This is topic Score another victory for the terrorists in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005999

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-27-2009, 01:45 PM:
 
I used to travel a lot in the past when it was exciting and fun but not too much anymore after 9/11. Restrictions were tight after that very tragic day but got worse after Richard Reid tried to blow up a plane with an explosive device in his shoes. Now everyone has to take their shoes off when they go through airport security checkpoints. In the last twenty four hours it got even worse!! There are now new restrictions after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to destroy a Northwest Orient Airline's jet when it was making it's final approach into Detroit International Airport. Because of the incident, the new rule prohibiting passengers from getting out of their seats during the final hour of a flight is going to cause all kinds of problems both on the plane and on the ground. The problem will occur mostly on the ground when hundreds of people on arriving flight will flock to airport bathrooms before they make their connecting flights. If they have tight flight connection schedule, they will be in trouble when they cannot promptly use a bathroom because many others would be ahead of them. This will also be a problem with people who had arrived at the gate for their first flight and want to use the bathroom one last time before they board their planes. If they do not have enough time to do that, they too will be in trouble. Another new rule prohibits passengers from having anything on their lap during the final hour of the flight and forcing people to put everything away they were using during the flight such as laptops before the new time restriction . Some airlInes are even advising passengers to limit carryon items to only one piece or none at all.

All of these restrictions have been put into place because of terrorists have used commercial aircrafts to kill thousands of innocent Americans on September 11, 2001 and have tried to destroy other aircrafts to kill thousands of more innocent people but were prevented from carrying out their evil deeds by fast thinking alert fellow passengers. Despite the fact that some of these terrorists have failed carrying out their mission, they have in a way won because they have taken away our freedom of enjoying air travel.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-27-2009, 02:21 PM:
 
Agreed. These new restrictions suck, if they're as stringent as you describe...I enjoy reading during flights and the idea of not being allowed to have anything on my lap during the last hour of a three-hour flight is just stupid. Books (at the very least) should not be a huge cause for concern.

We'll next be flying in October, hopefully some of this insanity will have gone away by then.

The TSA is doing more to ruin the airline industry than terrorists ever did. I used to think of flying as a kind of adventure, but now it's the absolute worst part of any trip.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-27-2009, 02:26 PM:
 
These are not yet official TSA guidelines, as the TSA has not yet announced them. AirCanada leaked them early, and most believe this leak to be accurate.

TSA is being vague right now about the rules, citing that they want them to be unpredictable, and passengers on one flight may experience different rules than those on another flight or in a different airport.

This is still rapidly developing. Google trends is showing "New TSA Rules" as the 36th most popular search at the moment. We will know more as soon as passengers in the air today land and tweet about it.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-27-2009, 02:46 PM:
 
I heard the that it was on international flights the no getting up during the last hour.

I know for a while while using National Airport (nearest downtown DC) there was a no getting up during the first or last 1/2 hour (within 1/2 hour of DC) or the plane would fly to Dulles immediately. I don't think that rule is still in effect though.

This reactionary rule making is stupid. We have computers right? The guy was on a watch list of about 550,000...why didn't the computers link a guy on the list with the air ticket and then cause him to go through a more detailed search? Thats what computers are great for. It is stupid that the "leaders" make that 550,000 name list seem so large...it is if people are trying to match names...not computers! In the size of the population of the planet 550,000 isn't that big a pool for a computer to sift through.

The whole shoe thing is also just plain stupid.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-27-2009, 02:50 PM:
 
The latest rumor I've heard is that seatback in-flight-entertainment systems are no longer allowed to be used. They are concerned about passengers having access to the built in flight tracker many of these systems have, which shows the position of the plane on a map.

Again just rumors. Can't seem to find any verification from the TSA or any legit news source.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-27-2009, 05:26 PM:
 
The next step will be binding and blindfolding all passengers. And all babies will be required to scream the entire trip.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-27-2009, 05:30 PM:
 
I don't understand what could be done in the last hour of a flight that couldn't be done at any other time. If someone wants to hijack a plane, a rule telling them to stay seated is not going to make them stop. I also do not understand the "nothing in your laps for the last hour" thing. Do they expect someone to remote pilot the plane with a laptop?

The TSA are the real terrorists. They are also 100% useless.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-27-2009, 06:13 PM:
 
This morning's Honolulu Star Bulletin reported the 'No standing during the filnal hour of the flight is limited to international flights but the Honolulu Advertiser reported the policy also applies to domestic flights as well. I am more inclined to believe the Honolulu Advertiser's report. Once again, all of the new rulings set in place because of the incident on a NWO flight on Christmas day is just plain STUPID!!!

I am scheduled to fly to Sacramento next July to do a photo shoot and plaan to pack all of my photographic equipment I will need to do the shoot in a airline approved tote case and my Apple Powerbook laptop computer in a separate Tenba Messenger bag and hopefully cool heads will prevail and there will be no changes to the current policy regarding carry on items on a plane.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 12-27-2009, 06:46 PM:
 
I feel sorry for the cabin crew who will be cleaning up the cups full of urine. Will have to drink a lot less alcohol on my next long-haul flight!

The no liquids rule from UK airports is annoying, many of the budget carriers charge for hold baggage so I usually just take a big hand luggage bag if flying in Europe, have to rely on hotels to have toiletries or try and borrow someone else's stuff in a hostel.

The threat of terrorism makes travel amongst other things more inconvenient, but I think that adapting to the threat makes our society stronger, and their ideas weaker.
 

---

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 12-27-2009, 07:24 PM:
 
If this proposal becomes a regulation, I sense a great marketing opportunity for the makers of the Stadium Pal.

The only problem I see is that it, too, could be put to malicious use by a terrorist, triggering a TSA ban on such devices and making things even more difficult for the average airline passenger.
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-27-2009, 08:00 PM:
 
Based on what I've heard of this incident, I'm not sure TSA guidelines would have caught this guy even when properly enforce. Based on my experience flying over the last 5-6 years (averaging about 3 round trips a year), there doesn't seem to be any way for TSA to catch something held on your person which is non-metallic. That means they wouldn't even catch someone with small bottles of something in their pants.

Short of actually patting down every passenger, I don't see how they can honestly prevent a truly determined terrorist.

I believe the security measures are more about the illusion of safety than being truly safe.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-27-2009, 08:13 PM:
 
This guy and about 550,000 others were on a suspect list. If you are on the list and you check in...you get the mark that ensures a "pat down" or even the funky x-ray machine...it is that simple. If you are on the list and shouldn't be, there should be a means to get off of it.

But prevention starts with using the information you have. The TSA finding the odd threat should be the safeguard not the first line of defense.

We have these computers with databases...why are they not using them?

Steve
 

---

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 12-27-2009, 08:36 PM:
 
Ta Dah

 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-27-2009, 09:14 PM:
 
My ex is a flight attendant, and she says that te new procedures are for international flights only, plus there will be extra sky marshals. She said that the procedures will end or be altered on the 31st, it sounds like a temporary thing.
 

---

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 12-27-2009, 09:49 PM:
 
Wait a minute, I'm trying to get my head around this:

The guy, who is already the subject of a recently-updated warning, gets through security with a common and easily-detected explosive, so EVERYBODY gets imprisoned in their seats and barked at to get their books off their lap for the last hour.

Yeah, makes as much sense as most of the other regulations.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-27-2009, 10:52 PM:
 
Yeah...instead of all this crap, why not ban all flights between Amsterdam or Nigeria and the U.S. for a month or so? The economic hit would be such that they might get their security thumbs out of their butts.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 12-28-2009, 12:31 PM:
 

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan

---

The no liquids rule from UK airports is annoying

---

Isn't that from all airports, not just UK airports? Or is this something new? (last time I flew through a UK airport was in January 2009) Seemed to me that the liquid ban was pretty much uniform between North America & Europe (the only continents I've flown to/from).
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-28-2009, 01:45 PM:
 
What you propose about banning service to the Netherlands and Nigeria for a period of time because of last weeks incidents does not make any sense, Mike. What you propose is exactly the same as the airport security measures that has been put into place because of what some terrorists has done. Too many innocent people will suffer. One of my close friend is from Nigeria and now lives with his wife in Los Angeles. He comes from a fine family and I was told they are al exactlyl like him- very wonderful people! Just the thought of punishing these people for something a terrorist tried to do is not the proper thing to do.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-28-2009, 01:50 PM:
 
Claude, to play Devil's advocate for a minute, far more innocent people suffer due to TSA's "false sense of security" harassment because of the work of a terrorist. How is THAT fair?

What's worse, how is it fair for everyone on the plane to suffer just because some people reproduce and are bad parents to their screaming child? (No problem with good parents, but that is definitely the exception to the rule these days...sort of like Hollywood releasing a good movie.)

I'm for banning all flights from Nigeria for 3 months. Perhaps that will help get the point across.

Of course banning children that are not old enough to speak fluent English as well as TSA personnel from entering an airport is the best overall solution.
 

---

Posted by Cathal Griffin (Member # 5166) on 12-28-2009, 02:35 PM:
 
I've been holding back till now but regarding the banning of flights from Amsterdam and Nigeria. Perhaps you should just ban all flights to and from the US for a time? See how things turn out? Just a thought!
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-28-2009, 02:47 PM:
 
I have to agree with Claude here.

Just because the "suspected" terrorist is from Nigeria is in no way indicative of Nigeria's involvement in this man's actions and any idea that to hit a poor country economically doesn't really make any sense.

What WOULD make sense is to stop being so damn reactionary to these events, to just get the attempted terrorist act under control- as was done here - and get on with life.

Terrorists feed off pain, suffering and "maximum impact for minimum effort".... e.g loss of one (of their) lives for the loss of many (ours). They also feed off reports that their efforts are having an effect, so why are we running around like headless chooks implementing futile measures that the terrorists now know about, have prior warning and can now circumvent those measures.

Makes NO sense whatsoever. Telegraphing security measures is just stupid just as does reporting on "attempted" terrorist attacks.

Just saw Cathal's post. Well said.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-28-2009, 03:12 PM:
 
Well my comment was meant sarcastically. I should have used a I guess.

Seriously though, the only real answer to 99.9% the terrorist crap would be to racial-profile at the security checks, since 99.9%* of the problems thus far have come from one particular group of people. I'm not a rascist, but that is just a fact.

* NOTE: I haven't verified this percentage, but I think it's a fairly close guess.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-28-2009, 03:51 PM:
 

quote: Ian Parfrey

---

What WOULD make sense is to stop being so damn reactionary to these events, to just get the attempted terrorist act under control- as was done here - and get on with life.

Terrorists feed off pain, suffering and "maximum impact for minimum effort".... e.g loss of one (of their) lives for the loss of many (ours). They also feed off reports that their efforts are having an effect, so why are we running around like headless chooks implementing futile measures that the terrorists now know about, have prior warning and can now circumvent those measures.

---

quote:

---

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan

---

The no liquids rule from UK airports is annoying

---

Isn't that from all airports, not just UK airports?

---

Here in the US most airports follow what they call the 311 rule liquids must be 3 ounces or smaller in a 1 quart bag and 1 bag per person in carry on luggage.

I agree with the late George Carlin that we Americans are always happy to give up more of our freedom for the illusion of security.
This is all bullshit. Solution: Fire the motherfuckers that couldn't screen passangers correctly. Fire anyone who couldn't see obvious things on X-Ray machines.
And FIRE any asshole whose solution to terrorist activity it to make me stay in my seat for a ridiculous arbitrary time at the begining and end of my flight for no other reason then the illusion of security. I agree with the other posts why is the time at the begining and end of the flight any different then the rest of the flight??

Just my angry opinion!

[ 12-28-2009, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 12-28-2009, 05:31 PM:
 

quote: Paul J. Neuhaus

---

Here in the US most airports follow what they call the 311 rule liquids must be 3 ounces or smaller in a 1 quart bag and 1 bag per person in carry on luggage.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Seriously though, the only real answer to 99.9% the terrorist crap would be to racial-profile at the security checks, since 99.9%* of the problems thus far have come from one particular group of people. I'm not a rascist, but that is just a fact.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

This guy and about 550,000 others were on a suspect list. If you are on the list and you check in...you get the mark that ensures a "pat down" or even the funky x-ray machine...it is that simple. If you are on the list and shouldn't be, there should be a means to get off of it.

---

The 550,000 group contains lots of people who shouldn't be on it, and have done nothing to put them under closer scrutiny. It's not a suspect list, as they aren't suspected of doing anything. I could call TSA or some other agency and tell them a story to get you on the list. Such is always the problem with gov't lists.

The more specific list, the No Fly List, is smaller and is supposed to have more dangerous people, but has been well documented as being loaded with names of people with the same name or a name that sounds close to the real person.

There is no simple easy way to get off the list. Pretty much takes a lawsuit against the government, which is never, simple. easy or quick.

And Steve, you betray your age by referring to it as National Airport, or was that just a subtle way of getting in a forbidden political comment
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-29-2009, 08:56 AM:
 
550,000 is a pretty small sample of the population of the world...so if you are on the list, you get extra security...period! The no-fly list means just that....you will not be allowed to board ANY plane. Are the wrong people on the list...sure...but there needs to be a means to get off the list if they have the wrong person...that is just a matter of processing those people. Being on the suspect list doesn't keep you from flying...but it does slow you down just a little.

For the record...it is nothing political or anything about my age...it is National Airport, DCA...etc. You want to add a President's name to it? That is your choice...the stupid thing is that a President's name was already on it "Washington National Airport" and I never used that one either. Same with BWI...that is its name...wanna put a Judge's name in front...okay but it still is BWI.

For more local naming...it is still the Cabin John Bridge and the GW Parkway, Maryland side. What has it been called? Cabin John Parkway, Clara Barton Parkway...pick a freakin name and stick with it!

I've gotten over I-70S being called I-270...it took awhile but I'm okay with that. After all, it still has its confusion with the spurs at the end.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-29-2009, 09:26 AM:
 
about 9 or 10 years ago, I was travelling back from Egypt with a pretty big tool case. It had a couple laptops, RTA, and all of my hand tools. On my connecting flight, Heathrow, I was pulled aside before I boarded. Security wanted to ask me about the contents of my case. They saw my meter which had a 9V battery in it on their x-ray. They said it looked like a bomb when they screened it. They already had the case right there at the boarding gate. They asked me to confirm that I was the last person to pack it and it was in my possession since then. I was thinking "fuck, I packed it last night, went out to dinner, walk on the beach, out for a few hours...." The hotel I stayed at would change my sheets and put a mint on my pillow if I went for a 5 minute walk, so I'm thinking I have no fucking idea whats in the case. They search it and the guard was cool about it and just told me I should disconnect the battery when I travel, what they saw was a battery connected to wires.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-31-2009, 01:17 PM:
 
What annoys me are those leisure traveler wimps who may travel once a year getting all the airtime and saying stupid stuff "oh if it makes us safer, we must put up with it". Seriously? Should we ban liquor because there is a good chance a drunk driver will kill someone on a regular basis? And that is assuming any of those stringent measures make us safer in the first place.

The dumbest rule is the 3oz liquid limitation. What is going to prevent a group of terrorists from combining their 3oz liquids into a bigger volume after they cross the checkpoint? The only terrorist dumb enough to fail these inconvenient but simple security tests are those who are going to be less competent than the dumb Nigerian guy or the even dumber Richard Reid aka the Shoe Bomber.

Even if they make security fool proof, what is going to prevent Al Queda from simply bribing someone to smuggle dangerous stuff into the main terminals? They can't even protect our baggage from theft.

The terrorists have already won when they have most of the country cowering in irrational fear. It's not just America. Look at the dumb airport regulations in UK and other European countries.
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-31-2009, 02:40 PM:
 

quote: Justin Hamaker

---

Frank, is it really fair to blame Janet Napolitano for the fact that someone with a bomb got through security as a foreign airport?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Of course banning children that are not old enough to speak fluent English as well as TSA personnel from entering an airport is the best overall solution.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

The TSA are the real terrorists. They are also 100% useless.

---

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

Joe T., you can stop the partisan crap.

---

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

If your beloved prior administration did not spend so much time, money, and resources on a useless war...

---

Pravin: Aren't you guilty of the same political horse-shit? You know, "The Pot Calling The Kettle Black" thingie.
 

---

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-01-2010, 01:56 PM:
 
We have forgotten why our nation came in to existence in first place. So to remind us of those that brought about this nation I have decided to put just three quotes from the wisest man of the 18th century. Perhaps the Wisest American ever!

Benjamin Franklin

"Even peace may be purchased at too high a price.

He that's secure is not safe.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Just a few words to contemplate we run around punishing everyone for the actions of a few. Why not go the other way around?

Pravin Ratnam please define useless War? A despot removed from power responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of his own people. Thousands of American's killed to bring freedom to oppressed people a country. A country now fledgling as it can be giving real democracy a go.

War is never desirable just often necessary. Ask those laying in mass graves put there from the orders of Saddam Hussein if maybe we should have gone in to that "useless" war a little bit early in history!
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 01-01-2010, 02:24 PM:
 
Not really, Phil. I didn't bring up the original political point. And I did say it was a bipartisan failure. I wasn't shilling for any party like Joe T was who was clearly doing a spin job for the prior administration and making references to who one votes for.

As far as Ron's point, no, I am not going to get into a big political argument here over the specifics of the iraq war because one can use that argument to remove despots anywhere(Africa, N Korean, just pick one of many countries ruled by despots who are a danger mostly to their own people and are not a serious worldwide threat) and my intention is not to derail this thread. All I will say is I brought it up because it involved an opportunity cost as related to the topic being discussed here. You spend resources somewhere , you lose it elsewhere. Too much time was debated on the war that not enough time was debated on what constitutes smart homeland security. Lip service has been paid all these years in coordinating different government agencies.

When I used to hear some female announcer alert us of a different color alert, it just made me feel like I was in Logan's Run or some other scifi setup where the government tries to treat us like naive little kids.

But anyway, i am in agreement with Ron on the dangers of giving up too much liberty for safety.
 

---

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-01-2010, 02:37 PM:
 
I think a little more attention to a despot prior to WWII could have saved a lot of lives. 6 million Jews, 10 of thousands of Christians murdered all after the war well on the way to being lost for Germany. I don't say we can just remove all despots but I do think that the world be better off is someone would do so.

The problem most governments have in bringing down these people is they worry about who would replace them. The devil you know is always less scary than the devil you don't know.

What is the solution beats the hell out of me but continuous blaming those that came before or action that were done in the past doesn't feed the bulldog now. At some point you own up to what can be done to change the hear and now and the future and the mistakes that continue.

Like no inter-agency sharing of information even though the laws that forbid it are off the books. It is criminal not tell the interested parties about known terror plots or change of status like has happened recently.

It isn't a system break down it is break down of the people in the system. Some one pic up a friggin phone and make a call or type a memo and send to the right people. Or just wait and watch the death toll mount when the people around can't stop it when the those charged with their safety didn't do the job!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-01-2010, 06:22 PM:
 
TSA sucks and is completely useless on ALL levels from their effectiveness right down to their waste of money.

There, the entire thread along with everyone's feelings are summed up in one sentence.

No more political discussions. Thread closed. Thank you come again.
 

---