Tsa's Airport Screening

[G!NG3R420]

A decade ago, tiny "travel-size" shampoos were fun stocking stuffers and a more expensive, more convenient means of packing toiletries for a trip. Now they're a reminder of the layered security landscape that has evolved at airports since the September 11, 2001, attacks.

 

As the 10-year anniversary of that day approaches, CNN asked security experts to weigh in on changes in aviation security in the United States since 9/11 and to offer a glimpse of what's likely to happen next.

 

The good news for the widely criticized Transportation Security Administration? Some security analysts like where the agency is headed.

"The TSA is exhibiting much more open-mindedness and has already accepted the concept that there is a need to look at people as well as what they carry," said Rafi Ron, president of Virginia-based New Age Security Solutions and former head of security of Ben-Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel.

 

But despite all the hassles travelers now endure to get on an airplane, two experts' picks for the decade's most significant safety improvements had nothing to do with checkpoint screening. They were reinforced cockpit doors and the screening of checked luggage for explosives. So how do all the other measures -- the ones that aggravate the shoeless, jacket-less masses -- hold up in security analysts' eyes?

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...tml?hpt=hp_bn12

[Qlimax]

Well maybe for better security,people will be bar coded and their entire background will be viewed just so they can fly. It's absurd what people are going through just to fly to some damn place. The whole air travel system is screwed up in its twisted way. Expensive flight tickets, hassling baggage rules and annoying safety measures.

[G!NG3R420]

I think the best part of this excerpt is

 

two experts' picks for the decade's most significant safety improvements had nothing to do with checkpoint screening. They were reinforced cockpit doors and the screening of checked luggage for explosives.

 

Its not even the screening process that has helped according to the experts. Its the security of the plane and the checked luggage. So is this harrasing style of security check point really needed? I understand that we want to be safe but travel is not the same anymore.

[rolf]

@Qlimax: Expensive is a large word. Last flight for me (specific date and time, from Amsterdam to Southampton and back) was only 150E, including hold bagage of 20kg. I later found out that I could use the train (with approx same time door to door) for only approx 120E. Could be worse...

 

Anyway, stupid people at TSA are completely idiots. I've flown quite a few times, and at AMS (Amsterdam Schiphol) there is never a problem. At any other crappy airport, there is always a problem. If you ask me if I carry any fluids, I know it's not allowed so I say no (my 0.5L waterbottle is empty). But apparently, a close to empty 75ml shampoo bottle is dangerous... Those metal detectors wouldn't find shit if it isn't metal (but xray finds the liquid for them), then wouldn't I carry the fluids on my body to prevent that? No, take a sample, for I am truly a terrorist. Luckily by taking that sample I didn't had enough for my bomb... Deeply pathetic. And less than a week, I had shoes on (obviously). The same shoes as I had on in Amsterdam. Amsterdam; no problem; Southampton; o noo, metal... (yeah, those are hiking boots, of course they have metal on it). So I'm totally honest; 'It's probably my shoes, but it didn't go off on AMS, should I take my shoes off?" "Yes" "Is 'walking again through the metal detector allowed"? No, we must verify that your entire body, including your balls do not carry metal somewhere...

 

Seriously, those guys are wasting their life/time. Stop bullshitting around and get a useful job. New method: Go through a metal detector, and repeat until it doesnt go off anymore. All elements not wearing through the xray. Problem solved too, because that's basicly what they're doing. Only with 12 people instead of 2. And stop @#!$ing arround with the "only 100ml bottles". The guy who imagined that rule must be beyond stupid, because even stupid people 'know'/'guess correctly' that it's harder to let one 500ml bottle explode, than making a compound of a lesser amount of liquids. Furthermore, even with the 'lesser of many explosives' TNT, you don't need tons to blow a airplane in more than one part.

 

Either TSA should do their job correctly, or stop doing it at all. Either way, they can't make it worse than they're doing now.