Flying
I had to fly this past week, with the new carry-on rules about liquids. I stood in lines and talked to people, and while there were a few "whatever it takes to be safe" folks, most people recognized that these new rules did not make anyone safer, and made no sense.
Let's ignore for a minute that there doesn't really seem to have been an "imminent" threat, if the plotters had no airplane tickets and not all of them even had passports. Let's set aside the difficulties of actually pulling off the "binary liquid" style of bomb. And let's even forget for a minute that over 10 years ago, a liquid explosive bomb plot was foiled, so this isn't exactly a new threat.
The first thing I noticed when I made it through the line to the initial screening, to get to the "secure" part of the airport, was that there was a rent-a-cop working the line along with TSA employees. Let's assume that TSA does a reasonable job of screening employees; anybody have any confidence that a private security contractor does? The most effective way to defeat screening is not to smuggle something through, it's to either infiltrate the screeners or buy them off.
Okay, fine, because obviously the TSA doesn't actually believe that its screening process is eliminating liquids. Why do I say that? If they believed that the the screening process was actually making the gate areas secure, it should be fine to purchase a bottle of water from within the secure area and take it on to the plane. That's not possible under the new restrictions.
On the other hand, if the TSA believed the gate area was insecure, you'd expect there to be another screening at the gate before boarding the plane. On my first flight, there was a sort of random spot check of carry-on luggage during the boarding process, but in watching it, it was pretty easy to defeat. There were two TSA screeners; if they were busy opening luggage, you knew you were going to board the plane without being screened again. If they were free, the gate agent was going to send a couple of people over there to be screened. Given that boarding lines are seldom actually lines, but just a group of people sorting themselves out at the end of the line, it would be pretty easy to politely let someone go in front of you as you approached the gate agent, without being obvious or suspicious about it.
On my return flight, no such subterfuge would have even been necessary. There was no secondary screening at the gate, not even a TSA employee in sight.
It doesn't take much thought to see that these new restrictions don't make us safer. The rules are arcane and arbitrary (gel-filled bras allowed through, gel-filled shoe inserts not?) and inconsistently applied. So what is the point?
Cui bono? The cynic in me remembers all the terror alerts in the months prior to the 2004 elections, and wonders if the administration is desperately trying to scare everyone into voting Republican. Problem is, after Katrina, I'm not sure anybody believes that the Republicans make us safer.
Let's ignore for a minute that there doesn't really seem to have been an "imminent" threat, if the plotters had no airplane tickets and not all of them even had passports. Let's set aside the difficulties of actually pulling off the "binary liquid" style of bomb. And let's even forget for a minute that over 10 years ago, a liquid explosive bomb plot was foiled, so this isn't exactly a new threat.
The first thing I noticed when I made it through the line to the initial screening, to get to the "secure" part of the airport, was that there was a rent-a-cop working the line along with TSA employees. Let's assume that TSA does a reasonable job of screening employees; anybody have any confidence that a private security contractor does? The most effective way to defeat screening is not to smuggle something through, it's to either infiltrate the screeners or buy them off.
Okay, fine, because obviously the TSA doesn't actually believe that its screening process is eliminating liquids. Why do I say that? If they believed that the the screening process was actually making the gate areas secure, it should be fine to purchase a bottle of water from within the secure area and take it on to the plane. That's not possible under the new restrictions.
On the other hand, if the TSA believed the gate area was insecure, you'd expect there to be another screening at the gate before boarding the plane. On my first flight, there was a sort of random spot check of carry-on luggage during the boarding process, but in watching it, it was pretty easy to defeat. There were two TSA screeners; if they were busy opening luggage, you knew you were going to board the plane without being screened again. If they were free, the gate agent was going to send a couple of people over there to be screened. Given that boarding lines are seldom actually lines, but just a group of people sorting themselves out at the end of the line, it would be pretty easy to politely let someone go in front of you as you approached the gate agent, without being obvious or suspicious about it.
On my return flight, no such subterfuge would have even been necessary. There was no secondary screening at the gate, not even a TSA employee in sight.
It doesn't take much thought to see that these new restrictions don't make us safer. The rules are arcane and arbitrary (gel-filled bras allowed through, gel-filled shoe inserts not?) and inconsistently applied. So what is the point?
Cui bono? The cynic in me remembers all the terror alerts in the months prior to the 2004 elections, and wonders if the administration is desperately trying to scare everyone into voting Republican. Problem is, after Katrina, I'm not sure anybody believes that the Republicans make us safer.
