[declan.mccullagh at gmail.com: [Politech] Feds begin "behavior monitoring" of air travelers this year [econ]]

[coderman]

On 1/4/06, cyphrpunk <cyphrpunk at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> I am so friggin' sick of the response of the so-called security
> community to these kinds of measures. Everything is greeted with
> derision and ridicule. I'm coming to believe that the real goal of the
> critics is to make it as easy and safe as possible for terrorists to
> fly.

i thought the idea of reinforcing cockpit doors was a good one.  i
think the issue is that most of the security added has been
ineffective.


> Years ago when the new security precautions were put in place,
> security experts had nothing but criticism. The model they said should
> be followed (obviously in the expectation that it was completely
> impractical for America), that they pointed to as successful, was the
> Israeli airline El Al. Despite Israel's place as the principle target
> for terrorist action, El Al has had an astonishingly good record at
> flying safely. What was their secret? Exactly the kind of intensive,
> personalized attention which is now being criticized. El Al
> investigators are trained to observe passengers closely, to ask them
> questions and watch for just the signs of nervousness and evasion
> which this Ivan Eland treats with such mockery.

agreed; this seems better than checking the shoes of the elderly or
forcing a nursing mother to drink some breast milk (just to be sure,
you know...)

but it's also easy to circumvent. do terrorists engage in social engineering?

also, it was my understanding that El Al uses armed personel on
flights; if this is the case perhaps more air marshalls are the
deterrent to use instead of passenger personality.


> And BTW while I'm on the topic of airline security, a comment on John
> Gilmore's doomed attempt to sue to be allowed to travel without
> identity or security screening of any kind. Gilmore was offered the
> chance to fly if he was searched! And he turned it down! He claims
> that this violates his rights, that a physical search to make sure he
> isn't carrying any dangerous materials is forbidden by the
> Constitution.

i don't think that is the issue; it is the secret laws hidden behind
"sensitive security information" which is to be fought.  if there is a
law that random search and identification are required to fly, it
needs to be public.

so glad i quit flying years ago...