|
Grex > Agora41 > #113: Security nazis at Detroit airport | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 167 responses total. |
pthomas
|
|
response 25 of 167:
| 
Apr 23 17:57 UTC 2002 |
24: That's actually what they're doing. They search old ladies, children,
John Dingell, etc. on a regular basis to prove that Arabs aren't being
profiled (which, of course, they are.) It's official DOT policy. And
absolutely silly.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 26 of 167:
|
Apr 23 18:15 UTC 2002 |
I have no problem with them searching John Dingell on a regular basis. ;-)
|
gull
|
|
response 27 of 167:
|
Apr 23 19:57 UTC 2002 |
I don't know. I think profiling could backfire in more ways than
political ones. I mean, if they know only Arab-looking men of a certain
age are being searched, terrorist groups will just recruit people like
John Walker Lindh that don't fit the profile. It's not exactly rocket
science.
|
senna
|
|
response 28 of 167:
|
Apr 24 01:25 UTC 2002 |
Which is why they'd better be searching people who don't fit the profile.
And they have, at least on my trip. My dad fits the profile of... an old man,
clearly stricken with something (cancer) and requiring oxygen on the plane
and a wheelchair to get around large areas like an airport. He got searched
at least once.
|
other
|
|
response 29 of 167:
|
Apr 24 03:51 UTC 2002 |
On my flight to Columbus yesterday, I was randomly searched at the gate,
and they confiscated my roll of gaff tape, apparently because it is
functionally equivalent to handcuffs... <boggle>
|
mcnally
|
|
response 30 of 167:
|
Apr 24 04:10 UTC 2002 |
To my mind <boggle> would be if they confiscated the tape but allowed
you to carry the handcuffs you had in the same carry-on bag..
|
other
|
|
response 31 of 167:
|
Apr 24 04:27 UTC 2002 |
No handcuffs. Having a pair confiscated while going through airport
security with my parents while I was in middle school was enough to make
the point ;)
The gaff tape was in a carry-on bag with an LCD projector, power strip,
extension cord and power and video input cables, none of the rest of
which apparently posed any threat. With the knots I know, I could bind
someone more securely in about the same time with some of those cables
than I could with the gaff tape.
|
senna
|
|
response 32 of 167:
|
Apr 24 04:27 UTC 2002 |
You flew to Columbus? Wow.
|
scg
|
|
response 33 of 167:
|
Apr 24 06:50 UTC 2002 |
It's probably best not to mention your knot tying ability to the security
people. ;)
Since 9/11, I've flown from or to SFO, ORD, DTW, SJC, MSP, and SAN, some of
those multiple times, and the only differencees I've noticed in the security
procedures are that some ask for ID more frequently than others, and in the
three California airports on that list the National Guard people have bigger
guns. They were all pulling some fraction of the travellers aside for
extra searches, and in all those airports I've heard people getting on the
planes complaining about having been stopped and searched multiple times.
I don't think it was a Richard specific issue, and for all my other complaints
about DTW, I don't think I've seen anything DTW-specific about it.
At this point I dump the entire contents of my pockets, as well as my belt
and cell phone, into a bin to stick through the x-ray machine before even
attempting to get to the metal detector. I put my jacket through the x-ray
machine as well, as the snaps and zipper seem to be enough to set off the
metal detectors. The generally seems to get me through with minimal hassles,
although the first time I flew post 9/11 they did confiscate my nail clipper,
and the last time (at SFO, flying to DTW a couple weeks ago), they checked
my shoes for explosives.
It's somewhat of a pain, but they seem to have gotten the hour long security
checkpoint waits fixed, and I'm glad they're doing it.
|
other
|
|
response 34 of 167:
|
Apr 24 11:02 UTC 2002 |
(It was a business trip. Discovery Channel paid, not me.)
|
cpnmonk
|
|
response 35 of 167:
|
Apr 24 12:45 UTC 2002 |
Then again it amazes me how light airport security is in other regards. Right
after 9/11 (about a month after) I drove down to the airport to pick someone
up who was being interviewed. I wondered around the various terminals for
a while, left a running van with a co-worker out front, because I was wearing
responsible work clothes and looked clean cut I was left alone. Hell I cou
ld have wandered up to the gates, one of the guards was taking a little happy
nap break.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 36 of 167:
|
Apr 24 21:19 UTC 2002 |
And yet, the federal security testers *still* manage to smuggle guns, knives,
fake bombs, and what have you past the checkpoints more often than not.
This is why I took the train to Denver last month.
|
scott
|
|
response 37 of 167:
|
Apr 24 21:46 UTC 2002 |
A train??!!! Didn't you see that Steven Segal movie with the train? You're
lucky to be alive, dude. ;)
|
morwen
|
|
response 38 of 167:
|
Apr 25 01:03 UTC 2002 |
That's just a movie, silly.
|
senna
|
|
response 39 of 167:
|
Apr 25 01:27 UTC 2002 |
(If Discovery is paying, I'd fly there, too)
|
polygon
|
|
response 40 of 167:
|
Apr 25 12:44 UTC 2002 |
Per passenger-mile, air travel is safest. Train travel is next. Then
buses (about twice the risk of trains). Individual passenger cars are
the most dangerous by far.
Per passenger-hour, train travel is safest, then buses. Passenger cars
and air travel are roughly tied for most dangerous.
To compare driving vs. flying to California, say, the risk per hour is
about the same, but driving exposes you to that level of risk for much
longer. Taking a train the same distance keeps the per hour risk much
lower, but the cumulative risk for the whole trip is greater than if you
flew.
The above uses risk-of-death from accidents, not risk of injuries.
Injuries can happen across a wide continuum from a couple of cuts and
bruises to loss of limbs and brain damage, so they are harder to quantify
than the binary issue of death-or-not. Obviously the likelihood of being
injured (but not killed) in an accident is higher for ground
transportation.
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 167:
|
Apr 25 14:16 UTC 2002 |
Weren't there some congresspeople making noises a while back about
requiring the same level of security for train and bus passengers as is
required for airline passengers? I thought it sounded like a totally
absurd and unworkable idea, at the time, and I hope it's not getting
anywhere. For one thing, it'd pretty much kill off Amtrak and Greyhound
service to most towns. Heck, some places Greyhound stops there isn't
even a bus depot.
|
polygon
|
|
response 42 of 167:
|
Apr 25 16:15 UTC 2002 |
Agreed, but unfortunately Amtrak and Greyhound are getting killed off
anyway.
|
jp2
|
|
response 43 of 167:
|
Apr 25 16:19 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
senna
|
|
response 44 of 167:
|
Apr 25 17:42 UTC 2002 |
Remember, it is in the best interest of the Airlines to maintain whatever
safety they can. That "statistically speaking, it's the safest way to travel"
phrase we've heard from diverse sources, including Superman, may be a bit out
there, but it's critical to the image of flying. Flying still bugs a lot of
people emotionally, and while regulars won't flinch at the usual rigors of
turbulence, takeoff, and landing, people who don't fly every week may become
far more reluctant if those emotional shakes are combined with intellectual
doubts.
The airlines *really want* to be safe. It's not just the government that's
leaning for all this security.
|
polygon
|
|
response 45 of 167:
|
Apr 25 18:42 UTC 2002 |
Re 43. Have you tried taking a Greyhound bus anywhere lately? Service
has been drastically cut back, and the company (last I heard) is still in
deep trouble.
Much like the railroads in the 1950s, who gave up fast freight to
reposition themselves as the carrier of heavy stuff slowly, Greyhound
repositioned itself in the 1980s as the carrier of only poor people who
have no other choices.
If you're a train or bus company, it's much easier to carry coal or iron
ore or uncomplaining poor people than it is to carry picky middle-class
folks and perishables. It's a lot cheaper, and you can relax and not
worry about quality control. Problem is, at some point your service
deteriorates to the point that even the poor people or the mining
companies find other carriers.
What little is left of Greyhound will be gone in a couple of years.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 167:
|
Apr 25 20:42 UTC 2002 |
Some railroads are actually doing pretty well carrying freight these
days. Intermodal containers have turned out to be a pretty big win for
them. In some cases companies are actually unloading containers from
ships, sending them across the U.S. by rail, then loading them onto
other ships at the opposite coast, because it's quicker than sending
ships through the Panama Canal.
Rail passenger service has been a money-losing proposition for a long
time. The whole reason the government took it over is because mandated
passenger service was killing the commercial railroads. I don't think
there are any countries with a substantial passenger rail service that
isn't subsidized.
|
jared
|
|
response 47 of 167:
|
Apr 26 17:16 UTC 2002 |
For awhile i was being selected 50%+ of the time. I finally
took note of how they were doing their person selection
and have reduced that percentage significantly.
Their selection criteria seem to be not based on reality from
what i've noticed. I can't wait until I can get a "do not search me"
card.
|
scg
|
|
response 48 of 167:
|
Apr 27 07:20 UTC 2002 |
Do you want to tell us how they were doing their person selection, or would
you consider that a bad thing to announce publicly, security-wise?
|
other
|
|
response 49 of 167:
|
Apr 27 16:14 UTC 2002 |
At the gate it is random. As soon as they finish with one person, the
next one in line to board is next up.
|