New Issues for Traveling Photogaphers

[francois]

That depends on what kind of explosives are used.

The kind of explosives that are dangerous enough to blow up an aircraft or cause explosive decompression from within the cabin in the quantity you can store in a condom, are very rare and very, very unstable.

Putting those chemicals in condoms like they do in drug trafficking is an even more risky proposition than putting drugs in condoms. I'm not even sure that they won't react directly with the lubrication in condoms.

While your proposed scheme may be possible with the right knowledge and very careful measures, I think it's far more likely that someone finds a more efficient way of taking down an aircraft.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I said condoms but it can be other types of small containers... These guys have plenty of imagination, probably more than I do!

[jani]

Well, I said condoms but it can be other types of small containers... These guys have plenty of imagination, probably more than I do!

Condoms are used because they're easy to buy, easy to fill, comparatively easy to swallow, comparatively easy to get out, and probably more difficult to detect.

More solid containers (as the ones required for the unstable explosives that you don't need to mix, but which will go with a huge bang anyway) can probably be swallowed, but there's little guarantee that it won't get stuck in your intestines. That is, if it doesn't go off while swallowing.

But sure, people who want to blow a plane up, can probably manage to do so if they want to spend the time and effort to come up with a solution.

Bruce Schneier makes some very good points, both on what is and will be possible, and how we should react.

The only reason I wouldn't want to go on a plane right now, is that I would want to bring my photo gear, and there's no way I'm going to do that under the current rules.

[DiaAzul]

what's to stop someone from having the explosives surgically implanted? knee joint? abdominal cavity?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But wouldn't that require some form of Knee jerk reaction to get the explosives to go off?

[Mark D Segal]

The only reason I wouldn't want to go on a plane right now, is that I would want to bring my photo gear, and there's no way I'm going to do that under the current rules.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jan, those are UK rules. In most other parts of the world including all of North America one can still bring the usual carry-ons, without the forbidden liquids and gels. I think photo travel is still doable provided one avoids the UK (but how long this will last is hard to know). If enough people start avoiding the UK and the message gets out that the UK is a place to be avoided until their security people see fit to relax the restrictions, there may be more internal dialogue there that perhaps would help the situation to evolve. I wouldn't hold my breath though, because obviously their security people know a whole lot more than we do, and they have said they are tracking a number of groups planning trouble. I think the travleing public has no choice but to give them the benefit of the doubt and work around them.

[DavidJ]

The situation in the UK has imroved today. Single carry on bags are now allowed albeit of a smaller size than usual. For up to date information look at the BAA website. www.baa.com Regional airports have had nothing like the trouble there has been at Heathrow in getting passengers through the new security arrangements. It is worth getting up to date information from your airline and or the airport you are flying to. The down side is that it does look as though the smaller carry on luggage that is being allowed is likely to stay for some time.

David

[Mark D Segal]

Fine, I'll think of travelling through there again after the period of "for some time" is behind us.

[Mark D Segal]

The situation in the UK has imroved today.
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually Daivd, the situation has not improved. I just heard over the BBC World News half an hour ago that British Airways admits it has LOST "tens of thousands of passengers' smaller checked bags". (They do expect "most" of it will be re-united with its owners "at some time in the future". The reason for this is that BAA's baggage handling systems simply aren't configured for either the volume or size of the new baggage checking requirements. The size of handbags the security is now allowing may make a slight dent in this situation - but not much: from my observation traveling a fair bit, most carry-ons are usually larger than what they are now allowing, and that would doubtless apply to much camera gear. Hence for anyone who values their camera gear and needs to travel with it, avoiding British airports remains the most practical travel stragegy.

[Ray]

We must work to find creative solutions to beat these guys. Here's my plan.

1. No hand baggage at all.

2. All luggage transported on a specialised cargo carrier.

3. Improved in-flight services to compensate passengers for the inconvenience of not having their little nick-nacks and security blankets at hand.

4. Greater selection of entertainement to cater to a more diverse taste. On-board library etc etc.

5. Improved handling of baggage accompanied by improved insurance payouts when things go wrong. (There are many ways of inducing baggage handlers to take greater care, such as offering them a group bonus at the end of the year minus the cost of insurance claims sustained by the airline.

6. More sophisticated screening of the person, including non-invasive, non-harmful Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Radiography might be considered too harmful for frequent fliers, but might be necessary for people with metallic body parts.

7. Creative ways to offset the cost of such sophisticated screening, such as the offering of a medical opinion of the MRI scan, for a fee, after check-in. This procedure could have the effect of saving huge amounts of expenditure on health problems down the track and would deserve a Government subsidy. ( You know! 'I'm sure glad I took that holiday in Bali last year. The scan at the airport revealed the possibility of a malignant tumour. I got it checked out back home and sure enough it was a tumour. Thank God I caught it in time.')

Welcome to Ray's Brave new World   .

[kbolin]

I think people are missing the point.  We can scan, frisk, interogate, and fondle passengers as they come through the security all we want and it won't for a minute stop the terrorists.

Has anybody heard of RPG's (Rocket Propelled Genades)?    

So really the airport security should only be viewed as the last line of defence.  The issue in the UK was detected and acted upon before anybody stepped foot on airport property.  For that they need to be commended!    

Kelly

[Mark D Segal]

Indeed they should be commended. And it is true - aircraft can be brought down with shoulder-mounted rocket launchers - this has been well-known for a long time - and tried.

The security people will insist on the importance of covering all angles including the frisking and scanning you mention, because without these measures it would be too easy. The fact that no airport scanner has probably intercepted an impending terror attack probably means two things: (1) this activity is doing what it is supposed to do, and (2) as a by-product has driven the scheming into more ingenious methods, making it harder to detect and eliminate. But none of that necessarily means we can't have intelligent processes at the gate which allow us to lead normal lives in safety.

[Mark D Segal]

Indeed they should be commended. And it is true - aircraft can be brought down with shoulder-mounted rocket launchers - this has been well-known for a long time - and tried.

The security people will insist on the importance of covering all angles including the frisking and scanning you mention, because without these measures it would be too easy. The fact that no airport scanner has probably intercepted an impending terror attack probably means two things: (1) this activity is doing what it is supposed to do, and (2) as a by-product has driven the scheming into more ingenious methods, making it harder to detect and eliminate. But none of that necessarily means we can't have intelligent processes at the gate which allow us to lead normal lives in safety.

[Ray]

The fact that no airport scanner has probably intercepted an impending terror attack probably means two things: (1) this activity is doing what it is supposed to do, and (2) as a by-product has driven the scheming into more ingenious methods, making it harder to detect and eliminate. But none of that necessarily means we can't have intelligent processes at the gate which allow us to lead normal lives in safety.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely right! The terrorists have to be foiled at every level. There's no single, simple solution, just as there isn't with climate change. We must simply (or complexly) do what we can.