Idiots
in [Design]
|
From: Nico Coesel on 2 Jan 2010 19:54 Jaded Hobo <badboy(a)heaven.org> wrote: >Nico Coesel wrote: >> Nobody <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:45:25 -0800, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> The real issue is why they let a Nigerian, festooned with explosives, >>>> on a terrorist watch list, onto the plane in the first place. I >>> Because the "watch list" has roughly a million names on it, and if they >>> actually barred everyone on it from flying, the airlines would go bust >>> (and probably the goverment too, from all of the lawsuits). >>> >>> The *real* issue is why he was only placed on the (pointless) "watch" >>> list, rather than the "selectee" list (which qualifies people for extra >>> screening), or the actual "no-fly" list. >> >> IMHO they should have stopped him at Schiphol regardless of all the >> lists. With a bit of luck the bodyscanners will be operational like >> they should have been long ago. >> > >I'm waiting for the first celebrity pictures to appear on the net ];) Don't count on it. I've seen the bodyscanner images myself and it just reveals rough contours. I find a bodyscanner must less intrusive than being searched manually. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nico Coesel on 2 Jan 2010 19:55 who where <noone(a)home.net> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:37:47 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) >wrote: > >>Nobody <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:45:25 -0800, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> The real issue is why they let a Nigerian, festooned with explosives, >>>> on a terrorist watch list, onto the plane in the first place. I >>> >>>Because the "watch list" has roughly a million names on it, and if they >>>actually barred everyone on it from flying, the airlines would go bust >>>(and probably the goverment too, from all of the lawsuits). >>> >>>The *real* issue is why he was only placed on the (pointless) "watch" >>>list, rather than the "selectee" list (which qualifies people for extra >>>screening), or the actual "no-fly" list. >> >>IMHO they should have stopped him at Schiphol regardless of all the >>lists. With a bit of luck the bodyscanners will be operational like >>they should have been long ago. > >You obviously missed the nature of his journey through the >Netherlands. Repeating from my earlier post: > >In this instance Shipol made no difference. He was a transit >passenger, hence no screening per se. And he was travelling with a >valid Nigerian passport and valid US visa. Also it appears he was NOT >on any Netherlands watch list - the USA habit of not sharing among >their own security branches appears to extend to not sharing >internationally. AFAIK all passengers are checked again before boarding the aircraft. Transit or not makes no difference. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nico Coesel on 2 Jan 2010 20:00 Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:08:33 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: > >>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:37:47 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) >>wrote: >> >>>Nobody <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:45:25 -0800, John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> The real issue is why they let a Nigerian, festooned with explosives, >>>>> on a terrorist watch list, onto the plane in the first place. I >>>> >>>>Because the "watch list" has roughly a million names on it, and if they >>>>actually barred everyone on it from flying, the airlines would go bust >>>>(and probably the goverment too, from all of the lawsuits). >>>> >>>>The *real* issue is why he was only placed on the (pointless) "watch" >>>>list, rather than the "selectee" list (which qualifies people for extra >>>>screening), or the actual "no-fly" list. >>> >>>IMHO they should have stopped him at Schiphol regardless of all the >>>lists. With a bit of luck the bodyscanners will be operational like >>>they should have been long ago. >> >>With my artificial hip, I always get special "handling". >> >>Last time I went out of Phoenix they asked if it was OK to use the >>full body scanner, and I said OK. >> >>Unfortunately it takes enough time that screening every passenger >>would slow things down... but it's a lot faster for me than the usual >>take me aside for the full frisk and wand. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >Went to the grocery store. While on the way, on the radio they were >discussing full body scanning. The implication was you were simply >seen nude. What good would that be if you stashed PETN in a body >"cavity"? They might be able to tell by the way somebody walks :-) OTOH I guess they would have hidden the PETN in there if that was an option. Why bother putting it in a shoe or in a piece of underwear if all you need to hide it is a condom and load of vaseline? -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: Spehro Pefhany on 2 Jan 2010 20:26 On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:00:53 GMT, the renowned nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: >They might be able to tell by the way somebody walks :-) OTOH I guess >they would have hidden the PETN in there if that was an option. Why >bother putting it in a shoe or in a piece of underwear if all you need >to hide it is a condom and load of vaseline? Because there was no necessity-- it hadn't been done before in either case, and therefore they were not looking for it, so they did NOT get caught bringing it through security. Either time. Next time it will be hidden somewhere else. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: who where on 3 Jan 2010 03:22
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:55:40 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: >who where <noone(a)home.net> wrote: > >>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:37:47 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) >>wrote: >> >>>Nobody <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:45:25 -0800, John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> The real issue is why they let a Nigerian, festooned with explosives, >>>>> on a terrorist watch list, onto the plane in the first place. I >>>> >>>>Because the "watch list" has roughly a million names on it, and if they >>>>actually barred everyone on it from flying, the airlines would go bust >>>>(and probably the goverment too, from all of the lawsuits). >>>> >>>>The *real* issue is why he was only placed on the (pointless) "watch" >>>>list, rather than the "selectee" list (which qualifies people for extra >>>>screening), or the actual "no-fly" list. >>> >>>IMHO they should have stopped him at Schiphol regardless of all the >>>lists. With a bit of luck the bodyscanners will be operational like >>>they should have been long ago. >> >>You obviously missed the nature of his journey through the >>Netherlands. Repeating from my earlier post: >> >>In this instance Shipol made no difference. He was a transit >>passenger, hence no screening per se. And he was travelling with a >>valid Nigerian passport and valid US visa. Also it appears he was NOT >>on any Netherlands watch list - the USA habit of not sharing among >>their own security branches appears to extend to not sharing >>internationally. > >AFAIK all passengers are checked again before boarding the aircraft. >Transit or not makes no difference. That's not the story that the Schipol authorities gave, nor is it in line with my international/transit experiences. "Normally" transit passengers remain in a quarantine area, and local-boarding passengers enter that area once screened. YMMV On one occasion in transit at Changi we decided to kill the four hour hold with a quick trip into the city. We asked if this was OK and the response was "yes, but you will have to re-enter through security screening etc". |