bit of a bummer, but does it matter if you wait in the line or at your gate? Travel sucks, there's no real alternative.

[EdgarJPublius]

Airport security, I've always thought, is there mostly for the public's peace of mind. I know that sounds conspiracy theorists (zomg it's to keep you complacent) but honestly, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to circumvent, but they can't be seen doing nothing.

You are correct Sir!

Well, that and to stop the grade F terrorists that are too incompetent to get caught any other way, and to catch drug mules and other smugglers.

If a real, skilled, intelligent terrorist gets on your plane with the intent to blow it up or hijack it, security has failed long before the airport got involved and it's a good thing we have air marshals.

[lowbart]

I heard an unsubstantiated rumor that they turn down the sensitivity on the metal detectors when the airport gets really busy, to reduce delays. Anyone know about that?

[MoonBuggy]

You'll never be able to pre-emptively catch some nut who wakes up one morning and thinks "I know what I'll do today! I'll shoot a load of people on a plane." That's what the metal detectors are for.

Even with this argument, the fact they let you on with glass really really bugs me*. OK, it's not nearly as bad as a gun, but it's still pretty unpleasant if you want it to be, and much easier to find on a spur of the moment impulse.


*Not because I'm actually scared of being attacked by someone with a broken bottle on a plane, but because it calls into question the other aspects of the security process.

[Galen]

My cousin took a tazer on board an plane once, totally by accident. She forgot it was still in her bag and made it all the way to her destination before she realised. Scary.

Of course, tazers being less-than-lethal weapons, why shouldn't they be allowed on the plane? We let people take pens and we all know the damage law enforcement (in the form of Jason Bourne) can do with those.

[clintonius]

My cousin took a tazer on board an plane once, totally by accident. She forgot it was still in her bag and made it all the way to her destination before she realised. Scary.

Of course, tazers being less-than-lethal weapons, why shouldn't they be allowed on the plane? We let people take pens and we all know the damage law enforcement (in the form of Jason Bourne) THE JOKER can do with those.

Fix'd

[Sir_Elderberry]

If the Joker tries to get on a plane, everyone at that airport should know they're screwed anyway.

Take for some well known changes. Someone tries to blow up his shoe, we scan the shoes, someone tries to bring explosives in water bottles, we ban the fluids. First of all, notice that both of these attempts *failed* because our other methods of catching people who want to do this work, so why do we need these restrictions? Secondly, every time something in banned, something new is found. I'm tired of these reactionary half-measures. Either realize that the only way for us to be safe is to require everyone to fly completely naked and without any personal items (which I would happily agree to just to see it actually happen) or stop harassing us innocent folks, disrupting my like way more than any terrorist ever has.

I've always thought that one day, there will be a terrorist who manages to make breast implants out of plastic explosives. I don't know what they'll do at that point.

[crazyjimbo]

Of course, tazers being less-than-lethal weapons, why shouldn't they be allowed on the plane? We let people take pens pencils and we all know the damage law enforcement (in the form of Jason Bourne) THE JOKER can do with those.

Fix'd

<-- Pedantic Poster is Pedantic.

[space_raptor]

I'd just like to point out that in no way is the amount of tritium in your keychain or watch a threat to anything at all. Just because something is "radioactive" that doesn't mean it's going to do anything to anybody.

[clintonius]

<-- Pedantic Poster is Pedantic.

I thought about it, but I felt it took some of the emphasis off of "The Joker," and was a tad picky besides (as you've noted). It's not as if the dude couldnt have done the exact same thing with a Bic. Or probably a fucking chopstick, for that matter.

[crazyjimbo]

<-- Pedantic Poster is Pedantic.

I thought about it, but I felt it took some of the emphasis off of "The Joker," and was a tad picky besides (as you've noted). It's not as if the dude couldnt have done the exact same thing with a Bic. Or probably a fucking chopstick, for that matter.

Fair enough, pedantry rescinded.

On googling for whether tasers were allowed on a plane, I came across 'Want some torture with your peanuts?'.

This bracelet would [...] shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes.

[clintonius]

I suggest that you start a topic about that over in N&A, 'cause it's interesting and scary as shit.

['; DROP DATABASE;--]

Either realize that the only way for us to be safe is to require everyone to fly completely naked and without any personal items (which I would happily agree to just to see it actually happen) or stop harassing us innocent folks, disrupting my like way more than any terrorist ever has.

That would be awesome, but I'd still want to bring my laptop.

I've known airport security was a load ever since I took a GBA through. They made me turn it on, and when it showed the Nintendo logo, it was good. Obviously, if the Game Boy works, the cartridges are all safe (and I had some weird shit; Codebreaker, GB Camera+Printer, big save backup thingy). Couldn't build a bomb into one of those that goes off when power is applied to it, no siree. This is even worse with laptops, I mean, you turn it on and show them the BIOS password prompt and it's OK. The amount of hardware you'd need to make a "fake" laptop, that just shows a password prompt when turned on, is quite minimal, and the rest could just be packed with C4 or a bunch of unstable Li-Ion batteries or something. Push that button there and kaboom.

tl;dr: Airport security is like a half-assed duck test. Visually resembles a duck? Must be a duck.

*waves to the FBI who now must be watching, if they weren't already*

And no, "I'd still want to bring my laptop" and "a laptop could easily be a bomb" are not related. I'm not sacrificing a perfectly good laptop.

[saxything43]

My mom, an avid gardener, managed to get a six-inch saw blade on the plane in her purse. She had taken it off of the handle to buy a new one and replace it, but never actually made it to the hardware store, so it just glided with us all the way to Boston from San Fran.

[ParanoidAndroid]

And here I was thinking this morning that airport security is going way overboard. Airport security now reserves the right to seize and search laptops, flash drives, iPods, and anything else capable of storing data, including books. They can search confidential business They can hold these items indefinitely.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/02/11/laptop.searches/index.html

The Customs and Border Protection defends the searches, saying the agency does not need to show probable cause to look inside suitcases or laptops...

"We have broad search authority at the borders to determine admissibility and look for anything that may be in violation of criminal law," says agency spokeswoman Lynn Hollinger.

"You forgo your right to privacy when you are seeking admission into the country," he says. "This is the kind of scrutiny the American public expects."

I agree with these guys:

"Our position is there should be some suspicion of wrongdoing before the government can search your sensitive personal information at the border."

Georgetown University Law Center professor David Cole says he agrees.

"We don't allow the government to come into people's homes at will without any probable cause, without any basis for suspicion," he says. "Why should we let them get into people's computers just because they happen to be traveling across the border?"

The Patriot Act was bad enough.

[kgirlfae]

I had a friend a few years back who worked for TSA. As she put it, "If you don't like the restrictions, it is voluntary to fly, and you can just deal with it"

She also admitted that most of the restrictions were "peace of mind" restrictions.

But some of the stories she'd tell about people trying to sneak stuff through were interesting. What they really look for are behaviors. If you're acting nervous because of that giant tube of toothpaste you just had to duct(duck/otter)tape to your ankle because the gels restrictions were too tough, then they're going to pull you to the side and odds are they'll discover the "illegal" toothpaste.

But if you accidentally forget something like the pocket knife on your keychain, you're not going to look nervous so odds are they're not looking at you that closely.

Until they start full-body x-rays for passengers coming on the planes they really have no way to catch some of what slips through. But they have to draw a line between being reasonably safe, and having it take an hour just to get through security. Even if they're a government agency, they don't have jobs if people stop flying, so there is a level of 'customer service' that takes place at security.

Really, what I learned from having her as a friend is that we're as safe as we can honestly be. There is a little bit of loss of privacy when you go through security, because as I noted before, it is a voluntary thing to fly. If you have a job that makes you fly, you could go get a different job and not fly just as easily (in their minds). But they caught a lot of things that would never make the news, but that were threats nonetheless. Almost daily they would find people trying to sneak guns on board, or knives. So those things don't hit the news, because they're that commonplace. Just because it isn't publicized, people assume that no one is getting caught.

[pkuky]

you know, saying "it's volantary to fly" is a bit stupid. I mean, it is at the moment the only effective way to travel long distance, so it's pretty much, you can't go anywhere unless you obey us.
and the security meures would make any terrorist nervous too. I mean, he might get the improvised weapon through or whatever due to security failing, but then he also may not. imagine you intended to get something illigal past airport security. it's a daunting prospest. it probably deterrs more people then it catches,

[AngrySquirrel]

I managed to unintentionally bring a pretty big knife (not the type you can fit on a keychain, I'm talking the type that is just a little bit away from being a manchete) with me from Roma-Copenhagen-Oslo, but they did take away my cheese :<
They were also both in my backpack (I was in a rush when packing okey).

[Endless Mike]

And here I was thinking this morning that airport security is going way overboard. Airport security now reserves the right to seize and search laptops, flash drives, iPods, and anything else capable of storing data, including books. They can search confidential business They can hold these items indefinitely.

That's Customs, not TSA. It only applies to those entering from another country, not domestic flights.

you know, saying "it's volantary to fly" is a bit stupid. I mean, it is at the moment the only effective way to travel long distance, so it's pretty much, you can't go anywhere unless you obey us.

Drive, rail, boat. There's plenty of effective ways to travel long distances. I think the word you're looking for is "fast" or possibly "efficient." Unless you HAVE to be somewhere tomorrow, you don't have to fly.

It's also worth noting that a LOT of the banned substances aren't even TSA or FAA's fault. It's simply them enforcing regulations that existed prior to 9/11.

[Poochy]

I had a friend a few years back who worked for TSA. As she put it, "If you don't like the restrictions, it is voluntary to fly, and you can just deal with it"

Okay, sure, the next time I return from Japan, I'll just drive my car OVER THE PACIFIC OCEAN.

Or sure, I could take a boat. Just tell my school and professors to excuse me for being absent for six weeks.

[LE4dGOLEM]

Hands up people who want to get a boat across the Atlantic.

[Macbi]

I once noticed halfway through a flight that I had a pen-knife in my bag.

I've always wanted to give two teams £100 and see who can make the most effective wepon out of stuff that they can buy and assemble at an airport.

[doc leech]

Hands up people who want to get a boat across the Atlantic.

*raises hand* That would be keen!

Though I love planes, too. Also, I'd wear the bracelet in a second. I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I think it sounds like a great idea. Gets my stamp of approval.

[Endless Mike]

Hands up people who want to get a boat across the Atlantic.

This may come as a surprise to you, but before airplanes existed, people did this all the time! Like I said, it's neither fast nor efficient, but it's a perfectly effective way to cross an ocean. Ignoring that, crossing said ocean is more often than not, similarly a choice. Unless you're going for business travel you do not ever HAVE to cross the ocean.

[sparkyb]

But they have to draw a line between being reasonably safe, and having it take an hour just to get through security.

Yes, I agree, however they've drawn the line too far towards the safety side and too far from the convenient side IMO. Getting rid of a lot of that purely peace of mind crap would do wonders for the time it takes to get through airport security.

Even if they're a government agency, they don't have jobs if people stop flying, so there is a level of 'customer service' that takes place at security.

This should be true, but isn't, and that's my biggest problem. The thing that infuriates me about airports is this. I have to fly for my job. I like to think of myself as a professional and try to conduct myself that way. If nothing else I want my clients to feel good about the way I treated them. Airport employees (TSA, gate agents, ticketing agents, lost baggage office employees, airport security...) are collectively the rudest, least helpful, bad attitude group of people with the worst customer service I've ever seen. As a professional I work really hard to be the best (ok, well at least good) at what I do and I like to choose people to work with and for who are similarly good in their fields. So it is very frustrating that in the course of business I have no choice to deal with this large group of people who is quite the opposite and far too often even cause me problems that make me look worse in my clients' eyes (like being late, losing equipment, etc).

There is a little bit of loss of privacy when you go through security, because as I noted before, it is a voluntary thing to fly. If you have a job that makes you fly, you could go get a different job and not fly just as easily (in their minds).

I hope you already regret saying this because I'm sure you know how dumb this sounds. Yes there are trade-offs with every decision in life. If not flying were really an option, I know tons of people who would have picked it by now. But currently, as bad as it is, it is still not yet worse than the alternative (long, slow trips, not getting to visit family/friends/vacation, a less desirable job). That doesn't mean it doesn't suck. How do you encourage change in a product that you can't afford to boycott? So you think that airports and airlines should just continue to increase how much they inconvenience people as long as they can without getting people to stop flying? What about a company actually trying to improve customer service and public perception. That'd be nice for a change. Not flying shouldn't be my other option. What I want is the hassle-free airline which admits it is less safe (make me sign a waiver, I don't care) but has far less airport security to pass through and is much more convenient. I know that will never happen, government regulations and all, but it is truly what I want.

It's also worth noting that a LOT of the banned substances aren't even TSA or FAA's fault. It's simply them enforcing regulations that existed prior to 9/11.^{[citation needed]}

Not true. Before 9/11 I used to always carry my multitool onto the plane. I wasn't sure that something with such a large knife would be allowed so I looked up the regulations and a knife with a blade up to 4 inches (just about what mine had) was allowed.