Security update: Shorter no-fly lists; air cargo won’t be screened, “for your safety”
First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!
Two updates on the airport security front. One good, one bad.
First, the no-fly list is being revised. Downward! While the actual length of the list is a secret, TSA chief “Kip” Hawley told a Congressional oversight committee that the list was to be cut in half. Considering how often you hear complaints about people being on the list by mistake, and then trying in vain to get their names removed, it’s good to hear that something at the TSA is moving in the right direction.
…And then there’s the bad news:
Hawley also came out in opposition to the bill approved by the House of Representatives which would mandate inspection of airplane cargo. As it stands now, your suitcases are screened, but other cargo isn’t.
Hawley commented: “If you spend all your resources opening boxes and not applying your resources more generally, that opens up another vulnerability,” Hawley told the Senate Aviation Subcommittee. “The adaptive terrorist will go there.”
The “thudding” sound you may hear in the background is me hitting my head against my desk. If cargo isn’t being screened at all NOW, isn’t THAT where “the adaptive terrorist” will try to stash the bad stuff? Why would the head of the TSA effectively declare that cargo is something the TSA does not intend to screen? It’s an invitation, nay, a dare, to potential terrorists seeking to actually smuggle a bomb (or even themselves) on board.
In the meantime, the TSA is thankfully searching passengers for contraband pies.
Related:
- Cavalcade of security news: Fingerprints, liquids, and suspicious looking devices
- Liquids liberated, but free speech still threatened in airports
(image)
RSS Feed / Subscribe
Subscribe to Posts by Email
January 19th, 2007 at 11:53 am |
Hmm, I read that as “if you make me inspect ALL teh cargo it will make it easier to get at me elsewhere b/c you’re not funding me to put more resources on cargo.”
In other words, if the Congress, for example, decides to shift several thousand boxes of archive material via DCA to DEN to get it into mountain storage, should the TSA inspect it all, some of it, or none of it?
This bill would require *all* of it to be inspected.
-TF
January 20th, 2007 at 12:50 am |
Thudding sounds indeed. What amazes me is why we all tolerate this veriginous imbecility from elected officials and their subordinates. Sheep to the slaughter, I sometimes wonder if we don’t deserve everything we get for buying into the whole mammalian hierachy/politics game.
January 20th, 2007 at 4:20 am |
Wait what? Did anyone read the quote? TierFlyre gets it… Uninformed representatives trying to legislate specific security processes doesn’t make sense. Leave the decisions up to the people who understand the situation and the problems. The more legislation written, the more complexity and loopholes created, and the more legislation needed.
(This is how we got to this silly stage of confiscating pies but maybe not because they aren’t a liquid. How does the runny-ness of a pie affect passenger safety? Thank rules-from-the-top for most of this crap.)
Though I suppose Hawley did actually mean “no we think searching cargo is for losers” as everyone seems to assume… Maybe he just doesn’t want to be distracted from the free pies. If so, I’m sorry to interrupt the bashing.
January 20th, 2007 at 7:10 am |
TF has it right. What if they inspect all boxes and an airport employee walks over and puts a bomb among the perfectly safe, inspected boxes…..
TSA should be able to move its security around to cover some of everywhere versus all of just one thing.
TSA only takes away pies if they can also confiscate sharp objects like forks aong with them…..
January 20th, 2007 at 7:11 am |
I am not an advocate of TSA bureaucracy but in this case Hawley has a point. After the Pam-AM 103 bombing, cargo is carried in bomb-resistant containers. Even a fairly large bomb would fail to pierce the skin of the aircraft. Why then should we inspect it all?
Remember that cargo contains things which are 10 times weirder than luggage. It would be incredibly difficult to review and identify it. Unlike international freight, domestic cargo is not required to identify its contents. It is a lot harder to figure out what is in the box if you don’t know what is SUPPOSED to be in there.
Scanning cargo is a waste of money.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:20 am |
I think the problem here is the word “all,” like TierFlyre said.
But just like the Congress should perhaps not mandate that ALL cargo be screened, maybe the TSA should just as equally not say they think it’s a bad idea to screen NONE of it.
Keep the terrorists guessing, I say.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:14 pm |
http://digg.com/politics/Shorter_no_fly_lists_air_cargo_won_t_be_screened_for_your_safety
January 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pm |
@Dario
“I sometimes wonder if we don’t deserve everything we get for buying into the whole mammalian hierachy/politics game.”
I’m old enough that I’m absolutely we’re not getting what we deserve — but we are getting what we got suckered into. It’s that old black magic.
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:28 am |
[…] Security update: Shorter no-fly lists; air cargo won’t be screened, “for your safety” […]
July 25th, 2007 at 3:32 pm |
[…] security, too! Of course, I try to ignore the fact that the tons of cargo in the belly of the plane hasn’t been scanned or searched at all. I’d personally rather know what’s in the trunk directly below me on the plane, […]
August 13th, 2008 at 10:12 pm |
[…] - Security update: Shorter no-fly lists; air cargo won’t be screened, “for your safety” - Your laptop is a suitcase: How the U.S. government is searching computers, phones, and other […]