Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Random Searches: The Stupidest Idea Ever  
User currently offlineSoontobepilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 271 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2187 times:

Hi All

I am sure this has been discussed before, but I just have to bring it back up after one of my recent trips. Here is the scenerio:

Place: Albequerque International Sunport (ABQ)
Suspect: A 2 year old toddler (im serious)
Punishment: Confiscation of the baby's pacifier, causing it to bawl, seperation
of the baby from it's parents, and the usual wand treatment

Now, I don't know about you, but when the suspicious-looking man with a frazzled beared, worried face, and traveling alone walked right by unquestioned, It made me wonder if "Racial Profiling Problems" will be the downfall of our airline system. It made me furious to see the little baby being hastled... like it is going to do anything? Also, the flight was a short one, to pheonix, and what kind of terrorist would target pheonix or Albequrque?

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGoboeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2679 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2167 times:

I think the United State's government's approach to making air travel safer is just absolutely pathetic. It's just completely ridiculous! People will avoid it after a while.

Nick


User currently offlineJj From Algeria, joined Jun 2001, 1227 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

After 9/11 everybody called for security, everybody said security was a sh** and needed improvement. Now that you got a better security, you say it's bulls***.

Don't you realize that a very smart terrorist, can hide a weapon inside a baby's toy? And, as he's a baby nobody would check him...so the weapon would get on board. I think that what they did is very smart. Everybody is complaining so much, that security will be reduced, and another attack will happen until you realize this is serious stuff.


User currently offlineA330_DTW From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

Unfortunately, racial profiling is the only way to go.

Some little old blue-haired lady from Palm Beach didn't hijack any airliner. No white middle-class American did, either. And it wasn't a band of African-American terrorists, either!

The U.S. needs to take a stand and say, Yes, racial profiling is unfortunate, but a certain race of people are historically known for terrorist activities in the Middle East, Israel and now the United States. Therefore, they will be searched and will have no recourse to sue, or file any sort of charges.

Forget frisking the old wheelchair-bound folks, babies, frequent fliers, etc.


User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

JI - I just got back from a trip today, and I've got to say this...yes, the random security checks are bullsh*t. I flew Delta (very good experience), but I did notice that it was the boarding card reader and NOT any human who flashed "random check" for passengers to be screened. Yes indeedy do, a prolific terrorist can certainly make a deadly weapon out of a pacifier, but if he's really clever, he'll hang back and count out how many passengers make it before the "random" one is selected, then get in line and pass right on thru. IT'S A JOKE.

User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2058 times:

By choosing people randomly for the more thorough searches, it only takes 3 - 4 terrorists per flight to assure that at least 2 will get through, especially if they stick together, assumung they make it through the initial screening.

During check-in, all pax should be screened automatically and transparently, logging information about their travel habits, type of ticket, where purchased, age, nationality, etc. When the passenger passes throught the metal detectors, additional data can be added by the attendant -- unusual behavior, etc. Then, when he is at the gate, the computer knows whether to select him for one last thorough search based on the data collected since his arrival, plus computerized background check in the police database. This would be the "profiling" part, but race is only one of many components. This way, the final check will identify the most likely candidates, and produce a better chance of apprehending a terrorist. This method would pick out all 4 terrorists in my example above. It will allow more sophisticated searches, because fewer people would be selected, and Security will not have to waste their time on the airlines' best, loyal customers and grannies visiting their grandkids, but focus on the higher risks.

This is very similar in concept to medical screening.

Pete


User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2032 times:

I think they should profile by age. 15-50 perhaps. BTW, I'm 35 y.o. white male and I almost ALLLLWAYS get checked. I've only flown about 8 times since 9/11 and of the 8, I was singled out 6 times.

Also, the idea of screening and random checks isn't necessarily to actually catch someone, but more to deter attempts. With security measures, wrong-doers tend to abort plans. That's the idea. Something will happen as soon as we get complacent again.



"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2002 times:

The checks are designated random for legal reasons, and to avoid the obvious fact that there is racial profiling going on. If the only people getting checked were of arab descent, there would be more of an uproar than has already been seen. So what happens, is that they do random checks + what they deem as suspicious checks. This way the security line is filled with both types and avoids embarassment for all parties

Jeremy


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1996 times:

Jeremy, I think most americans would applaud loudly at the idea that security assets are being used more effectively by allowing them to use profiles of all natures. The only people who would bitch are the ACLU, and militant racists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Charles


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

I am applauding along with them...don't worry..no criticism from me on this.

Jeremy


User currently offlineAhlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1339 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1943 times:

I have to agree with Goingboeing with the counting method. I was on an AA flight JFK-SJU in December, and there were two lines for boarding. From one line they pulled random checks, from the other not. So, not wanting to be hassled by a random check, I figured, hey, maybe I'll take the line with no random checks. What I'm wondering is do they really think that terrorists are stupid enough not to realize something like this and use it to their advantage?

User currently offlineFlyboy36y From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3039 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1834 times:

Delta-flyer,

If ONE of them gets caught being a terrorist the entire flight will be re-screened.


User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1791 times:

If ONE of them gets caught being a terrorist the entire flight will be re-screened

Good point, I didn't think of that.

Then a determined terrorist group can just board several flights, with the chance of a random hit being maybe 10%. Still, pretty good odds for the terrorist.

Pete


User currently offlineLubcha132 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

its not like "free upgrade to every 16th person"...random searching is fairly ok, but you should still check all the guys that fit the 9-11 description.

User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Racial profiling has been discussed to death on this forum. It comes across as the usual racist screaming against "others" by the usual band of racist culprits on here. Just in case your little cerebella haven't contemplated these ideas, there are security concerns at U.S. airports that go beyond the usual "lets flog all Arabs/Muslims/Those who may bear a slight resemblance to them" rant.

And as far as searches of non-Arab/non-Muslim individuals is concerned, random searches existed much before 9-11, actually ever since the 1960s. There were numerous bombings perpetrated in the US by upstanding white males to collect insurance checks, and lets not forget that this country is full of nut cases of every stripe (the Unabomber, the late Tim McVeigh and his band of cohorts, the Anthrax culprits, etc.) Furthermore, a rather nasty inflight explosion on board an ElAl jet was thwarted in the 1980s at London Heathrow when security checked a rather sweet freckle-faced English lass who was unwittingly carrying a semtex bomb for her Iraqi terrorist boyfriend.

Your arguments are so absurd on here. You seem to think that because an ethnic profile may be indicative of a potential terrorist, lack of that ethnic profile is indicative of sheer innocence. Unfortunately, this corrolary is bizarre. Just stand in line like everyone else, and if you're screened and inconvenienced in a minor way don't blame the perfectly innocent Muslim women in line behind you who may not have been strip searched. After all, if it is just a minor inconvenience for an Arab-American/the ACLU/ and all those people you berate, it should be a minor inconvenience for you too, right?

Sometimes I wonder if some of the people on here ever graduated from Grade school.


User currently offlineTzMSP From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 137 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1716 times:

JI - I just got back from a trip today, and I've got to say this...yes, the random security checks are bullsh*t. I flew Delta (very good experience), but I did notice that it was the boarding card reader and NOT any human who flashed "random check" for passengers to be screened. Yes indeedy do, a prolific terrorist can certainly make a deadly weapon out of a pacifier, but if he's really clever, he'll hang back and count out how many passengers make it before the "random" one is selected, then get in line and pass right on thru. IT'S A JOKE.

Well, I certainly can't speak for all airlines, but I know from first-hand experience that many travelers are already pre-selected long before they check-in and that there is nothing random about it. The TSA considers hundreds of factors (of which we gate agents have only figured out a mere 10 or so) which will ensure you are selected for additional security. Destination information, one-way vs. r/t travel, name (compared to black lists) are just but a few which will trigger a 'selectee' status. (I've also noticed many people who change their itenerary at the last moment, such as flying revenue standby for an earlier departure,) will trigger a selectee status.

As for counting passengers in line, I have personally had 7-8 selectees all board in a row and all of them get pulled aside; a gate agent also has the authority to make someone a selectee based on actions of the customer/passenger, or if there are simply not enough people being searched at the time. So it's a combination of random selections, human intuition, and TSA's selection process which determine if your checked luggage is submitted to CTX scans and your person and carry-on baggage is subject to additional screening.

It's not nearly as simple as picking every third person in line.

In addition, no person may be 'cleared' from 'selectee' status for any reason, with rare exceptions. Law enforcement officers, 2-year olds or other small children are not in any way exempt from additional security screening if they are selected. The only exceptions to my knowledge are FBI, CIA, NSA, US Marshalls, or any member of the military on active duty with written orders in hand. In order to be removed from the list, I actually have to call a GSC to clear the entry. (It cannot be processed locally.)

But this is just my insight from behind the ticket counters and gates of Minneapolis-Saint Paul International...

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy tzMSP


User currently offlineCalpilot From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 998 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1694 times:

Profile like the rest of the world.

User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1670 times:

TzMSP - Well, maybe they do preselect in advance, although I am having a helluva time figuring out why exactly they think that my 78 year old mother and 81 year old mother in law are suspected terrorists. I say this because BOTH were given the wanding and "remove your shoes" treatment on recent trips. I've known my mom for nigh unto 45 years and I don't think she's even ever picked up a gun. Ditto for my mother in law that I've known for 16 years. Yet both got the "random search" flash card when handing the gate agent the boarding pass for their flights. I stand by my statement - THEY ARE A JOKE.

User currently offlineSeiple From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

TzMSP - Well, maybe they do preselect in advance, although I am having a helluva time figuring out why exactly they think that my 78 year old mother and 81 year old mother in law are suspected terrorists. I say this because BOTH were given the wanding and "remove your shoes" treatment on recent trips.

Sometimes its the person you least suspect. Who would have thought that Patty Hearst would have shown up robbing banks after she was kidnapped? Nobody would have thought she would rob banks.

I've known my mom for nigh unto 45 years and I don't think she's even ever picked up a gun. Ditto for my mother in law that I've known for 16 years.

The gate agent has known both for about 5 seconds. They won't know what you know about them.

Yet both got the "random search" flash card when handing the gate agent the boarding pass for their flights. I stand by my statement - THEY ARE A JOKE.

They get the random search for reasons such as travel patterns, one-way, method of payment, etc. Just because you know everything about a person and don't think they are a suspect doesn't mean those who have never met them before should have the same point of view.


User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5578 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1652 times:

Aren't we all missing the real point? Random searches are no big deal. I saw plenty of them being conducted a few weeks ago as I waited three hours at TPA for a connection on WN. In fact, I had so much time to kill that I actually timed how long the searches took. Almost all of them took less than three minutes! So what's the big deal?


"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineJahckass From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1626 times:

On a recent SFO-DWF trip on AA, my 2 year old daughter was randomly searched at the gate. Now If the search was truly random, then this is going to happen from time to time. My only problem with it is that when she went into the "line" of people waiting for the search, there were only two other people in this line, one was about 6 and the other, maybe 12, so of the people boarding - that i saw - three were randomly searched and the average age of this search was about 7.
Also, if a clever terrorist were to hide something on a 2 year old, wouldn't they just take the child as a lap child, bypassing any "random" searches on the kid?



User currently offlineCoolchris122 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1615 times:

Hey everyone, I have heard just about every good and bad point there is about re-screening at the gate. 1)Racial profiling, good because we sometimes can tell what race will and will not be terrorists. Bad because it takes away what this country is based on-freedom. 2)Screen people from 15-35. Bad in every way. Terrorists can come in all shape, sizes, ages and races. 3)The norm, pull every 4 or 5 people aside. I would call that so-so. People at the back of the line can tell if they will be picked or not. That enables terrorists to move about the line so they will not be re-screened. 4)Find out everything about them; age, sex, home, ect. This would be a pretty good solution to security. One problem. Everyone is a first flyer at one point. Those first flyers could be terrorists and have a clean record. This would let them board all that easier.

Lets just all face it, there is no easy solution to keeping terrorists off planes. They fight a whole different way then we do. Terrorists will get on planes, maybe not that often, but they will. We can prevent some but there will always be those few who will make it. Any flaws you find in my statement please point out so I can have right views of the world.

Chris


User currently offlineCoolchris122 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1595 times:

common people keep talkin, i want to hear opinions

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1572 times:

The whole idiocy of the current screening, "improvements"  Insane has caused me to want more then ever to finish getting my PPL.

That was I can avoid all the airlines altogether.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineH. Simpson From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 949 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1554 times:

"Random Searches" simply = "Racial Profiling"

I remember seeing a guy dressed in like Arab (hey, no offense here) was fully searched (laptop comp. opened, shoes off, bags searched) just before boarding a flight from Toronto to New York - LGA. And everybody behind him don't have to do the search, even there are rooms for it. Don't you call this racial profiling?


25 Cfalk : H. Simpson, Aren't you glad that guy WAS searched? I would be. Don't you call this racial profiling? You talk as if somehow it is a bad thing. It isn'
26 LMP737 : What it boils down to is that the political correctness police have such a hold on this country that we are willing to traumatize small children just
27 Goingboeing : Simpson. Neither my mom or mother in law was dressed like an Arab. For those of you who justify this nonsense of checking the elderly and infants...if
28 Adh214 : There are statistical methods to use both random screening and profiling. For example, there are 100 factors that could make you a terrorist. Of these
29 Srbmod : The random searches are like putting a band-aid on a deep cut, it helps some, but doesn't exactly fix the problem. Many terrorists are smart, they use
30 Lowfareair : >>No white middle-class American did
31 TranStar : I was flying back in December 2001 and was checking in at a Continental e-ticket stand at Washington National (which is supposed the have the tighest
32 Timeforflight : random screening is bullshit. the fact that board passes either have ***CLR*** on them or not in big bold letters doesnt really make anything a secret
33 Jhooper : If security is done correctly at the first checkpoint, then why is "secondary screening" necessary? Here in Houston, the pervert screeners pulled asid
34 Post contains images Leezyjet : This thread just makes me laugh. What do most of you sound like ??? Is 3 mins of your time really so important to you that you don't get searched ???.
35 Goingboeing : Leezyjet...call me a fool, but until a grandmother or a 2 year old conducts a replay of 9/11, then "random" checks are bullshit. If you want to do a c
36 Leezyjet : Goingboeing, If you don't like it, there is a simple solution - don't travel by air. As has been said before, it's usually the most unlikely people th
37 Jaysit : It appears that you incredibly important people (which includes the very important teenagers on here, who must be very, very important since you stati
38 Goingboeing : Leezyjet...my point is...how do you know that a healthy, able bodied, blond haired blue eyed lunatic with 10 razor blades and 5 pairs of scissors got
39 Wingman : I agree with Leezyjet and Jaysit 100%. You'd think half the nimnods on this thread had already forgotten the events of 9 months ago. I fly all the tim
40 Goingboeing : I a-m t-y-p-i-n-g- t-h-i-s s-l-o-w-l-y I don't disagree with stepped up security. But only a "nimnod" can believe that anything that is "random" is go
41 GARUDAROD : Count me in on the thinking that the "random" search is full of crap. I just recently returned from a vacation with my family, 15yr old and 2yr and m
42 Goingboeing : Just for grins, I looked up the Webster's version of "Random". After reading this, tell me if it makes you feel safer...I'll bold the terms I find mos
43 Wingman : Hey, I also agree with you Goingboeing, but 100% security would cost more than the defense budget and would only be feasible in a totalitarian state.
44 GD727 : I have argued with the extreme liberals about this in the Non-Aviation forum many times before. Racial profiling is necessary, many liberals think it
45 AgnusBymaster : I heard about this lady at ATL who was stopped at security because of her bottles of breast milk. She was required to drink all three bottles or be ba
46 Jaysit : Even the Supreme Court has implied that race used as a factor among others does not violate civil rights laws in this country, and neither have libera
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is This The Stupidest Flying Stunt Ever? posted Wed May 6 2009 16:52:36 by Alberchico
MSNBC: The Worst Airline Ever Is... posted Tue Jun 10 2008 18:14:02 by Apodino
The Greatest DC 9 Ever! posted Sun May 11 2008 09:11:52 by Mortyman
Old Aeroflot : The Best Airline Ever? posted Thu Apr 24 2008 10:06:44 by Alberchico
Short Question : Will The 747-8I Ever Be Built? posted Sun Nov 11 2007 06:13:48 by Beaucaire
Did The MD-90 Ever Fly To SMF Regularly? posted Thu May 3 2007 02:14:47 by Yflyer
Will The 1st 747 Ever Fly Again? posted Tue Feb 27 2007 14:30:07 by JAM747
Will The Pickering Airport Ever Be Built? posted Sat Jul 8 2006 04:37:59 by N43W79
2005 Was The Best Year Ever For ROC posted Tue Jan 24 2006 14:41:28 by United_fan
I Dont Think The 747adv Will Ever Be Built. posted Mon Nov 14 2005 17:13:20 by CHRISBA777ER