Delusions

[xSilverPhinx]

As for everything else you said, that's merely paraphrasing what I've been trying to say. So I'll have no choice but to agree with you.

Oh, ok. I should really skimm over the words on these threads a little less and stop to read them.

oh well, that was my rant for the morning, and it got me fired up so yeah, wasn't completely useless.

[Sweetdeath]

Btw, i like your new icon, Silver.

[xSilverPhinx]

Thanks. Though it looks a bit like something from a news channel

[Sweetdeath]

Thanks. Though it looks a bit like something from a news channel

LOL! Kind of.

[Guardian85]

No wonder the security isn't effective, if you're taking everyone seriously.  You spend all your time on jokes and false threats.  How is that in any way beneficial?  Make your own job easier by not being so uptight about it.  

Honestly, lots of people are sarcastic.  And most people aren't terrorists.  Most people aren't even dangerous in any real sense.  So, if you assume they are dangerous, by making them take off their shoes, belt, jacket, and telling them they can't even carry a water bottle onto a plane because they might shake it up and explode the plane they're on, then they're going to make a joke about it.  They're going to point out how ridiculous it is for you to assume that everyone getting on the plane is a threat to security.  They're going to feel intimidated by the ridiculously rigorous security, and humor is one way to lighten the situation.  I mean, if you ask me "do you have a bomb in there", I'm going to reply with "No, actually I have three." not because I actually have bombs in my backpack, but because you suggesting the idea that I have one is absurd.  

If you "drop the ball" in the office (I don't know what you actually do for a living, it's just an example) the files have to be resorted and copied and that solves the problem.
If a security guard at the air port let's one past in the worst case you have an aircraft with 200 people blow up over a populated area. See the difference?
That is why security take their jobs seriously.

So, you're telling me that someone who has a bomb in his suitcase is going to say so to a TSA officer? That's not taking your job seriously, that's having silly assumptions. If I have a bomb, the last thing I'm going to do is go around telling people about it--especially in earshot of TSA. So, to assume that someone has a bomb because they say they do seems like a stupid assumption to me.

It is also not only the security guy who hears you make jokes about having guns or bombs. It is also the other people in line who hear snippets of your conversation and only catch the bit about "...have a bomb..." (the word "bomb" being very easily recognisable). These people become worried because they have just heard a person talk about bombs in an airport, something most people have bad assosiations with. Even if you think that is a stupid reason to ask exstra questions, it is a fact that this happens.

And what happens the day a bomber cracks a bomb joke and gets written of as a joker? Bomb on plane.

And here is a thought experiment for you: A cop asks you if you know something about a robbery that happened on a street you were on.
If you say "Yes, I did it!", do you really expect the cop to not look into that more closely? He would not be doing his job if he doesn't follow that up somehow.

[Ali]

I am glad that security guards take their jobs seriously.  It's an important job, and as Guardian said, there could be huge impacts if they didn't.

[Sweetdeath]

I am glad that security guards take their jobs seriously.  It's an important job, and as Guardian said, there could be huge impacts if they didn't.

Like people getting on planes with nail clippers. XP

[Ali]

I am glad that security guards take their jobs seriously.  It's an important job, and as Guardian said, there could be huge impacts if they didn't.

Like people getting on planes with nail clippers. XP

You wouldn't be so flip about it if you had ever had anyone hold you down and give you a manicure against your will.  *solemn face*

[Tank]

Personally I don't see a problem with a security guard doing everything in their power to effectively do their and that includes investigating comments about bombs et al. However what does annoy me is the way some security people act after they have determined there was no threat. They continue to press ludicrous public order charges.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I was in an airport in Frankfurt, Germany a few years ago and there was a list of things you couldn't take on the plane, such as the usual guns, knives, etc..  But down on the list was "pickles." I never understood that one.  Can you make a pickle bomb or do you squirt pickle juice in peoples' eyes?  Dunno.

[keithpenrod]

It is also not only the security guy who hears you make jokes about having guns or bombs. It is also the other people in line who hear snippets of your conversation and only catch the bit about "...have a bomb..." (the word "bomb" being very easily recognisable). These people become worried because they have just heard a person talk about bombs in an airport, something most people have bad assosiations with. Even if you think that is a stupid reason to ask exstra questions, it is a fact that this happens.

And what happens the day a bomber cracks a bomb joke and gets written of as a joker? Bomb on plane.

And here is a thought experiment for you: A cop asks you if you know something about a robbery that happened on a street you were on.
If you say "Yes, I did it!", do you really expect the cop to not look into that more closely? He would not be doing his job if he doesn't follow that up somehow.

And you wonder why people make jokes?

I am glad that security guards take their jobs seriously.  It's an important job, and as Guardian said, there could be huge impacts if they didn't.

Like people getting on planes with nail clippers. XP

Thank you.  That's my point.  Make some real, actually effective rules for security at an airport and then I'll take you seriously.  But confiscating people's toothpaste and nail clippers just makes me think you're ridiculous. 

Why are we talking about airport security anyway?  Doesn't that seem like a lightyear away from the actual topic of this thread?

[Guardian85]

I am glad that security guards take their jobs seriously.  It's an important job, and as Guardian said, there could be huge impacts if they didn't.

Like people getting on planes with nail clippers. XP

The nail clipper is actually a pretty good way to make a shank (improvised stabbing weapon). I won't say how, since this is an open forum, but there is a pretty simple way to make it into a weapon. They are in fact also illegal in prisons for this very reason.
And can you tell the difference between a toothpaste tube filled with toothpaste and one filled with RDX just from looking?
The system is not perfect, I'll be the first to agree with that, but can you come up with something better?


And yeah, this is one of the more spectacular derails.

[keithpenrod]

And can you tell the difference between a toothpaste tube filled with toothpaste and one filled with RDX just from looking?

Nope, can't say I can.  No idea what RDX is or what it looks like.  Now, I don't know about other countries, but in USA, TSA doesn't just look at my stuff.  They use an X-ray.  Can you detect it with an x-ray?  I don't know that either.  If you can, I'd suggest just confiscating the tubes of toothpaste that are explosive, not everyone's.  But, now I have a question for you.  Does it set off metal detectors?  If it's so hard to detect, what's to stop me from having a bag of the stuff in my pocket when I go through the security line.  Do you think that every flier should be required to strip to the nude to prove they're not carrying anything dangerous?  No one would ever fly.  The line between catching terrorists and terrorizing innocent passengers has to be drawn somewhere.  Be reasonable. 

[Guardian85]

And can you tell the difference between a toothpaste tube filled with toothpaste and one filled with RDX just from looking?

Nope, can't say I can.  No idea what RDX is or what it looks like.  Now, I don't know about other countries, but in USA, TSA doesn't just look at my stuff.  They use an X-ray.  Can you detect it with an x-ray?  I don't know that either.  If you can, I'd suggest just confiscating the tubes of toothpaste that are explosive, not everyone's.  But, now I have a question for you.  Does it set off metal detectors?  If it's so hard to detect, what's to stop me from having a bag of the stuff in my pocket when I go through the security line.  Do you think that every flier should be required to strip to the nude to prove they're not carrying anything dangerous?  No one would ever fly.  The line between catching terrorists and terrorizing innocent passengers has to be drawn somewhere.  Be reasonable. 

RDX is often refered to by it's tactical designation C4. It is a patty that can be shaped into any form or container. And very few explosives will set off metal detectors. That's why you complement the search system with random manual checks.

As detection equipment becomes more effective, it will be easier to do more thorough checks while being less invasive, but until then the flawed system we have is better then nothing.
Do I think every passenger should have to strip nude? Of course not. I'm not that much of a pervert. 

I agree that there must be a line drawn on how invasive you can be without specific suspicions, but having to pack my nail clippers in my suitcase and taking off my shoes is not that bad in my opinion. And I say that both as a security professional and as a frequent passenger.

[keithpenrod]

And can you tell the difference between a toothpaste tube filled with toothpaste and one filled with RDX just from looking?

Nope, can't say I can.  No idea what RDX is or what it looks like.  Now, I don't know about other countries, but in USA, TSA doesn't just look at my stuff.  They use an X-ray.  Can you detect it with an x-ray?  I don't know that either.  If you can, I'd suggest just confiscating the tubes of toothpaste that are explosive, not everyone's.  But, now I have a question for you.  Does it set off metal detectors?  If it's so hard to detect, what's to stop me from having a bag of the stuff in my pocket when I go through the security line.  Do you think that every flier should be required to strip to the nude to prove they're not carrying anything dangerous?  No one would ever fly.  The line between catching terrorists and terrorizing innocent passengers has to be drawn somewhere.  Be reasonable. 

RDX is often refered to by it's tactical designation C4. It is a patty that can be shaped into any form or container. And very few explosives will set off metal detectors. That's why you complement the search system with random manual checks.

As detection equipment becomes more effective, it will be easier to do more thorough checks while being less invasive, but until then the flawed system we have is better then nothing.
Do I think every passenger should have to strip nude? Of course not. I'm not that much of a pervert. 

I agree that there must be a line drawn on how invasive you can be without specific suspicions, but having to pack my nail clippers in my suitcase and taking off my shoes is not that bad in my opinion. And I say that both as a security professional and as a frequent passenger.

And all I'm saying is that, nuisance aside, the system we have is not logical.  If I can just sneak C4 through the metal detector in my pocket, then why would I stick it in a tube of toothpaste and put it through the x-ray machine?  This means that confiscating all liquids and gels is meaningless because people can still get it through and in the meantime, tons (literally) of good and non-explosive hygiene products and bottled water are thrown away (probably much less so now that people are more familiar with the liquids/gels rule, but definitely a huge amount when the rule first started).  So the present system is ineffective at actually catching terrorists and very effective at inconveniencing passengers. (For the record, most of the time I travel I do carry-on only, so being forced to check anything is a nuisance.)

As for the random checks, that is largely ineffective at catching terrorists.  Now, with law-abiding people, that may be effective.  For example, if the police patrol a particular stretch of road and issue a large number of speeding tickets, then people will start driving under the speed limit in that area.  This is because law-abiding people would rather not have all the hassle with getting a ticket--yes, they don't mind breaking the law by driving fast because they're impatient, but their impatience is outweighed by their desire to avoid legal action against them, even if it's something as trivial as paying a fine or showing up in court and saying "I'm sorry, your honor."  But I don't think that terrorists think that way.  They're just going to think "Well, they only select 1 out of 100 (I don't know the real number, I'm just making that up) of passengers for the random specialized search.  So, my odds of being searched are low.  I can get away with it."  So, they aren't any less likely to attempt it.  If every person were searched, then terrorists would likely be discouraged from attempting sneaking a bomb through because they'd be pretty sure they'd be caught.  But, a random search won't have that effect.

But, honestly, all of this ridiculous security nonsense is clearly seen to be just a charade.  There is virtually no security outside of the "secured area" in an airport.  That doesn't mean just outside the airport--there are large parts of the inside of the airport that are outside the secured zone.  It would be no more difficult for a terrorist to plant and ignite a bomb in any of those areas as it would be for them to do so in any other place.  So, why don't they? Because terrorists aren't anywhere near as common as we think they are.  Honestly, think about how many people they could kill by putting a bomb in an airport, just outside of the secured area.  They could even destroy lots of planes at the airport.  But they don't.  I can't say I've heard a single story about an airport bomb.  What is this strange belief we have that terrorists only blow up airplanes?  Like they wait until the plane has taken off and kill just the hundred or two people aboard, rather than the thousands that are in the airport. 

To me, it seems an awful lot like the irrational belief in god.  You think there's this magical terrorist person out there who wants to hijack or blow up a plane.  You don't think about him blowing up the airport or your bank or just a normal building.  You don't think about him exploding an elementary school, killing hundreds of children.  Why not?  Probably for the same reason Christians think that there was a talking snake 6,000 years ago, but they don't honestly expect snakes nowadays to talk.  What's so special about the plane itself that we think that terrorists want to explode them but not anything else?