In our airports, after 9/11, the National Guardsmen kept a respectful distance from the magnetometers. In South America, they're within 5 feet of you as you come through. And they're watching you like a hawk. If you're up to no good, you'd be hard pressed to keep cool.

But I'm always up to good.

(01-07-2010 05:01 PM)texd Wrote:  I must say, going through South American security lines where the metal detectors don't require you to remove the $0.12 from your pocket but where fully armored and armed two Carbineros or Gendarmes are staring you down is likely more effective than Bobbie Jo seeing something as she smacks her bubble gum behind the monitor.

Ab-so-frick-ing-lute-ly.

A couple of basic principles about security.

One, the more different things you do, the better. Two, random application of a particular procedure can be about 98% as effective as universal application, for about 10% of the cost.

We are so intent on providing the same treatment to everyone that we end up patting down 90-year-old grandmas and letting a guy whose father told us he was a threat get on a plane with his crotch stuffed with explosives. When we make it clear that we are going to handle everyone a certain way, the terrorist mind looks at it and figures out how to beat it. Vary what you are doing, on a random basis, and the terrorist has to plan for all of them. The element of uncertainty makes him a bit more jumpy, and easier to spot, while not subjecting everybody to the whole nine yards.

You could easily have a computer print out a random code when it generates your boarding pass, and vary the treatment accordingly. Group A gets this, group B gets that, etc. People on a watch list get all of the above. People on a no fly list don't fly. If you feel that you are repeatedly being singled out unfairly for excessive treatment, give you a legitimate appeals process.

One other principle. Terrorists are going to be easy to recruit, and terrorist activities are going to escalate, as long as we have significant numbers of troops on the ground in the Middle East. And we are going to have significant numbers of troops on the ground in the Middle East as long as our dependence on foreign oil continues. Connect the dots.

(01-08-2010 07:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You could easily have a computer print out a random code when it generates your boarding pass, and vary the treatment accordingly. Group A gets this, group B gets that, etc. People on a watch list get all of the above. People on a no fly list don't fly. If you feel that you are repeatedly being singled out unfairly for excessive treatment, give you a legitimate appeals process.

From my experience and the experience of others, it appears they already do the random code thing, or some variation of flagging people on their boarding pass.

(01-08-2010 07:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A couple of basic principles about security.

One, the more different things you do, the better. Two, random application of a particular procedure can be about 98% as effective as universal application, for about 10% of the cost.

We are so intent on providing the same treatment to everyone that we end up patting down 90-year-old grandmas and letting a guy whose father told us he was a threat get on a plane with his crotch stuffed with explosives. When we make it clear that we are going to handle everyone a certain way, the terrorist mind looks at it and figures out how to beat it. Vary what you are doing, on a random basis, and the terrorist has to plan for all of them. The element of uncertainty makes him a bit more jumpy, and easier to spot, while not subjecting everybody to the whole nine yards.

Sounds a lot like what a football offensive coordinator should be doing: keeping the opponent uncertain and off-balance.

Seems like someone may be paying attention to successes elsewhere. Though I have to wonder, given some of the comments included in the article, whether this is truly just lip service with some move part of the way, but leaving it in a rather ineffectual state, or whether it will move much closer to the Israeli model, but likely generate court challenges on civil liberty grounds?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/23/tsa...tml?hpt=T2

Should be interesting to see how it plays out in the next few years, if it is actually realistic and strongly supported.

Since this thread has been revived, I thought I would share that I went through one of the "we can see your business" scanners in the Tulsa airport earlier this month (thankfully on a slow Saturday afternoon) and I found it to waste even MORE time... and not the kind of time that we'll start to make up as people get used to them.

Now, in addition to removing your shoes, keys, and change, you have to remove ANYTHING from your pockets. Used to be you took metal out of your pockets but your modest belt buckle, folding money you took out of your money clip and kept in your pocket and the pen in your breast pocket were not a problem. Now, apparently, those are all a big problem. Its easier to get an MRI.

On the privacy concerns end of things, I'm happy to say that the image is viewed remotely, although this creates more delay as the screener waits by the walkie talkie before releasing you and bringing the next passenger into the chamber. Anybody want to take bets on how long before a screener in the remote viewing room is fired for inappropriate use of the "naked" images? It's creepy, but will totally happen someday.