British Air Boss Points Out That Removing Your Shoes At Airport Security Is Silly
from the um,-duh dept
For years now, we've put up with absolutely ridiculous security theater in airports around the globe, and while almost everyone who flies knows it's a joke, you never seem to hear anyone who actually works in the airliner business point this out. However, the head of British Airways apparently is now pointing out how ridiculous these security measures are, most of which are driven by US demands (even though the US doesn't always follow the demands it makes on foreign airport security within the US). He's hoping that foreign airports will start pushing back on these demands:There was no need to "kowtow to the Americans every time they wanted something done", said Broughton. "America does not do internally a lot of the things they demand that we do. We shouldn't stand for that. We should say 'we'll only do things which we consider to be essential and that you Americans also consider essential'."It would be nice if others started speaking up as well, and maybe we can actually move away from such wasteful security theater.
The remarks, reported in the Financial Times, were not disputed by BA. No one wanted weak security, Broughton said, 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."
These included the requirement to remove footwear, brought in after British "shoe bomber" Richard Reid hid explosives in his trainers on a flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001, and differing approaches to checking laptops and other equipment.
"Take the iPad, they still haven't decided if it is a laptop or it isn't a laptop. So some airports think you should take it out and some think you shouldn't," Broughton said.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: airport security, security theater
Companies: british airways
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wel, Duh.
Instead of all the security theater, we should be issuing a Bowie Knife to every passenger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wel, Duh.
Nonsense. The threat from terrorists using airplanes that way, maybe, but let's not forget the far greater threat of our govt. using "terrorist attacks" as leverage to do greater harm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wel, Duh.
Remember, it's all legit, and the Great and Almighty Powerful God will forgive the whole lot of assholes for "Bearing False Witness" to get back in power!
Lots of people are being used as a meat puppet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wel, Duh.
Meh. All I've seen is a bunch of independently idiotic folks labeling themselves "The Tea Party" and basically running around making asses of themselves.
Note to tea partiers: your candidates suck and are kind of crazy. You want Washington outsiders in office? Hey, I'm all with you. But Christine O'Donnell makes me pine for a good old Monarchy....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wel, Duh.
I'm a libertarian, so it would only be possible for me to make things better... :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wel, Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wel, Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wel, Duh.
As it turned out "do whatever you want" meant "take the savings of half the population hostage and then say 'bail us out or else'".
The govenrment should have been smart enough to protect the savings of the population without protecting the hostage takers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wel, Duh.
(Also, the field...that wasn't the remains of a loaded passenger jet.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wel, Duh.
Sorry, guy, there's no way to hide that type of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wel, Duh.
Ever seen what's left of a steel-bodied reinforced car after it hits a tree at a measly 55mph?
Now image a large aluminum tube hitting the ground at ten times that speed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a great idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A brave new world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A brave new world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A brave new world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Security
First, indeed something in your bag may have shifted. If the first time through they could tell it was a cord, not connected to anything, great. Maybe the 2nd time it was lying over something which obscured it, and it couldn't clearly be identified as a power cord. It also depends on what else you have in the bag in proximity to it that might have been deemed a threat.
Many common items can appear identical to threat items (cheese, peanut butter, toothpaste, etc.) and wiring in close proximity to them would warrant a check. Would you rather have them check your bag needlessly, or not check a bag that actually contained a bomb because it might have been a power cord and a block of cheese?
Second, maybe the first time you went through, someone else was having their bag checked (it's called a "random check", and it's perfectly legal) even though there was no threat seen. The next time through, you might have been selected for a "random check".
Conducting random checks does several things. A potential bomber with a concealed bomb who knows that he might be subject to a random check may not decide to chance sneaking the bomb through a checkpoint (there are easier ways to get it on a plane). Or they may chance it anyway, have it concealed really well, so that it isn't discerned on the x-ray, but the secondary random check of the actual bag may discover it.
But of course, you know all this, because you're a security expert, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Security
Appeal to authority, you gotta love those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to Do Airport Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to Do Airport Security
Searched items are handed back to passengers, who could then easily insert something that had been concealed on their person into the bag, which isn't checked again.
They also over-use ETD swipes, potentially removing trace evidence by repeatedly swiping an item too many times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EVERYONE FLIES NUDE!!!!!
My plan is flawless....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And, it really is about the safety of the Planes not People
Nope, the only slight margin of safety is the slightly decreased possibility of a plane getting blown up. I mean, have you seen them? The 33 gallon sized trash can of bottles of banned materials: water, soda, deodorant, shaving cream and toothpaste, right next to a very long line of irritated travelers waiting to pass through the "naked body scanner"? All that potentially dangerous material piled together, ready to be detonated as soon as the bad guys get far enough away to be safe.
That is definitely NOT for my safety (and I truly can't believe that the couple of dozen TSA workers will be any safer than me). I just hope I'm not in line the day the "non-government terrorists" figure this out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And, it really is about the safety of the Planes not People
at least, that was my understanding. I'll admit i don't really travel and thus actually have no idea, but that would seem to amount to the bing being perfectly fine so long as it doesn't actually go on a plane...
(or, for some substances, as long as no one's stupid enough to set it on fire...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And, it really is about the safety of the Planes not People
before the "Big Liquid Explosive Scare!!!!" i traveled with plenty of sealed containers in my carryon. perfectly safe.
And even since, at every airport i have ever visited, there are shops Inside the secure zone where you can buy All The Same Things that you just threw out in the magical liquid-bomb-defusing trashcans.
Those "security" measures of taking off shoes, throwing out baby formula, storing all your toiletries in special bags of special sizes.. it is the very epitome of security theater.
Remember..
Bottle of Dr Pepper from home = Terror Death Device
Bottle of Dr Pepper from the concourse store 30 feet past security = 100% safe.
all theater.. and you are paying for that ticket with tax money (and in higher air travel costs as well)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And, it really is about the safety of the Planes not People
> Bottle of Dr Pepper from the concourse store 30 feet past security = 100% safe.
ummm, you are kind of missing the point. That should be:
Bottle of Dr Pepper that contains liquid explosives from home = Terror Death Device
Bottle of Dr Pepper that contains soda from the concourse store = 100% safe
sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And, it really is about the safety of the Planes not People
I know you are trolling, but as others have mentioned, the bottle of Dr. Pepper from home is placed in a trash can within a couple feet of a long and busy security line, where the resulting explosion will kill more than would on an airplane at 30,000 feet.
Also, the same unopened bottle of Dr. Pepper which is turned over to security, which then takes it into the secure zone down to the employee's lunch area and any employee who wants can then take it and drink it. You may think I am kidding, but I travel a lot as part of my job, and on more than a few occasions I've heard travelers tell the TSA folks that they have an unopened bottle of water that they do not want to throw away, and have watched TSA employees tell them that they would take the bottle down to the lunch room so that it wasn't wasted.
What TSA practices is Security Theater...there is no point to their rules except to make the general public who doesn't know any better feel safe. And taking an unopened bottle past the security zone to the employees lunch area is not a good idea...if you consider it to be dangerous, then the correct place to put it is in a bomb/hazardous material disposal system located far away from the general public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And, it really is about the safety of the Planes not People
They won't do it - it's not in their interests.
The hassle that you have just described is a bigger victory for them already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steak knife
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shoes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shoes
Actually, I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think what they need to do is have all travelers arrive at the airport and enter into "sleeping containers", where each individual takes a sleeping pill and enters an area no larger than a coffin (those with claustrophobia can be knocked out before entering sleeping capsule,) and then nitrous oxide or some other sort of agent is used to knock out the whole group of travelers. Then everyone is loaded like luggage into the plane. Flight attendants become trained anesthesiologists, and remain on board to monitor all travelers. Flight gets where it is going, and then travelers are revived at the destination. I see three big benefits for the airlines: no additional sundries required (no food, in flight newspapers/entertainment, and no bathrooms,) no difficulties arising from travelers having problems with rules, and if the plane crashes, no worry about any traveler being awake during the crash (families know their loved one was asleep when they died.)
For the travelers, they will be fully rested and ready when they are revived...I cannot sleep on a plane anyway, and those 23 hour flights would be great for me since I wouldn't need two days to recover afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]