What is the purpose of "security questions"?

[brockenspectre]

Hi all

I just flew back from Copenhagen with SAS (having flown out with SAS from LHR on Fri). On the way out the check-in staff asked me the usual batch of questions about did I pack my bag, could anyone have tampered with it, has anyone asked me to carry anything, are there any sharp objects in carryon etc etc. I always listen and respond courteously to these questions as, however repetitive, I assume that somehow they serve a purpose. On the return, at SAS terminal/checkin in CPH I was not asked a single question and...it started me thinking about the usefulness or othewise of the questions.

What do you think? On balance I think they are a good idea but if they are not asked and this regime is not uniformly enforced then it makes a mockery of any attempte at heightened security surely?

:D

[Avman]

At a guess, and from my own recent experience with a number of non UK airlines, many European companies don't feel that they are at risk. They reckon Bin Liner and his thugs will target U.S. and British targets first. Consequently these security questions are almost non-existant with these carriers except where they are handled by a UK handling agency which may adhere to UK procedures irrespective of the carrier concerned.

[PanicButton]

I think these questions are aimed at keeping you aware of what you have in your carry on luggage. So you don't get held up in security because of a pocket knife you forgot or something like that.

PanicButton

[M.Mouse]

I stand to be corrected but I believe the questions have formed a part of the El Al security procedures for some time and were adopted by other airlines following the identification of a lady travelling to Israel (I think) with El Al in preparation for her wedding to her fiancee who was supposedly travelling a few days later.

Her case had a false lining with explosives packed behind. Her fiancee had bought and packed the case for her. The poor girl had been duped but her honest answers to the questions led to closer examination and the foiling of the heartless fiancee's plan to blow up an airliner complete with bride to be.

[Stratocaster]

In my opinion, it's just a smoke screen.

When things will go wrong (when a bomb will blow up in an airplane again, or after the next hijack), and the company in charge of security at XYZ airport will be in front of the judge, pressing them for answers, they'll just say : "Well, at least we did something about it !". Airport security, in general, is a total joke and the questionnaire is just a way to lower the insurance costs.

The guy with explosives inside his shoes eventually passed the security screening and managed to get onboard. It was not out of some lost airport in the Sahara, it was in Paris. It was not on a Bordello Airways flight, it was AA. And this guy was probably not the smartest, the most charming, well mannered or persuasive terrorist. How can you explain that ?

Security and profits, as we currently know them in our industry, are incompatible. You can't have both at the same time without making the whole air travel experience unaffordable (eating too much of your time or too much of your bank account). So, you start making compromises...


Anyone here able to make think differently, please raise your voice, I'm getting desperate !

[PAXboy]

I agree with Stratocaster. I answer the questions seriously but only out of politeness to the handling agent. The possibility that these questions will reveal a serious attempt are zero.

HOWEVER, I can see the valid point raised by PanicButton, that they serve to remind pax to be thoughtful when packing. (Fat chance!)

Stratocaster also points out that the Shoe Man on the AA flight was probably not a very genial person and was not spotted. Here is a fascinating quote from Johnelle Bryant. She is a loan officer at the US Dept of Agriculture and was approached by Mohammed Atta in May 2000 for a loan to buy a crop dusting aircraft.

She states (BBC 7th June 2002) that the loan request was rejected as he was not a US citizen, so it did not make financial sense for the government. She referred him to other agencies and a bank.

Ms Bryant says that she and Atta discussed a-Qaeda and Bin Laden during his visit to her office in Homestead, Florida, and he asked her about security at the World Trade Centre and what she knew of Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles.

One can only speculate that, had he have been successful, he might have loaded the crop dusting a/c with dangerous chemicals. Following this, Atta obviously 'upgraded' his plans.

When the attacks took place, Ms Bryant put two and two together and notified her employer and the FBI. The really interesting point is that Ms Bryant said,How could somebody be that evil, be that close to me and I didn't recognise it?
The interview with ABC was reported on the BBC and is interesting on a number of points. One can but surmise that the reason Ms Bryant did not notice anything is that, since no one had driven aircraft into buildings at that time, regular folks would have no reason to think that way. She must be feeling very uncomfortable.

To return to the thread, the chance of so called 'security' questions revealing ANYTHING are zero.

[BigJETS]

I dont think the questions amount to any kind of defense but I always listen carefully and give reassuring answers but then think hmmm, did they even hear me?
So next time Im asked Ill say, "well I paid a young arab looking boy who had been offering a packing service at the hotel to help fund his local mosque. Im sure he did a good job as it took him over an hour, and Im sure its all in there as its so much heavier than on the first leg. " just to see if they are listening.

[Stratocaster]

BigJETS, will you have a broadband internet access and cable TV in jail ?
:D

I'm afraid security staff is known to have not much sense of humour in that area. Especially in the States !
:rolleyes:



(Edited for @#&§ typo) :)

[Sharjah Night Shift]

On a recent day return trip my questioning went as follows.

Did you pack your bag yourself?

I don't have a bag with me.

Have you left it unattended?

Yes it is at home.

[M.Mouse]

Chaps you are not listening, the questions are not meant to catch the terrorist but to catch an unsuspecting person being duped and used as a proxy terrorist. This the questions undoubtedly did and may well do again.

Is it suggested that we don't ask them?

[Stratocaster]

Well at least the current generation of terrorists is so brain-dead that I can't imagine them having an affair with something else than a goat or a vacuum cleaner, so as long as animals and objects are not issued pax tickets I guess we're safe.
:D

More seriously now, the questionnaire might have been proven useful in the past, but the nutjobs who blow up airplanes have changed. They've been brainwashed by years and years of religious propaganda, sometimes since when they were kids.

An act of terror is not just a political act anymore, it's also an act of faith now. They want to do it themselves, they want the credit for it, they want their family to be proud of them, they want "martyr status", they want the paradise and the virgins Allah promised. I honestly doubt they'll use somebody else ever again.

So, should we keep the questionnaire as it is, improve it, or burn it ?

[BigJETS]

I think some improved interrogation is acceptable. I think it would be better prevention than alot of the measures being taken now. It could prove to add more time but I cant think of anything more effective than good old fashioned discrimination. Im all for profiling too. We seem to leave alot (all) of responsibility to machines now which can never truly reveal intentions.
Whats wrong with a little "so who are you?" , "would you object to a property search if deemed necessary?" etc
Even if the answer was "well Id prefer not to." , thats better than a silent look of nervousness. Then hand em over to the machines.

[FlyingForFun]

I think the questions are perfectly fine, and definitely useful.

Every single person on this website knows all the standard questions. Of course we'd never allow anyone else to pack our bags for us, or carry packages on behalf of anyone else.

But what if the questions were abolished? How long would it be before we completely forget about them? Then someone offers you a package that he needs to get to his sick grandmother in whatever country you're going to - just take it over there, stick it in the mail, here's a few quid to cover the postage and a bit extra... And because it's been a few years since anyone's been asked the standard questions, it won't take too long for this person to find a willing courier...

The night watchman at a building isn't expected to have to deal with break-ins. His very presence at the building will deter the would-be thief. Likewise, we don't expect airport check-in staff to catch people carrying suspect packages - the very fact that they ask these questions ensures that the situation won't arise.

(This is completely different to catching the latest breed of terrorist who will happily carry the bomb on board himself. This type of person can't be caught by the check-in staff, and must be caught by highly trained security personnel using technology such as x-ray machines, as well as an experienced eye. Asking someone questions will not catch the criminals - it will only prevent innocent people from being used by the criminals.)

FFF