Random Security Check

[biglanchow]

Recently I had a Security fella say "I don't know why I am required to explosive test you as in half an hr you will be in control of a 100 ton bomb going at 1,000km per hr"

"I'm hearing ya mate but it makes the no idea public feel safe"

"Yep" he sighed as we checked out and commented on the talent coming through that morning.


Airport worker suspended for screening Julie Bishop in breach of 'random check' rules (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/airport-worker-suspended-for-screening-julie-bishop-in-breach-of-random-check-rules-20151217-glpqcj.html)

[Pinky the pilot]

The OP and the link provided merely proves, if indeed any proof is required:rolleyes: the absurdity of these 'random' tests.:hmm:

I wish Chimbu Chuckles still frequented this site as he had several stories to tell of these situations, one of which was really absurdity writ large!:ooh:

From memory it concerned some Security scanner who wished to take a Leatherman tool away from him because he might.........:rolleyes:

If one uses the search function you might even find his post telling of this event.

[601]

So how does one determine what is a random check?

The security person, when the get out of bed, decide, for that day, they will check every pollie who are wearing high heals?
or
Check every blond person wearing a blue top?
or
Every fifteen person?
or
Someone at the behest of a fellow worker?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I dunno either....

Just about every time we go thru the 'frame with no door', Mrs G gets asked to submit to the 'random test'......

I have been 'selected' only ONCE! ('Honest' face I guess....)

I dunno what they are looking for, 'cause she is white, Caucasian, usually smiling....and, did I say of 'Welsh' origin.

Perhaps that's it!

Its going to be a 'problem' one day, as she is a very keen gardener, and if its the day after she's been 'doing the roses'....

CHEERS to all 'screeners'....:ok:

Keep smilin'....

[IsDon]

The correct procedure is that is required to be random and continuous. By that I mean as soon as one test is completed, the very next victim that passes the screening point must be selected. Once that's complete then the next is selected.

Of course we all know that's not the way it happens. As Ms Bishop clearly found recently.

[The name is Porter]

Why don't you all just walk straight across to the explosives tester? I do, takes a minute tops. They look at me like I'm odd when I stand there waiting for them to finish. But I refuse to go further unless they test me.

[Stanwell]

You have me intrigued there, Porter - May I ask why?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Maybe 'Mr P' has just finished 'looking after' his prize roses......and is waiting for the "Come with me Sir'....as the fertiliser residue is detected......

No 'fertiliser residue'.....:yuk::yuk::D:D

No Cheers either....nope...none at all..!!:sad::{

[Metro man]

As far as I know only a Head of State is automatically exempt from security screening. Requests for other exemptions are dealt with individually.

[Stanwell]

While she might be getting a bit ahead of herself, Julie does consider herself to be 'Queen of Australia' since Bronwyn's demotion.
I noticed also that the media reports were at pains to point out, in obvious parentheses, that no "official complaint" was made.
Hmm. :cool:

Careful, Julie.
Remember, 'One moment a rooster, the next, a feather-duster'.

[Kelly Slater]

It is an absolute disgrace that this bloke should be in trouble. Politians have admitted that the only reason Flight Crew with ASIC access are screened is to appease the punters, "if the Pilots have to do it, how can I complain". If there is psychological benefit in screening the Pilots, the benefit of screening Ms Bishop must have been enormous.

[thorn bird]

Aww come on guys, it's racial profiling. If your white Anglo Saxon in a uniform your a target. Grow a beard, wear a dish dash and top it off with a doily on your head no problem.:}

[The name is Porter]

Stanwell, every time I'd go through security I'd get tested (profiling, don't tell me it doesn't go on), I look like a tradie most of the time, the type that would like to shoot and hunt etc. I got a little tired of it so I just stand there and wait now, they don't like it when you play their game :}

[biglanchow]

Looks like they got the boot

[ExSp33db1rd]

The LAX body scanner thinggy recently showed up about 10 large yellow blobs of "suspicious" areas around my body, even around me ankles ( shoeless feet, even tho' over 75 and not required to take off my shoes the metal scanner went beserk tho' no metal was found when the shoes were almost torn apart)

I was duly "checked", and not in a private room, and found to be totally clear. I asked why "their" machine had shown up so many false positives ? I still await an answer, or apology. Breath is not held.

One might not be so upset if one knew that it wasn't all a monumental waste of time. The Bad Guys will do exactly what they want precisely when they want to do it. One must be seen to be doing something of course, but where has the commonsense gone ?

I think prominent politicians should be "randomly" checked, it might eventually get through to them what they have inflicted on the rest of us, and of course "pour encourager les autres" - us.

World's Gone Mad.

[neville_nobody]

One of them has now been fired.

At least three Melbourne Airport workers were suspended - and a security guard has lost his job - as a result of the botched security screening of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.

Fairfax Media can reveal the Turnbull government played a direct role in forcing the airport's investigation into the departure gate debacle, despite the repeated insistence of Ms Bishop's office that "no official complaint" was made.

Ms Bishop was singled out to be scanned on her way through Melbourne Airport to New York on September 22.
Advertisement

Workers at the screening position were later suspended amid evidence their selection of the Foreign Minister was "not random" and therefore breached airport security protocol.

But mystery has surrounded what initially prompted the investigation.

A spokesman for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss confirmed on Friday that his office had contacted Melbourne Airport to raise concern about the incident after being "informally notified" about Ms Bishop's treatment.

He said: "Our office was informally notified of the incident and no action was requested or sought in relation to it.

"The DPM's [Deputy Prime Minister's] office raised the matter with the [Transport] Department and Melbourne Airport. Melbourne Airport undertook an investigation and acted accordingly."

The government's direct hand in the matter appears to place a question mark over an official response by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

It was asked on notice in November about the incident.

The question submitted by Labor Senator Catryna Bilyk​ asked: "Has the Foreign Minister ever been involved in any incidents, altercations or complaints relating to directions to subject herself to security screening at Australian ports, in relation to body scanners or other devices or procedures?"

DFAT responded: "No."

The female worker who conducted the scan was found to have "not adhered to standard security screening procedures" but has since been reinstated after undergoing further procedural and customer service training.

But the male co-worker who instructed her to screen Ms Bishop has been sacked.

Melbourne Airport said in a statement: "A male ISS worker's employment was terminated as a result of not adhering to standard security screening as required at an Australian international airport."

It is understood that a third worker, a woman, at the same position was also stood down as the matter was investigated.

The sacked worker initially sought advice on an unfair dismissal action, but is believed to have reached a financial settlement with the airport that may have included a confidentiality agreement, a source close to the disciplinary process said.

He was covering in the screening position for a fellow worker who needed a bathroom break when he recognised the Foreign Minister, a regular VIP through the airport.

During the investigation, the man was told that Ms Bishop had felt "uncomfortable" at his presence in the screening.

Ms Bishop's office has turned down all requests to explain any action taken after the incident. A spokeswoman said on Friday that there was nothing to add to the minister's position outlined on Thursday.

"Neither the minister nor anyone from her office has made any official complaint regarding her transit through Melbourne Airport at any time," her Thursday statement said.

But a number of airport workers who contacted Fairfax Media on Thursday and Friday said it was common knowledge that the airport had acted on a complaint from government.

An airport worker said: "It was made very clear to people throughout the airport that complaints had come down from Canberra, including the Transport Department and a minister's office."

Talk about the incident had done the rounds of the union movement despite the union covering ISS workers in Melbourne, United Voice, attempting to keep a lid on the matter once the female worker was reinstated.

That led to Senator Bilyk submitting the supplementary question on notice as part of the October 22 Senate estimates hearing for DFAT.

Read more: Julie Bishop screening: government questioned airport before staff were suspended (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-screening-worker-sacked-after-government-questions-airport-20151218-glqw1r.html#ixzz3udxSToBv)
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

[YPJT]

A little digging has revealed that the said screening officer was in the ****e not because he screened the Foreign Minister but rather that he/she deliberately targeted her. Maybe a fan?:ok:

[Pinky the pilot]

Possibly a bit of 'Industrial action' by the Union may be forthcoming?:E

[Square Bear]

Sounds like said Security Person got sacked for Abuse of Power.

Little sympathy from me if that is the case.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

How are peolpe 'randomly selected'?
Does that mean that if someone is known, or looks familiar, you can't screen them?

All the baddies have to do is 'get known' and then they can't be 'randomly selected ' because that would go against the 'random' selection protocols :8 :E:}

[Square Bear]

Does that mean that if someone is known, or looks familiar, you can't screen them?

It is not suggested that you can't screen someone that is known, or familiar, just that you can't work outside the rules...ie, "Gee, I'd like to put my hands down Pamela Anderson top to see what she is carrying, so I will target her outside of random".

Really, a bit of common sense must come into play...2005 saw a huge political ****e fight between AUS and PNG when some "numby" made the then Prime Minister of PNG, Sir Michael Somare take of his sandals, so they could be checked for what ever.

And in this current case, did said Security guy seriously think that the Foreign Minister of Australia suddenly get radicalised and was going to do a hijack.

I put up with this targeted crap on a very frequent basis... in Uniform, with an ASIC to boot, but I accept that as part of the job, but seriously, to TARGET our Foreign Minister, get real!!!!

[nomorecatering]

I have to ask,


Why the hell is the Deputy PM traveling as our representative, on a commercial jet to a meeting of the UN?

Why is it not provided a 787-BBJ in green and gold livery, AUSTRALIA in big letters down the side of the fuselage and a Kangaroo on the tail.

You know when the Japaneses, Koreans, Americans, French, Russians etc are in town. Their aircraft wave the national flag, projecting a sense of presence.

Its like the Hollywood stars arriving at a premiere in limos, while our one comes on the bus.

We are really a two bit country.

[spelling_nazi]

The really stupid part of it all is that it's completely avoidable. When I'm not in the mood to get checked I just fluff around getting my bag once I've gone through the scanner and wait for someone else to get pulled aside hen waltz right past.

As would anyone deliberately trying to avoid detection .

It's a farce.

[Kelly Slater]

Can anyone shed some light on what sought of screening the Minister was subjected to. The article suggests that she felt uncomfortable about a made security office being present during the screening. This cannot just be a case of waving a wand around her.

[YPJT]

This cannot just be a case of waving a wand around her.
It was not the metal detection wand, rather the ETD swab where you actually have to touch the person and their carry on to get a sample.

As for the minister. The screening requirements apply to her as much as anyone else although the airport may apply VIP protocols if it sees fit. What brought the ISS screeners undone was that there was a deliberate targeting of the minister rather than the random, contuous process as prescribed in the procedures covered by the legislation.

[Band a Lot]

"I have to ask,


Why the hell is the Deputy PM traveling as our representative, on a commercial jet to a meeting of the UN?

Why is it not provided a 787-BBJ in green and gold livery, AUSTRALIA in big letters down the side of the fuselage and a Kangaroo on the tail."




It is a rule thing - Must use commercial (first/business class ok) unless not practical or cost effective. Choppergate was not that long ago and did not turn out well for another Bishop. If we let our pollies use government jets at will, the local government member will want a 787 too.

Back on the topic of "Random Testing" Julie Bishop as stated is a frequent traveller (6 months an to June 2014) $415,698 O/S travel & $56,720 domestic travel.

That is A LOT of flights, if it is "Random" she should have been tested a number of times.

[biglanchow]

Yeah, she would not have the guts to use a $1,000/hr Helicopter for a 1hr drive like the old witch, surely?

Just remember to be 100% honest on your tax return this year as that Helicopter ride put a bit of a dent in the coffers and you, the workers ants of Australia are required pay for it.

[Band a Lot]

$1,000 per hr = slow chopper or heavy weighting times??

Mrs Bishop admitted today the sum of $5227 for the 80-kilometre journey was “totally unacceptable”

[Car RAMROD]

Toughen up woman. Who cares if she was "targeted", I think she should toughen up and say "I'm not exempt from this BS testing either".

Don't try to play by different rules.

[Stanwell]

The Bishop 'sisters' harmonise beautifully, don't they?
Mind you, they're not the only outrageous snouts in the trough - just higher profile, that's all.

I just find it so comforting that I was able to fund the recent junket by Bronnie and Pyne where, after they were briefed by the Israelis,
then popped over to give the Palestinians a good talking to.

It's just a shame that, while they were over there, they didn't have the time to get a briefing on how airport security is properly and effeciently done.

Malcolm, you have the mandate. Get that slug, Truss, off his ring to do something about the costly, theatrical, security farce
that us mere mortals have to endure.

[Cubbie]

I went through Perth 5 times in a 2 month period, was selected every single time, its definitely not a random test,- I don't look anything out of the ordinary,other than the uniform, and have never been profiled anywhere else in the world, -just a plain Joe Blogs CM :rolleyes: thankfully Perth no longer on my roster!

[Jenna Talia]

I went through Sydney domestic security yesterday and saw random testing at its best. Some guy had gone through the scanner and had been stopped for the swab test which came out negative. He sat down to put his shoes back on then stood up to walk off only to be accosted by another tester for another swab test. This second testing officer wouldn't take no for an answer either.

Would that person have been within their rights to tell the second tester to stick it where the sun don't shine as he had already legally complied with the requirements?

[Kelly Slater]

"During the investigation, the man was told that Ms Bishop had felt "uncomfortable" at his presence in the screening."

How can the presence of a security officer make you feel uncomfortable when you are being subjected to explosives trace testing?

[peuce]

Kelly....can't answer that one as men test women and women test men all day(literally and metaphorically)...mainly without hiccups.

However, I must say, I'm always a bit uncomfortable testing women (as an Airport Screener)...as it doesn't quite sit right. Especially sometimes when there's bugger all clothing to swab. I know it must be done and I know there's no practical alternative, and I try to do it professionally...but I just don't care for it. But I suppose there are some that do.:suspect:

Cubbie...I can't speak for Perth, but at our port, we ETD upwards of 50% of passengers. So the chances of regular passengers getting ETD'd are quite high. I suppose someone good at stats could do the sums.

And...if you're one of the type that sit in the bar/club till the last minute....your chances get pretty bloody high...as there's no one to hide behind. Had to laugh at a guy who had to be paged over the pa as his flight was closing. Eventually turned up at security and ETD'd....."I always get picked". Smile nicely and knowingly to passenger. Under breath..."Well, if you're the only person there, of course you're going to be picked...idiot !"

Back to topic for a moment. If those guys picked Ms Bishop for a lark....they gets what they deserves.

[YPJT]

Would that person have been within their rights to tell the second tester to stick it where the sun don't shine as he had already legally complied with the requirements?
Once you've been cleared you are permitted to pass through the screening point. I am wondering if there are other reasons why this scenario occurred but cannot think of any.

[717tech]

What's stopping anyone who's "known by the people" to pull this card?

If the security staff have decided what constitutes as random for the day, and that random pax happens to be someone well known, does this mean they can't be checked?

[peuce]

... I am wondering if there are other reasons why this scenario occurred but cannot think of any.

Perhaps....he returned to the conveyor belt to collect something?

Even so, no matter the reason (as we weren't there) once you are selected, even if by mistake, there has to be a very good reason to cease the process...and I can't think of one.

[Eddie Dean]

Peuce, can you explain the concept of random? As applied to your profession.
I would have thought random was random, and would still be random, in a statistical sense, even if you tagged them because you knew them.

From what you are saying, I now understand why you are forced to do little old ladies in zimmer frames - happened at Brisbane domestic last month, instead of explosive testing miners (who where standing beside her) and swarthy Mediterranean types, and the such like.

I don't envy your job mate. You may well be setting up for an explosive incident that would have otherwise been avoided, if you were allowed test more likely suspects.
Although someone could have bribed/coerced/forced BB to carry said explosive.

Band a lot: That is A LOT of flights, if it is "Random" she should have been tested a number of times. Indeed Bandy, that would be true.

[Kelly Slater]

I'm pretty sure that the Deputy PM of Australia could get out to an aircraft without having to join the security line with all the plebs. She consciously chose to be treated like everyone else but it looks as if she didn't like it as much as she thought.

[peuce]

Eddie...ETD selection(as it now stands) is a simple process...unencumbered by sinister plots, subjective profiling and all sorts of other conspiracy theory ideas.

The documents are clear....selection is to be "random and continuous".

That means...as soon as you finish testing a person, you must select the next person to walk past....whether they be male, female, black, white, or brindle, catholic, Muslim or calathumpian. That's what makes it random. I finish one person, I turn around, and there's my next target. Easy, peasey.

Having said that, as in all walks of life, I'm sure human nature sometimes intervenes and a bending of these rules might occur....just like a pilot might "slightly" bust a minimum...or "slightly" bust last light. That's life and it's never going to change.

As for those proponents of profiling, as opposed to random...can you just imagine the logistics and issues involved in putting that in place at the security screening point?

P.S. Don't feel sorry for me. It's a great job...most of the time. Especially so on days like one last week when you see what was prevented from being taken on an airliner.

[UTW]

Sorry to be pedantic but Julie Bishop is not the Deputy PM. She is Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. Warren Truss is Deputy PM.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Oi Pinky,

YOU may not,....but Oi do..!!
(Loike, Oi was describin' Moi. He got 'that' right.......)

As somebody once said...."Oi resemble that remark"....

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!:D:D

:ok::ok:

[Pinky the pilot]

Griffo; Wrong security thread!:=:D:D

And Merry Christmas to you an' all!:ok::ok:

[zanthrus]

Sucked in Ms Bishop! Welcome to OUR world!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Pinky,...

See wot Oi mean..?? Oi think Oi've 'lost it'......

Anyway, tis alllll a BIG wank!

3 more 'sleeps' to go... CHEEEERRRSSSS.....

:ok::ok:

[Angle of Attack]

So what actually happened? Lots of posts but no one saying, did she really get the ****s for being randomly bomb tested? I guess not more to the story I think.

[YPJT]

AoA,
I suspected the same in all this. Probably the screener/s concerned were caught out by supervisors or others who overreacted.

[neville_nobody]

Does anyone know how they actually proved it wasn't random?

[biglanchow]

Have a yarn to Cabin Crew who have dealt with said individual many times between east and west coast.

Listen to them and one can imagine how it went down at security check.

[Stanwell]

Hmm, interesting, that.
That's what I was implying in my post #10.
Although my information was from other sources, the complaints referred to the person's attitude and behaviour.