Should we decrease the current airport security checks? (56)
or changed...personally i dont fancy going through the naked xray machine and having it fire ionised radiation at me...all i need more cancer causing machinery...i'll opt for a strip search anyday than go through that 
------ This poll is Archived ------
Personally I think they are too strick..
Hey handsome stev how are you today???
Hey handsome stev how are you today???
------ This poll is Archived ------
Although I don't like having to take of my shoes and wander around on a sometimes wet floor, it's still worth all the hassle and delay to help ensure safety. NO, I don't think the present rules should be relaxed.
------ This poll is Archived ------
No way should they be decreased. In fact they should be stepped-up.
------ This poll is Archived ------
i havn't read ur entire post steve but airport security
is not only good but it is necessary and it is in our favour so there should be a strong security on all public places
is not only good but it is necessary and it is in our favour so there should be a strong security on all public places
------ This poll is Archived ------
Personally, with all the money we've invested we've in a sense, built a wall of technology around us to make us feel safer, when in fact, it has been proven, that about 60-75% of the time, these security checks don't in fact keep out what they were intended to keep out.
DHS inspectors have proven this by getting fake bombs and weapons through security. In a sense in my opinion, the terrorists won the fight as far as their primary mission. Terrorizing.. We spend billions of dollars that could be used to go towards deficit relief or towards other social programs. In a sense, DHS prooved that their department is useless.
We as a western society are so terrorized by the terrorists, that we willingly give the governments carte blanche to spend money in the name of national security as much as they want on programs that they themselves prove to be ineffective.
Personally I say go to pre-9/11 security checks. They worked, one group just happened to slip through the cracks. No system is perfect and something or someone will always slip through the cracks no matter how "perfect" people feel the system is.
DHS inspectors have proven this by getting fake bombs and weapons through security. In a sense in my opinion, the terrorists won the fight as far as their primary mission. Terrorizing.. We spend billions of dollars that could be used to go towards deficit relief or towards other social programs. In a sense, DHS prooved that their department is useless.
We as a western society are so terrorized by the terrorists, that we willingly give the governments carte blanche to spend money in the name of national security as much as they want on programs that they themselves prove to be ineffective.
Personally I say go to pre-9/11 security checks. They worked, one group just happened to slip through the cracks. No system is perfect and something or someone will always slip through the cracks no matter how "perfect" people feel the system is.
------ This poll is Archived ------
My only worry is, where does it stop as far as security? It's only a matter of time before terrorists bomb another plane...Whats next? Armed soldiers patting down passangers at gunpoint? Immediately after 9/11, this was actually going on in U.S. airports...So much for land of the free , home of the brave. So much for the posse comitatus act that prevents federally activated military from being used in any law enforcement capacity against it's own citizens...But that's ok, it was just in the name of national security (sarcasim).
------ This poll is Archived ------
JSuburbia:
Look at Richard Reid (I think that's his name)...The only reason he got caught was because of alert passangers (and this was AFTER 9/11)
Look at Richard Reid (I think that's his name)...The only reason he got caught was because of alert passangers (and this was AFTER 9/11)
But shoes weren't removed for inspection7scanning until AFTER that incident.
------ This poll is Archived ------
JSuburbia:
Personally I say go to pre-9/11 security checks. They worked, one group just happened to slip through the cracks. No system is perfect and something or someone will always slip through the cracks no matter how "perfect" people feel the system is.
Personally I say go to pre-9/11 security checks. They worked, one group just happened to slip through the cracks. No system is perfect and something or someone will always slip through the cracks no matter how "perfect" people feel the system is.
Kind of a silly statement in my book...because prior to 9/11 there were no islamic or any other terrorists attacking the west...at least, I don't think there were. No doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong.
While I agree no system is perfect, there is no doubt in my mind that the terrorists have been thwarted and now know that it isn't as easy as it was in the past BECAUSE of the checks.
------ This poll is Archived ------
monte12: Personally I think they are too strick..
Hey handsome stev how are you today???
Hey handsome stev how are you today???
Hello Monte lass....I am fine thank you, you dark skinned maiden you!
------ This poll is Archived ------
when i came home from the military, before hand, they made me take off my boots (making sure the metal plates weren't shanks).
The point though is, how far do we keep letting them go? As it is now, they can scan your body and get an exact proportional recording of what you are...It's a fact when you give the government an inch they take a mile...Look at social security numbers...Once only supposed to be used for recieving benefits, now is required by every citizen to have.
The point though is, how far do we keep letting them go? As it is now, they can scan your body and get an exact proportional recording of what you are...It's a fact when you give the government an inch they take a mile...Look at social security numbers...Once only supposed to be used for recieving benefits, now is required by every citizen to have.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Steve5721: But shoes weren't removed for inspection7scanning until AFTER that incident.
The problem with any kind of security, there are no rules.The "game" changes all the time.You think everything is covered, but there never ever such a thing as everything. It is a pain, btu if anything happens, then those involved, no matter what they did,will always have fingers pointed at them.It is, to a certain extent a guessing game for those invloved in security,trying to cover all.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Steve5721: Kind of a silly statement in my book...because prior to 9/11 there were no islamic or any other terrorists attacking the west...at least, I don't think there were. No doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong.
While I agree no system is perfect, there is no doubt in my mind that the terrorists have been thwarted and now know that it isn't as easy as it was in the past BECAUSE of the checks.
While I agree no system is perfect, there is no doubt in my mind that the terrorists have been thwarted and now know that it isn't as easy as it was in the past BECAUSE of the checks.
WTC was attacked in the 90s, the USS Cole was attacked, and numerous embassies where attacked by islamic terrorists.
Ramsi Yousef even said when they brought him back to new york city, and they flew him by the WTC to show him they were still standing, for trial..."The next time we will take them down, both of them". So the warning signs were all there to be honest.
I agree it's not as easy, but where there is a will, there is a way. I also wouldn't have a problem with the checks, if they weren't so rediculous (patting down old ladies in wheelchairs type of things). If you have a profile of a suspect, that is what you look for. Otherwise you are basically running around like a chicken with it's head cut off looking for something.
------ This poll is Archived ------
time4fun4u: The problem with any kind of security, there are no rules.The "game" changes all the time.You think everything is covered, but there never ever such a thing as everything. It is a pain, btu if anything happens, then those involved, no matter what they did,will always have fingers pointed at them.It is, to a certain extent a guessing game for those invloved in security,trying to cover all.
exactly. It's like merry go round...where it stops, nobody knows.------ This poll is Archived ------
JSuburbia: WTC was attacked in the 90s, the USS Cole was attacked, and numerous embassies where attacked by islamic terrorists.
Ramsi Yousef even said when they brought him back to new york city, and they flew him by the WTC to show him they were still standing, for trial..."The next time we will take them down, both of them". So the warning signs were all there to be honest.
I agree it's not as easy, but where there is a will, there is a way. I also wouldn't have a problem with the checks, if they weren't so rediculous (patting down old ladies in wheelchairs type of things). If you have a profile of a suspect, that is what you look for. Otherwise you are basically running around like a chicken with it's head cut off looking for something.
Ramsi Yousef even said when they brought him back to new york city, and they flew him by the WTC to show him they were still standing, for trial..."The next time we will take them down, both of them". So the warning signs were all there to be honest.
I agree it's not as easy, but where there is a will, there is a way. I also wouldn't have a problem with the checks, if they weren't so rediculous (patting down old ladies in wheelchairs type of things). If you have a profile of a suspect, that is what you look for. Otherwise you are basically running around like a chicken with it's head cut off looking for something.
The problem of NOT patting down the elderly..and I do agree it is incorrect...Human Rights idiots will be claiming racial profiling.
------ This poll is Archived ------
JSuburbia: WTC was attacked in the 90s, the USS Cole was attacked, and numerous embassies where attacked by islamic terrorists.
Ramsi Yousef even said when they brought him back to new york city, and they flew him by the WTC to show him they were still standing, for trial..."The next time we will take them down, both of them". So the warning signs were all there to be honest.
I agree it's not as easy, but where there is a will, there is a way. I also wouldn't have a problem with the checks, if they weren't so rediculous (patting down old ladies in wheelchairs type of things). If you have a profile of a suspect, that is what you look for. Otherwise you are basically running around like a chicken with it's head cut off looking for something.
sadly, a profile is only a guide, and the "terrorists" are looking at differant methods all the time, even planting things on people less likely to be checked, either for foul means or a diversion.Ramsi Yousef even said when they brought him back to new york city, and they flew him by the WTC to show him they were still standing, for trial..."The next time we will take them down, both of them". So the warning signs were all there to be honest.
I agree it's not as easy, but where there is a will, there is a way. I also wouldn't have a problem with the checks, if they weren't so rediculous (patting down old ladies in wheelchairs type of things). If you have a profile of a suspect, that is what you look for. Otherwise you are basically running around like a chicken with it's head cut off looking for something.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Steve5721: They can go as far as they want for all I am concerned, safety in the air is paramount and we know NOW that they are now looking to attack other areas, like the DC tube (subway) system, like they did in the UK with 7/7.
I guess my biggest concern is... I mean the terrorists always will find a way. And is it really worth it to travel safe if it is at the point where everyone is patted down at gunpoint in the name of safety? Personally, I don't believe it is.
As it is, there is a motion in our Congress for their to be an issue of a federally issued federal I.D. card that contains data such as my name, address, etc on a microchip (the military already uses these)...In lands such as the UK & United States and other democratic countries that promote freedom, is it really the governments business where I am traveling? Where I've been? Personally I say no. Maybe, just maybe it may make me safer as a citizen, but in a sense, it strips me of my freedom to be who I want to be and go where I want to go without big brother looking over my shoulder
Personally I just think alot has been done in the name of National Security that violates basic human rights of freedom (Patriot Act). Again, yeah they may make me safer, but I'd rather be more free. It's all a matter of perspective of what people are willing to sacrafice for their safety.
------ This poll is Archived ------
time4fun4u: sadly, a profile is only a guide, and the "terrorists" are looking at differant methods all the time, even planting things on people less likely to be checked, either for foul means or a diversion.
All the more that says checking isn't foolproof because to be honest, it could be the little kid with a bomb that looks like a Nintendo...
------ This poll is Archived ------
JSuburbia: All the more that says checking isn't foolproof because to be honest, it could be the little kid with a bomb that looks like a Nintendo...
Thats right, and it is irratating hanging about ect.I agree,when do we draw a line at the amount of security we have? Yes, the civil liberty people will protest if there is to much, and when something goes wrong, everyone will call for the blood of the security services.Its a no win situation, but of course,part of terrorism is to disrupt the daily lifes of people in the countries they are opposed to.------ This poll is Archived ------
monte12: Personally I think they are too strick..
Hey handsome stev how are you today???
I agree deary. How are u Montel?Hey handsome stev how are you today???
I hope gr8.------ This poll is Archived ------
JSuburbia: I honestly wouldn't have a problem with the security, if it actually could garantee me that it would stop 100% of terrorists activity on flights.
Look at Richard Reid (I think that's his name)...The only reason he got caught was because of alert passangers (and this was AFTER 9/11)
Look at Richard Reid (I think that's his name)...The only reason he got caught was because of alert passangers (and this was AFTER 9/11)
It doesn't have to stop 100% of them to be a good deal. It just has stop terrorist activities on the plane you're flying on to be a good deal.
------ This poll is Archived ------
zante: I agree deary. How are u Montel? I hope gr8.
Hello missy how are you? Been quite some time since I see you on here.. Hope everything is good with you..
------ This poll is Archived ------
The security checks are a hassle, but I don´t mind really, except the fact that I now cannot carry a handbag or any duty free goods in addition to my flight bag. Everything must go in one bag, at least in some airports. However the rules are very inconsistent from airport to airport and country to country I´ve noticed, having done a lot of travelling during recent years. I´m also not convinced they are very effective.
Please explain why I cannot carry a lip gloss on board, but people can carry cigarette lighters for example.
Last November I was flying from Liverpool to Spain with some Spanish friends. I had a bottle of shampoo in my hand luggage which was spotted and of course I had to remove it, yet one of my friends had a collection of toiletries in her bag which were not detected.
Another time flying from Moscow a few years ago, I had forgotten about some nail scissors which had been in my bag for some time. In fact I only remembered when I was unpacking after arriving in the UK, so they too had not been detected.
Please explain why I cannot carry a lip gloss on board, but people can carry cigarette lighters for example.
Last November I was flying from Liverpool to Spain with some Spanish friends. I had a bottle of shampoo in my hand luggage which was spotted and of course I had to remove it, yet one of my friends had a collection of toiletries in her bag which were not detected.
Another time flying from Moscow a few years ago, I had forgotten about some nail scissors which had been in my bag for some time. In fact I only remembered when I was unpacking after arriving in the UK, so they too had not been detected.
------ This poll is Archived ------
JSuburbia: All the more that says checking isn't foolproof because to be honest, it could be the little kid with a bomb that looks like a Nintendo...
And herein lies the problem....no matter how much profiling is done, no matter how many supposed threats are encountered, there is no way to determine, in reality, who is really a threat. This is the basis of all that we question... and of all that we support. It's a hell of a game plan, though, don't you think? Keep them guessing every step of the way. And as we're all taking off our shoes and storing our lotions in little plastic bags, someone is out there, honing in on our Metros or bridges or some other mass transportation system. Your question, Steve, is should we decrease our airport security....my answer, such as it is, is that we should certainly never announce it, if we do. Never take a step backward and tell the world you're doing so; but, perhaps, nor should we ever take a step forward and tell the world we're doing so, either. Some changes that we implement cannot be kept secret, but others do not need to be made so public. We do not always have to announce when we increase security at one airport or another....we just need to do it! Our biggest problem??? We talk too damned much! National security (no matter what the nation) is not secure when you hear about the new measures on the nightly news. Clamp down on the media a bit; then, perhaps, some of our measures employed might actually have some effect.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Thalassa: And herein lies the problem....no matter how much profiling is done, no matter how many supposed threats are encountered, there is no way to determine, in reality, who is really a threat. This is the basis of all that we question... and of all that we support. It's a hell of a game plan, though, don't you think? Keep them guessing every step of the way. And as we're all taking off our shoes and storing our lotions in little plastic bags, someone is out there, honing in on our Metros or bridges or some other mass transportation system. Your question, Steve, is should we decrease our airport security....my answer, such as it is, is that we should certainly never announce it, if we do. Never take a step backward and tell the world you're doing so; but, perhaps, nor should we ever take a step forward and tell the world we're doing so, either. Some changes that we implement cannot be kept secret, but others do not need to be made so public. We do not always have to announce when we increase security at one airport or another....we just need to do it! Our biggest problem??? We talk too damned much! National security (no matter what the nation) is not secure when you hear about the new measures on the nightly news. Clamp down on the media a bit; then, perhaps, some of our measures employed might actually have some effect.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Steve5721: Airlines Back BA Boss Over Security Attack
.......
"What we do in security in Heathrow and other airports is defined by the authorities and it's really one requirement laid on top of another," he said.
.............
These included body pat-down searches and carry-on baggage checks for passengers arriving from 14 nations which authorities consider a security risk.
......
Mr Broughton said that no-one wanted poor security but added: "We all know there's quite a number of elements in the security programme which are completely redundant and they should be sorted out."
.......
"What we do in security in Heathrow and other airports is defined by the authorities and it's really one requirement laid on top of another," he said.
.............
These included body pat-down searches and carry-on baggage checks for passengers arriving from 14 nations which authorities consider a security risk.
......
Mr Broughton said that no-one wanted poor security but added: "We all know there's quite a number of elements in the security programme which are completely redundant and they should be sorted out."
The hazle for the safety checking at the airports is worth it, to prevent possible atacks.
I do not think the Heathrow safety checking procedures are strict and with so many people they miss some spots. Last year I was there a couple of times and my checking was not well done. I am not a criminal but they should not miss anyone.
Homwever at the Amsterdam airport the checking is always complete and they do take their time. I would say it looks like they do a better job than in the Heathrow airport.
I always get checked everywhere, my complain is that a lady's hands get all over my body and I should ask for a male person to check me very well.
------ This poll is Archived ------
hassle 
------ This poll is Archived ------
Israel's airline questions every passenger. Even the innocent feel intimidated so the guilty will be found out before they fly. I think questionning is the way to go for flights.
------ This poll is Archived ------
JSuburbia: My only worry is, where does it stop as far as security? It's only a matter of time before terrorists bomb another plane...Whats next? Armed soldiers patting down passangers at gunpoint? Immediately after 9/11, this was actually going on in U.S. airports...So much for land of the free , home of the brave.
Been there. Didn't bother me. As for being land of the free, you were free to stay at home, go have a drink, do whatever but if you wanted to get on that aircraft, you had to spread your cheeks so, stop being a woman and make your mind up.
gardenhackle: It doesn't have to stop 100% of them to be a good deal. It just has stop terrorist activities on the plane you're flying on to be a good deal.
Fact. A terrorist who has been primed, trained, set in a safe house for a year and supported and passports made and cover story etc with knowledge of the cell and handlers is not going to get on an aircraft with a ten percent chance he will not be properly searched.
I guess my biggest concern is... I mean the terrorists always will find a way. And is it really worth it to travel safe if it is at the point where everyone is patted down at gunpoint in the name of safety? Personally, I don't believe it is.
A nice comfortable pair of Doc martins will light your life up nicely.
JSuburbia: Personally I just think alot has been done in the name of National Security that violates basic human rights of freedom (Patriot Act). Again, yeah they may make me safer, but I'd rather be more free. It's all a matter of perspective of what people are willing to sacrafice for their safety.
Just for curiosities sake, I've asked this question of many but none have any real answer so here goes;
What terrible things have happened to you since the Patriot Act was set in motion?
JSuburbia:
Ramsi Yousef even said when they brought him back to new york city, and they flew him by the WTC to show him they were still standing, for trial..."The next time we will take them down, both of them". So the warning signs were all there to be honest.
Ramsi Yousef even said when they brought him back to new york city, and they flew him by the WTC to show him they were still standing, for trial..."The next time we will take them down, both of them". So the warning signs were all there to be honest.
Should have invaded Afghanistan then for crying out loud. Then just moved on iraq too right?
JSuburbia: when i came home from the military, before hand, they made me take off my boots (making sure the metal plates weren't shanks). The point though is, how far do we keep letting them go?
Police don't stop crime, they slow it by making criminal ations more likely to be detected and those doing it caught. A terrorist is not committing a harmless act but rather one he can go to jail for a long time. Any chance he may be caught is a deterrent which muliplies that deterrent. Add in the fact that he has handlers who risk being caught, his value as a westernized operative, the time spent in training, the time and expense invested in setting him up and, you have a risk of beinig detected multiplied by hundreds. And, if never inspected, the risk is still there as he has no idea if he will arrive for a flight on a day where Chuck Norris is doing the inspecting or Pee Wee Herman.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Personally, I think airport security nowadays is just total overkill ... pun intended.
There exists sufficient 'covert technologies' in scanning, facial recognition, exraying luggage, sniffer dogs and etc that they probably could do away with most of the additional layers.
It's made flying way more stressful and, knowing that even ainor disagreement with a Jobsworth can end up with a person missing a flight or being singled out for a strip or cavity search means people are 'just putting up with' shabby treatment from some over officious asses... such as created the shabby scenes with the woman who was carrying expressed breast milk for her baby. In 'programming' security staff they seem to have all but eliminated intelligence.
If a group REALLY wanted to create a 'terror' scenario in the future then they'd pick a target such as the London Underground or similar. I can think of at least four ways of creating havoc and panic across every sizable town and city in the USA ... if the see eye ay are reading this drop me a line - I mean no one any harm but there exists many scenarios that simply couldn't be 'protected against' unless every single person were employed in security ...
There exists sufficient 'covert technologies' in scanning, facial recognition, exraying luggage, sniffer dogs and etc that they probably could do away with most of the additional layers.
It's made flying way more stressful and, knowing that even ainor disagreement with a Jobsworth can end up with a person missing a flight or being singled out for a strip or cavity search means people are 'just putting up with' shabby treatment from some over officious asses... such as created the shabby scenes with the woman who was carrying expressed breast milk for her baby. In 'programming' security staff they seem to have all but eliminated intelligence.
If a group REALLY wanted to create a 'terror' scenario in the future then they'd pick a target such as the London Underground or similar. I can think of at least four ways of creating havoc and panic across every sizable town and city in the USA ... if the see eye ay are reading this drop me a line - I mean no one any harm but there exists many scenarios that simply couldn't be 'protected against' unless every single person were employed in security ...
------ This poll is Archived ------
This Poll is Archived
This Poll is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Poll get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
More Threads
Unions support Democrats!
Democrats destroyed America
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
s*xual skills
What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
your favorite topic?
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
Kultur-multur
Gal / sdarlagg passed away on April 10, 2024
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Stats for this Poll
59 Votes
1,955 Views
56 Comments
Created: Oct 2010
Last Viewed: Apr 14
Last Commented: Oct 2010
Last Voted: Jul 2017
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Unions support Democrats!
- Democrats destroyed America
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- s*xual skills
- What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
- your favorite topic?
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- Kultur-multur
- Gal / sdarlagg passed away on April 10, 2024
Should we decrease the current airport security checks?(Vote Below)
Osman Baig, Sky News Online
The aviation industry has backed a call by the chairman of British Airways for a radical overhaul of airport security checks.
Martin Broughton said some parts of the security programme are "completely redundant" and Britain should stop "kowtowing" to the US every time it wants something done.
He was speaking at the annual conference of the UK Airport Operators Association in London.
Mr Broughton said people should not be forced to take off their shoes or have laptops checked separately when checking in for flights.
Nor was there any need to pander to the Americans especially when it involves checks they do not impose on their own domestic routes.
Mr Broughton, who is also the chairman of Liverpool FC, said: "We should say, 'We'll only do things which we consider to be essential and that you Americans also consider essential'.
Martin Broughton chairman of British Airways and Liverpool FC
Mr Broughton says Britain should stop pandering to the United States
"We all know there's quite a number of elements in the security programme which are completely redundant and they should be sorted out."
Mike Carrivick, chief executive of Bar UK, which represents more than 80 scheduled airlines in the UK, agreed the issue of airport security needs to be addressed.
"There seems to be a layered approach to security at airports. Every time there is a new security scare, an extra layer is added on to procedures," he said.
"We need to step back and have a look at the whole situation."
Colin Matthews, chief executive of airport operator BAA, said passengers would be better served if checks were "rationalised".
Current Airport Security Checks
"What we do in security in Heathrow and other airports is defined by the authorities and it's really one requirement laid on top of another," he said.
"We could certainly do a better job for customers if we can rationalise them."
Sky News reporter Amy Lewis said the Department for Transport has indicated it is working on a new security framework and more details would emerge in the coming months.
Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said he was aware of concerns about airport security, saying it would "remain a continuing challenge to the industry".
He added: "I intend to develop a new regulatory system - one that frees up operators to devise the security processes needed to deliver them in line with EU requirements."
Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab
Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab has been charged over the Christmas bomb plot
Airport security around the world has increased since 9/11, and the US further tightened checks in January weeks after the alleged Christmas Day bomb plot.
These included body pat-down searches and carry-on baggage checks for passengers arriving from 14 nations which authorities consider a security risk.
Mr Broughton said that no-one wanted poor security but added: "We all know there's quite a number of elements in the security programme which are completely redundant and they should be sorted out."
He said confusion over whether the iPad is a laptop or not, thereby requiring further examination, was one example of inconsistencies.