Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: No intention of playing fair
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
George R. R. Martin demonstrates his membership in that portion of America that has not, in fact, gone stark raving mad:
Step by step, year by year, the TSA and its predecessors have taken away more and more of our freedoms, subjecting millions of perfectly innocent travellers to searches and interrogations and other hassles in the vague hope of catching hijackers (in the old days) and terrorists (these days). Even if it worked, the price would be too high, but of course it does not work. It has never worked.
The mindrot that leads to where we are is on full display in one of the comments to George’s post, where someone writes “I think it’s ironic that people say that these security measures aren’t helping, after a terrorist plot is thwarted.” As if the British had caught these guys by confiscating their toothpaste at Heathrow. In fact, from what we’re told, it appears this plot was rolled up by the traditional method, which is to say, weeks and months of hard slogging police work. And yet somehow this means the rest of us now have to submit to yet another expansion of intrusive, degrading security theater. Here’s a clue: the intrusiveness, the degradation, are the point. That hopelessness you feel? It’s what your rulers want.
Amen.
Here's a suggestion on how to cope with the problem of security. (As I note in the comments, I'd actually seen this advanced previously, and it's still a fine idea.)
This morning, I was chatting with one of my co-workers who's a Republican and she too agreed that airport security is BS that's out there to make it look like Something Is Being Done. Now, if only one of our elected officals had the guts to say so...
Now, don't be silly Bruce.
Flying naked would get the seats funky.
When you order a ticket, you'll get in the mail a baggy, translucent disposable garment with a drop-down seat (for speeding up cavity searches) and a pocket to carry cash for in-flight purchases of Certified Nonexplosive (tm) bottled water and headphones.
God forbid if you don't arrive in the airport wearing it.
A Democrat is a Republican who's been cavity searched?
I'm sorry I wasn't short airline stock, especially the British carriers, who are just going to die.
I've already seen plans of several people to cancel flights to or from Britain; those who have to travel may be flying via France and taking the train.
The survival (1-theft+destruction) rate of laptops in checked luggage can't be very good.
Look at it this way -- what better way of keeping the masses in their place than making sure they stay in their place? If it becomes a tremendous hassle to travel, then people won't, and without too much fuss freedom to travel outside your own country will slowly wither away.
Of course, since this will also break long-distance ties of friendship and kinship -- or, at any rate, make them harder to maintain except by email and phone -- this will contribute to isolating individuals from each other, thus making each of us more vulnerable to pressure from corporations and the state.
I write this with some bitterness. I was in England earlier this summer (for a conference) which gave me the chance to see my younger brother, his wife, and my lovely nieces, as well as a cousin I hadn't seen in thirty years and two old friends from my undergrad days. When, I wonder, will I be able to see them again?
Stefan: Paper gowns, a la hospital gowns, distributed after stripping and passing through soi-disant security. (I imagine all clothing would be gate-checked, just as one can do with particularly delicate or necessary stuff like guitars and strollers.
As someone over at LJ said, let the first-class passengers have ones that actually fasten shut :-)
let the first-class passengers have ones that actually fasten shut
Actually, TSA is using our tax money to arrange preferential treatment for 'pre-cleared' (read: rich) passengers.
Because they don't want the rich to have to suffer the indignities that ordinary Americans are subjected to.
Am I the only one whose first thought was to wonder whether the terrorists even exist?
BoingBoing provides ample proof that the point certainly has nothing at all to do with the presumed threat posed by the suddenly suspect liquids.
I see Fragano's mind follows similar circuits to mine. All I could think was this means less people flying.
What's going to happen to people who need various liquids, like medications? Can people who are anaphylactic fly? Are they allowed to carry their emergency epinephrine needles?
Being that you can turn almost any innocent item into a weapon or part of a weapon, what are the airlines gonna ban next?
I'm afraid to fly, myself, but for purely illogical reasons. (I'm afraid the statistics are out to get me--after all, somebody has to be one.) I keep flying because I can't imagine a life of being too scared to go anywhere, where the possibility of visiting the rest of the world could be denied to me. Because I can see my mind locking myself down to my own continent first, then my own state, then my hometown, because of all the thigns that could possibly happen to me and the statistics attached to them. I refuse to let my own mind scare me to death, and I REALLY hate the idea that my own government wants to collude with the tiny dark corners of my brain. I hate the idea that the TSA and our government insist on feeding us a steady diet of fear, fear, and more fear. (Fear, it's what's for dinner.)
Kip: Great link....and good question.
As I commented elsewhere: How much will you bet that a ban on passengers carrying electronic gear is followed in fairly short order by a hefty surcharge on in-flight entertainment?
Kip, I agree with Piscusfiche -- good link. Either there is really no chance that any of the liquids are dangerous, which makes the whole thing a bit ludicrous, or you really don't want to get too near to those receptacles. Considering the mixture brewing inside, I think keeping away from them is just a good idea in general
According to the TSA, only liquids and gels are being banned on flights in the US, with baby formula/breast milk, prescription drugs, and essential non-prescription drugs such as insulin excepted. No ban on electronics, at least at this point. Checking around the site and some other sources, it looks like the attention is concentrated on the flights to and from the UK -- extra air marshals and enhanced measures for those routes.
Remember Jim M.'s recent article on Heat Stress? Hydration is critical. Dehydration isn't just discomfort.
The TSA / DHS were the only people who knew ahead of time that carry-on water would be banned today. They therefore had the responsibility to plan for everyone else - everyone for whom water is necessary to health- how to ensure a good water supply on planes.
Security emergencies can affect comfort and money. But decisions and rules can't be made without thinking of health effects. Today, though, airlines weren't allowed to add extra water, nor could passengers buy water at the gate.
Emergency planning ought not to forget about water.
I'm considering bumper stickers that say 'Vote for Sanity - Vote Democratic'.
I heard the UK government informed the US government about this security operation two weeks ago. 'Ooh, shiny!'
Claude Muncey: No ban on electronics, at least at this point.
Tell that to my co-worker's wife who was forced to check her laptop for a flight from Boston to Seattle (today, JetBlue's only flight from Logan to SeaTac). And she was supposed to be doing a final on the plane.
I'm sure they'll start banning electronic devices once they realize that it's not to hard to stuff explosives in them and that they have a (gasp) battery.
This whole thing is absurd. I too can't shake the feeling that the timing on this doesn't pass the sniff test, and that the outright ban on all liquids (including those purchased after the security inspection) is nothing but hype.
How many weeks until the midterm election?
Can anyone think of any terrorist plots that have actually been foiled by airline security? Starting from 9/11:
* 9/11 itself -- Not foiled. Or if you think of UA93 as a foiling, 25% foiled, and that by the passengers, not security.
* Panicked passenger on AA1238, 9 Oct 2001 -- Not an actual terrorist, tackled by crew and passengers.
* The shoe bomber on AA63, 22 Dec 2001 -- Foiled by crew and passengers.
* AA924 shooting, 7 Dec 2005 -- Not an actual terrorist, innocent man killed by airport security.
* Today's plot -- Foiled by police work, never got near airports.
Any more? Any actual successes of TSA?
Steve, they already try to turn a laptop on under the assumption that if it boots, there's not enough room to cram in explosives. I've had to accompany security while they hunt for a free receptacle because I had run the battery down during a layover.
Crikey!
Does this mean I have to leave my fountain pen at home or packed away?
You, know, I haven't had much faith in go through the detector gate and let us paw through your luggage ever since a relative was in the local trauma hospital.
Being the trauma hospital, that was where a lot of people involved one way or another in various criminal cases ended up and therefore, they had security checkpoints if you were visiting after hours.
On the night in question they carefully divested my husband of his pocketknives (nothing with more than a two inch blade) and waved me and my bag on through.
My knitting bag, that was. The one with the pair of twelve inch, pointy, steel knitting needles sticking out of it in plain sight.
_______
I must admit I'm rather grateful that I took a whim to make my next long distance trip by train. I mentioned that to a friend today and he noted that I was unlikely to get on a plane with a terrorist. I said, yes, but I was certain to get on one with a line to go through the security gate.
________
Even on the train, I'm going to have to show photo ID that matches my ticket. If you drive, you have to have a driver's license. Is it my imagination or is travel in the US beginning to sound like what I was always told travel in the USSR was like?
_______
For that matter, why are they even bothering with the photo ID & ticket check? This is not stuff that's hard to fake or steal. If you're planning a hijacking/terrorist attack do they really think faking an ID is going to stop you?
OG, yeah, I remember the "Scouts Honor" (or was it Honest Scout) boot up sequence for macs. I have a 17" Mac laptop, mostly the same innards as a 12" Mac laptop, there's space in there (oh, damn, just made sure I'll never get on another plane). I know others that use gels for cooling. Another semi-test that if I were an actual terrorist, I'm sure I could rig something that booted for their test, but didn't take much room inside for a solid pack explosive. What would I care about heat sinks and other things that keep our laptops, etc. running for long periods.
I will not fly anymore, unless I absolutely have to. Now I have to explain to my boss why I am taking the train from the East Coast to San Francisco this November for a conference.
I will not check my electronics. I will not fly cross country without some needlework, tatting (requires no needles), or something to read. Which implies a bag to carry the stuff in. Where do purses fit into this anyway?
Crap, shtfckng pgstckrs who can't keep this country and her people safe (because they are too busy invading countries that didn't have anything to do with anything) to do the hard detective work necessary to track and apprehend the nasties.
Apologies to the pig.
The problem is we don't stop flying. If large numbers of people refused to put up with this chickenshit, it would stop. We complain, we make fun, but we patiently line up and we fly.
By the way, Margaret, though they say they'll check ID to get on the train, I haven't ever seen them do it.
I feel I should say something here, having worked in private security for over 15 years before "retiring" in 2000 to get married.
The majority of security officers, whether in the TSA or not, are underpaid and undertrained and probably grandfathered into the job from the previous contractor. Due to many union agreements (in my experience) when a contract shifts from one security agency to another (even to the government) the same personnel are guaranteed the chance to change jobs and keep their seniority - whether you agree or disagree it's the usual way things are done. You just switch the patch from the old company to the new company and go onwards - the same people who were at the monitors before 9/11 are probably still there, just with a TSA patch on their shirt.
Unfortunately most security contractors before 9/11 usually tried to underbid each other, so you ended up with the guards getting low wages from the start - and, to be frank, I doubt that their wages and training have suddenly moved up to the level that the public wants to believe they have. Remember, most of these people have been grandfathered into their job and know that it'd take a disaster for them to lose their job, so why knock yourself out?
Having said that, please remember when you do travel that these security guards *are* literally just following orders. It's not a personal thing, not for just above minimum wage. If they're told to pull every fifth person out of line, they do it. If they're told to dump every water bottle they do it and it's not going to be personal. So please remember that they're just working stiffs like the rest of us when you're upset and standing in line.
Thank you.
Jim - Last November, 140 mile trip on Amtrak Cascades. I had to present my ID to board the train. I don't know how common it is otherwise; the last extensive train trips I took were before 9/11.
Have they _ever_ caught anyone this way? Other than a US Senator?
Books and magazines are also banned on British flights?
I suppose that during a layover you might have enough time to copy the London Times crossword puzzle onto your stomach to solve during the flight. Or patients might start "amusing themselves" under their blankets, as it used to be called in the days of prudery.
So what do we do about this? I agree that it's pointless and intended to intimidate, but how do we fix it? Anyone have any useful ideas?
Juli: freep every poll you can that you trust the Democrats to handle national security and fight terrorism better than the Republicans. As soon as they see the tide's turned, they'll drop the issue like a hot potato and go back to guns and gays and God.
Margaret Organ-Kean wrote:
For that matter, why are they even bothering with the photo ID & ticket check? This is not stuff that's hard to fake or steal. If you're planning a hijacking/terrorist attack do they really think faking an ID is going to stop you?Checking your ID doesn't do much to increase security, but it does make it harder for you to resell your ticket. Bruce Schneier has written about this.
Just got off the phone to the parental units. I needed to inform them that yes, I am still flying out to see them next week, but there may of course be delays.
No, I'm not going to stop flying. I'm going to keep on remembering the actual statistics, just like I did for all of those years travelling to Belfast. And just like then, I'm at higher risk of being in a fatal car/train crash on the way to the airport. Especially with the way they drive in the Bay area...
I for one am not gonna stop flying. Or anything else of that ilk. Since I live in a port city, odds are just as likely that someone could smuggle a dirty bomb via water into here...and nothing's been done about *that*.
Screw it. Either the terrist (deliberate misspelling) crowd or Somebody Else wants to discourage travel. Heck, sounds more like what you've gotta do to get into a particularly repressive club or venue to listen to some music.
Has anyone figured out whether EMPTY bottles are allowed that you could possibly refill from the water stores on the plane? That's what happened to us at the String Cheese concert this last weekend....
Okay, the most severe security is in the UK. That is the only place they have made the rules so strict - in the U.S. you can still carry on your laptop and whatever. It all goes through their xray machine and the bomb-tester air device anyway. Just help them out by not over-packing your carry-on.
I'm sort of glad I'm driving to LA (I'm with the KC in 2009 bid, and I'm the drive team (come to our parties, we're having barbecue, redrum and other treats--Inger cookies among others). Then again I love driving and a long road trip is as good a stimulant that I can think of. And this time it's MY car (6 CD changer) and I'll get to load acceptable music (I drove with someone else to San Jose and she had an over-love of Meatloaf, I hope to never repeat the experience.....)
And the first comment to the post endorses an idea that would further degrades us.
You just know that because the plot was foiled, the far right will use it to say, "Look, we're keeping you safe from terrorism! We caught 'em, we did! We did that! Stick with us! Stay the course!"
And had the plot NOT been foiled and a plane or two or more had been blown up, the same far right mouthpieces would say, "Look, this just proves we have to get even tougher on terrorism! Stick with us! Stay the course!"
And meekly, Americans accept the added strain and inconvenience because gods know none of us want to have our flights interrupted by a sudden explosion and rapid descent. Every dull flight is a good flight.
I wonder, sometimes, as I muse about such incidents, and how they arise just before elections -- is it the far right doing some dramatic grandstandins? Or does Al Qaeda itself prefer to keep King George and his minions in the White House because having the Great Evil to fight against is the best terrorist recruitment tool?
Or perhaps a bit of both?
This is stupid. The plan apparently was to blow up 10 airliners over the atlantic using a peroxide based explosive? Batteries are banned because they can provide the ignition? All liguids and electronics must go into checked baggage?
What the hell is to prevent them from putting the bomb inthe luggage and an altimeter to set it off?
That's it. All airliners must be designed like combat aircraft, preferrably an A-10 rather than a pansy-ass F-22. Cargo holds must be able to withstand a 100 pound bomb blast and remain airborne. Cabins must be able to withstand a 50 pound blast and not catastraphically decompress. Cabins must also be able to withstand gunfire up to .45 caliber without piercing the hull and up to 50 caliber without catastrophically decompressing. Cockpits will have their own bathroom and beverage counter, and the whole crew section will be sealed off by hydraulically powered armored doors. From the inside.
I thought flying El Al was bad. This is ridiculous.
In the meantime, as long as I have to fly without my own water, juice, and caffeine supply, I'm never getting on a plane again.
I swear, I don't know which televised interviews enrage me more: the ones from the air-related security people claiming that these measures are necessary and useful or the sheep-like passengers saying "As long as it's for increased security, I don't mind waiting, it's better than being blown up." *aarrgghh*
The terrorists might not have succeeded in killing 3,000 or so people by blowing up planes but to a less emotional but still measurable extent they certainly did succeed in causing far-reaching trauma and upset in the Western world.
Margaret Organ-Kean wrote:
For that matter, why are they even bothering with the photo ID & ticket check? This is not stuff that's hard to fake or steal. If you're planning a hijacking/terrorist attack do they really think faking an ID is going to stop you?
No, it won't stop you, especially since every time I've presented my ID and my ticket, the person ostensibly checking it has barely glanced at either and routinely made some illegible scrawl with a ballpoint pen on the ticket - it's hardly impressed me with said person's diligence and/or ability to foil dastardly schemes.
I really do believe that this has nothing to do with actual safety and everything to do with repressing the masses.
That's always been my question; if banning items from being carried on makes everyone safe, what about the checked luggage? A timer on the same explosive will still bring the plane down.
For that matter, it's probably only a matter of time before electronic watches and other personal electronic items will be permanently banned.
Because they know what will make us safe, you know.
Bill Humphries: Leaving aside for a moment the fact that the post to which I referred is intended as satire (or humor, or both), I'm not convinced that social nudity is degrading, per se. I will grant that FORCED nudity is, to the extent that such enforcement is a blow to human dignity, however.
Still, if it takes an extreme idea to expose (as it were) the lunacy that surrounds air travel these days, I'm willing to be serious about it.
JaniceG is right. The terrorists were not thwarted. They trapped us. Heads - we lose several planes full of people and anything their planes might take out along the way, Tails - we suffer the lost productivity of having every single traveller's bags searched for bottles of tapwater, tubes of toothpaste and those little tiny samples of shampoo and conditioner that everyone brings home from the hotel.
X|O|X
-----
| |
-----
O| |X
X=Terrists
O=TSA
As was pointed out here, the timing is also convenient to get Lieberman's primary loss off the front pages. Cui bono?
"Repressing the masses" is a little too organized, deliberate and sinister to ring true to me. From my observation of the way people handle issues ranging from school bullying to shoplifting, I believe the idea here is more akin to "Quick!!! We have to LOOK LIKE WE'RE DOING SOMETHING!!!!"
Gavin De Becker made a similar observation in "Fear Less".
Kristen,
I'm not convinced the ID requirement "has everything to do with repressing the masses." I believe it's designed to prevent resale of tickets, so airlines can make more money. The airline executives who thought of it probably thought they were preventing fraud. The legislators who pushed it through in the guise of preventing hijacking and terrorism...they're responsible for knowing better.
I agree that the best response to this insanity would be to not fly. It doesn't have anything to do with fear -- it's because people without a lot of money or influence only have power via large-scale collective action like boycotts. We can't go to the management of USAirways or the TSA and say "this is crazy! It's not making anyone any safer. It's just making people sick and costing a fortune." We can write letters and complain. But they probably won't listen unless we stop flying.
I recognize that it would be best to stop flying, but I'm not going to do it myself. Air travel can be *necessary* when I am trying to squeeze in visits to a long-distance sweetie without taking vacation time from work. I don't want to lose my job, or my weekends with my sweetie. So I'm going to keep flying.
Too bad we don't have personal jet packs. That would solve all of this. Then again, someone would figure out how to fly them into buildings.
I hadn't exactly given up on flying but it had become more inconvenient since the US had finally collated the "common terrorist names" files they'd got from the UK and decided that "Kevin Murphy" cannot get rapid check in and must stand in line with "John Williams" and all the other people whose parents were unoriginal. Southwest told me to contact my congressman, which I did, and my representative's office told me that the TSA would allow me to send them copies of various forms of ID, notarized, and then they might take me off the overly-common-named-possible-terrorist list. Maybe. If it amused them. And they stopped picking their noses. And pigs flew in formation while Hell froze over.
My reaction of course is "Bugger that!" and I now simply calculate an extra two hour delay from baldfaced liars who keep telling me I've been selected for a "random search" and I consequently drive more, fly less. Let the airlines go bankrupt.
Of course the common name has also somehow ended me up on the mailing lists for both the IRA and the Franciscans, neither of whom I belong to, let alone have ever sent money to, but since I'm being blacklisted for sounding like a possible member of the first I'm wondering if I can claim religious persecution through the second.
As was pointed out here, the timing is also convenient to get Lieberman's primary loss off the front pages. Cui bono?
Yes, the Metropolitan police really care that much about primary results in Ct.
Of course the common name has also somehow ended me up on the mailing lists for both the IRA and the Franciscans
Now there's a postal inspector that's going to get mental indigestion.
@ Bruce: coerced nudity isn't okay.
And the post didn't read as satire to me. YMMV.
The British Police and intelligence services have a pretty dodgy reputation when it comes to novel terrorist technology, but this business at least involves some sort of explosive. And for a few days, at least, there's the possibility of there being a terrorist still on the loose.
My fatherm using a catheter and leg-bag as a consequence of an enlarged prostate gland, is glad he doesn't have to fly anywhere with that particular bag of liquid.
Keir - The Metropolitan Police might not care, but Tony Blair might want to do a good turn for his boyfriend George. It think the timing may just have quite a bit to do with the upcoming midterm elections.
If this was being arranged for political gain, it would have happened Monday or a couple of days earlier, to give Lieberman a chance to remind people how tough he is.
The reason that they're ignoring checked baggage for now is that they think they can spot an assembled bomb. What they're worried about is bomb parts smuggled onto the plane by several passengers and assembled in flight. Supposedly, this is how Chechnyan terrorists brought down an Aeroflot flight.
It's spreading. Over here in .au (famous for being "girt by sea") we're being told that this increased paranoia is going to happen whether we need it or not, in the interests of national security. I've never been keen on flying in the first place - hours on end stuffed in a metal tube with someone else's shrieking kid hasn't ever appealled, and there is inevitably going to be a small child crying on any flight, because they're too young to be able to handle the changes in air pressure. The notion of the same flight, the same tube, and the same shrieking kid, and no books... well, let's see how long that one lasts before air crew are assaulted by someone driven to the edge of insanity by lack of distraction from boredom.
Of course, being in .au, it doesn't matter *which* method of cross-country travel I choose, they're all going to involve the airconditioned metal tube, but I'd rather have the one which allows me to take my book(s) on board than the one which doesn't. Overseas travel? Well, looks like we're back to the tried and true method in which most of this country's population arrived in the eras preceding cheap air travel - boats. Large, small and medium sized, and I expect Fremantle port will open up for passenger shipping again if this sort of nonsense carries on.
Certainly my next journey to the UK will be by some other method than aircraft if this becomes a permanent fixture. I'd rather have to take six months for a trip overseas (and spend that time reading, writing, or even dealing with seasickness) than endure a twenty-four hour flight with nothing to distract me aside from the in-flight "entertainment" chosen by a particularly dense airline exec.
essential non-prescription drugs such as insulin excepted
Yes, this makes me feel so reassured that they know what they're doing, and have a sound plan for identifying essential medications that are OTC. Insulin isn't OTC. It's prescription only. I've been unable to find anything about it being released OTC, and I've *looked*. I may need it some day, so I keep an eye on it.
The entire plan has nothing to do with catching terrorists. It never *did* have anything to do with catching terrorists. It has everything to do with maximizing inconvenience (or in some cases danger) for the general population, while appearing to "do something". Yes, I *could* be hiding something in my toothpaste. I also *could* be hiding something in my intestines. By the time you've done everything necessary to truly guard against all "dangers", you really are left with naked people on an airplane after having been MRI scanned and X-rayed more completely than you would be for a medical procedure. And even then you're not sure they don't have something hazardous.
As far as I'm aware (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there have been *no* incidents where an attempt on an aircraft was stopped in advance by anything other than good police work or someone thinking "huh, that's odd" and asking security about it.
If this nonsense continues, I would be surprised if the airline industry lasts another 15 years. Perhaps that is OBL's real goal?
By "this nonsense" I mean the absurdly intrusive searches and restrictions, which are far more destructive to society than the terrorist attacks themselves ever could be.
Hmm.
I went down to DC and back, via everywhere, in June and July of this year, on Greyhound, on a Discovery Pass, which is a 15 day unlimited single ticket.
Some places I got asked for ID. Some places, nothing. Halfway through my trip, they switched to requiring Discovery Pass holders to be issued a ticket for each leg of their trip, with ID (passport, in my case) number recorded.
I was not argumentative on account of I can't walk home from Delaware.
I have NO IDEA what happens if you're paying cash.
But the visual ID check should take care of avoiding pass fraud (which I conceed is common.
The ticket thing weirded me out. However, my leatherman travelled with me on the bus, though I was careful not to wave it about.
this is looking more and more like how I get to the UK next year. It's considerably more money, but for that I get 20 days on a ship, and also my dignity.
Keir - The Metropolitan Police might not care, but Tony Blair might want to do a good turn for his boyfriend George. It think the timing may just have quite a bit to do with the upcoming midterm elections.
What, Blair, on the edge of being toppled by Brown, in trouble for the loans/peerages scandal, and being harried by a resurgent Tory Party, risks everything for a two-three point bonus for a politician in a different country?
If it was true, and it got out (and it would get out; there'd be too many people involved for it not to), then Blair would be dead. Hauled before a Commons baying for his blood. He'd probably be looking at never holding public office again.
(And if the plan had worked, and then it got out that Blair had manipulated the timing for George Bush's benefit, then Blair'd be looking at serious jail time. Indeed, the House of Commons would likely look again at impeachment.)
Blair is too canny an operator to risk it all for so little.
they'll drop the issue like a hot potato and go back to guns and gays and God.
Kip: as a "gay," I don't consider that a heartening trade-off.
I'm also already a little over-tired of hearing people righteously declare that they'll never fly again. That kind of thing isn't so easy to say in some areas of the US, or the world. Or in certain professions (read: most of them) that don't give you flexible schedules for lengthy travel.
Here's my suggestions for in-flight entertainment. And for the satire-impaired: WARNING: SATIRE
"...though they say they'll check ID to get on the train, I haven't ever seen them do it."
Travelling by train with three other people last week, I presented four IDs and four tickets at the checkin counter. Without lifting her eyes to me, the counter agent carefully compared the names on the tickets to the names on the IDs to the names on her passenger manifest. My tickets were stamped and all tickets and IDs returned to me.
Two of my fellow passengers were not even present in the station building -- they were outside smoking.
The train ID check is real, but it isn't serious yet.
OG: no you're not. I think many of these things are staged.
Keir: considering what Blair has got away with already, considering what *Bush* has got away with, I think it's perfectly reasonable to theorise that he might try this (again? I don't know). For one thing, if he can get people scared enough, he might be able to hold on to power a little longer. Scared people don't risk change. The Tories are just making noises: the pigs are now sufficiently humanised that it doesn't matter to the corporate demons who's in power at any given point, but Blair has been terrified of losing his job for some years now. You can see it in his eyes.
And I thought all this *before* I saw V for Vendetta, by the way: the idea of a government inflicting terrorism on its own citizens is all too credible to me.
Meg, when you wrote, than endure a twenty-four hour flight with nothing to distract me aside from the in-flight "entertainment" chosen by a particularly dense airline exec., you hit the target dead centre.
Me, I'm waiting for somebody to update "Deck of Cards".
"Hey, you!" shouted the TSA guard. "Why are you carrying a bible onto the airliner?"
BTW, was it Poul Anderson who wrote a story in which the hero makes an IED from a deck of cards?
As much as I would like to think this is security theater, it might well not be. And, as somebody who frequently flies on UK-US flights, I can't say that I would miss my books on flight more than i would miss my life, if I were to blow up mid-Atlantic.
I can't give up flying because I have family in San Francisco. I can give up water, I can give up books (I sleep on planes anyway), I can buy a reinforced case for my laptop (I've seen musical instruments checked in the hold, after all). What will be really really hard to do will be to give up my wonderful in-flight sleeping bag, because I am miserably cold on planes. So the next step is thermal underwear, of course.
Still: flying will become more difficult, and more expensive, which for somebody flying with no expesense paid between continent is far from a trivial point.
And of course, the fact remains, as always has been, that if they really want to blow you up, they will find a way.
(shrug)
Sheryl Nantus wrote:
"...please remember when you do travel that these security guards *are* literally just following orders. It's not a personal thing, not for just above minimum wage. ... So please remember that they're just working stiffs like the rest of us when you're upset and standing in line."
I confess I'm running out of patience for these sorts of arguments. "The people violating your civil or human rights are really nice fellows, just cogs in the machine like you, don't take it personally...." Sorry, but no. People are responsible for what they do, no matter how badly they need the paycheck. If your job requires you to oppress people, and you keep the job, you're an oppressor. A paycheck isn't a magic moral ticket to do evil.
Dammit, I really hate things that make me feel like Ayn Rand understood anything at all outside her head, but this sort of constriction of basic opportunities is just too reminiscent of the gradual industrial collapse in the middle of Atlas Shrugged. I resent it.
Greg London: All airliners must be designed like combat aircraft, preferrably an A-10 rather than a pansy-ass F-22.
(puts on Aviation Expert Hat - spent yesterday talking to CNN and BBC about this whole imbroglio)
Actually, if it's a case of being shot at with heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles, I'd rather be in a widebody airliner than an A-10. Airliners are built to lose an engine (or more, in the case of four-burners) and a considerable amount of wing and still fly. A SAM will home on the engine, not the fuselage, and the bursting charge will kill the engine - and maybe damage the hydraulics - but is unlikely to down the aircraft. Plus, high-bypass turbofans make terrible heat lures compared to the engines on a combat aircraft; and the sheer size and mass of an airliner give it the edge too. Plus, every flight-critical system is duplicated on an airliner, just like on an A-10.
Cargo holds must be able to withstand a 100 pound bomb blast and remain airborne. Cabins must be able to withstand a 50 pound blast and not catastraphically decompress.
You have airlines that allow you to check 100-pound hold baggage and 50-pound carryon? Good for you.
But I don't think you know what you're asking - this is basically impossible to do if you want an airliner that will actually take off. A 105mm artillery shell only weighs 34lb, and some of that is casing, and that will still blow a crater six feet across in your back yard if you aim it badly. One pound of explosive in the cargo hold was enough to destroy Pan Am 103. 16 pounds in a bar mine will destroy a tank.
Cabins must also be able to withstand gunfire up to .45 caliber without piercing the hull and up to 50 caliber without catastrophically decompressing.
Catastrophic decompression doesn't happen because of gunfire. If I fire a .45 round through the hull, I now have an aircraft with a hole .45 inches across in the hull. Big deal. The cabin pressurisation system is enough to cope - the cabin's not hermetically sealed anyway, there are always some leaks. Step it up to a .50? Same difference.
Cockpits will have their own bathroom and beverage counter,
Good idea.
and the whole crew section will be sealed off by hydraulically powered armored doors.
Already happened. (Not hydraulic, but armoured. I've seen the tests - they'll stop anything up to a .50.)
From the inside.
Well, yes.
I shudder at the thought of travelling without other reading materials than the flight magazines, or the complimentary issue of The Times. Ever tried to handle an issue of The Times in an airplane seat? Not recommended.
I used to amuse myself by figuring out how many potential weapons I carried in my carry-on baggage (broken plastic makes fine cutting edges), even though I can no longer fly with a nail clipper. Now even that innocent pastime is gone...
Most of the AA shells fired in WW2 were around 25 pounds total weight, and only about 10% of that weight was the explosive. You can probably find some specifics on the web, but a direct hit by a shell that size was sufficient to bring a plane down. Not certain; planes did get back from bombing Germany with great big holes.
We're talking about a kilogram of TNT. Depending on where it was, a 747 might survive something like that. Smaller airliners have landed safely with huge holes in the fuselage after a pressure structure failure.
I wouldn't want to bet on it.
I think the new security measures are about public reassurance rather than anything else - to make it look as if the government are doing something about the threat.
I don't think they are reassuring. I spent a good hour last night working out ways around the new UK security measures - it wouldn't be difficult to do.
From LiveJornal user "rhiannonstone":
First they came for the knitting needles, and I didn't speak up
Because I wasn't much of a knitter
Then they came for the shoes, and I didn't speak up
Because I wear sandals
Then they came for the lighters, and I didn't speak up
Because I don't smoke
Then they came for my Dr Pepper
And now it's on, motherfuckers!
Sheryl,
please remember that those poor Chilean soldiers were only following orders, when they rounded up people in stadia around the country.
(take this, Godwin!)
The "only enough meds for the flight" concerns me a lot, even though I pretty much don't fly and am not dependent on meds.
It's not unusual for it to take extra hours and sometimes much longer for people to get reunited with their checked luggage, and a lot of people don't have that much slack with their meds.
Bruce, I consider Ayn Rand to be both wrong about a lot and also someone who said true things which not a lot of other people were or are saying.
Random thoughts:
Bombproofing airliners: There's been some work done over the years in blastproofing standard cargo containers; I don't honestly know how often passenger baggage is containered up, as small airliners certainly just have a baggage hold. I've only seen footage of some of the tests rather than hard numbers, but they looked impressive. Of course, heavy containers cut down on your baggage allowance, and only work on checked baggage.
The problem with aircraft is that if they are to be in any way economical, they have to be built light, which rather precludes armouring airliners.
On banning books: soak a book in nitric acid, and the cellulose in the paper would convert to guncotton, which would possibly be the only way one could describe an airport bestseller as explosive reading...
Ajay: you weren't at Farnborough this year were you? I have a sneaking suspicion we may have met.
Jakob: No, I am not David Learmount or Max Kingsley-Jones. (I wasn't at Farnborough this year, though I've been there in the past).
I thought this response to Mr. Martin was particularly disgusting:
Please keep any kind of political opinions to yourself . You are a great author and cannot wait to read "Dance of Dragons". But when you start rambling on and on about your political viewpoints and put down those around us who are trying to keep us safe well ut leaves a bad taste in my mouth among others.Just write good books and let proper agencies take care of the world problems O.K.?
His response was amusing though:
Please keep my political opinions to myself???You know, when I put some political posts on my Update page and some Bushies wrote to complain, I had to concede that they had a point, kinda, sorta, even if it was my website. The page was Update, after all. So I created Not A Blog, where I can say anything I want... and you still have the nerve to come in here and tell me to keep my opinions to myself??
Why don't you go back to hiding under your bed and stop reading my journal. I'm sure the "proper agencies" would like that.
And you can stop reading my books while you're at it. I don't need readers who see me as some sort of trained monkey whose sole purpose in life is providing them with entertainment.
this is basically impossible to do if you want an airliner that will actually take off.
I may have been venting in frustration rather than speaking from behind a design table.
Catastrophic decompression doesn't happen because of gunfire.
Yes, I saw that episode of Mythbusters. I recal the end where they put a fistful of plastic explosives against the inside of the cabin, between two windows, and it made a gaping hole.
I'm just frustrated and had fantasies about some technical solution built into the planes making the stupidity at the checkin counter unneccessary.
Ok, no technical fantasy, how about a monetary fantasy. I'll save up and buy a Glassair3, and bypass all this stupid crap.
ABC News this morning showed a reporter in Chicago who flew there yesterday from NYC. She reported that many, many people simply walked right on to the plane with drinks, water bottles, toothpaste, etc, while some passengers were search-stripped and relieved of all "banned" items. There seemed no rhyme or reason to it; some adults with children had to give up formula, while some single passengers carried water bottles and other items right past the guards.
This is what galls me most about Republicans. While we are in Iraq ostensibly to spread democracy, the truth is that Republicans have become opposed to the basic precepts of a pluralist society. They do not want people of different faiths and viewpoints sharing power in this country. When a Republican author voices his views, we Democrats have no problem voicing our differences of opinion, but we would not suggest that he shouldn't give voice to his. We actually want a free society where people can express their differences, and the Republicans want a stranglehold on power at the expense of any differing views.
What, I would like to know, is the danger from books? Is there some sort of fear that, midway across the Atlantic, some quiet person who's been reading the Koran will suddenly shout 'Death to all infidels!' and proceed to attack passengers and cabin crew?
I was required to show ID in order to buy Acela tickets about, oh, maybe six months ago? Not long-haul, just Boston to NYC and back.
I flew yesterday. Phoenix back to Providence. Based on my experiences and those of colleagues who were flying at different airpots, the security measures were very unevenly applied at different airports. At PHX they were just looking at the X-rays of carryons and then inspecting a few things that looked strange, and there was no secondary check at the gate before boarding the plane. At a smaller airport in NC they were going through the bags of some passengers, but not all. At BOS they apparently were going through every single bag.
Lots of news cameras. I saw reporters interviewing the "sheep-like" passengers mentioned above. You know what? Having been in their shoes, I think their reaction was perfectly understandable. Try being at an airport with people with bullhorns yelling at you that there's a terror threat, and TSA people who ask if you'd rather be SAFE when you ask about whether you'll be able to make your flight, and security teams and dogs and fire response teams -- and not being at least a little bit freaked out. Taking away people's Chap-Stick is idiotic. Absolutely bloody pointless. But I get why it made people feel safer.
*shrug* Maybe if you [generic you] had been at an airport yesterday, in the middle of the freak-out, you'd have been able to tell the television reporter all about what bullshit the whole thing was. But maybe not. It was a scary situation, and the response couldn't have been better-designed to evoke fear. If they had interviewed me yesterday, I might well have been one of the sheep.
Anyone remember the Moonlighting episode where a very clever murder was committed using fear of hijackers?
A bomb threat was called in about a particular airplane. The threat was that a bomb would detonate if the airplane went below 1000 feet of elevation, so the plane was routed to a city where the elevation was above 1000 feet.
On the flight was a man who had to take a special kind of medicine that was not effective at high altitudes. The killers knew that he'd be dead before he could take his next dose, which he was, in a darkly comedic scene. ("There, you see, you're all right." "Yes, so I am. Whee!" )
-Lisa Padol
Pfui. If I can't take my water bottles (yes, plural), I'm not going. Trains are nice & comfortable and have way more leg room.
Granted, I didn't fly before anyway. The last round of security measures offended, as did the ones before that. There's nowhere I need to be in that sort of hurry, so I'll just give it a miss, thanks.
I think the point above, re:TSA security guys "just doing their jobs" isn't meant to excuse opression.
Knowing that security guys are recycled from contractor to contractor is important information, thanks.
Knowing that they are poorly paid, and "just follow orders" - also helpful. Why? Because if I'm being pulled out of line by someone who I know is an unhappy, poorly paid person AND I show a certain amount of forebearance then they will likely be willing to do the most cursory job possible, which makes my life easier.
Arguing with people, while an effective technique in some situations (i.e. blogs), isn't in this one, and this information confirms it. Have a problem with a poorly implemented policy? Chances are, the guy going through your stuff has nothing to do with it. Find his boss. If the policy itself is clearly insane, well, that is what political action is for.*
DISCLAIMER: nothing in this post is to be construed as supporting, advocating, or condoning the behavior of any jack-booted thugs anywhere, at any time. Let me rephrase: "just following orders" is endorsed as a useful descriptor, not as a rationalization.
-r.
*passive resistance, public noncompliance, etc is of limited value in most security theater situations without the cooperation of a very large number of confederates who are willing to go to jail. Passive resistance is not the same thing as being an argumentative jerk, a point lost on some.
Eventually we won't be able to take anything on planes - and we'll all have to ride in our underwear. Oh, wait, someone could rig an underwire bra to explode.
Naked. We'll all have to ride naked, and be subject to cavity searches before we board. It'll feel like you're going to jail instead of on vacation.
I'll save up and buy a Glassair3
Bake Sale at my house this Sunday.
And every Sunday for the next 50 years.
Whoops, teach me to click the links before I post, huh. Crazy.
And there is a list of 'acceptable' liquids. So what's to stop a terrorist from making an explosive bottle of baby formula?
I saw reporters interviewing the "sheep-like" passengers mentioned above. You know what? Having been in their shoes, I think their reaction was perfectly understandable.
Amen to that. People understand that security guards can send someone to jail for telling the wrong joke at the wrong time.
Thus, when I'm within earshot of an airline security line, I'm all about compliance. "Yes, sir" and "no, sir" and "thanks for keeping us safe" and "oh, it's no trouble".
There are many proper times, places, and tactics for fighting back against idiotic security theater. But the security zone itself, in the middle of a knot of annoyed and possibly panicked people, is not the right place.
I fly between 50 and 75 thousand miles a year, every year, for work. I have done since I took this job 5 years ago--hired on 3 weeks before 9/11. My colleagues all travel just as much as I do. There is no way to do our job without travel, and lots of it.
So we worry about all of this, and we get annoyed, and some of us *do* think that it would make a hell of a lot of sense if those of us who fly so often that the TSA folks at our airport greet us by name and ask us about our families could get pre-cleared to make lines shorter for us and for everyone else.
Some of us wonder how much longer our jobs will exist at all.
And several of us are trying to figure out what another colleague who is a nursing mom ought to do about her trip to Houston next week. She's not bringing the baby, so she'll need to express breastmilk, and aside from the potential awkwardness of needing to ask your bosses to give you 15 minutes in the ladies room so you can pump, it's completely unclear to us whether--with no baby around to provide the alibi--the airlines will let her bring her expressed milk onto the plane with her or not. And those of us who've nursed know how distressing and wasteful it is to have to "pump and dump."
And my daughter, who travels with me often, still takes a bottle. How much milk will they think is "necessary" for the length of the flight? Does TSA determine that? Do I? Can I point out to them that the flight from Detroit to Indy (45 minutes) has sometimes taken me 6 hours?
And again, just two weeks ago, I flew home from Portland, ME, via Detroit. In Detroit it was announced that a flight that was getting ready to depart (happily, NOT my plane) was having AC trouble. The interior temperature of the plane was approx. 110 degrees. Passengers were offered the chance to take that flight or another leaving much later. Our flight was cooler--probably about 86 degrees. How do the airlines expect passengers to manage that without water?
It's a grim office here these days.
Soon some terrorists wil attempt to smuggle explosive onboard in their colons. The TSA will respond by banning all assholes from commercial flights. Air crews will respond "We've been wanting that for years!"
G'night folks! The veal's been here all week!
OG: Am I the only one whose first thought was to wonder whether the terrorists even exist?
No, include me there, too.
I do not think this is an effort to win an election, or to distract from the CT election results, or to raise the price of airline tickets. I see it as part of a continued effort to whip up hysterical fear to create a climate that will permit more of our basic rights to be amputated.
Some might be interested in this discussion of those issues, from the World Socialist Web Site:
http://wsws.org/articles/2006/aug2006/lond-a11.shtml
BTW, was it Poul Anderson who wrote a story in which the hero makes an IED from a deck of cards?
I don't remember Anderson doing that, but Dickson did. (I go past a business named 'Frontier Trading, Inc' every day. Whether they sell spacejacking equipment is an open question.)
BTW, was it Poul Anderson who wrote a story in which the hero makes an IED from a deck of cards?
Gordon Dickson, think HiLIfter a short followed by None But Man. Cully When or something close to that aka Culihan O'Rourke. The technology was more or less accurate but unlikely, I think, in that time and place.
Time was diced movie film stock could be used in much the same way as a propellent. So far as I know the deflagration -> detonation transition was a little harder than described.
The IRA did some interesting things to disguise plastic explosives especially as reported in attempts to kill a travelling Royal.
I'm wondering about the "sports drinks" that the terrorists were supposed to have planned to smuggle explosive inside of. The idea, from what little I've read (and I know I can't expect the mainstream news media to actually be reliable about technical details) is that each container would have a false bottom. Explosives in the bottom, real drink in the top, so as to defeat the test that requires the passenger to drink from the bottle to prove that it's a beverage.
Now, I'm wondering what "sports drinks" were. Are we talking transparent plastic bottles, or opaque cans? Because this would be a much more difficult trick to pull off with a transparent bottle, especially a colorless one. You'd have to both pick an explosive that matches the color and transparency of your beverage (I don't know how difficult this is), and hide the false bottom. You could pull off the latter with a label, or by being careful where you place your hand, or just by relying on the TSA agent to not be looking for that sort of thing.
But now they will be looking for that sort of thing. So if this plot actually involved an attempt to smuggle things in cans, why is the TSA banning clear plastic bottles? (OK, because they're panicked, is why. But still.)
Some of the hyperbole is extreme: the two LA newspapers today have headline stories with lines like 'intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale' and 'the world would have stood still'. Jeeze, you'd think they were planning to kill half the people in the world, instead of what, five to six thousand? Ten probably-jumbo jetloads, assuming all of the plotters got on planes and got their bombs to explode successfully. Big, yes; destructive, yes; but the worst effects would be the measures put in place by the idiots in government to prevent the horses being stolen again.
We've never flown anywhere but Mexico before and we're going to Amsterdam (from San Jose) in less than a week. It's thirteen hour flight. We went and loaded up on Japanese sodas for the flight. My daughter is taking Vicodin every couple of hours (post spine surgery) and I have to keep well hydrated for blood pressure reasons. I wonder if a doctor's letter will help us bring on our own drinks?
And how do people bear thirteen hour flights without carrying on books and nintendos and knitting and things?
I don't believe any of it, myself.
I am glad pretty much everyone got home from Mythcon before this happened. Bruce A., the first thing that crossed my mind when I heard about the security measures is "how long till _Puppetmasters_?" so your link is spot-on. I love to travel, but in civilized comfort -- I've been flying less and less as amenities have decreased and invasive security measures have increased. The only thing I like about air travel is the opportunity to read, and if I can't do that, phooey on them.
Fragano: What, I would like to know, is the danger from books?
Oh, it's *so* easy to take things out of context.
***
Lucy - Contact the airline in advance. Even if you can't bring your own water, you can probably arrange a dedicated supply. Also, if you can, find the *nice* flight attendant (there's usually at least one, it'll be the one whose smile isn't forced) and explain your daughter's needs. A big smile usually helps in getting airline staff to actually help you.
What you need to know.
1) If there was some chemical you could add to gatorade to get a high grade explosive, the oil crisis would be over.
2) Polyethyene and polypropylene are not radiotransparent. A false bottom would stand out.
3) Sports bottles + many explosive precursors = big leak.
4) There's a big difference between stupidity and martydom. One is mixing chemicals in a lab to create a substantial amount of explosive, the other is to have a small amount explosive go off in your hand, coating you in the precursor chemicals. If you're making TATP or Nitroglycerine, this will hurt you badly, but barely annoy the plane.
Yes, there are ways to make enough liquid explosives to bring down an airliner reliably. They're all hard, they use nasty chemicals -- anything positing "And I'll then mix in this white fuming nitric acid" isn't a real threat in an airport lav, because of transportation and time issues -- and they're all findable using current tech.
This threat is bullshit. You are being lied to. This alert happened on the day that it did for simple political reasons. Jack Ried wants his liberty stripping bills to pass in the UK. Dick Cheney desperatly need to keep Congress from seriously investigating him. That's why Bush and Blair talked about this Sunday, and Dick Cheney called the UK on Monday.
My answer: I won't fly to support a lie. Until these rules are lifted (note, we still take off our shoes, so I figure this is never) I will not fly.
If miracles occur by Tuesday, I'll be at LA. Otherwise, I suggest you do the same. We may not have the political pull to change this, but the Airlines might, if they lose enough business to give them the will to fight it.
I'll miss seeing many of you -- indeed, many of you I'll rarely if ever see, since you are too far away. I never, ever thought in my life that I'd be siding with Keith Lynch. But there is a line that cannot be crossed, and I've found it. Accepting these rules is knowingly agreeing with a lie -- a lie told to enable more civil liberties to be destroyed.
Gee, it looks like I'll have to drive everywhere I go now. As an attorney, I keep privileged information on my laptop. However, if I allow the laptop to go into checked baggage, that information becomes accessible to others (particularly since I'm no longer allowed to securely lock check-on baggage before I get it to the airport). I will therefore have committed an ethics violation.
It can't be much better for others who keep confidential company information on a laptop. Let's say that an executive's laptop gets mysteriously damaged in transit, and that the trade secrets on that laptop get mysteriously leaked to competitors and/or the press. Wouldn't you just love to be the first-year associate at BigF*ckingLawFirm who is assigned to research whether checking that laptop with the Samsonite Gorillas just might constitute failing to take adequate care to keep trade secrets confidential?
Bottom line: As usual, somebody:
* Had the authority to make this kind of decision/statement,
* Had little or no experience with the practicalities of counterterrorist and counterintelligence methods and operations, and
* Had fewer operating braincells than I have children (two)
Personally, I think it's nice to see the terrorists doing their bit to fight global warming.
They presumably used Lucozade bottles because the label wraps all the way round the bottle and goes all the way down to the base - having two compartments in a water or cola bottle would be obvious because the label is really small.
Is there a good reason you couldn't make nitroglycerine in advance and carry a bottle on to the plane? As long as you didn't bang the bottle around it should be OK.
Lucy,
If your health, or your daughter's, would be seriously threatened by not having your own drinking water on the flight, you should consider canceling your reservations. Sometimes you can get help from flight attendents, sometimes not, especially in a high-security situation (or if another passenger has an emergency.)
A lot of airlines are relaxing their usual rules about not allowing people to cancel or reschedule. Call your travel agent, or the airline if you don't have a travel agent. Call today to find out what your options are, even if you intend to wait a few days and decide closer to the planned departure time in case the airline restrictions change.
Erik V. Olson said: Jack Ried wants his liberty stripping bills to pass in the UK.
His name is John Reid. From The Independent: The first [identity] cards were meant to be introduced in 2008, but that target has been dropped following the review of the department ordered by John Reid after his appointment as Home Secretary.
He doesn't sound that desperate about implementing "liberty stripping bills".
Comments on The point: