New ‘Security’ Measures
Thread Starter
New ‘Security’ Measures
Absolutely sensational effort from the Turnball Government here. I just feel so much safer now. It’s like Turnball is purposefully trying to get himself out of a job?
Nick Xenophon says Coalition's airport security crackdown 'a joke'
Baggage handlers, caterers, engineers and maintenance staff will undergo random testing for explosives in a new security crackdown, but Nick Xenophon says the changes are a “joke” that do not go far enough.
The federal government announced the new measures on Sunday, just months after an alleged plot to smuggle an explosive on to an international flight from Sydney Airport was foiled.
The transport minister, Darren Chester, said the new checks strengthen existing controls by ensuring airport staff are authorised and appropriately trained before entering secure areas. They may also be checked while working.
Privacy concerns voiced over photo database link to real-time surveillance
“Airport workers, together with their vehicles and belongings, will be randomly selected for explosive trace detection testing and other screening when entering or working in secure airside areas at major airports,” Chester said on Sunday. “Other measures being introduced include stronger access controls and additional security awareness training for aviation workers.”
Pilots, terrorism experts and the Transport Workers Union have lobbied for strengthened screening of workers including casual staff and sub-contractors.
The move to beef up security comes after authorities claimed to have foiled an alleged terrorist plot in which a military grade explosive was stashed inside luggage to be put on a 15 July flight from Sydney to Abu Dhabi.
Chester said the new rules would be implemented progressively to provide flexibility for airports.
But Xenophon said the changes were a “joke” that do not go far enough. The senator wants a US-style agency to be responsible for airport security and vowed to pursue the matter during Senate estimates this week
“Australian aircraft passengers deserve the world’s best practice when it comes to security but the government’s measures fall well short of it,” Xenophon said. “In countries like the US, all airport staff are required to be screened. Our government’s approach to random inspections is a joke.
“Systems of checking can be easily bypassed. People with evil intent can be tipped off by mates and avoid random screening.”
The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, announced earlier in the month that facial-recognition technology would be enhanced up as a counter-terrorism measure.
State governments agreed with the changes, along with new commonwealth offences for terrorism hoaxes and the possession of the instructional terrorist material.
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...rity-crackdown
Baggage handlers, caterers, engineers and maintenance staff will undergo random testing for explosives in a new security crackdown, but Nick Xenophon says the changes are a “joke” that do not go far enough.
The federal government announced the new measures on Sunday, just months after an alleged plot to smuggle an explosive on to an international flight from Sydney Airport was foiled.
The transport minister, Darren Chester, said the new checks strengthen existing controls by ensuring airport staff are authorised and appropriately trained before entering secure areas. They may also be checked while working.
Privacy concerns voiced over photo database link to real-time surveillance
“Airport workers, together with their vehicles and belongings, will be randomly selected for explosive trace detection testing and other screening when entering or working in secure airside areas at major airports,” Chester said on Sunday. “Other measures being introduced include stronger access controls and additional security awareness training for aviation workers.”
Pilots, terrorism experts and the Transport Workers Union have lobbied for strengthened screening of workers including casual staff and sub-contractors.
The move to beef up security comes after authorities claimed to have foiled an alleged terrorist plot in which a military grade explosive was stashed inside luggage to be put on a 15 July flight from Sydney to Abu Dhabi.
Chester said the new rules would be implemented progressively to provide flexibility for airports.
But Xenophon said the changes were a “joke” that do not go far enough. The senator wants a US-style agency to be responsible for airport security and vowed to pursue the matter during Senate estimates this week
“Australian aircraft passengers deserve the world’s best practice when it comes to security but the government’s measures fall well short of it,” Xenophon said. “In countries like the US, all airport staff are required to be screened. Our government’s approach to random inspections is a joke.
“Systems of checking can be easily bypassed. People with evil intent can be tipped off by mates and avoid random screening.”
The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, announced earlier in the month that facial-recognition technology would be enhanced up as a counter-terrorism measure.
State governments agreed with the changes, along with new commonwealth offences for terrorism hoaxes and the possession of the instructional terrorist material.
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...rity-crackdown
If someone wants to bring an aircraft down they can. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it.
Airport security is a farce. A very expensive one at that!
Airport security is a farce. A very expensive one at that!
A search back through the threads will reveal a not insignificant number of posters complaining about the lack of screening for airside workers.
Well you got what you wished for but now the other side is screaming blue murder.
I wouldn't worry too much though. Apparently they still haven't figured out how the compulsory ID verification at boarding gates will be done.
Well you got what you wished for but now the other side is screaming blue murder.
I wouldn't worry too much though. Apparently they still haven't figured out how the compulsory ID verification at boarding gates will be done.
If an ASIC is ruled as unacceptable ID (and I don't know if it will be or not), I hope the crew all bring their Driver's Licenses or Passports with them.
Who really cares what Senator X thinks any more? Just more sound bites before disappearing into the oblivion of SA state politics.
Who really cares what Senator X thinks any more? Just more sound bites before disappearing into the oblivion of SA state politics.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 22nd Oct 2017 at 21:53. Reason: Speling
ensuring airport staff are authorised and appropriately trained before entering secure areas.
A search back through the threads will reveal a not insignificant number of posters complaining about the lack of screening for airside workers.
Well you got what you wished for but now the other side is screaming blue murder.
I wouldn't worry too much though. Apparently they still haven't figured out how the compulsory ID verification at boarding gates will be done.
Well you got what you wished for but now the other side is screaming blue murder.
I wouldn't worry too much though. Apparently they still haven't figured out how the compulsory ID verification at boarding gates will be done.
Individual pilots are easy to stuff around without political consequences, so it’s easy to make the ASIC system more and more difficult (sorry, I mean ‘security effective’) for pilots. But it’s ‘different’ when it comes to requiring photo ID of passengers or screening ground staff. The former could be politically problematic and the latter could put sand in the slave-labour 457 visa ground-support gearbox.
I’d like to point out the gaping holes in the security system so as to highlight the pointlessness of the nonsense through which I have to go. But if I do so, it’s interpreted as me ‘complaining’ about the holes and urging for them to be filled.
Imagine a hypothetical aerodrome. One boundary of the aerodrome has a huge wall, topped with razor wire, and a security gate that’s monitored for the purposes of ensuring that only security-cleared pilots or screened passengers go through the gate. It costs a lot of money to build and maintain the wall and gate and pay for the screening.
The other 3 sides of the aerodrome have a sheep fence that anyone can easily step over or cut with a $2 shop tool.
Anyone can fly into the aerodrome from other places that do not have any security screening processes.
There are patently obvious huge holes in the security system for this hypothetical aerodrome.
But why has this hypothetical aerodrome not been the subject of a terrorist attack? How is it that aircraft depart this place without bombs on board?
An objective analysis of these hypothetical circumstances would conclude that the threat is almost non-existent and the huge wall, the gate, the guards and the security clearance and screening system are a mere facade the cost of which is unjustified. Faced with the choice between a sheep fence and the huge wall, even the stupidest of terrorists or maniacs is going to choose the sheep fence. Those for whom the sheep fence is an insurmountable problem could just fly in from somewhere else or drive a truck full of superphosphate through the security gate.
But what actually happens in the Orwellian world of aviation ‘safety’ and ‘security’ is that more rules must be made, bureaucratic empires have to be built and empowered and procedures have to be implemented, to fill all the gaping holes. In that world, there will eventually be huge walls and gates and security screening for every place from which any aircraft could be flown, because aircraft can be flown from anywhere into e.g. Sydney or Melbourne or...
Given that in the real world there isn’t enough money in the entire GDP to build a hole-free aviation security system, we’ll just implement the easy bits that look and feel good.
Fortunately my ‘hypothetical’ aerodrome doesn’t exist.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watch countless numbers of unscreened vehicles and personnel enter airfields daily. I don’t have an issue with screening. It’s ineffective though if the intent is to prevent....anything.
I’d like to point out the gaping holes in the security system so as to highlight the pointlessness of the nonsense through which I have to go. But if I do so, it’s interpreted as me ‘complaining’ about the holes and urging for them to be filled.
That’s why I continue to say nothing to the ‘powers that be’ about the aviation security system. That, as well as the fact that the aerodrome I referred to is purely hypothetical. 
Until such time that airport security is taken over by a government entity instead of the current rent-a-cop cheap as chips mob doing it now, security will be nothing more than a token effort to make the punters feels safe.
The lowly skilled lowly paid airport security workers are not going to put their lives in harms way for minimum wages.
The lowly skilled lowly paid airport security workers are not going to put their lives in harms way for minimum wages.
But don't forget that at your hypothetical aerodrome, there would be imaginary lines delineating a secure area that the huge wall etc is protecting, Anyone who flies in from unscreened ports, or who climbs over or cuts their way through the adjacent sheep fence is prevented from crossing these imaginary lines by a wizard with a staff and a lot of signs that say "You shall not pass!!, unless of course, that person wears a sacred ASIC. Even if in possession of a sacred ASIC, the person will still need to go and submit themelves to the scrutiny of the gatekeepers at the portals of your great wall. Only if judged pure will they be allowed access to the hallowed Secure Area.
So you see that Aviation Security in Australia, using rigorous, well thought out procedures, and magic, works even at your hypothetical aerodrome. There is nothing to worry about
So you see that Aviation Security in Australia, using rigorous, well thought out procedures, and magic, works even at your hypothetical aerodrome. There is nothing to worry about
The lowly skilled lowly paid airport security workers are not going to put their lives in harms way for minimum wages.
It is neither a screeners or security officers role to "put their lives in harms way" that is for the police and military.
Are these new laws necessary or are politicians just stroking... well, something... and using the scare tactic again???
Don't get me wrong, I think the laws should be water tight but I get the distinct impression in many of these cases current statutes cover the offenses but they insist on passing additional laws that feature the word 'terrorism' just to try and scare the populace into thinking we're under siege.
Wasn't it Senator Lyonhelm who said after the Bourke Street incident that it must have been committed by "... one of those semi-automatic cars..." and that perhaps they should be banned.
Yes, like snot-nose duty free staff bringing boxes of alcohol in through the screening area - are they all screened??? Or are they 'randomly' checked so as not to upset 'business' ???
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SIS Group is one of India’s largest security services companies and is the owner of its Australian operations, MSS Security. Prosegur is a multinational security company
All 'security theatre' if foreign owned companies control security screening at a major airport.
Do you seriously think Israel uses contractors at their airports to screen passengers?
Who really cares what Senator X thinks any more? Just more sound bites before disappearing into the oblivion of SA state politics.
But don't forget that at your hypothetical aerodrome, there would be imaginary lines delineating a secure area that the huge wall etc is protecting, Anyone who flies in from unscreened ports, or who climbs over or cuts their way through the adjacent sheep fence is prevented from crossing these imaginary lines by a wizard with a staff and a lot of signs that say "You shall not pass!!, unless of course, that person wears a sacred ASIC. Even if in possession of a sacred ASIC, the person will still need to go and submit themelves to the scrutiny of the gatekeepers at the portals of your great wall. Only if judged pure will they be allowed access to the hallowed Secure Area.
So you see that Aviation Security in Australia, using rigorous, well thought out procedures, and magic, works even at your hypothetical aerodrome. There is nothing to worry about
So you see that Aviation Security in Australia, using rigorous, well thought out procedures, and magic, works even at your hypothetical aerodrome. There is nothing to worry about
No terrorist is going to cross that line, because it would be against the law.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently renewed my US crew visa.
One of the questions on the online application made me laugh.
The question was along the lines of; "whilst visiting the USA, are you planning on conducting terrorist activities?"
Of course that'll make those nasty terrorists give up their plans for world domination. Everyone knows a terrorist won't lie on their visa application, don't they?
One of the questions on the online application made me laugh.
The question was along the lines of; "whilst visiting the USA, are you planning on conducting terrorist activities?"
Of course that'll make those nasty terrorists give up their plans for world domination. Everyone knows a terrorist won't lie on their visa application, don't they?
Of course they wouldn’t lie on a visa application. It’s against the law!
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,977
Received 106 Likes
on
61 Posts
The question was along the lines of; "whilst visiting the USA, are you planning on conducting terrorist activities?"
I'm not joking, as the following was in an article in the British Gliding Association magazine.
The writer of the Platypus column (Mike Bird) then featured in said magazine was visiting the US and found that question on his application card.
He stated that he wrote;'Sole purpose of visit.'
in the reply section.And still got his visa!
Which says something......I think.
Last edited by Pinky the pilot; 25th Oct 2017 at 07:15.