I See By The News

[gailkate]

I don't know if we even want to talk about this, but there's a pretty thorough story on the latest would-be terrorist here.
www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27plane.html?_r=1&hp

What the heck are we supposed to do? Board all planes naked?

[doctork]

Dec 26, 2009 10:35:44 GMT -5 gailkate said:

I don't know if we even want to talk about this, but there's a pretty thorough story on the latest would-be terrorist here.
www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27plane.html?_r=1&hp

What the heck are we supposed to do? Board all planes naked?

That's exactly what the TSA would like, which is why they are pushing the WBI (Whole Body Imaging) aka "Nude-O-Scope." But that presents the "Tampon Paradox:" if it is detailed enough to show a tampon, it is too invasive, but if it doesn't show the tampon it is a security screen failure.

But in actuality, this is not a TSA failure, yes I really said that. This is not to say DHS and TSA won't use the opportunity to demand more money and people "for security;" in fact I am sure they will, as that is the nature of government agencies.
However, this was a US-bound international flight, where TSA was not involved! And personally I have found AMS security screening to be very thorough and professional. They re-screen all US-bound passengers at the boarding gate, with a detailed interview, repeat X-ray screening, and meticulous hand search where indicated.

There really is no way to prevent someone boarding with small quantities of powder and liquids, though there should be screening for explosives ("puffers" and swabs). However, such technology is not widely used, even though it could detect many such harmful substances.

Of more concern to me is the apparent State Department failure, though we don't have those details yet. The alleged perpetrator is a Nigerian national, and Nigeria is NOT in the visa waiver program. The man was issued a visa to enter the US, despite the fact that he is on some sort of terrorist watch list. Why?

Overall, I feel air travel is as safe as it has ever been:

Pax won't stand for this any more. In fact the perp in this case was brought down by other pax in less than a minute once others on board realized what was going on.

Binary explosives (powder + liquid appears to be the method in this case) cannot be successfully made on board an aircraft, as they require sophisticated lab conditions not available or feasible on an airplane.

This individual was possibly an incompetent terrorist. For maximum effect, an aircraft should be exploded shortly after take-off when fuel tanks are full. 30 minutes from landing in Detroit tanks are almost empty, less effect.

Since cockpit doors have been reinforced (single best deterrent), the terrorist can no longer take over the pilot seat and deliberately crash the plane.

I would like to see TSA stick to their core function - preventing WEI (weapons, explosives and incendiaries) from getting on board airplanes, and if they did this effectively, efficiently and reasonably politely, you would never hear any criticism from me. Cargo should be 100% screened, and solid police ground work (FBI/humintel, all the rest to prevent terrorists getting on board) should be adequately funded instead of wasting $7 billion+ on foolish Kabuki Security Theater to appease Ma & Pa Kettle.

But in the end, there is no way to insure complete security in a free country. Deal with it. Remember I put my money where my mouth is. AMS is my favorite European airport, and I am putting my son on his flight to London-Heathrow tonight. I care a lot about airline security.

[gailkate]

Ah, there you are. I was starting to wonder if you were ok, having been awfully quiet, but I'm glad to see this can still get you riled.

I don't have reason to spend the kind of time you do sharing information on a site like Flyer Talk. I just don't fly enough. It's good that you're sure no one could make up a truly dangerous concoction in flight, but it seems one can do harm. How big a fire could he have started, and if he hadn't burned himself, would the passengers have been so successful?

This latest would-be terrorist is languishing in U of M's hospital, and I am plain angry. I remember so many flights home on Christmas Day, full of good cheer, one year the pilot serenading us in a strong tenor. So, however childishly, I'm taking it personally that a maniac, however pitiful and bumbling, is able to spoil Christmas!

I don't know AMS - is that African Security? I thought the plane originated in Africa somewhere (Nigeria?), though he was a UK resident. Whereever it was, he didn't hide anything in a body cavity but just taped to his leg. That seems like something they should be able to spot, though I don't know how.

We're going to have to take enterprising independent terrorists seriously, just as the Israelis have for 60 years and as the Brits did in the bad old days of the IRA. But I'd hate for us to turn into timid mice. I guess that's why I'm so pissed - think of Bookie's kids flying to see her and Spence leaving today and thousands of others flying to see loved ones for the holiday. It's like the attacks on Muslim pilgrims, just plain intolerable.

[doctork]

I'm not riled, just following the story closely for obvious reasons, as this is something that affects my life. It is a useful event in that it riles people like you gk, who don't travel by air much but are still offended. Yet you don't want to have to travel in the nude! And it points out many weaknesses in our "security."

AMS = Amsterdam Schipol Airport, a major international hub. The plane was Delta "metal" (outside painted in Delta logo), but was coded as a Northwest flight, typical since the merger of the two airlines. The alleged perpetrator was a Nigerian citizen, who apparently flew from Lagos to Amsterdam and connected there. There are also reports he had an apartment in London where he was a student, and suggestions that he connected from there to the US-bound flight. We don't yet have all the info.

If the WEI was taped to his leg, it would have been seen on WBI. It also should have been found on "secondary screening" which would have involved a pat-down, and that should be done on those who are flagged as security risks. However, if "trial runs" indicate WEI won't pass secondary or WBI, the serious terrorists will simply place the contraband in body cavities, or ink pens or hearing aids or Kotex pads, whatever. The security key is to ID these wannabes before they arrive at the airport, via police work or intelligence.

CNN just reported that he obtained his visa last year, before the security threat info was placed in his record. That is a problem - we can't backtrack with such info to determine if the Nigerian who was allowed entry last year is still in the US, or still has a valid visa to enter.

We also lack the ability to track/correlate entry and exit of foreigners into and out of our country, which is how so many are able to overstay their visas with ease. All of the 9/11 hijackers had valid government-issued photo ID, passed through airport security screening, and had entered the US legally. Several had expired visas however, and should not have been allowed to continue their stay in the US. But we have no way to identify and remove such visitors.

I don't know the answer to the How big? How bad? question, but I'd point out that no planes have been brought down in-flight by passengers, although there are numerous examples of disasters wrought by cargo explosives detonated by passengers, altitude, or those on the ground (eg, Pan Am + Lockerbie). Yet still, less than half of all cargo is screened and much of the screening consists of "trusted shippers."

Also, only pax are screened for entry to the secure area - not airport/airline employees and airport vendors. How much do you think an Evil-doer would have to bribe a disgruntled minimum wage employee to put a package of "drugs" on board a passenger plane, preferably in the overhead bin at the seat of one's accomplice? Since items are freely stolen from passenger baggage, how hard would it be to insert WEI into hold baggage?

[doctork]

Uh-oh! Turns out the would-be bomber had the explosives sewn into his underwear.

You know what this means folks. This may be where I draw the line in security searches...proctology and gynecological exams at the gate - no way.

[gailkate]

Yup. Also, the stories I've read still say mention something taped to his leg, so maybe we don't have all the details yet.

Maybe the planned extra use of explosive-sniffing dogs will be directed specifically to underwear. Dogs have a natural interest in those private regions, so it should be easy. You step into the Isolation Chamber and Fido circles you, happy to sniff without reproof. Dogs will be lining up to apply for that job.

[doctork]

I think the use of bomb-sniffing dogs would be totally appropriate! If TSA will not use technology to detect explosives, maybe they could at least use natural talent...

Explosives are a real risk to aviation, and should be searched for, which is not generally being done today.

[gailkate]

K, do you know a good site that explains the new imaging technologies - with pictures? I've looked at several with only graphics the manufacturer has doubtlessly rendered vague and unisex. Now that I think about it, I'm sure that what I went through in Detroit this fall was such a machine. The TSA guy was watching a small monitor (which I couldn't see) and I understand that his view might have been hooked to a larger view in some remote screening room.

I don't actually care if someone views the outlines of my naked body. I want perps caught. Pat downs seem more objectionable to me. But if I were a person of either gender who might excite sexual chatter - "hey, keep an eye out for the babe in the red jersey!"- I'd be very uncomfortable.

Plus, I'm wary of the radiation exposure. they claim it's minimal.

[doctork]

It's not just the outline of a (your) naked body - one can tell if a man is circumcised, and a woman's nipples are easily visualized - yet the MMW technology does not penetrate body cavities to determine if explosives or drugs are hidden within. There is also no real control over what happens with the images, though TSA et al insist that the images are not saved, cannot be transmitted, etc. Personally I think if movie stars pass through, the images will be on TMZ within minutes.

I also do not believe the reassurances of safety regarding the radiation. The government does not have a good track record in this regard. However, there is a lot of published data alleging that the radiation dose is low and harmless. Me, I'm not buying it at this time - not enough is known about cumulative dose, and there is a paucity of unbiased data.

Here are two websites with information. Trollkiller (check his blog entry of July 12, 2009 though the entire blog is filled with good info) is very fair but he is basically not happy with TSA management, operations and behavior. The TSA blog is often referred to as "Propaganda Village" or PV, for obvious reasons. The comments will reveal "the loyal opposition," who make many good points, usually ignored by Blogger Bob, the author of most columns. I give him points for trying however.

www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/2009_07_01_archive.html (Trollkiller's site)

www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/04/safety-privacy-concerns-regarding.html (The relevant TSA post, though again, the whole blog is chock-full-o-info.)

Both of these offer basic information about the technology. I read through lots of info when the technology was first rolled out and satisfied myself I would rather be patted down, and since then I have forgotten quite a bit, including where the key websites are. I used to have a great one that compared the sanitized TSA depiction of the images next to the real thing, which is where you can tell about circumcision.

I would like to see more screening via interviews (the old "Did you pack this yourself?" was silly but gave the airline an opportunity to go F2F with the customer), greater use of technology to detect explosives, and most of all - sensible and consistent use of intel. 8+ years after 9/11 and the creation of DHS and DNI to better coordinate, we still have silos of intelligence information which agencies still don't want to share. Turf trumps security.

[doctork]

TSA has (sensibly) revised their hastily imposed draconian rules a bit. It is now at pilot/cabin crew discretion whether all passengers must:

1. Remain seated and belted in one hour prior to landing
2. Remove all items from their laps - blankets, pillows, babies& their bottles/toys (um, where do "lap babies" go? - overhead bin, checked baggage), laptops, books or magazines
3. Turn off cabin lighting
3. Turn off all electronic devices
5. Disable in-flight entertainment and mapping/flight locator programs
6. Not be allowed to access their carry-ons in the overhead bin for medications, baby bottles, emergently needed diabetic supplies
7. Not be allowed to bring more than one carry-on item (eg medical equipment, cane, camera, valuable items airline won't insure in checked baggage) along with their purse or briefcase.

Does anyone else note the irony of forbidding maps and locators that tell a terrorist where the plane is (so they can explode their device over US airspace), but then the pilot announces when the plane is one hour out from destination?

Does anyone believe that a determined Evil-Doer would not just trigger the explosion at 65 minutes out instead?

[doctork]

I found the side by side Nude-O-Scope pix:

www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/uploaded_images/mmwx-742735.jpg

[gailkate]

Wow. I'm blown away with all this information. The pics confuse me - there are lines marking underwear and the blobs are pubic hair? Those bubbles along the woman's legs are - what? And why do the necks look as if they're wearing some sort of dog collar (maybe goth with spikes)? Either they both have thyroid disease or the radiation is so intense that they'll soon develop it.

I haven't paid close attention because the whole thing makes me feel hopeless. Obama's nominee for TSA has been held up because he (Erroll somebody) approves of collective bargaining? It's so nuts.

And yes, the instant new rules sounded flawed on so many levels it was hard to take them at all seriously. I'm sure flight attendants loved the idea of forcibly restraining someone who insisted he had to go to the bathroom. And would they stand around scolding like teachers in an unruly classroom? "I see that paperback, young man - put it on the floor this minute! You with the red sweater - is that a pen I see in your hand?"

[BoatBabe]

The Nude-O-Scope pix weren't so bad. I've seen far more revealing pixs than that on the Wallmart Shoppers site.

;D

Yes, gk, yesterday at work we were trying to imagine our conversations on our next flight: "Hey! What are you doing under that blanket?" "You feel sick? Too bad. Nobody goes to the bathroom."

I hope Abe made it through security last night. For some stupid reason, we wrapped the Tillamook Sharp Cheddar loaf in Tin Foil, instead of putting it in a gallon zip-lock. Doh!

[BoatBabe]

I personally love the fact that this stupid little jerk will forever be known as The Underwear Bomber.

[doctork]

Remember these pix are small copies, and the originals are larger with better detail. Not sure about the necks, gk. Yes to the underwear lines. The genitalia - on the man, his "package," on the woman, probably pubic hair, but maybe "sanitary item" or the nature of the underwear. By the woman's side - presumably the contents of her pants pockets. The Walmart photos may be worse, but they are voluntary, no one is compelled to be there.

I am not convinced the radiation dose is trivial, particularly for those who are sensitive - young children, people who have previously had cancer treatment, very frequent flyers.

What is really bothersome - the WBI does not detect explosives! WBI may see a site where explosives are 'artfully concealed," or it may not. There is no 100% protection, as there are ways around any method.

Everyone is having lots of conversation about the "no bathroom for an hour" thing - imagine the airline cleaning bill for someone who "couldn't hold it any more." Or worse, the airline doesn't clean it, and you are the next pax to sit in the wet (or worse, ewww) seat!

Not just "Underwear Bomber" but now his sullied underwear are displayed on the internet and TV globally! Not halal at all for an observant Muslim.

And finally - if everyone were required to be in their seat the last hour, who would take down the terrorist?

[doctork]

Gail, here is a nice table of screening methods:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/12/29/GR2009122900419.html?sid=ST2009122802585

Boat babe, about the Tillamook cheese: "They say" that cheese and fudge and stacks of paper/books may resemble explosives on the X-ray, necessitating visual inspection. Tin foil probably didn't make any difference.

Key question: Did they let him take the cheese on the airplane after visual confirmation it was cheese, not Semtex? If not, I'd guess the TSO was hungry or needed something for the potluck dinner after work. :-)

[Jane]

OMG. The "shoe bomber" has resulted in millions of pairs of shoes being removed at the airport. Now the "underwear bomber". Does this mean what I think it means?

[brutus]

Dec 29, 2009 17:54:16 GMT -5 Jane said:

OMG. The "shoe bomber" has resulted in millions of pairs of shoes being removed at the airport. Now the "underwear bomber". Does this mean what I think it means?

Do I detect a tone of hopefullness in your query?

~B~

[jspnrvr]

Dec 29, 2009 11:03:08 GMT -5 doctork said:

Remember these pix are small copies, and the originals are larger with better detail. Not sure about the necks, gk. Yes to the underwear lines. The genitalia - on the man, his "package," on the woman, probably pubic hair, but maybe "sanitary item" or the nature of the underwear. By the woman's side - presumably the contents of her pants pockets. The Walmart photos may be worse, but they are voluntary, no one is compelled to be there.

After enlarging these photos and subjecting them to further review, I think the woman is really a guy, or a guy who's a woman, or someone in transition. Whatever he/she is packing I bet it ain't sanitary.

[gailkate]

I love you guys.

[sailor]

Dec 29, 2009 19:19:02 GMT -5 gailkate said:

I love you guys.

I know what you mean.

Mike

[hartlikeawheel]

Oh, pish tush.

We try too hard and don't accomplish much anyway. That's my lackadaisical take on it all.

Two factors brought us to this state of hope to prevent all disasters - lawyers and lack of spirituality. (S'pose I could add the hubris of the American scientific mind combined with the "can-do" spirit.)

I was taken to task by my motorcycle buddies for saying I didn't care whether I was searched or not. Something which has been happening with more regularity to all us old geezers making the annual trip to Motorcycle Mecca in August. They are of the patriot type who value standing up for our rights to the nth degree. My civic duty to protest?

It's the aggravation factor. But I don't have the stamina during vacation time to exercise my "rights."

And there's something about this woman which seems to send out red flags every time I fly. I nearly always get sent back to go through again or patted and wanded. I just look so danged devious. . .

When I visited BoatBabe I stood to the side with an Iowa farmer of a certain age while we watched five or six Imam types with flowing robes and turbans stroll past without notice. What the heck? This is some kind of a joke on hicks, right?

Maybe I'm the most politically correct soul they can possible pick. I try to find something humorous in it.

Out of a large room full of tourists Marion and I were the only folks to get called aside on our last trip to Mexico.

As far as the peep show goes it's more or less "move along folks there's nothing worthy of note here." Would be a bit hard on the ego though if I should notice a barely suppressed giggle.

Your conversation here is downright fascinating, though. Chuckling.

[rogesgallery]

I must admit I was feeling a bit inadequate at first glance of the nude o scope pics. That long white tendril dangling halfway to the guys knees seemed a bit of overkill to me "What did they pick some porn star who works out on an enlarger every day. That'll intimidate those terrorists." I thought. "It sure does me". On second examination though I saw the normal size nards and the average sized pecker pointing off to his left and realized that the tendril was just the empty space between a skinny guys thighs.

So remember this Hart, and the rest of you too. There is more for TSO to laugh at on the nude o scope aside from the real you.

[jspnrvr]

Aha! I'm not alone. Check my post earlier, I think, rog, the "skinny guy" on the left is supposed to be a girl. Also interesting that the images on the left are both frontal, not front and back. Just an observation.

[gailkate]

I'm getting a lot of troubling emails about the need for profiling and basically saving all of us white westerners from annoyance. It's so hard to explain that the bikers' rights are also the Imams' rights.
So I really hope the focus gets put on fast and thorough screening of everyone.

Except for that pesky radiation business. Last night I heard the wavelength technology compared to microwaving, which really turned my stomach. And weren't pat downs horribly misused/abused when this all got serious in '01? If some TSA guy is going to check the band on my underwear for sewn-in explosives, I might rather be microwaved.

[joew]

I disagree with you on this one, gk. If they stop every 17th passenger to make it random and No. 15 is the fidgety youngish man who was reading the Koran so he gets through without a second look while No. 17 is a white-haired lady who has arrived with a middle-aged man and woman and three pre-teen children so she gets the thorough random search, I think they are being deliberately stupid and not doing their job. I know, grandma could be the terrorist and young Mahmoud might only have fear of flying, but the probability is that if either is a terrorist it is he. And that probability seems to me to be so high that it's a waste of taxpayer dollars to screen grandma and dereliction of the government's duty to protect all travelers to let Mahmoud pass.

JMO

BTW I read that some country, possibly Israel, asks all passengers a series of questions and bases closer inspection on how they respond. It seems to work.

[doctork]

I have mixed feelings about profiling. To the extent that it represents appropriate use of intel (recent terror chatter in Yemen means citizens of certain nations who have recently traveled to Yemen get scrutinized), good. To the extent that it represents "check all (and only) Middle Eastern brown people," bad. And as we can see, it's easily defeated by using black people, or white people, or babies, instead.

Not to mention that profiling already exists. The SSI TSA info inadvertently posted on the internet revealed that citizens of 12 nations are automatically referred for secondary, despite the fact that the US "does not discriminate based on national origin." Yet, if I wear shalwar chameez on the plane, I always get secondaried; blue jeans and a T-shirt, usually not. Despite having Afghan and Pakistani multi-entry visas on my passport, not one US authority has ever questioned me about it. I would find those travel patterns suspect myself, and in fact, I have been queried by German and Canadian authorities.

Serious use of intelligence is the way to go, IMHO, and it is likely the only way the Underwear Bomber could have been foiled (see above discussion regarding ambiguity of WBI pix), short of strip-searching all passengers or using explosive-sniffing dogs everywhere.

I'm with Ben Franklin (patronym of my alma mater) on this one: Those who will sacrifice a little liberty for safety will neither deserve nor get either one. (may not be word for word, but you get the drift)

There is no such thing as 100% security. Neither the WTMD nor the WBI detects explosives, just metal and "artfully concealed items" respectively. We really cannot have a viable airline system that involves no electronics or carry-on bags on board (BTW, what about cargo) and 100% body cavity searches.

Grow a spine, some cojones, people! 3,000 people per month die in auto accidents, 2,000 a month from firearms. Life is dangerous, not every bad outcome can be prevented.

And note - all the proposed solutions involve purchase of expensive equipment from favored corporatocracy vendor. Hey, how about using dogs? You suggested that in jest gk, but it is a good idea. They are used for cargo screening and drug detection.

[brutus]

I think that openly carried firearms would do a lot toward deterring wanna-be terrorists. Think about it, if they came on board a plane with some ideas about destroying it, they'd also know that their chances of bringing their plans to fruition would be slim because some feller'd pull his .38 and stop 'em in their tracks. So what would the point be in being on that plane?


~B~

[doctork]

Dec 30, 2009 13:23:30 GMT -5 brutus said:

I think that openly carried firearms would do a lot toward deterring wanna-be terrorists. Think about it, if they came on board a plane with some ideas about destroying it, they'd also know that their chances of bringing their plans to fruition would be slim because some feller'd pull his .38 and stop 'em in their tracks. So what would the point be in being on that plane?


~B~

Except for the "openly" part, pretty much a done deal nowadays. Pilots may carry arms, and on many flights there are now FAMs - Federal Air Marshals.

FAMs are supposed to look like regular passengers so nobody knows they are there, but they are actually easy to identify. They sit on the aisle in row 1 or row 2 of first class, dress like G-men, and you can usually tell where they are carrying. Ankle or shoulder holster, or small of the back. Don't tell anyone I know this, it's a secret.

There was apparently not a FAM on NW #253, but being as how the Underwear Bomber was in row 19, not in first class, it was up to the coach pax to take him down anyway. Which they did promptly and handily.

[doctork]

Here is a sensible guest editorial comment on terrorists and our security efforts. Pay no attention to the fact that it is on the CNN website, as the author is sensible, not a "chicken little" type.

www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/29/schneier.air.travel.security.theater/index.html