Security Theatre - a surrealistic farce?

[25F]

Bruce Schneier coined the term "Security Theatre" - "ways of making people feel safer without actually improving anything". Flying STN->CIA and back recently left me thinking that it's not Monty Python than Theatre.
First off was the shoe check at STN. To either side was an X-ray machine. In the middle, nothing. In the middle was a bloke facing my way but he wasn't obviously "official" and may have been waiting for his wife for all I know. So I walked straight through. On either side of me were people putting their shoes back on. So there you have it, optional security checks. Brilliant.
Coming back I noticed the big box full of empty plastic bottles at the CIA security point. Because empty plastic bottles are obviously dangerous, unlike the plastic bottles full of water that are freely, albeit expensively, available ten yards further on. Can *anybody* produce a rational explanation for that one?
Note to the mods before I get kicked off into SLF or wherever - should there now be a separate "Security" forum?

[Jetdriver]

Not exactly a rumour or news is it ? I am not sure we need more forums when the existing plethora already provide ample beds to plant threads such as this one. Presumably you had already anticipated that response by virtue of your last sentence.

[25F]

Sorry, I'll bugger off back to 25F.
But I was a bit pissed off.

[crewmeal]

Nice one jetdriver - if we all had your attitude then no one would post anything for fear of acid like comments you make!!

25F - I bought a bottle of bottle of JW green label malt in Damascus duty free for around £18 and carried it on the AF flight to CDG, but as soon as I connected to the BHX flight at CDG the so called security goons took it off me and wouldn't even consider putting it in the hold. Needless to say I was angry and will never bother with duty free again - especially when Sainsbury's have offers that are sometimes cheaper than duty free shops.

[Jetdriver]

Wrong PH balance ? It wasn't the nature of the comments posted, it was the forum used. Most of us are aware ( and so was the author) that Rumours & News is not the correct forum for threads that are neither rumours or news.

[BackPacker]

Never been there, but I heard that New Zealand, up to 9/11, did no security screening whatsoever before boarding. The only threat those days was a hijack, and most planes did not carry enough fuel to get to any other place except NZ itself. And the few that could would only have enough to reach Australia. Not very interesting landing places for (politically motivated) hijackers. So security screening was not needed, since there was, at that time, no threat that could be mitigated with security screening.

Obviously the threat model changed after 9/11, with hijackers prepared to commit suicide, so NZ has security screening as well.

But... Back to the previous post. If we took away all security screening and people would refuse to fly because of a fear of hijacks/terrorism, it simply means that the terrorists have won! After all, a terrorists aim is not to get people killed, but to change peoples and societies behaviour and way of thinking through terror.

That's something that the people from Madrid and London apparently understand better than the US/Aviation people. Despite two very real terrorist attacks on metros and buses lately, these services run as before, without security screening (that would be impossible from a practical point of view) and with passenger numbers as before.

And there's another psychological angle. A terrorist attack on a metro killing 100 people, is that worse or better than a terrorist attack on a plane, killing 100 people? Or an attack against Easyjet, killing 100 people, vs. an attack against British Airways, killing 100 people? Rationally we would all argue that it doesn't matter. 100 people killed is 100 people killed. But emotionally...? A terrorist wants to change a mindset above all. An attack on BA ruins a firmly upheld picture of glamour and transport in style. An attack on the Underground, London Transport buses or Easyjet ruins a picture of mass transportation. Psycologically, there is a difference, although the outcome in terms of loss of life is the same.

The point that 25F, and Bruce Schneier and a lot of security experts are trying to make is that security should be a rational trade-off. If you have a certain security budget, where can you spend it to make the most sense. But to make the rational trade-off properly, you need full information, which most of the public, and in a lot of cases even the professionals do not have. Plus, organizations have different agendas and want the money spent differently because of that. Others are caught in the middle and instead of supplying actual security against a very low-probability threat, they provide feel-good, security theater.

The worst offenders are we ourselves actually, as the general public. Something happens, and the first thing we ask is "why did this happen" and then "how can we prevent this in the future". Usually very vocally, through the media, through politicians and so forth. This results in an automatic response to put countermeasures in place which, if you look back a month or so later, do not make sense at all in countering the threat, or fail the tradeoff-test. But nobody, particulary not an elected official, will dare to back down from a security measure taken, for fear of, well, the same thing happening again and being blamed for it.

And now my turn to play Devils advocate. Here's the scenario. You can fly your normal, favourite airline with all the current security measures (theater to an extent) in place. Obviously you need to be screened for forbidden items and these screeners have salaries that need to be paid. Eventually, by you, via a security surcharge, hidden or explicit, on your ticket. So now there's a low-cost airline who decides to get his own entrance to the airport, where no security screening at all takes place. Bring bottles, bring box cutters, bring guns if you want to (if you're legal to carry a gun) and take them on the plane. But since no security screening takes place, they can lower the ticket price by somewhere between 5 and 10 USD. Would you fly that airline? (And before you answer that question, think about the fact that all public transport already operates like this.)

[BRUpax]

a terrorists aim is not to get people killed :confused:
So what was 9/11 all about then?
And, NO, I wouldn't fly on that airline. Not out of fear of a terrorists but the greater likelyhood of some weirdo (of which there are plenty more than terrorists) doing something dumb.
I want a certain level of security, but within reason.

[pacer142]

But since no security screening takes place, they can lower the ticket price by somewhere between 5 and 10 USD. Would you fly that airline? (And before you answer that question, think about the fact that all public transport already operates like this.)

When thinking about that fact, think also about the fact that a train or bus won't be a very effective missile. Think also about the fact that a bomb on a train will only damage one coach at most, thus not kill as many people as a plane. (Box-cutters are probably a moot point, and a hijack like that likely won't happen again because of the attitude change to hijacks).

That aside, people are very price-sensitive. I think a substantial number of people still would fly. I don't know if I would, but I'd certainly consider it, as a good amount of current "security" achieves nothing anyway.

[BackPacker]

BRUpax, I think it's a bit unfair to take that quote out of context. If all a terrorist organization wanted was to kill about 300-500 (*) people, had about 20-30 people at their disposal, most of which who would be prepared to give their lives, and about half a million dollars in funding (as the 9/11 terrorists had) there would be more effective ways of killing people. Anonymous drive-by shootings for instance. But that wouldn't nearly have the impact on global politics and economy as 9/11 had. Terrorists kill people not for the killings per se, but to make a point to society. A massive point which nobody can ignore. And thereby changing the behaviour and way of thinking of people in that society.

(*) 300-500 people is not a typo. I don't think the terrorists *expected* the twin towers to collapse like they did, with the result of the loss of life of 3000+ people. Even a lot of structural engineers were baffled by this and to the best of my knowledge, this was because of a hidden flaw in the design of the twin towers, particularly in the fire-resistant insulation of the load-carrying beams, which was already being rectified.

Furthermore, what would a lone weirdo be able to do to an airliner, what he would not be able to do to a bus or train? Mind you, I'm assuming that the fictitous airline I'm talking about puts in place normal, sensible safety measures. Including the rule that access to the cockpit is controlled - you can't just walk in and out. Sure, he might be able to wound or kill a few people on board but I doubt whether a lone weirdo would be able to take complete control over a whole airliner to fly it into a building.

But your overall point, and pacer142's overall point, definitely makes sense. We (including myself) want a reasonable level of security. At the very least, a feeling that the security measures taken, by which we are inconvenienced and ultimately pay for as well, do make sense and are a worthy trade-off. Reinforcing and locking cockpit doors makes sense. A metal detector to detect guns and large knives makes sense. Small knives, box cutters, liquids, taking your shoes off? I have no idea. I'm not in counterintelligence, so I have no idea about the actual, current threats and their likelihood. But I do get the feeling we are defending against yesterdays attack, not against tomorrows attack.

And pacer142 had a good point. The "failure properties" of an airliner are much worse than a train or bus. If something goes wrong with an airliner, be it through terrorism or through an accident, it goes horribly wrong, most of the time. There are no small emergencies in airliners. Even one punctured tire at an inconvenient moment can be too much (ref Concorde). So that warrants more security/safety measures in airliners than in trains/buses. But still... If you plant a bomb on a 300 km/hr Thalys, Eurostar, TGV, ICE or other fast-moving train, at the right place & time, you get a derailment which can easily kill as many people as a typical airliner carries.

[skydriller]

We (including myself) want a reasonable level of security. At the very least, a feeling that the security measures taken, by which we are inconvenienced and ultimately pay for as well, do make sense and are a worthy trade-off. Reinforcing and locking cockpit doors makes sense. A metal detector to detect guns and large knives makes sense. Small knives, box cutters, liquids, taking your shoes off?

Just listen to your fellow pax at any airport security post. Any comments you hear will probably all be along the lines of "liquids 100ml? this is stupid - I can buy duty free the other side!!""shoes off? - why? ridiculous!""Nail clippers, what am i going to do, snip someones toes to death!!" etc.. etc....Everyone knows that 911 happened because of the SOPs airlines had at the time to deal with a Hijack - remember that the US already had a locked flightdeck door policy - cooperate fully (someone hijacked an airliner with a TV remote once!). The whole liquids thing has become a way to get people to buy stuff airside at great cost that they used to take with them, and Security is now such a huge industry in itself that changing it back would be difficult, despite virtually all pax knowing that the current security system is a joke.

The 911 Terrorists have indeed changed our way of life. This is something the IRA never managed to do in the UK.

[Rwy in Sight]

BackPacker,

Your post regarding the no security control airline made me thinking.

I favour a 50% discount on security fees by applying a common sence principle. The reduction can be financed by allowing security staff to ignore frivolous things (like liquide bought cheaply from a supermarket and not overpriced from an airport shop) allowing people to wear their baseball caps through the metal detectors... you know the kind of security that we had in EUrope before the panic driven measures after 9/11 were introduced.


Rwy in Sight

[skydriller]

Rwy in Sight,

Your problem is you have mentioned "security" and "Common Sense" in the same sentence........:=

Bugger!!... just did the same thing myself!!:hmm: ...

[Monkeytoo]

Thanks BritishPPL for telling me why the liquid containers had to be 100ml or less :D - I just saw it as 'them' being picky!! Perhaps more education, of passengers, is needed.

[fyrefli]

Except he hasn't (not his fault) because it's all rubbish:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

Perhaps more education of the electorate is needed? ;)

[tezzer]

Came back through KUL this week, and after check in etc. went and sat in the KLM Plaza Premium lounge. Had some green teas, and felt good. Then the guy diagonally across from me (who looked remarkably like Lee van Cleef) got up and walked out leaving his panama hat and bags where they lay. I watched him walk out of the lounge, which concerned me, a little.

After a fw minutes I got up, and went round to the desk, to let the ladywho we shall call Yusna, know about the unnattended baggage. She could not have cared less. Not one jot. I was amazed. Her explanation was that as we had alreasy passed through the x-ray machine there couldn't be any possibility of a device. Oh, so L-v-Cleef couldn't have met up airside and joined forces and collecte all the sub 10ml bottles ? Hell no.

I asked for th security staff to attend and after abot 10 minutes, she rang for her supervisor. Who never came.

In the ensuing period, Yuana had gone to the table and collected L-v- Cleefs belongings gathered them up, and placed them on her desk. Unbeleivable.

This type of complacency and lack of an SOP is the type that costs lives.

Rant over.

[BRUpax]

I think you've joined the Paranoia Club tezzer. Perhaps you'd like check-points every 100 metres too. Chill man, over 3000 people die on the roads worldwide EACH DAY. You're more like to be a road statistic than getting blown up in a KLM lounge at KUL. ;)

[Rwy in Sight]

BRUpax,

Your username reminded me, the day back in late July 1991 (yes 1991!). I was deplaning on the satelite of the Zaventem - one of the gates on the airport side not the side visible from the road (if you understand what I mean). My flight was parked next to the El Al one, which was there guarded by some people wearing bulletproof vests and some camouflage fatigues.
That day I understood that terrorism aims more to create inconvinience (sp?) rather than deaths...

My last contact with airport security cost me a donation for the homeless , because I was asked to remove my baseball cap I was not able resist to the temptation to say that human stupidity is demonstrated at the airports and this airport tops the list. I understand that this was not very nice and hence my decision to make the donation.

Rwy in Sight