Random TSA Security Checks A Criminal Offence?

Thank you, Symon, I appreciate your helpful and objective responses and your last sentence neatly summarises the situation.

Sorry Sky High, didn’t intentionally avoid answering the questions specifically.

There should surely be a check for everyone, as there already is, and it should be a proper check. If it is not what is the point of it?

Any check is a step in the right direction. Surely walking through a metal detector is better than walking straight onto the plane from your car. I agree that everyone walking through the gate should be physically checked, though the logistics of such at major airports are difficult.

The random check, by its very nature and statistical probability will let someone through who should have been stopped. How is the risk assessment calculated? Is it calculated? What are the weaknesses of the normal checks?

It is calculated. I do not know how. The guards are instructed the frequency to check as often as they need to be. At a guess, I would assume airport management decide the frequency after discussions with the authorities, based on the current threat level. A weakness of the current checks, walking through a metal detector, is that someone could be carrying e.g. liquids or ceramic blades on their person and not set the gate off and not get checked. Full body x-ray scanners radically reduce this risk.

It all seems very hit and miss and highly unsatisfactory for everyone, I should have thought. So there is clearly a statistical chance that the passenger next to you, who was not randomly checked, is a risk. How does that make any sense?

In a way it does not make sense. I am always nervous when I step on to the plane. But it is a risk everyone makes when they get onto a plane. If anyone does not like it, they should not fly. Or only fly from airports with full body scanners perhaps?

Thank you, Mark, although, if the extract you have quoted is anything to go by, I might get lost in verbal obfuscation. I’ll give it a go, anyway.

Sky high, i think the best answer to your question can be found through the DfT link i provided:

‘A summary of the Airport Security Planning framework set out in the Policing and Crime Act 2009. All security stakeholders at each airport are required to work together to produce a joint threat and risk assessment for their airport and an agreed Airport Security Plan. Where there is a dedicated police resource identified in the Plan, the airport operator, chief constable and police authority must additionally agree a Police Services Agreement.‘

You can also find on that site a link to a report by the Rt Hon Sir John Wheeler, i think those sources will be the best to find out some of the answers to questions you look at, symon i’m sure due to the sensitivity of the work he has done will not be at liberty give you all the statistics you are asking for. But i am sure each time you hear about alert levels on the news all these figures will probably change anyway.

Symon – you have not answered the actual questions I posed nor addressed what seems to me to be the illogical method of operation. You merely refer to passengers being “spooked” whatever the hell thatm means, whilst in the queue. Is this “spooking” a function of the operation? What does it achieve?

Well I must be an idiot then, because I object to RANDOM checks……
Those folks are a bunch of f**king idiots.

Well I guess I must be a f**king idiot then, because I have worked in that very job before.

Honestly, I really believe that if there really is an additional threat over and above what the standard checks can detect, then by not applying the additional (currently random) checks to everyone then they are putting lives at risk for the sake of cost, resources or time.
My issue – complaint if you like – is that either (a) the NORMAL checks are good enough in which case no one should be randomly checked, or (b) the NORMAL checks are not good enough in which case random is no use either – everyone should have the extra checks.

Many aviation security staff i’m sure, would be more than happy to fully screen everyone in the most effective way possible, but it is us that as the travelling public that would not stand for that, with airline ticket prices going up already due to fuel prices, we would be very unhappy to pay for however many times more security staff/scanners/x-rays, etc that would be needed to effect these standards, not to mention the annoyance it would cause many people who are already unhappy at delays caused by security.

I remember working the very day they uncovered the plot to smuggle liquid explosives onto a plane. I started work at 04:00 and we were told, before the airport opened, that we would be screening 100% of the passengers for the foreseeable future. BAA had to bring in more staff to cope with the workload, had to give extra breaks because people became fatigued a lot quicker, put on free drinks and meals at all breaks to make sure staff kept their energy up and even organised free massages for staff to help relieve stress. So obviously, it can be done. But as Mark pointed out, it does come at great expense. So are airports putting costs ahead of passenger safety? I guess you could argue in some respect that they are.

But in airline security terms we’re talking the potential loss of hundreds of lives in one go…. By leaving the door open through randomness, the people who enact and apply such policies are messing with hundreds of people’s lives. Bluntly, I believe that when I fly my life is more at risk than it need be, simply because the authorities chose not to screen everyone to the same level.

But as Mark also alluded to, are you satisfied every time you get on a train? Or enter a full cinema? Or get on a ferry? Or enter into a sporting venue? Those occasions could also result in hundreds of deaths in one instance should someone feel the desire to cause destruction. In some of those examples, there are no security deterrents at all. So don’t assume aviation security is the only field where security should be stronger.

The random check, by its very nature and statistical probability will let someone through who should have been stopped. How is the risk assessment calculated? Is it calculated? What are the weaknesses of the normal checks?
It all seems very hit and miss and highly unsatisfactory for everyone, I should have thought. So there is clearly a statistical chance that the passenger next to you, who was not randomly checked, is a risk. How does that make any sense?

You are correct in that someone could get through. But again, without 100% screening everyone you will not know. The random checks are there to ‘spook’ queuing passengers – when they see someone being checked when they did not set the gate off they can, and do, get spooked through that induced fear that they too will be checked. Granted some terrorists may continue regardless as they have already given themselves up to the cause, but it can stop others.

The random checks are as random as they need to be. Every 2nd passenger? Every 3rd? 4th? It’s random. You could have someone come through with liquids strapped to themselves or plastic parts of a ‘device’ that doesn’t get checked, but again unless you invest in 100% screening….

those who perform screening tasks are essentially told what to do, and have to do it. It is on that basis I call them “goons”. I don’t care whether you – or they – think what I say is “crap”.

Well, I guess an individual security guard could take it upon themselves to screen every single passenger that passes them. But then their supervisor could come along and tell them not to…Most people get paid to do what they are told to do. Few people have the luxury to do what they want in their employment.

Intelligence-led selectivism, profiling, etc are all absolutely fine in my book as long as they selection is based around sound logic and reasoning and is used as an additional layer to standard security. But selection is somewhat different to randomness.

When I was there, there were talks of ‘profiling’ passengers to reduce the randomness of it, but I don’t know if this was ever implemented. But then, do you only profile a very select few of people who look ‘suspicious’ and let many more people through? More people through than you would by randomly screening?

Thank you for your replies skymonster, i can only hazard at answering so many of the points you have brought up, but if yourself or anyone else wish to read more about aviation security in the UK please visit the DfT site, where information for the public can be found http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/security/aviation/

Unfortunately as i tried to point out in my previous post, nothing can be sure to be 100% effective, which is why there are so many overlapping tactic’s used, i can not think of many public sectors that are so security conscious, as aviation should be, i myself for this reason i am much more comfortable travelling on an passenger aircraft flying from the UK, than i am travelling on a bus, train, on even in large public spaces such as shopping centres etc. I know of some of the horrifying ways that people will go through to cause harm to innocent others, draw your mind back to the news last year of explosives in printer cartridges, but i am more than confident that the very well trained members of airport security staff and the government bodies that train and constantly assess them will deal with any threats.

Many aviation security staff i’m sure, would be more than happy to fully screen everyone in the most effective way possible, but it is us that as the travelling public that would not stand for that, with airline ticket prices going up already due to fuel prices, we would be very unhappy to pay for however many times more security staff/scanners/x-rays, etc that would be needed to effect these standards, not to mention the annoyance it would cause many people who are already unhappy at delays caused by security.

I agree about the ‘would you wind if i search you sir’ comment, but i think its the most Politically correct way of approaching the matter, i am sure a demand of ‘you have been selected for random screening, step to the side and spread ’em’ would not go down well with the travelling public.

And as far as profiling people to search, i don’t think even the police are allowed to do that so much now! I can remember the stop and search arguments regarding the police and a high percentage of young black males being selected a few years.

It is a very difficult subject and one that will never be acceptable to everyone, we can only trust that those making the rules are making the best informed choices based on the information they have, most of which we will never know, which is probably for the best, otherwise people would be afraid to leave their house.

PS: Whilst I am against random-ness in applying extra checks (case in point, at one time there was an edict that one in three passengers had to be selected for additional screening at my local airport, come what may – i.e. there was a “quota”), I am certainly NOT AGAINST all types of selective screening.

Intelligence-led selectivism, profiling, etc are all absolutely fine in my book as long as they selection is based around sound logic and reasoning and is used as an additional layer to standard security. But selection is somewhat different to randomness.

Andy

in the mean time the extremely skilled and constantly tested professionals that you call ‘goons’ will continue to do there best to protect you and continue to take your crap in the mean time.

The problem is that for reasons I can appreciate (but wouldn’t accept if applied to myself), that those who perform screening tasks are essentially told what to do, and have to do it. It is on that basis I call them “goons”. I don’t care whether you – or they – think what I say is “crap”. As far as I’m concerned, there is a lack of logic about the way screening (i.e. random screening) is performed and I believe that there’s no point in just accepting something that we don’t like – we need to make the point when necessary, because if we don’t nothing will ever change.

So if I’m asked by an airport screener whether I mind whether I’m subjected to an additional random check (the words “would you mind” are utter crap-speak if ever I heard any, because there is essentially no choice in the matter if I want to travel), then of course I’m going to say – yes, I certainly do mind, and explain why I mind.

Andy

I have to say skymonster, that is some random logic. Since when is anything in life 100% certain? Random checks are there to be a deterrent

I understand what you’re saying, but I disagree… A deterrant is appropriate in some instances – even when the “threat” could involve loss of life. But in airline security terms we’re talking the potential loss of hundreds of lives in one go. That shouldn’t be left to randomness or deterrance (or cost cutting or budget constraints) – that should be as certain as we can make it with the current level of knowledge of the types of threat. I simply do not accept the tacit admission that “standard” screening cannot detect everything, and yet “enhanced” screening is effected on a random basis. By leaving the door open through randomness, the people who enact and apply such policies are messing with hundreds of people’s lives. Bluntly, I believe that when I fly my life is more at risk than it need be, simply because the authorities chose not to screen everyone to the same level.

Andy

I am no longer affected so hold no brief either way but I cannot find fault with Skymonster’s logic. There should surely be a check for everyone, as there already is, and it should be a proper check. If it is not what is the point of it?

The random check, by its very nature and statistical probability will let someone through who should have been stopped. How is the risk assessment calculated?Is it calculated? What are the weaknesses of the normal checks?

It all seems very hit and miss and highly unsatisfactory for everyone, I should have thought. So there is clearly a statistical chance that the passenger next to you, who was not randomly checked, is a risk. How does that make any sense?

I have to say skymonster, that is some random logic. Since when is anything in life 100% certain? Random checks are there to be a deterrent, the same way the armed police at the airport is a deterrent, they are there in the hope they will never fire there weapon in anger, not there to ensure people are shot, the fence and signs around the perimeter of an airfield are a deterrent, because if someone really wants to cut through the fence they can, will that fence line be checked? Yes Are there camera’s? Yes, but is there a security guard every 20m, no, why, because you do not want to pay that price on your airline ticket. It is the same with every part of the many layers of security you will meet at an airport.

Is there, where you live, a police man on every street corner? no? if not you should complain, because under your logic, there should be, no complaints about costs, because “costs and resources should not be put ahead of your safety”

Is aviation security unbeatable? we will only know if or when the worst unthinkable situation happens, in the mean time the extremely skilled and constantly tested professionals that you call ‘goons’ will continue to do there best to protect you and continue to take your crap in the mean time.

We’re opposing it in Texas, too.

www.tsatyranny.com

Ryan

I really do not understand these idiots that object to random searches. They should apply to everyone, whether you wear a base ball cap, turban, kippah, t-shirt, sikh robe or a burqa. Age should not matter, sex should not matter.

Well I must be an idiot then, because I object to RANDOM checks.

But then you go on to say “they should apply to everyone…” – now that’s hardly random, is it? And I agree – the checks SHOULD apply to everyone. Not everyone they happen to chose, but to everyone who travels.

The thing I strongly object to is RANDOM checks – the very nature of random implies some people get checked, others do not. That equally implies that sooner or later something will get through, because the something will fall into the random group not selected.

My issue – complaint if you like – is that either (a) the NORMAL checks are good enough in which case no one should be randomly checked, or (b) the NORMAL checks are not good enough in which case random is no use either – everyone should have the extra checks.

Recently at LHR in fact I had a rather strong debate with one of the security goons about just this thing:

BAA Goon: “Excuse me sir, you’ve been selected for an additional random check. Do you mind?”

Me: “Yes I do mind – either the checks that have already been done are good enough, or if they’re not then seeing as I’ve had the same checks as everyone else then everyone else should have the extra checks”

BAA Goon: “But we have to randomly subject a percentage of passengers to extra checks for things that the normal checks might not have detected”

Me: “If there’s things the normal checks can’t detect, then everyone should have the extra checks. In fact, I don’t feel safe if you’re telling me that the regular checks don’t pick up everything and yet you’re not doing extra checks on everyone”

BAA Goon: “But randomly checking discourages people from trying to bring things through”

Me: “But the nature of random is that sooner or later someone with something will not get randomly picked and could get through. Again, if there’s things that the regular checks can’t detect then I don’t feel safe unless everyone is subjected to the extra checks”

BAA Goon: “We can’t check everyone”

Me: “Oh? Why not? Are costs and resources being put ahead of passenger safety”

BAA Goon: “It’d take too long”

Me: “Ah, so time is being put ahead of passenger safety”

BAA Goon: “No, but we have to randomly select people”

Those folks are a bunch of f**king idiots. Either the [standard] security works and is 100% reliable, in which case no need for extra random checks, or the [standard] security isn’t 100% reliably in which case everyone should be subject to additional checks. Honestly, I really believe that if there really is an additional threat over and above what the standard checks can detect, then by not applying the additional (currently random) checks to everyone then they are putting lives at risk for the sake of cost, resources or time.

Andy

When I flew to the Bahamas in 2004 with CO (EDI-EWR-FLL-NAS) I was searched several times at Edinburgh.
On check-in I was sent to the random bag search desk.
Going through security I was patted down, my bag searched and tested for explosives.
On boarding I was pulled aside for shoe inspection.

I didn’t mind. I knew that was probably the safest commercial flight to be on that day.
Interestingly, once I got on the plane at EDI I was not searched again.

I really do not understand these idiots that object to random searches. They should apply to everyone, whether you wear a base ball cap, turban, kippah, t-shirt, sikh robe or a burqa.
Age should not matter, sex should not matter.

Far from it, my view is the minute you started to introduce all of this stuff, you instantly lost the war against terrorism, they had achieved their goal.

I’m not sure who the crazies are anymore. To ‘protect’ us from terrorism and child pornography we are ‘protected’ by laws and measures the East German Stasi and the KGB could only dream of 25 years ago, and more is underway. Western governments are ‘protecting’ our freedom by restricting it.

But I’m going off-topic here…

IMO the terrorists win only when we the public stop flying

Far from it, my view is the minute you started to introduce all of this stuff, you instantly lost the war against terrorism, they had achieved their goal.

IMO the terrorists win only when we the public stop flying
Lockerbie (we surely did not tighten up enough) and then most recently the catastrophe of 9/11. Sick minds will only get sicker. Jewish people haven’t stopped using El-Al nor have sensible people reduced their air travel purely due to the risk of terrorism (current economic reasons excluding).
Commercial airlines aren’t the only targets but the overwhelming increase of cybercrime on the internet is where many terrorist organisations engage in a constant disruptive campaign against society.
Sadly many of us lament the lack of walk on board and fly BA shuttles between Edinburgh or Glasgow and London Heathrow but we still fly.

I totally agree with you in that enhanced security at airports is an absolute must in the current world of ‘crazies’ we live in.

Far from it, my view is the minute you started to introduce all of this stuff, you instantly lost the war against terrorism, they had achieved their goal.

I was stopped for a random frisk at Schipol once, and was frisked in front of lots of other passengers.
The frisker and I both noticed a small boy in the next queue suddenly look at us in wide-eyed alarm. The fact that we both started to laugh quickly reassured the poor child.

You have to see both sides of the argument though

Hi Symon,

I totally agree with you in that enhanced security at airports is an absolute must in the current world of ‘crazies’ we live in.

Yes it adds time, cost and can be embarrassing to some only in the way some in-discrete security personnel carry out their job (it’s become a ‘Jobs Worth’):rolleyes:. The watching public/passengers do not all realise it is a random check and the passenger being searched may feel that they become in the eyes of fellow passengers a suspect terrorist/criminal.

The solution is not to remove the random checks but to find an impartial (a-sexual) way of doing the pat downs. Why not instead consider a humanoid robot developed a little further than some of the Japanese ones ( e,g. Honda ASIMO http://asimo.honda.com/ )

Two years ago I saw ASIMO (perform faultlessly) at the McEwan Hall at the University of Edinburgh and it sure was impressive to the point of asking why it has taken so long in developing?

A little further development and maybe we have an a-sexual random security check humanoid robot.:cool:

A tad more effective than ‘Holograms’ of security staff at Manchester Airport