Airport screeners and my camera

nospam wrote:
In article , Ron
Hunter
wrote:

You can tell who travels, and who doesn't. Your comments are right
on, and others indicate lack of recent experience with flying. I
would rather a flight leave an hour late, and arrive at the
destination I intended, rather than leaving on time and making an
unscheduled, and permanent, stop part-way there because some idiot
didn't check something, or a bomb got aboard.

unfortunately, the screeners spend more time looking for shampoo and
toothpaste than they do bombs. as i mentioned, in routine testing
they've missed as much as 90% of explosive devices. granted they
were
merely test devices, but they were supposed to find it.

What makes you think that they're looking for bombs? 9/11 could not
have been pulled off with bombs.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

unfortunately, the screeners spend more time looking for shampoo and
toothpaste than they do bombs. as i mentioned, in routine testing
they've missed as much as 90% of explosive devices. granted they
were
merely test devices, but they were supposed to find it.

What makes you think that they're looking for bombs? 9/11 could not
have been pulled off with bombs.

i never said it was *only* bombs. the point is that they miss the
important stuff and spend a disproportional time worrying about
toothpaste and other harmless items. in newark, they failed to find
guns and explosives in 20 out of 22 tests:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10282006...wark_airport_l
ays_a_big_security_bomb_regionalnews_.htm

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:17:20 -0700 just me wrote:

| what does strong security have to do with inspecting computers? as it
| is now, they miss a lot of explosives in routine testing. it's all a
| show.

Exactly. It's to scare off wanna-bes and copy cats. Real terrorists
will figure out how to minimize their chance of getting caught and will
repeat until the succeed.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

nospam wrote:
In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

unfortunately, the screeners spend more time looking for shampoo
and
toothpaste than they do bombs. as i mentioned, in routine testing
they've missed as much as 90% of explosive devices. granted they
were
merely test devices, but they were supposed to find it.

What makes you think that they're looking for bombs? 9/11 could
not
have been pulled off with bombs.

i never said it was *only* bombs. the point is that they miss the
important stuff and spend a disproportional time worrying about
toothpaste and other harmless items.

So according to you it's perfectly all right to carry explosives onto
a plane as long as you put them in a toothpaste tube first?

in newark, they failed to find
guns and explosives in 20 out of 22 tests:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10282006...wark_airport_l
ays_a_big_security_bomb_regionalnews_.htm

From that same article: "standard operating procedures were not
followed by screeners"

Also, with regard to the "toothpaste and other harmless items", from
that same article, "The tests were conducted after the TSA put in
place heightened security procedures following British authorities'
announcement that they had foiled a terrorist plot to blow up
trans-Atlantic flights using liquid explosives." Note that "liquid
explosives", and "foiled a plot".



--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On 10/13/08 8:01 PM, in article
, "Ron Hunter"
wrote:

nospam wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

There are some airports, notably Houston Hobby, that will
require that you actually turn these devices on and demonstrate that
they work. Houston Hobby did that back as far as the 1980's, which
'transportables' first appeared.

wow, i haven't seen that in a *long* time. now they just swab it.

I haven't flown into Hobby in a few years, but that last time I was
there, they were still making laptop users boot the machine. I have
only been required to do that once in my travels, and I don't recall
just where that was, possibly Toronto?
Fly out of Hobby a lot. They just make you take it out of the case and they
run it through the X-Ray. No booting up. Now the betacam is another thing, I
am still having to power it up.

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

What makes you think that they're looking for bombs? 9/11 could
not
have been pulled off with bombs.

i never said it was *only* bombs. the point is that they miss the
important stuff and spend a disproportional time worrying about
toothpaste and other harmless items.

So according to you it's perfectly all right to carry explosives onto
a plane as long as you put them in a toothpaste tube first?

i never said that.

in newark, they failed to find
guns and explosives in 20 out of 22 tests:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10282006...wark_airport_l
ays_a_big_security_bomb_regionalnews_.htm

From that same article: "standard operating procedures were not
followed by screeners"

right, they screwed up.

nospam wrote:
In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

What makes you think that they're looking for bombs? 9/11 could
not
have been pulled off with bombs.

i never said it was *only* bombs. the point is that they miss the
important stuff and spend a disproportional time worrying about
toothpaste and other harmless items.

So according to you it's perfectly all right to carry explosives
onto
a plane as long as you put them in a toothpaste tube first?

i never said that.

Well, actually, you pretty much did. Or are you unaware of why they
worry about "toothpaste and other harmless items"?

in newark, they failed to find
guns and explosives in 20 out of 22 tests:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10282006...wark_airport_l
ays_a_big_security_bomb_regionalnews_.htm

From that same article: "standard operating procedures were not
followed by screeners"

right, they screwed up.

Which is not the same as having flawed procedures.



--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

So according to you it's perfectly all right to carry explosives
onto
a plane as long as you put them in a toothpaste tube first?

i never said that.

Well, actually, you pretty much did. Or are you unaware of why they
worry about "toothpaste and other harmless items"?

they don't worry a whole lot. they specifically allow toothpaste,
shampoo, etc. in less than 3.4 oz containers that fit in a one quart
ziplock baggie. they claim that if someone filled the containers with
something dangerous, there won't be enough substance to cause much
damage. and what's amusing is that two 3 oz containers is allowed but
one 4 oz container is not.

however, they don't mention that it is actually not that easy to make a
bomb on board with liquids.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/.

in newark, they failed to find
guns and explosives in 20 out of 22 tests:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10282006...wark_airport_l
ays_a_big_security_bomb_regionalnews_.htm

From that same article: "standard operating procedures were not
followed by screeners"

right, they screwed up.

Which is not the same as having flawed procedures.

either way, prohibited items got past the screeners.

nospam wrote:
In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

So according to you it's perfectly all right to carry explosives
onto
a plane as long as you put them in a toothpaste tube first?

i never said that.

Well, actually, you pretty much did. Or are you unaware of why
they
worry about "toothpaste and other harmless items"?

they don't worry a whole lot. they specifically allow toothpaste,
shampoo, etc. in less than 3.4 oz containers that fit in a one quart
ziplock baggie. they claim that if someone filled the containers
with
something dangerous, there won't be enough substance to cause much
damage. and what's amusing is that two 3 oz containers is allowed
but
one 4 oz container is not.

however, they don't mention that it is actually not that easy to
make
a bomb on board with liquids.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/.

And yet the British have a group on trial for exactly that. So I
guess that those incompetent fools in DTS have conquered England while
we were not looking.

either way, prohibited items got past the screeners.

Which has exactly what to do with cameras?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

So according to you it's perfectly all right to carry explosives
onto
a plane as long as you put them in a toothpaste tube first?
i never said that.
Well, actually, you pretty much did. Or are you unaware of why
they
worry about "toothpaste and other harmless items"?
they don't worry a whole lot. they specifically allow toothpaste,
shampoo, etc. in less than 3.4 oz containers that fit in a one quart
ziplock baggie. they claim that if someone filled the containers
with
something dangerous, there won't be enough substance to cause much
damage. and what's amusing is that two 3 oz containers is allowed
but
one 4 oz container is not.

however, they don't mention that it is actually not that easy to
make
a bomb on board with liquids.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/.

And yet the British have a group on trial for exactly that. So I
guess that those incompetent fools in DTS have conquered England while
we were not looking.


Even a broken clock knows the correct time twice a day.



either way, prohibited items got past the screeners.

Which has exactly what to do with cameras?



--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'