'Israelification' of Airports: High Security, Little Bother
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ross Kemp
I wonder how Ross Kemp got on trying to leave Ben Gurion after filming his latest Sky One series? "During your visit, who have you been in contact with Sir?" 
I have travelled through Tel Aviv a few times as SLF. No problem for me. I appreciated the extra security and didn't mind the additional questions.
I have travelled through Tel Aviv a few times as SLF. No problem for me. I appreciated the extra security and didn't mind the additional questions.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference post #39 and #50
Well, there we go. Just 2 responses in 24 hours with ideas for improving security at UK airports for yourselves and for your passengers.
What a pathetic bunch of 'wuzzes' you all are. You're content to moan and complain on this thread (and several others in this forum) about it all but, are you prepared to advance anything that might improve the situation?
It seems not.
Come on. You're all (one must believe) professionals using UK (and worldwide) airports on a regular basis. You must have seen good and bad and even worse (just as I have) and yet you have no ideas to offer to improve the situation?
What a pathetic bunch of 'wuzzes' you all are. You're content to moan and complain on this thread (and several others in this forum) about it all but, are you prepared to advance anything that might improve the situation?
It seems not.
Come on. You're all (one must believe) professionals using UK (and worldwide) airports on a regular basis. You must have seen good and bad and even worse (just as I have) and yet you have no ideas to offer to improve the situation?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my tuppence worth but.......
For all flight crew based in the UK who are able to prove their history of residence/employment/education and pass a high level security screening why not have a dedicated security channel with iris recognition and x-ray of hand luggage. An airside pass which swiped at all UK airports would be useful in combination with the iris recognition. Full body scanners? bring them on if it means not having to deal face to face with the average security person who seems disinterested in doing his/her job properly except when being checked by Government agencies.
For all flight crew based in the UK who are able to prove their history of residence/employment/education and pass a high level security screening why not have a dedicated security channel with iris recognition and x-ray of hand luggage. An airside pass which swiped at all UK airports would be useful in combination with the iris recognition. Full body scanners? bring them on if it means not having to deal face to face with the average security person who seems disinterested in doing his/her job properly except when being checked by Government agencies.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Estonia
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do people keep conflating "profiling" with "racial profiling" - I don't get it.
The interview makes it clear that they are focused on "behavioural responses" and that it is not based on race or age.
Reacting to a list of suspicious behaviour *is* profiling and it has nothing to do with race and yet every page of this has responses that imply that racial profiling is meant.
I'm not saying there aren't people in security reacting based on race - clearly it happens! But that isn't the system as described and I'm not sure if it's just presumptions (and a chance to whinge about bleeding heart liberals stopping progress) or what?
The interview makes it clear that they are focused on "behavioural responses" and that it is not based on race or age.
Reacting to a list of suspicious behaviour *is* profiling and it has nothing to do with race and yet every page of this has responses that imply that racial profiling is meant.
I'm not saying there aren't people in security reacting based on race - clearly it happens! But that isn't the system as described and I'm not sure if it's just presumptions (and a chance to whinge about bleeding heart liberals stopping progress) or what?
Guys, don't be naive. Just look at the extra scrutiny that president Obama announced against passengers stemming from certain Arab and African muslim countries: ethnic/religious profiling at its purest. Again, it's not necessarily bad, and it's what profilers have been doing for years. But don't be so naive to say that profiling will only be based on behavioural signs.
Think about it differently. Some people here welcome profiling saying that finally 'old grandma's won't be stripsearched'. Well, old grandma's can be pretty nervous when they fly, so I guess they will be prime targets for the profilers! Think again.
Profiling is one of the many tools, it's not a holy grail.
Think about it differently. Some people here welcome profiling saying that finally 'old grandma's won't be stripsearched'. Well, old grandma's can be pretty nervous when they fly, so I guess they will be prime targets for the profilers! Think again.
Profiling is one of the many tools, it's not a holy grail.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different Concepts:
The West looks for dangerous objects.
Israelis look for dangerous people. A friend got extra scrutiny when leaving a conference in Israel a day earlier than the rest of her group. She really had to explain herself. Some Koreans were held so long they missed their flight.
GB
Israelis look for dangerous people. A friend got extra scrutiny when leaving a conference in Israel a day earlier than the rest of her group. She really had to explain herself. Some Koreans were held so long they missed their flight.
GB
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The side of a French mountain
Age: 49
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well a few months ago I went for a meeting in Israel - it was my first time to Israel so I was quite excited - it's a country I have wanted to visit for a long time.
Getting in was fine and the airport seemed little different to any other airport. Trying to leave the country was a different matter. What with the guard post at about 2Km out with machine guns pointed at the car and then the 2 hour interrogation etc. I frankly thought it was excellent. The interrogation was conducted with the utmost professionalism and the questioning techniques were clearly designed to trip people up if they weren't legitimate.
I honestly felt more safe in this airport than anywhere else in the world. I have no problem with taking more time to get to the airport early if I need to be interrogated etc. first if it gives me the same piece of mind that it did in Israel.
I suspect that a lot of the frustration comes from peoples attitudes towards flying and going through airport security.
Mind you, like I said, I have only been there once - and if I was a very frequent flyer and needed to be interrogated before every flight then I'm sure it would get on my nerves too after a few times!
Cheers
Rich
Getting in was fine and the airport seemed little different to any other airport. Trying to leave the country was a different matter. What with the guard post at about 2Km out with machine guns pointed at the car and then the 2 hour interrogation etc. I frankly thought it was excellent. The interrogation was conducted with the utmost professionalism and the questioning techniques were clearly designed to trip people up if they weren't legitimate.
I honestly felt more safe in this airport than anywhere else in the world. I have no problem with taking more time to get to the airport early if I need to be interrogated etc. first if it gives me the same piece of mind that it did in Israel.
I suspect that a lot of the frustration comes from peoples attitudes towards flying and going through airport security.
Mind you, like I said, I have only been there once - and if I was a very frequent flyer and needed to be interrogated before every flight then I'm sure it would get on my nerves too after a few times!
Cheers
Rich
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Former AA CEO Bob Crandall seems to agree with the Israeli approach.
Video here.
I/C
Fmr. CEO of American Airlines Calls Full-Body Scanners in Airports a 'Waste of Resources'
Fox News January 07, 2010
.....
"I think the real issue is this. Most of the people that go through security don't need a full body scan.
Certainly, if we had a trusted traveler program, where people had been with a — had been — gotten a thorough examination, a background check before they got to the airport, we don't need to put those people through a body scanner.
What we need to do is, we need to differentiate between those people who are a risk and those people who are unlikely to be a risk. Let's put the high-risk people through the body scanners. That — now we will have enough body scanners, and, in fact, we will have enough much more expensive body scanners.
You know, a body scanner is about $150,000. An X-ray machine is about $10,000. You're not going to use — you cannot useful full body scanning on everything. And doing so is silly. It's just a waste of resources and a waste of money.
If you look what the Israelis do, the Israelis use layered security, four or five layers of security, all of it focused on the people, not on the things. And they use technology. For example, if they see a bag that might have a bomb in it, they put it in a bomb box.
If in fact they spot a bag at the ticket counter that might have a bomb in it, they're encapsulated within an area. They don't have to evacuate the whole terminal, the way we did at Newark the other day."
Fox News January 07, 2010
.....
"I think the real issue is this. Most of the people that go through security don't need a full body scan.
Certainly, if we had a trusted traveler program, where people had been with a — had been — gotten a thorough examination, a background check before they got to the airport, we don't need to put those people through a body scanner.
What we need to do is, we need to differentiate between those people who are a risk and those people who are unlikely to be a risk. Let's put the high-risk people through the body scanners. That — now we will have enough body scanners, and, in fact, we will have enough much more expensive body scanners.
You know, a body scanner is about $150,000. An X-ray machine is about $10,000. You're not going to use — you cannot useful full body scanning on everything. And doing so is silly. It's just a waste of resources and a waste of money.
If you look what the Israelis do, the Israelis use layered security, four or five layers of security, all of it focused on the people, not on the things. And they use technology. For example, if they see a bag that might have a bomb in it, they put it in a bomb box.
If in fact they spot a bag at the ticket counter that might have a bomb in it, they're encapsulated within an area. They don't have to evacuate the whole terminal, the way we did at Newark the other day."
I/C
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Isle Dordt
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly, if we had a trusted traveler program, where people had been with a — had been — gotten a thorough examination, a background check before they got to the airport, we don't need to put those people through a body scanner.
There will be (potential) terrorists that slip through the background check and terrorist organisations could recruit among people after they got accepted into the program. So, we will need a minimal level of scanning for "trusted" travellers. (The same reasoning holds for airline and airport employees.)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Estonia
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think about it differently. Some people here welcome profiling saying that finally 'old grandma's won't be stripsearched'.
Specifying any population group as "safe" is a problem. If old people and women ("old grandma's") are not to be stripsearched then that is clearly a risk in itself.
I'm not sure who "some people" are but if anyone views profiling as protecting a specific population group then it's obvious what type of profiling they intend.
Again, it's based on behavioural reactions. If granny acts suspicious, then she's detained. Being questioned is nervewracking and the critical issue becomes "how far do we push and under which circumstances"
That's an important point. But we can't get there until we stop looking at race instead of reaction.
Specifying any population group as "safe" is a problem. If old people and women ("old grandma's") are not to be stripsearched then that is clearly a risk in itself.
I'm not sure who "some people" are but if anyone views profiling as protecting a specific population group then it's obvious what type of profiling they intend.
Again, it's based on behavioural reactions. If granny acts suspicious, then she's detained. Being questioned is nervewracking and the critical issue becomes "how far do we push and under which circumstances"
That's an important point. But we can't get there until we stop looking at race instead of reaction.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...which highlights a glaring "economy of truth" with the original article in that race and nationality as well as behaviour will be very much taken into account if we're going to "Israelify"
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Northwest
Age: 64
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This article seems to sum up the difficulties with profiling quite succinctly and indicates that even if you are 99.99% right you are still going to upset a lot of people.
BBC News - Can statistics help catch terrorists?
BBC News - Can statistics help catch terrorists?
Last edited by EGGP; 12th Jan 2010 at 13:05. Reason: spelling
Guest
Posts: n/a
Timothy MacVeigh - 2nd Largest Terrorist Act in US
So I wonder how Timothy (or someone like him) would fare in these Heightened Security as Theater arenas ?
White, wearing U S Army uniform, deferential and polite to authority figures ? It would all depend on whether he appeared nervous.. and some don't.
No matter what we do, a way will be found around it. These are global hostilities, local band aids will not fix them.
Also, all these 'measures' assume a 'person' is involved. Very bad assumption. Suppose a snack tray from Air Chefs.. never mind , I'll wind up on a no-fly list !
White, wearing U S Army uniform, deferential and polite to authority figures ? It would all depend on whether he appeared nervous.. and some don't.
No matter what we do, a way will be found around it. These are global hostilities, local band aids will not fix them.
Also, all these 'measures' assume a 'person' is involved. Very bad assumption. Suppose a snack tray from Air Chefs.. never mind , I'll wind up on a no-fly list !
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 78
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To avert terror intentions, one has to forget politics and politicians and work the problem with the right tools. Impossible? see the Swiss referendum system and its belated results.
Following the attack of Pearl Harbor, all origins of attacker culture, including second generation US citizens with DOD secret clearance were put into camps. Discriminatory profiling par excellance, but effective mitigation of the problem.
Is the terror wave profilable? ask yourselves, then use the tools and you are essentially done.
Another alternative is to keep waiting for the dwarf to put his bomb together, and see the outcome- terror will largely disappear for decades off the face of the earth.
Following the attack of Pearl Harbor, all origins of attacker culture, including second generation US citizens with DOD secret clearance were put into camps. Discriminatory profiling par excellance, but effective mitigation of the problem.
Is the terror wave profilable? ask yourselves, then use the tools and you are essentially done.
Another alternative is to keep waiting for the dwarf to put his bomb together, and see the outcome- terror will largely disappear for decades off the face of the earth.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another Israeli perspective
Last year, an Israeli Intelligence Agent named Juval Aviv (once Golda Meyer's bodyguard) lectured in New York city. Apparently he was the guy the movie 'Munich' was based on because he was given responsibility for finding and apprehending those who were responsible for the attack on the Israeli team during the Munich Olympics.
In the past he has made a couple of predictions based on information gathered from his own sources from within Israeli Intelligence.
He passed information to the George W. Bush administration one month before 9/11 where he described how aircraft would be used as bombs and targeted against high profile buildings and monuments in America. It has since become common knowledge that the US administration HAD been so warned, well in advance of the attack.
Speaking on Fox News (O'Reilly) he predicted the London Underground bombing. I wouldn't recommend the 'rabid right-wing, blond bimbo' news channel to anyone but the fact that he said it on air places the warning on public record. The attack occurred within a week.
He had some interesting things to say about airport security which he says is a joke, being reactive rather than proactive. "What is the point in using metal detectors when modern explosives are made of plastic", he asked.
During his lecture (I believe it was during the second half of 2009) he predicted that the next attack would be on the United States within months and that, after the (failed) shoe bomber, and the (failed) liquids bombers, the next attempt might well involve 'some suicidal maniac pouring liquid explosive onto his underpants'. He joked that the 'knee jerk' reaction that these failed attempts inevitably produced (take your shoes off - no liquids), would probably force passengers to fly naked.
Joke or not, on Christmas Eve we had the (failed) underwear bomber. Avivs' predictions seem to have been pretty good. Shame very little notice was taken of them.
He went on to say that it was now highly unlikely that further attempts will be made to hijack an aircraft or detonate an explosive device on board whilst in the air. The fact that passengers are now prepared to 'have a go' and subdue attackers will put an end to that.
He pointed out that the most effective deterrent is to screen everybody and everything BEFORE entering the terminal building because, he predicts, the next major attacks will take place against (not only) airports (but also) other heavily populated public buildings both in cities as well as urban areas. The perpetrators are likely to be 'home grown' - educated and (usually) born in the United States and therefore much harder to identify.
Interesting stuff. There was a lot more in the lecture that I have not included here because of space. The original was sent to me as an e-Mail and is over 4 pages long. I would be happy to pass it on to anyone if they PM me.
In the past he has made a couple of predictions based on information gathered from his own sources from within Israeli Intelligence.
He passed information to the George W. Bush administration one month before 9/11 where he described how aircraft would be used as bombs and targeted against high profile buildings and monuments in America. It has since become common knowledge that the US administration HAD been so warned, well in advance of the attack.
Speaking on Fox News (O'Reilly) he predicted the London Underground bombing. I wouldn't recommend the 'rabid right-wing, blond bimbo' news channel to anyone but the fact that he said it on air places the warning on public record. The attack occurred within a week.
He had some interesting things to say about airport security which he says is a joke, being reactive rather than proactive. "What is the point in using metal detectors when modern explosives are made of plastic", he asked.
During his lecture (I believe it was during the second half of 2009) he predicted that the next attack would be on the United States within months and that, after the (failed) shoe bomber, and the (failed) liquids bombers, the next attempt might well involve 'some suicidal maniac pouring liquid explosive onto his underpants'. He joked that the 'knee jerk' reaction that these failed attempts inevitably produced (take your shoes off - no liquids), would probably force passengers to fly naked.
Joke or not, on Christmas Eve we had the (failed) underwear bomber. Avivs' predictions seem to have been pretty good. Shame very little notice was taken of them.
He went on to say that it was now highly unlikely that further attempts will be made to hijack an aircraft or detonate an explosive device on board whilst in the air. The fact that passengers are now prepared to 'have a go' and subdue attackers will put an end to that.
He pointed out that the most effective deterrent is to screen everybody and everything BEFORE entering the terminal building because, he predicts, the next major attacks will take place against (not only) airports (but also) other heavily populated public buildings both in cities as well as urban areas. The perpetrators are likely to be 'home grown' - educated and (usually) born in the United States and therefore much harder to identify.
Interesting stuff. There was a lot more in the lecture that I have not included here because of space. The original was sent to me as an e-Mail and is over 4 pages long. I would be happy to pass it on to anyone if they PM me.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that private charter-flights bypass most of the "security" theatre. (a ton of verbal excrement will descend on my head if this is erroneous 
)
Therefore , the way forward is clear.
Regular travellers should join a "travel club" and will undergo whatever initiation checks are deemed necessary by the "club's" organisers.
Members would assemble at a seperate point in the airport ,from Scheduled Flight passengers.
They would then board their Club Charter flight (coincidentally ,flying a scheduled route and belonging to a major-carrier member) through their own gate and depart.
Yes, there would be the same risks involved , as with , say, Bungee-jumping....you rely on someone else to ensure a level of safety that YOU find acceptable.
As things stand at the moment, the tail is wagging the dog.
I don't fly scheduled and will not do so whilst this unacceptable delay and intrusion continues.
The airline industry mandarins need to wake up.....a large majority of pax are NOT business travellers (if they were, cattle-class would not be such a large proportion of the seating-plan)
Make the experience bad-enough and "Joe Soap" like me will go by land, sea or private means.
There are much easier ways to cross the channel ,than scheduled air-services and they're arguably "greener" too, but DEFINITELY simpler and lower-stress...also just as quick and cheaper.
(OK, these advantages lessen on long-haul)
Just trying to look at the problem with a bit of lateral-thinking!
)Therefore , the way forward is clear.
Regular travellers should join a "travel club" and will undergo whatever initiation checks are deemed necessary by the "club's" organisers.
Members would assemble at a seperate point in the airport ,from Scheduled Flight passengers.
They would then board their Club Charter flight (coincidentally ,flying a scheduled route and belonging to a major-carrier member) through their own gate and depart.
Yes, there would be the same risks involved , as with , say, Bungee-jumping....you rely on someone else to ensure a level of safety that YOU find acceptable.
As things stand at the moment, the tail is wagging the dog.
I don't fly scheduled and will not do so whilst this unacceptable delay and intrusion continues.
The airline industry mandarins need to wake up.....a large majority of pax are NOT business travellers (if they were, cattle-class would not be such a large proportion of the seating-plan)
Make the experience bad-enough and "Joe Soap" like me will go by land, sea or private means.
There are much easier ways to cross the channel ,than scheduled air-services and they're arguably "greener" too, but DEFINITELY simpler and lower-stress...also just as quick and cheaper.
(OK, these advantages lessen on long-haul)
Just trying to look at the problem with a bit of lateral-thinking!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockney Steve
Actually, you've reached the logical answer to this whole, sorry, business.
The airport can conduct the blanket check on everyone and everything that attempts to enter the terminal building, turning away everyone who beeps the machine or otherwise attracts attention.
The final security check (at the gate, just before boarding) should be conducted by the airlines themselves. No more insane queues and confrontations with semi-trained yobos. No hold-ups between check-in and the final departure area. Just a slightly longer boarding process for each flight.
Let the airlines determine what substances they will allow on board their aircraft and what level of hand baggage can be carried on.
And if it costs a little more then, yes! Add it to the fare BUT reduce the airport tax because the current idiotic and completely pointless security checks will no longer be required.
The airport can conduct the blanket check on everyone and everything that attempts to enter the terminal building, turning away everyone who beeps the machine or otherwise attracts attention.
The final security check (at the gate, just before boarding) should be conducted by the airlines themselves. No more insane queues and confrontations with semi-trained yobos. No hold-ups between check-in and the final departure area. Just a slightly longer boarding process for each flight.
Let the airlines determine what substances they will allow on board their aircraft and what level of hand baggage can be carried on.
And if it costs a little more then, yes! Add it to the fare BUT reduce the airport tax because the current idiotic and completely pointless security checks will no longer be required.