Share
Stuart Nathan
Features editor
Leaving on a jetplane. Eventually.
I flew to Switzerland last week, on my way to see some of ESA’s latest satellites. Security was, as always, a trying experience. Belt off, little plastic bag of tiny toiletries carefully placed separately, step through metal detector, inexplicable beep, shoes off, frisk down, and then Oh, sir, I need you to empty your bag so we can swab it down.
Turns out that I’d completely forgotten a small tube of lip balm that had tucked itself into a corner of my bag. Oops.
Now, I don’t particularly mind the security palaver. It doesn’t take that long, it isn’t actually designed to be annoying, and I’ve hardly ever encountered the more officious variety of airport security staff. But judging from the sighs and tuts from the queue behind me, many do. And those, we now know, include the chairman of British Airways, Martin Broughton.
As we’ve seen reported this morning, Broughton told a conference of UK airport operators yesterday that Britain should ‘stop kowtowing to American security demands’ and stop the more intrusive and, as he put it, redundant checks currently imposed before flights. He singled out shoe removal, pointing out that this isn’t demanded for US internal flights, and pointed out that there’s no consistent policy for the new branch of the computer family, Apple iPads, and other tablet computers.
Broughton has a point. It’s understandable but has always seemed odd that security demands respond to the last terrorist threat; the (unsuccessful) shoe bomber led to us struggling with laces, and the (unsuccessful) liquid bomb plan resulted in that pesky 100ml-only rule and the ritual of the ziploc bag. I suppose we should be thankful that there aren’t any new underwear-search rituals.
In an area where rapid reaction is the order of the day, it’s not surprising that engineering and technology can’t keep up, and that new searches are therefore ordered on top of existing ones. Moreover, advances in scanning have led more to controversy than to a feeling of safety, as with the new ‘naked image’ scanners now being introduced.
But it should be possible for technologists to develop security methods which maintain, or even increase, the level of vigilance while reducing the intrusiveness of the security search. There needs to be a rethink of security to decide what searches are actually needed, and how best to conduct those searches. Passengers are less likely to object to security procedures if they are rational and, preferably, quick.
After all, have those shoe scans and separate toiletries bags ever actually found anything?
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (24)
Anonymous | 27 Oct 2010 1:22 pm
As the 9/11 attacks showed the world, sophisticated infiltration techniques, high-tech weapons and high-powered explosives are not necessarily needed to cause a devastating terrorist attack. You just need an everyday ordinary passenger aircraft and use that as the weapon instead.
Confiscating my toenail clipper or my 125ml tube of Eczema cream is not going to prevent anything, because anyone who seriously wants to hijack/blow up a plane won't be phased. There are many low-tech ways to do it which the security check cannot stop. We've all seen the lethality of a ballpoint pen in the Bourne movies.
As a final thing to think about, after your security check the duty-free shops allow you to carry copious amounts of flammable liquids onto the plane in easily breakable glass bottles (sounds like a better weapon than a nail-file to me...)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Traveller | 27 Oct 2010 1:23 pm
Stuart,
"After all, have those shoe scans and separate toiletries bags ever actually found anything?"
No - They're not designed to find anything. Airport security checks have one, simple aim: To make the travelling public feel confident enough to get on the plane. Catching terrorists happens through intelligence, away from airports.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Pollard | 27 Oct 2010 1:24 pm
I recently flew from Heathrow to the USA and back again with 300ml of liquid in my personal baggage. It was not done intentionally I add.
It was not found - yet it was sufficient liquid to blow a hole in the side of a plane.
If I could do this, so could anyone else.
The so-called screening is worthless. The only way this type of screening can be made properly functional is to have it constantly challenged, and the number of failures publicised.
The problem of how to challenge an airport security system is rather like the problem of which mouse is going to bell the cat. However, I can certainly think of a way to do it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Archie Campbell | 27 Oct 2010 1:27 pm
I've just come back from San Francisco. They insisted that I empty all pockets (English currency, American currency, cards, keys, even the map of SF zoo!) and remove my belt as well as my shoes. The next time I'm faced with this I'm going to remove my trousers and go through in my underpants, it would save a lot of time and my trousers almost removed themselves without the belt to hold them up.
Archie
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
BB | 27 Oct 2010 1:48 pm
I agree in part with Traveller, but I believe the reason the technologies in question haven't found anything proves they're working. Surely it's much better to deter a potential terrorist from making any attempt by the fact the checks exist rather than find someone who would otherwise have got away with it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
brian | 27 Oct 2010 1:54 pm
The important thing to remember security is profit driven, i.e. by the scanner and other security suppliers. At the end of the day scanning etc will never be a 100% , the best security is intelligence - Unfortunately that's in very short supply.
The hassle of screening is a win for the terrorists!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris Melding | 27 Oct 2010 1:55 pm
On a recent business trip I was stopped at customs for having my toiletries in the wrong type of plastic bag, i.e. tie handle as opposed to ziplock. I was forced to purchase a pack of 4 ziplock bags and transfer everything into one of them before being allowed to proceed. They also gave me my original bag back! This is just petty and does not endear security staff to passengers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Pete Osborn | 27 Oct 2010 1:56 pm
I was delighted to hear Mr Broughton's comments this morning. The Emperor's Clothes springs to mind, although he'd probably still have to take his shoes off to board. The insanity of having a jeweller's screwdriver confiscated only to be served a meal "airside" with metal cutlery needs to be challenged. I've been berated for having the "wrong sized plastic bag"; what does that add to security? Oh, I forgot. It's not about security - it's about keeping people frightened and thereby under control. If the other airlines joined ther voices to BA's we may get some sense back into travel. Perhaps a certain Mr O'Leary has a view?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David | 27 Oct 2010 2:00 pm
Airport security is a job creation scheme and a way to hike up fares. The real threat is monitored way before any actual entry into the airport – a big thank you to the Terrorist Screening Centres.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Claxton | 27 Oct 2010 2:00 pm
In the months following Sept 11th 2001 I flew to Rome, Catania, Milan, Munich, San Diego and Alicante, using the same carry-on bag which I used regularly in my role as marketing consultant. I always carried the same tools of my trade. It was only when returning back thru Alicante that the guy on the tunnel scanner seemed to notice something untoward. He scanned the bag 3 or 4 times then passed it to me to open and empty for him, which I did. He then re-scanned but still no joy. I turned the bag inside out only to find a metal retractable bladed knife in a crease - it had been there for months - and only found at what can be best regarded as a holiday airport! I suggested he keep it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment