Idiots
in [Design]
|
From: Jaded Hobo on 5 Jan 2010 15:36 who where 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. So now Schiphol is buying 60 scanners at >$15mil each. A billion dollars can be spend a lot more effectively: decent wages so you don't have to hire probationers, training, more personnel so they don't have to stay at peak alert for 8 hours and overtime in one stretch, and lots of social workers to have a good chat with every passenger before boarding - if you're not showing any sign of preparing to strangle him you're obviously not mentally fit to fly.
From: Jan Panteltje on 5 Jan 2010 17:50 ftp://panteltje.com/pub/dish_is_spiders_home_img_1626.jpg
From: Nobody on 6 Jan 2010 10:48 On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:58:47 +0000, Nobody wrote: >> 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. > > It's far from clear that they would have detected PETN. > > Also, just because something is visible to the scanner, it doesn't mean > that the operator will notice. The TSA regularly tests the effectiveness > of X-ray scanning by trying to smuggle prohibited items and seeing if the > operator notices; usually, they don't notice. OTOH, it's possible to go too far with airport security testing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8441891.stm
From: Nobody on 6 Jan 2010 11:03 On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:10:51 -0800, Richard Henry wrote: >> Also, just because something is visible to the scanner, it doesn't mean >> that the operator will notice. The TSA regularly tests the effectiveness >> of X-ray scanning by trying to smuggle prohibited items and seeing if the >> operator notices; usually, they don't notice. > > Where did you get that legend? The relatively low effectiveness has been documented, e.g.: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20061028&slug=screeners28 This is in spite of the TSA taking action against anyone reporting the results of effectiveness tests: http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=663 Also, there are cases of testing being rigged: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/17/BAG72MESP91.DTL This is just what I can immediately find via Google. I've seen many similar reports, but I don't make a habit of archiving every news story I read for the sake of future usenet discussions. Beyond that, I wouldn't expect manual examination of X-ray (and similar) images to be particularly effective. Monotonous tasks have a habit of making the person performing them somewhat less than alert.
From: Jan Panteltje on 6 Jan 2010 11:11
On a sunny day (Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:48:37 +0000) it happened Nobody <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in <pan.2010.01.06.15.48.37.422000(a)nowhere.com>: >On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:58:47 +0000, Nobody wrote: > >>> 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. >> >> It's far from clear that they would have detected PETN. >> >> Also, just because something is visible to the scanner, it doesn't mean >> that the operator will notice. The TSA regularly tests the effectiveness >> of X-ray scanning by trying to smuggle prohibited items and seeing if the >> operator notices; usually, they don't notice. > >OTOH, it's possible to go too far with airport security testing: > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8441891.stm What would you do if you came home and found a pound of Semtec in your suitcase? Some people would not tell anyone, and keep it 'just in case'. |