New airport measures not enough: expert
Thread Starter
New airport measures not enough: expert
Michael Carmody thinks everyone needs to sacrifice their rights to privacy if they wish to travel on an RPT aircraft, and that all passengers should be profiled.
In my opinion, and considering that Australian Governments still look down upon Australians as "subjects of the Crown", I think he will get his wish.
My own view is that at least a couple of gaping holes I can think of will still be left and that the ingenuity of potential terrorists will rise to the occasion.
New airport measures not enough: expert - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
In my opinion, and considering that Australian Governments still look down upon Australians as "subjects of the Crown", I think he will get his wish.
My own view is that at least a couple of gaping holes I can think of will still be left and that the ingenuity of potential terrorists will rise to the occasion.
New airport measures not enough: expert
By Brigid Glanville for PM and staff
Aviation security experts have generally welcomed the Federal Government's plans to improve airport security, but one expert says the raft of measures do not go far enough.
Body scanners will be introduced at Australian international airports from next year to screen outbound travellers as part of the Government's $200 million plan.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the measures were recommended in the wake of the botched Christmas Day terrorism attack in the US, where a man allegedly attempted to set off a bomb on a flight bound for Detroit.
But Michael Carmody, the former head of security at the Federal Airports Corporation, says the Government should be regulating airport security functions ahead of private companies.
"Unfortunately when you start talking about private companies engaging in this process, you start talking about a profit motive," he said.
"There is a reason that Qantas and other airlines outsource the provision of their security and that's primarily due to cost and efficiency."
Mr Carmody says it is difficult to know whether $200 million will be enough to roll out the security measures. He says the devil in the detail is yet to be seen.
"I think what's more important is that we have that overarching strategic plan of which everything - from passenger screening to baggage screening to advance technology to passenger profiling - all form a component," he said.
"It's important that we consider the mix of those components as distinct from each individual measure."
Virtual strip search?
The introduction of body scanners in airports overseas has led to a barrage of criticism.
There has been concern in the US and Britain that the scanners could breach child protection laws, while privacy advocates have dubbed the technology a virtual strip search.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says the scanners have "an unnecessary and quite disproportionate intrusion into privacy".
"There's also the concern about how effective they would actually be, whether they would actually have a measurable impact on security at airports," he said.
The Government admits the new technology will be an inconvenience, but it says it will ensure the privacy of Australian travellers is protected.
Mr Carmody says privacy concerns must be overcome in order to ensure security at airports.
"We must move forward. This technology offers us the ability to scan and develop a profile of the passenger very quickly," he said.
"We must move on this initiative and we must put issues of privacy to one side."
Transport Minister Anthony Albanese says the new screening will take about six minutes, but it is unsure what percentage of passengers will be subject to the additional check.
The Government will also fund new multi-view x-ray machines and scanners to detect liquid-based explosives.
The roll out of screening at regional airports will be fast-tracked and there will be twice as many detection dogs and double the number of passengers screened for explosives.
There is also more money for risk profiling of passengers.
By Brigid Glanville for PM and staff
Aviation security experts have generally welcomed the Federal Government's plans to improve airport security, but one expert says the raft of measures do not go far enough.
Body scanners will be introduced at Australian international airports from next year to screen outbound travellers as part of the Government's $200 million plan.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the measures were recommended in the wake of the botched Christmas Day terrorism attack in the US, where a man allegedly attempted to set off a bomb on a flight bound for Detroit.
But Michael Carmody, the former head of security at the Federal Airports Corporation, says the Government should be regulating airport security functions ahead of private companies.
"Unfortunately when you start talking about private companies engaging in this process, you start talking about a profit motive," he said.
"There is a reason that Qantas and other airlines outsource the provision of their security and that's primarily due to cost and efficiency."
Mr Carmody says it is difficult to know whether $200 million will be enough to roll out the security measures. He says the devil in the detail is yet to be seen.
"I think what's more important is that we have that overarching strategic plan of which everything - from passenger screening to baggage screening to advance technology to passenger profiling - all form a component," he said.
"It's important that we consider the mix of those components as distinct from each individual measure."
Virtual strip search?
The introduction of body scanners in airports overseas has led to a barrage of criticism.
There has been concern in the US and Britain that the scanners could breach child protection laws, while privacy advocates have dubbed the technology a virtual strip search.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says the scanners have "an unnecessary and quite disproportionate intrusion into privacy".
"There's also the concern about how effective they would actually be, whether they would actually have a measurable impact on security at airports," he said.
The Government admits the new technology will be an inconvenience, but it says it will ensure the privacy of Australian travellers is protected.
Mr Carmody says privacy concerns must be overcome in order to ensure security at airports.
"We must move forward. This technology offers us the ability to scan and develop a profile of the passenger very quickly," he said.
"We must move on this initiative and we must put issues of privacy to one side."
Transport Minister Anthony Albanese says the new screening will take about six minutes, but it is unsure what percentage of passengers will be subject to the additional check.
The Government will also fund new multi-view x-ray machines and scanners to detect liquid-based explosives.
The roll out of screening at regional airports will be fast-tracked and there will be twice as many detection dogs and double the number of passengers screened for explosives.
There is also more money for risk profiling of passengers.
New airport measures not enough: expert - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cloud9
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We must move on this initiative and we must put issues of privacy to one side."
Privacy should be put aside! you should give up your rights to live in a free world (ironic don't you think) so we can pretoect you against the boogie man!...oh...and we have to increase charges and taxes to pay for your safety!!! We will also be able to strip search you before you go on the bus, subway, trains, shopping malls, and raid your home if we suspect foul play. It is for your own safety!! We must defeat the terrorist ( and when will "they" be defeated"....NEVER!!!!)
What a load of BULL###T!!! I'll vote to keep my freedom and take the risk of the so called "terrorist"!! I find it very scary how the public are so keen to give up their privacy and freedoms for this "war on terror" (biggest scam in history)
These massive decisions should at least be put to the people for a vote. I thought we were supposed to live in a Democratic society.
Do you seriously believe there will always be complete professionalism by the people in charge of these scanners?? After all, human behavior is... well......human behavior! I find this absolutely disgraceful!!
Privacy should be put aside! you should give up your rights to live in a free world (ironic don't you think) so we can pretoect you against the boogie man!...oh...and we have to increase charges and taxes to pay for your safety!!! We will also be able to strip search you before you go on the bus, subway, trains, shopping malls, and raid your home if we suspect foul play. It is for your own safety!! We must defeat the terrorist ( and when will "they" be defeated"....NEVER!!!!)
What a load of BULL###T!!! I'll vote to keep my freedom and take the risk of the so called "terrorist"!! I find it very scary how the public are so keen to give up their privacy and freedoms for this "war on terror" (biggest scam in history)
These massive decisions should at least be put to the people for a vote. I thought we were supposed to live in a Democratic society.
Do you seriously believe there will always be complete professionalism by the people in charge of these scanners?? After all, human behavior is... well......human behavior! I find this absolutely disgraceful!!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. There comes a time when enough is enough.
If you give them the means, eventually some of them will abuse it.
airport security pervert caught
K
If you give them the means, eventually some of them will abuse it.
airport security pervert caught
K
Bottums Up
And a contrary view
From the ABC website. I agree with this report, rather than Carmody's.
And the link ... More airport security 'won't stop terrorists' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
More airport security 'won't stop terrorists'
Posted Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:35pm AEDT
Updated Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:27pm AEDT
A former Customs officer has called on the Government to resist pressure to beef up airport security in the wake of the attempted plane bombing in the US.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, allegedly tried to set off a bomb hidden in his underpants as his Northwest Airlines flight approached Detroit on Christmas Day.
Writing on ABC Online's The Drum, former Customs officer Allan Kessing says any likely response to the incident would look like action, but would "do nothing to deter and capture serious terrorists".
And he says most airport security measures, including metal detector searches, are a waste of time.
Mr Kessing says the most effective counter-terrorism measures take place long before a suspect arrives at the airport, so increased security levels would be a "waste of resources".
"Behind the scenes, far more effective measures have been undertaken which cannot, and should never, be discussed publicly," he said.
"It is delusional to imagine that safety or security will be provided by extended restrictions on the overwhelming majority of the public.
"While 100 per cent security is impossible, much is done, quietly and unobtrusively, by Customs and other federal agencies, using known and well-tested risk assessment techniques."
Mr Kessing says he is confident Australian security forces would have detected Abdulmutallab "before he came within cooee of Lagos airport".
"Several recognised risk factors, not including his father warning the authorities or being on a danger list, were obvious," he said.
"Any one of these warning bells would have been deafening to Australian Customs, using current procedures and systems. More than one would have woken the dead."
And he says most airport security measures are mere "window dressing".
"Physical screening after passing Customs is utterly futile, and only serves as the window dressing [and] public relations beloved of politicians and loathed by the public."
He says metal detectors that target ordinary people are "a bit like losing a watch in Melbourne and looking for it Sydney because the weather is better".
"There can be few airline passengers who haven't been bemused or annoyed by the inane restrictions on items and impositions on people - grandmothers forced to remove shoes and belts to pass through metal detectors and intrusive examination of handbags and personal items.
"Low-hanging fruit is not usually worth picking."
Mr Kessing says security staff responsible for baggage checks and metal detectors are "usually low paid and relatively poorly trained, if at all".
"Private businesses are responsible for the security staff that outgoing passengers, after passing through the Customs passport control, encounter for the carry-on baggage X-ray checks and personal metal detectors," he said.
"These staff are not sworn officers, but employees of commercial companies, often sub-contracted from a variety of sources."
Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese recently announced a review recommending a relaxation of the rules on what items can be carried in cabin luggage.
Low-risk items listed in the review include umbrellas, nail clippers and knitting needles.
After the attempted terror attack on the Amsterdam to Detroit flight on the weekend, Mr Albanese defended the changes, saying they would not reduce security.
Posted Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:35pm AEDT
Updated Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:27pm AEDT
A former Customs officer has called on the Government to resist pressure to beef up airport security in the wake of the attempted plane bombing in the US.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, allegedly tried to set off a bomb hidden in his underpants as his Northwest Airlines flight approached Detroit on Christmas Day.
Writing on ABC Online's The Drum, former Customs officer Allan Kessing says any likely response to the incident would look like action, but would "do nothing to deter and capture serious terrorists".
And he says most airport security measures, including metal detector searches, are a waste of time.
Mr Kessing says the most effective counter-terrorism measures take place long before a suspect arrives at the airport, so increased security levels would be a "waste of resources".
"Behind the scenes, far more effective measures have been undertaken which cannot, and should never, be discussed publicly," he said.
"It is delusional to imagine that safety or security will be provided by extended restrictions on the overwhelming majority of the public.
"While 100 per cent security is impossible, much is done, quietly and unobtrusively, by Customs and other federal agencies, using known and well-tested risk assessment techniques."
Mr Kessing says he is confident Australian security forces would have detected Abdulmutallab "before he came within cooee of Lagos airport".
"Several recognised risk factors, not including his father warning the authorities or being on a danger list, were obvious," he said.
"Any one of these warning bells would have been deafening to Australian Customs, using current procedures and systems. More than one would have woken the dead."
And he says most airport security measures are mere "window dressing".
"Physical screening after passing Customs is utterly futile, and only serves as the window dressing [and] public relations beloved of politicians and loathed by the public."
He says metal detectors that target ordinary people are "a bit like losing a watch in Melbourne and looking for it Sydney because the weather is better".
"There can be few airline passengers who haven't been bemused or annoyed by the inane restrictions on items and impositions on people - grandmothers forced to remove shoes and belts to pass through metal detectors and intrusive examination of handbags and personal items.
"Low-hanging fruit is not usually worth picking."
Mr Kessing says security staff responsible for baggage checks and metal detectors are "usually low paid and relatively poorly trained, if at all".
"Private businesses are responsible for the security staff that outgoing passengers, after passing through the Customs passport control, encounter for the carry-on baggage X-ray checks and personal metal detectors," he said.
"These staff are not sworn officers, but employees of commercial companies, often sub-contracted from a variety of sources."
Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese recently announced a review recommending a relaxation of the rules on what items can be carried in cabin luggage.
Low-risk items listed in the review include umbrellas, nail clippers and knitting needles.
After the attempted terror attack on the Amsterdam to Detroit flight on the weekend, Mr Albanese defended the changes, saying they would not reduce security.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a bit like losing a watch in Melbourne and looking for it in Sydney because the weather is better
Everything is so wonderfully reactionary too. Them bad-guys-from-somewhere-else use liquid explosives, so ban liquids. They use shoes, so take off everyone's shoes.
It's a bit like Germany banning the name Adolf in 1951 to stop world war two from happening.
Here's an idea... stop demolishing their country. Then stop lying about it in front of everyone *angry look at Tony Blair*
Bottums Up
Why the authorities trot out the failed xmas incident as justification, mystifies me. They knew about the nutter, failed to do anything, and now we need more security. Qe? 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't necessarily disagree with him, but the ABC report doesn't mention that Allan Kessing was sacked from Customs, prosecuted and convicted under section 70 of the Crimes Act. He was found guilty of leaking highly protected Customs reports to the Australian newspaper and was probably lucky to escape jail.
The fallout from the leak led to the Wheeler report and a lot of bad publicity for the government, which it thoroughly deserved. At the time many public servants (myself included) thought that if the government had spent as much time hunting down drug smugglers as they did hunting down Kessing, he wouldn't have needed to leak the reports in the first place.
He is certainly a former Customs officer, but I just find it odd that the ABC quotes him as an ordinary ex officer and doesn't mention the unusual circumstances and big controversy that led to him being 'ex'.
The fallout from the leak led to the Wheeler report and a lot of bad publicity for the government, which it thoroughly deserved. At the time many public servants (myself included) thought that if the government had spent as much time hunting down drug smugglers as they did hunting down Kessing, he wouldn't have needed to leak the reports in the first place.
He is certainly a former Customs officer, but I just find it odd that the ABC quotes him as an ordinary ex officer and doesn't mention the unusual circumstances and big controversy that led to him being 'ex'.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax Profiling
Agree with the posts thus far.
Sadly, the Horse bolted the day those people drove aircraft into the Twin Towers.
The "care factor" for many of the Security Personnel at Airports that I walk past is very low indeed ( though I hardly blame them-what a job !)
The only way to stop "these people" from trying to blow up passenger aircraft is to screen everybody via SECURITY PROFILING ..........BEFORE THEY CLICK "ACCEPT TO PURCHASE" ON THEIR E-TIX.
Hell-Big Brother is all around us-watching. Bank Accounts, Mobile Phone use-pin points your locations, Tax Dept ( Carmody -take note !) So :
Why is is so hard to profile some "low life" who has stuff strapped to his torso BEFORE the wombat gets even close to the terminal.??
All Governments love scaring the masses. It gets them votes. For this crowd to spend $200m over 5 years on Body Scanners etc is laughable. I notice QF came out and supported ( yeah -because they weren't putting up the cash !) Think BIG PICTURE -boys and girls.
Terrorists are not dumb.
They have lots of money.
They already have runs on the board ( and a few run outs)
Profiling is the only way to go to rid us of this constant threat.
Sadly, the Horse bolted the day those people drove aircraft into the Twin Towers.
The "care factor" for many of the Security Personnel at Airports that I walk past is very low indeed ( though I hardly blame them-what a job !)
The only way to stop "these people" from trying to blow up passenger aircraft is to screen everybody via SECURITY PROFILING ..........BEFORE THEY CLICK "ACCEPT TO PURCHASE" ON THEIR E-TIX.
Hell-Big Brother is all around us-watching. Bank Accounts, Mobile Phone use-pin points your locations, Tax Dept ( Carmody -take note !) So :
Why is is so hard to profile some "low life" who has stuff strapped to his torso BEFORE the wombat gets even close to the terminal.??
All Governments love scaring the masses. It gets them votes. For this crowd to spend $200m over 5 years on Body Scanners etc is laughable. I notice QF came out and supported ( yeah -because they weren't putting up the cash !) Think BIG PICTURE -boys and girls.
Terrorists are not dumb.
They have lots of money.
They already have runs on the board ( and a few run outs
)Profiling is the only way to go to rid us of this constant threat.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth are people calling Michael Carmody a 'security expert'? He is nothing but a senior public servant, an administrator, a paper shuffler, a Humphrey Appleby for christ sake. His only actual expertise on security would be how to lock his front door on the way to work. His history is all as a canberra public oxygen thief ( they stopped being public servants a long time ago). A quote from the CEOforum website below.
Brigid Glanville is so typical of so called journalists these days, no fricken research, just cause someone purports to be an expert doesnt mean they are, and Carmody is most certainly NOT a security expert. His wish to bypass privacy concerns is as Humpy would call it " the thin end of the wedge" and so true to form from the conservative old boys club.
One of the most experienced and senior public servants in Canberra is Michael Carmody (now CEO of the Australian Customs Service, after many years’ service as the Taxation Commissioner).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
only part of the solution
Last week I had the 'pleasure' of the full body scan in Amsterdam, the scanner operator was quite happy to show me the results, a slightly blurred image that pinpointed my watch I had failed to remove. It was no hassle. I did not feel it intrusive.
However, at the same time there were airport workers bypassing the system, presumably because they were 'authorised'.
Scanning is just one part of the solution, the vetting of airport staff is another, and of course profiling is another part.
If someone objected to a body scan on my flight, then it's him or me on the flight, I would refuse to travel with that individual.
However, at the same time there were airport workers bypassing the system, presumably because they were 'authorised'.
Scanning is just one part of the solution, the vetting of airport staff is another, and of course profiling is another part.
If someone objected to a body scan on my flight, then it's him or me on the flight, I would refuse to travel with that individual.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's too easy to become mired down with these arguments....
We have so called experts such as Michael Carmody who is really just a senior public servant....If they want an expert how about employing a real expert with experience in security.
This has to be simplified somewhat....
The question should be "Are we going to do something about airport security"
Yes....or....NO
If the answer is YES,then we do all we can.We employ properly trained people and pay them good money so we don't get the situation we have now.
We also scan everyone who has access to an aircraft....
Not just pax and crew but everyone...no exceptions.
There also has to be consistency in security screening because it certainly is not the case at the moment.
We have so called experts such as Michael Carmody who is really just a senior public servant....If they want an expert how about employing a real expert with experience in security.
This has to be simplified somewhat....
The question should be "Are we going to do something about airport security"
Yes....or....NO
If the answer is YES,then we do all we can.We employ properly trained people and pay them good money so we don't get the situation we have now.
We also scan everyone who has access to an aircraft....
Not just pax and crew but everyone...no exceptions.
There also has to be consistency in security screening because it certainly is not the case at the moment.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Carmody/Albanese/Rudd,
You guys have both hands on it if you think this will have any positive impact on aviation security. This is window dressing in an election year.
While airport security screening ponts are staffed by the calibre of person currently employed, this new system will be open to abuse or at best not used to it's optimum capability.
Assuming for a moment it is used correctly and ethically, airport security will continue to be a farce in oz when numerous workers, (porters/caterers/engineers/contractors) cross from roadside to airside and back several times a day unscreened.
And another thing, who was the aipa knob on the news giving this the "pilot's tick of approval" and why?
You guys have both hands on it if you think this will have any positive impact on aviation security. This is window dressing in an election year.
While airport security screening ponts are staffed by the calibre of person currently employed, this new system will be open to abuse or at best not used to it's optimum capability.
Assuming for a moment it is used correctly and ethically, airport security will continue to be a farce in oz when numerous workers, (porters/caterers/engineers/contractors) cross from roadside to airside and back several times a day unscreened.
And another thing, who was the aipa knob on the news giving this the "pilot's tick of approval" and why?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glow in The Dark
If aircrew are subjected to this screening on a regular basis then there are health concerns dependant on the technology used.
Having a party?
Want to know who the international pilots are?
Turn out the lights....the glow is a dead give away
Having a party?
Want to know who the international pilots are?
Turn out the lights....the glow is a dead give away
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are subject to any form of radiation on a regular basis I think you would have reason to be concerned...
Then again the majority of people do not seem to be too concerned with having a mobile phone semi permanently attached to their head.
Then again the majority of people do not seem to be too concerned with having a mobile phone semi permanently attached to their head.
Nothing winds me up more than getting a once over by security and thus being a minute or so late to the aircraft only to do my walk around and when I look in the fwd hold I find some 22 year old loader drop-kick sitting in there texting or listening to his ipod. They look like they've been in the industry all of five minutes and no doubt don't give a stuff about it seeing as they are shirking work, and guess what......they cross between secure areas and non-secure areas at will without any sort of scanning. Absolute farce the whole security thing.
(no disrespect to normal hard-working groundies intended.....I used to be one
)
(no disrespect to normal hard-working groundies intended.....I used to be one
)
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try not to politicise this argument Mr hat.It was no different under Howard and Costello and certainly would be no better under Captain Catholic and his ironing deputy Bishop.
Until everyone is screened any system is a joke no matter who is in government.
Until everyone is screened any system is a joke no matter who is in government.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won’t be succumbing when this suspect initiative rolls out in my neck of the woods.
I’ll be walking to the office airside via the side gate like the rest of the non screened airside workers.
No more radiation for me thanks and just wait for the nude photos to start appearing in Zoo Mag and the like.
Oh well. It’s all for the good of the common collective.
I’ll be walking to the office airside via the side gate like the rest of the non screened airside workers.
No more radiation for me thanks and just wait for the nude photos to start appearing in Zoo Mag and the like.
Oh well. It’s all for the good of the common collective.