'Israelification' of Airports: High Security, Little Bother
Wild goose
May I beg to differ. In my experience Capot is spot on. I used to travel to Israel quite a lot for pleasure to visit Israelis. Whilst I agree with you that the Israeli system is efficient and effective I can assure you that the recipient gets a very different treatment if they are non-Jewish and non-Hebrew speaking. In my particular case it used to take me quite a long time to get through security as the questions used to go like this ...
What do you do
- I'm an engineer
What sort of engineer
- a systems engineer
What sort of systems
- Originally weapons systems but these days I work in etc..
Please step this way ....
Tell the truth each and every time. Get questioned. And searched. Don't tell the truth and they check the records and see the difference from last time (passengers can do pattern recognition as well you know) and still get pulled.
It gets worse these days in USA so I avoid going there. But that's a different issue though trained at the same school. The point is that Capot's description is correct and we should not think that the Israeli method is a panacea in a much more heterogenous traveller mix. And yes I am fully aware of the very nasty tricks that not so nice people get up to so I understand all this. But equally we should recognise it for what it is and the extent to which it can be applied and its weaknesses.
pp
May I beg to differ. In my experience Capot is spot on. I used to travel to Israel quite a lot for pleasure to visit Israelis. Whilst I agree with you that the Israeli system is efficient and effective I can assure you that the recipient gets a very different treatment if they are non-Jewish and non-Hebrew speaking. In my particular case it used to take me quite a long time to get through security as the questions used to go like this ...
What do you do
- I'm an engineer
What sort of engineer
- a systems engineer
What sort of systems
- Originally weapons systems but these days I work in etc..
Please step this way ....
Tell the truth each and every time. Get questioned. And searched. Don't tell the truth and they check the records and see the difference from last time (passengers can do pattern recognition as well you know) and still get pulled.
It gets worse these days in USA so I avoid going there. But that's a different issue though trained at the same school. The point is that Capot's description is correct and we should not think that the Israeli method is a panacea in a much more heterogenous traveller mix. And yes I am fully aware of the very nasty tricks that not so nice people get up to so I understand all this. But equally we should recognise it for what it is and the extent to which it can be applied and its weaknesses.
pp
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Somewhere colder than my clothes.
Age: 61
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
Seen the Telegraph today?
Erm, I did say a combination of techniques would seem to be the best idea...... This in addition to the existing security measures:
Heathrow in security alert as two men arrested on flight - Telegraph
Heathrow in security alert as two men arrested on flight - Telegraph
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Todays London Daily Mail:
Naked Germans protest over full-body airport scanners | Mail Online
These scanners are a waste of time and money and will only serve to increase passenger and crew frustration and anger at the way they are being treated.
Naked Germans protest over full-body airport scanners | Mail Online
These scanners are a waste of time and money and will only serve to increase passenger and crew frustration and anger at the way they are being treated.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Age: 85
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Israelification' of Airports: high Security, Little Bother
Some basic questions:
1. Do the security questions achieve anything?
2. Would a terrorist answer truthfully?
3. Couldn't profiling be applied to:
a. couples
b. SLF over 60 years
c. SLF with "clean" passports
ie. over 5 years validity
no "suspect" travel ie mid-east, Pakistan,Afghanistan etc.?
no flags on database ["son convicted of terrorism"]
I guestimate 50% of SLF would pass Q3
4. Wouldn't all the above be available from a scan of the passport?
5. What about explosives in checked luggage [remember Lockerbie]
tt
1. Do the security questions achieve anything?
2. Would a terrorist answer truthfully?
3. Couldn't profiling be applied to:
a. couples
b. SLF over 60 years
c. SLF with "clean" passports
ie. over 5 years validity
no "suspect" travel ie mid-east, Pakistan,Afghanistan etc.?
no flags on database ["son convicted of terrorism"]
I guestimate 50% of SLF would pass Q3
4. Wouldn't all the above be available from a scan of the passport?
5. What about explosives in checked luggage [remember Lockerbie]
tt
Last edited by ttodd; 16th Jan 2010 at 12:32. Reason: addition
New way of profiling?
Being Jewish and travelling to Israel a great deal I have often thought of the best way of improving the speed and accuracy of security. There are many flights from MAN to TLV on which I know most of the passengers.
So, the first passengers to turn up, profile them as normal and then ask if they are likely to know many of the passengers on the flight. If the answer is yes, ask them to assist. Then find out of they know and can vouch for the next set of passengers. Eventually you will end up with about 80% of the flight vouching for each other, so you only need to check the 20% who are unknown.
Would I be happy vouching for my friend and neighbour who I have know for 20 years and eaten in each others houses - Yes. Simples if a little too simple I suspect!
So, the first passengers to turn up, profile them as normal and then ask if they are likely to know many of the passengers on the flight. If the answer is yes, ask them to assist. Then find out of they know and can vouch for the next set of passengers. Eventually you will end up with about 80% of the flight vouching for each other, so you only need to check the 20% who are unknown.
Would I be happy vouching for my friend and neighbour who I have know for 20 years and eaten in each others houses - Yes. Simples if a little too simple I suspect!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: munich
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been wondering how "profiling" relates to the recent security glitch at Munich airport. To recap: a passenger's laptop tested positive for explosive traces. He managed to repack his hand baggage and laptop and disappear into the terminal before he could be questioned any further. As a result, the whole terminal was cleared to recheck everyone, resulting in huge delays, cancelled flights etc, etc. It turns out the missing passenger calmly went to the duty-free and joined the thousands of other passengers for the 2nd security check (where his laptop tested negative). His identity remains unknown.
What we do know (CCTV coverage) is that he was a typically innocuous business traveller type. I suspect at the first security check where his computer set off the alarm that the security staff "profiled" him, i.e. came to a quick conclusion that it was bl**dy obvious case of the explosive test "overreacting"; that the passenger posed no risk; that he was not acting nervously or suspiciously (events seem to have proved that he had nothing to hide); that there was no need to keep him under close observation and that they simply got diverted from the task of submitting him to a secondary test. I suspect that if he'd been a young, bearded middle-eastern type, they would have been more alert and whipped him off for closer inspection.
So what's the conclusion? I'd hypothesize that routine and boredom led to strict procedures not being implemented properly. But also that the staff guessed (and in hindsight) rightly judged that the passenger posed no danger. Profiling, if you like.
What we do know (CCTV coverage) is that he was a typically innocuous business traveller type. I suspect at the first security check where his computer set off the alarm that the security staff "profiled" him, i.e. came to a quick conclusion that it was bl**dy obvious case of the explosive test "overreacting"; that the passenger posed no risk; that he was not acting nervously or suspiciously (events seem to have proved that he had nothing to hide); that there was no need to keep him under close observation and that they simply got diverted from the task of submitting him to a secondary test. I suspect that if he'd been a young, bearded middle-eastern type, they would have been more alert and whipped him off for closer inspection.
So what's the conclusion? I'd hypothesize that routine and boredom led to strict procedures not being implemented properly. But also that the staff guessed (and in hindsight) rightly judged that the passenger posed no danger. Profiling, if you like.
