Pointy Sticks are next

Page 4 of 4  

On 13 Jun 2005 16:04:18 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Your information above indicates that it was in a bag she was carrying.

The attempt was thwarted because the bag she was carrying was searched as is all carry-on -- that attempt should have been caught by the x-ray or random explosive swipe of the luggage (not the person).
No, you seem to have missed my point. No invasive search of the pregnant woman was needed to find the device being placed on board the plane, that should have been identified and found in the normal search to which *all* carry-on items subjected. You can argue that a person could unwittingly be duped into somehow actually carrying a bomb on their person that could only be detected by invasive search, but that is a huge stretch. i.e, the point is that screening of all carry-on precludes the introduction of problems by unwitting passengers, the invasive search of *people* not matching a specific profile is a waste of resources.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

I got your point and explained why it was wrong. I explain in greater detail below.

I do and it is not a huge stretch. Remember DeLorean?
Here are two hypotheticals, one using your example of a middle- aged male, the other a grandmother:
1) Disguise. A young man (who does meet the profile) poses as a middle- aged man (who does not meet the profile), disguises himself as that older man (bleaches his hair, uses make-up on his face) uses false ID and boards the plane with a bomb or plastic knife hidden on his person.
2) The Al Queda operative finds a little old lady with a desparately ill family member who has no health insurance. That operative posses as a drug smuggler and convinces the little old lady to smuggle a package of drugs on her person. Only the package of drugs is really a bomb. It is nontrivial to make a bomb with a timer or altimeter fuse without metal, but it is doable. It doesn't have to be drugs, it can be any contraband--the bomb can be put into bibles to be smuggled into Saudia Arabia.

Wrong. The point is that if a profile is used by security, it will be used to defeat those security measures by anyone who is at least a little bit clever.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
    Greetings and Salutations....     Of course, I had a thought about a paragraph or two to add WELL after I hit the "send" button - So here it is:
    Along with everything else, there has been a sea change in the minds of air travellers, thanks to 9/11. For the 30 years or so of hijackings before 9/11, the rule was that the hijackers only wanted to get someplace else...so if everyone hung tight, the worst thing that would happen would be that they would spend a day or so in a Havana airport. So... for everyone, the attitude was to take it easy and go along with the hijackers. The terrorists of 9/11, though, changed the rules completely. Now, the attitude is that any hijacker is going to be using the plane for a weapon...so no one has anything MORE to lose, and, so will react appropriately. That is an apple that one only gets ONE bite at...and they took it, so, instead of a plane full of passive passengers, from now on, hijackers will be facing a plane filled with really ticked off enemies who are not going to let something like this happen without challenge.     Interestingly enough, though (and getting back to the strange thought patterns of the governement here), I just saw THIS article in TheRegister: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/fbi_opposes_air_mobiles/ Of course, no mentions of this in AMERICAN news media as of yet...and I will be interested to see if any is made. In any case, I see it as yet another example of the government callously using the events of 9/11 to promote their internal agenda of complete and total control.     Regards     Dave Mundt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:22:32 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@esper.com (Dave Mundt) wrote:
... snip of some stuff I said too

You know, I was going to tell you that the concerns about terrorists using cell phones on planes to coordinate with one another has been in the US, including such places as Aviation Leak. Then I went to the web page you cited -- you are right *that* hasn't been on any of the media outlets here in the US. Given the anti-administration, flat out anti-US (see Newsweek for example) bent of the press, that's pretty strange.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.