Airport screening - digital damage
Conrad
Hi,
Got a question yesterday concerning airport screening and potential
loss of digital data (or, damage to camera electronics) while passing
through airport security.
Specifically, while passing through the personal screening gate (not
the moving conveyor belt screen) with a digital camera. I'm not sure if
this is allowed but with some small cameras and some plastic bodies
maybe it could happen.
Also, would it be dependent on the level of screening intensity used by
specific machine(s) at various airports?
TIA,
Conrad
--
Conrad
Shawn Hearn
Conrad <Conrad...@no-mx.Newsgroup.Gateway> wrote:
Its a moot point, but I doubt any digital data on a camera's memory card
or other storage media could be damaged by airport scanners. Its a moot
point because anything that could trigger a walk-tru scanner has to be
passed through the x-ray machine anyway.
Dimitrios Tzortzakakis
affect only living beings and films.I don't think that any digital camera or
memory card, including the data has to fear anything of it.That's another
advantage of digital to film.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ο "Shawn Hearn" <sr...@comcast.net> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:srhi-521AA6.1...@news.giganews.com...
Ron Hunter
will cause any problem for your camera, or flash cards. Very fast film,
or x-ray film should be protected, and hand screened.
The jury is still out on the machines that screen checked bags, but I
have heard NO documented cases of any damage to any equipment from them,
so far. However, I would recommend you keep anything you want to have
with you at the end of your trip, in your carry-on baggage as checked
baggage often takes 'unplanned excursions'.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Allodoxaphobia
> Conrad wrote:
>>
>> Got a question yesterday concerning airport screening and potential
>> loss of digital data (or, damage to camera electronics) while passing
>> through airport security.
>>
>> Specifically, while passing through the personal screening gate (not
>> the moving conveyor belt screen) with a digital camera. I'm not sure if
>> this is allowed but with some small cameras and some plastic bodies
>> maybe it could happen.
>>
>> Also, would it be dependent on the level of screening intensity used by
>> specific machine(s) at various airports?
>>
> will cause any problem for your camera, or flash cards. Very fast film,
> or x-ray film should be protected, and hand screened.
> The jury is still out on the machines that screen checked bags, but I
> have heard NO documented cases of any damage to any equipment from them,
> so far.
> However, I would recommend you keep anything you want to have
> with you at the end of your trip, in your carry-on baggage as checked
> baggage often takes 'unplanned excursions'.
And, with the multi-million dollar baggage scanners now in place,
the luggage looters don't have to break into random bags.
They know _exactly_ which ones to break into.
Truly a labor saving device.
sigh....
james
laptop disk drives. On return trips, this is usually where all the
pictures live, not on flash cards.
james
Allodoxaphobia <NOSPAM_b...@config.com> wrote:
>And, with the multi-million dollar baggage scanners now in place,
>the luggage looters don't have to break into random bags.
>They know _exactly_ which ones to break into.
>Truly a labor saving device.
Can you point to a documented case of the type of theft you imply, which
did not lead to either a criminal conviction, an insurance settlement,
or both?
Mark˛
"james" <fish...@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:0nade.8900$_K.5471@fed1read03...
> The big magnets in the conveyor belt motor can damage microdrives and
> laptop disk drives. On return trips, this is usually where all the
> pictures live, not on flash cards.
Pure hogwash.
These magnets are neither strong enough nor close enough to do damage to
hard drives.
Ron Hunter
whole bags disappear forever. It seems to me it would be fairly easy to
prevent this type of theft, but I really don't think anyone in the
airline industry cares.
They seem to see it as an employee benefit....
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Tom Scales
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:p9bde.353$tp.191@fed1read04...
problem.
Urban myth.
james
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>All you need to do is read some of the travelers postings.
So "everybody knows" it's going on.
Documentation? Something credible?
james
I have a laptop that I use for work, which is very frequently in a lab
environment with lots of nitrates.
Occassionally, three times so far, I've been taken aside and questioned
about my laptop, what I do for a living, where I live, where I'm
travelling from, where I'm travelling to, where did I get my computer,
etc.
Evidently they do a spectrograph by swabbing the outside of the device,
and I guess any detectable level of nitrates stinks like a bomb to them.
The problem has been, my explanation doesn't make them any less curious.
Mark˛
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:sebde.7870$cZ6....@fe02.lga...
What I find most amazing is how few checks there are when you pick up your
luggage.
In most airports, there is absolutely NOTHING preventing a person from
walking away with ANY suitcase they choose...since there is rarelly any
verification when people grab bags off of the baggage claim belt.
This has always amazed/alarmed me, and continues to be why I'll always carry
my photo gear.
james
John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"What can I do?" he asked an airline agent who took a report. Her
>answer, Latta said, was: "Nothing. Zero."
I doubt very much that the person in charge of airport security made
that statement. "Nothing, Zero?" And what did they say to the police?
The victim did notify the police of the robbery, did he not? What does
the police report say? If the police report says "nothing zero", I
will eat my hat.
Ron Hunter
erased! It's not true for the same reason I know Iran doesn't have nukes.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
It may seem like a PITA, but imagine how much better it is than flying
into a tall building at 575mph!
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
checking, and others like Houston Hobby, almost stripsearch you... They
check every bag against every baggage check tag on your ticket.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
Start eating. The airlines have federally mandated liability limits on
lost, or damaged luggage, and included items. It doesn't even begin to
replace a simple P&S camera. They will cheerfully take your report,
and file it. I promise it will NEVER be investigated. Your best bet is
to complain to the airline's customer service department, and then write
letters of the CEO, and anyone else whose address you can find.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Mark˛
I've traveled to about 23 countries, and have only had my baggage tags
checked a few times...and NEVER in the last 6 years or so.
Kevin McMurtrie
Conrad <Conrad...@no-mx.Newsgroup.Gateway> wrote:
The walk-through metal detector uses a low power alternating
electromagnetic field that's harmless to everything. It's tuned to
induce currents in only large metal objects. You can hold small memory
cards in your hand as you walk through without setting off the detector.
The carry-on scanner uses low-power X-rays that should be harmless. The
exact risk depends on the model being used and how many times your items
are re-scanned. Don't use if if you've filled a card with photos of
Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness monster. At that point you've burned
through so much good luck that you're screwed. (Watch out for falling
satellites too!)
Some check-in baggage scanners use invasive scanning beams that do
damage film and electronic media. Airports usually have warning signs
if they use them. Don't risk it. Your media will be erased if the
scanning beam hits it.
Memory cards can be put in the bucket for manual inspection too.
Ron Hunter
other airports that at least pretend to look at baggage and claim tags.
I guess the expense of checking is exceeded by the expense of dealing
with stolen bags.
Best plan for the traveler is to proceed directly, and promptly, to the
baggage claim area so that you can watch your bags come out of the
opening, and grab them first.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
> fish...@conservatory.com (james) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Can you point to a documented case of the type of theft you imply, which
>>did not lead to either a criminal conviction, an insurance settlement,
>>or both?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> catch them.
Partly because the thieves don't mind intimidating, or even assaulting,
those who would turn them in....
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Mark˛
Which is exactly what I do...unless my flight gets delayed, or I get bumped
to another flight.
Many times this has happened, and to my amazement, my bags are just sitting
out on one side of the room--completely uncontrolled and unguarded, even
though I've had flights where my bags arrive a full day before I do.
It is really easy pickings for thieves.
Amazing and alarming that this is so often standard practice--especially
here in the US where security is supposedly tight regarding bags without
owners, etc.
UrbanVoyeur
> Hi,
>
> Got a question yesterday concerning airport screening and potential
> loss of digital data (or, damage to camera electronics) while passing
> through airport security.
>
> Specifically, while passing through the personal screening gate (not
> the moving conveyor belt screen) with a digital camera. I'm not sure if
> this is allowed but with some small cameras and some plastic bodies
> maybe it could happen.
>
> Also, would it be dependent on the level of screening intensity used by
> specific machine(s) at various airports?
>
> TIA,
>
> Conrad
>
>
I've never had a problem with the scanning machine - but the airport
security people are a different matter.
One over zealous screener wanted to swipe the front an rear elements of
my lenses for explosives - including a ridiculously expensive video
lens. This is after swiping the barrel of each lens!
I told him that if he touched any of my glass with that filthy cloth I
was going to break off his fingers and use them to shove the cloth up
his ***. He relented.
When I travel it's often with quite a bit of gear - and I'm forced to
supervise the manual search of the bags before they are checked. It can
take hours if there is a line. So now I just make sure my underwear and
socks are liberally sprinkled around the equipment. It's all clean, but
they don't know that. Fastest searches you ever saw.
--
J
Steven Wandy
> baggage claim area so that you can watch your bags come out of the
> opening, and grab them first.
Try explaining that to your wife/girlfriend/significant other when they have
to make stops at every bathroom and souvenir stand between the gate
and the baggage claim area.
Cathy
news:x_tde.12532$n93....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Not me, I stand and wait for my bags unless I had some emergency need to
get to a bathroom quickly, which luckily has never happened to me, but
could happen to anyone, male or female. And no souvenir stands in
baggage claim areas that I've ever seen in any airports I've ever been
to.
Cathy
Ron Hunter
those circumstances. Not that it happens often, but I fly standby, so
it has happened.
It's a real PAIN when the bags are in a different terminal, and one must
walk miles to get them....
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
there, you will have a solution to the problem....
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
have been. Of course if you fly on the 'red eye' flights, it's not a
problem.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Cathy
I don't remember seeing any souvenir stands between the gates and the
baggage claims. Are you talking about the area where your bags come on
the belt from the plane to the carousel? I've mainly been at airports in
Florida and at Toronto airport and UK airports, and I don't move from
the carousel till I get my suitcase off the carousel. Then I get a
luggage cart, put my bag on it and exit to the Customs area. How would
anybody have time to look at souvenirs? I might look at souvenirs when I
am departing for places and nothing else to do, but not when I come
back. I am too tired by then :)
Cathy
Ron Hunter
are often many such stores between the gate and the baggage claim areas.
Even at DFW Airport, there are often a few gates between where you get
off the airplane and the baggage claim, and it is one of the airports
with the shortest distance between the gates and baggage claim areas.
Of course, some Hawaiian airports have the bags unloaded from the plane,
and you pick them up from the baggage cart when you deplane... But the
last time I saw that was in 1979...
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Cathy
I really can't remember noticing that at any of the airports I've been
at. When you get off the plane, you have to get your bags first, then go
through the Customs area, then you exit after Customs and then you are
in the main part of the airport terminal, but until you get there, its
mainly only getting your baggage and going through Customs. That is a
restricted area for passengers and Customs only. When I went to Scotland
two years ago to Edinburgh. Its not as big as Glasgow airport. After
getting off the plane, I picked up my bag from the carousel, then got in
a long line for screening, passports, etc. then exited that area, and
met my friends. No souvenir shops till I got out the baggage, screening
area I am sure of that. I think we must be talking about different areas
in
airports.
Cathy
eawck...@yahoo.com
> But aren't you glad they DO check?
Not really, given that the "checks" perform no useful function.
> It may seem like a PITA, but imagine how much better it is than
flying
> into a tall building at 575mph!
This is prevented by a locked cockpit door, not every passenger bending
over at the gate for the Anal Probe.
www.google.com: "security theatre"
Even the government knows airport security is a joke:
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-16_Mar05.pdf
Heck, they can't even build an "operations centre" properly:
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-18_Mar05.pdf
Another report on baggage thefts:
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-17_Mar05.pdf
Note, these reports (and the rest of them at DHS) have been carefully
screened to prevent embaressin^H^H^H^H^H^H^H excuse me, sacred US
National Security from being compromised.
Ha ha ha, the joke is on you, American Citizen. Is the working theory
that if you sing the part that goes 'Land of the Free' enough you'll
believe it to be true?
Cynicor
<eawck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115071238.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> But aren't you glad they DO check?
>
> Not really, given that the "checks" perform no useful function.
>
>> It may seem like a PITA, but imagine how much better it is than
> flying
>> into a tall building at 575mph!
>
> This is prevented by a locked cockpit door, not every passenger bending
> over at the gate for the Anal Probe.
I went through Heathrow last night. No shoes off, no laptop out, no stupid,
random crap at the security check. However, Virgin was doing checks at the
ticketing windows before that. A guy came up and asked to see our passport
and itinerary. I said that we had an e-ticket, and he asked for a printed
copy of my itinerary again. I showed him a travel sheet that I had typed
myself, listing the three legs of my trip. He asked me if there were three
people with the same name, and I said no, I was traveling open-jaw. He
looked again and put a security sticker on my passport. So that's official -
you can now type your own "official" itinerary and this serves as some sort
of evidence.
Ron Hunter
flights. Security is quite different from domestic flights. Fly from
Toronto to Vancouver, and see what the difference is. BTW, you might
not want to go back....
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
It's much the same as going into any security area. I do miss being
able to meet friends and relatives at the gate, rather than at baggage
claim, though. Somehow it doesn't seem to infringe on what I consider
basic freedoms. Maybe you need to spend some time in a country that
really isn't at all free to get some alternative experience with which
to compare.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
security.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Cynicor
The last flight that was turned back (on Jan 12) was because the TSA had
provided British Airways with an outdated version of their no-fly list; the
TSA said that BA had followed proper procedures. If Heathrow had sloppy
security, we'd know about it because a lot more flights would not be getting
through.
Ron Hunter
The reason that one was newsworthy was that some VIP was aboard, and
the newies caught wind of it.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Cathy
I thought we were talking about souvenir stands? :)
Actually, at Toronto airport, they don't call flights from the US to
Canada International flights. They call them "Trans Border flights".
Flights arrive daily (in Toronto airport anyway) from New York, Chicago,
Dallas-Forth Worth, and other US cities. They are mostly business people
coming for the day or few days.US passengers are asked Primary questions
in one area of Customs area, and International flights in a different
area. The secondary examination area (baggage examination if referred
from Primary Customs officer) is the same for all flights. I have been
to Ottawa by plane though not for a while, but I don't think there are
any souvenir shops within the Customs or baggage area. I think its
Restricted too though I am not 100% positive. I would have to ask my son
who has flown a lot within Canada and the US. And yes, if I go to
Vancouver or Vicoria, I might not come back :) My relatives who moved
there never came back, except to visit.
Cathy
Matt Silberstein
<rphu...@charter.net> in <_ffde.7981$cZ6....@fe02.lga> wrote:
>james wrote:
>> In article <Wwbde.23761$716....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
[snip]
>> I have a laptop that I use for work, which is very frequently in a lab
>> environment with lots of nitrates.
>>
>> Occassionally, three times so far, I've been taken aside and questioned
>> about my laptop, what I do for a living, where I live, where I'm
>> travelling from, where I'm travelling to, where did I get my computer,
>> etc.
>>
>> Evidently they do a spectrograph by swabbing the outside of the device,
>> and I guess any detectable level of nitrates stinks like a bomb to them.
>>
>> The problem has been, my explanation doesn't make them any less curious.
>>
>>
>But aren't you glad they DO check?
>It may seem like a PITA, but imagine how much better it is than flying
>into a tall building at 575mph!
I don't mind the checks that improve security, and checking for
nitrates seems like a sensible thing. I mind the checks that do
nothing, or even make it worse. Removing shoes is silly since what I
can do for shoes I can do elsewhere. Forbidding a two inch knife is
just silly since you can modify the metal on a luggage cart to make a
weapon. And why are 3 (or whatever the number is) books of matches
safe, but more dangerous? At least they do random rather than profiled
searches.
--
Matt Silberstein
All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Mark˛
It's happened twice with United, twice with Alaskan Air (and both times I
had two 44 Magnums IN MY SUITCASE...since you can't carry them
on...AND...they don't let you lock the suitcase!!...only the cun case within
the suitcase!!!), once with American, and more with others I can't recall.
This means two firearms were left un-guarded...two separate times.
Most recently, my bags WERE taken to a holding point at LAX via United from
Hawaii, but that was a two day bump-delay (my bags arrived a full two days
before I did...stand-by).
-Mark
Mark˛
"Cathy" <n...@there.com> wrote in message
news:xoadnSceBPX...@rogers.com...
In San Diego (the 6th largest city in the Country, for crying out loud!),
there is no such restriction.
ANYONE can walk into the baggage claim area.
After you exit planes, you have to walk to what is basically the front
entrance area of the airport before you even get to the baggage claim area.
On your way, you pass food...souvenirs...and etc.
-Mark
Mark˛
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:k6Dde.534$tp.214@fed1read04...
Correction... I'm talking about domestic areas...NOT international.
:)
Still... The vast majority of flights originating from the US stay in the
US.
This is a huge security black hole that thieves surely love
-Mark.
Mark˛
"Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:ANmdnVx8RM1...@speakeasy.net...
Send that story to your congressman.
:)
Really.
Mark˛
I haven't seen this as a discussion about freedom, terrorism, etc.
I see this as a simple question of protection from THEFT.
Bags are totally vulnerable to theft, and it's really quite laughably
BAD...except that it's not very funny...
Ron Hunter
I was asked was if I knew the Canadian position on handguns. No luggage
check, no check of the rented car papers... It was harder to get back
into the US, but only slightly. I was asked if I was a US Citizen, but
they did look at the underside of the car...
I was glad to get back into the US, not because Canada was not a
beautiful place, but because it was so much like the US, but just a
LITTLE different that the difference made me slightly uncomfortable.
Kind of like a strange noise in your car...
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
bombs in the luggage because the person fits the description of the
hijackers. STUPID.
If ALL the 9/11 hijackers had been bald, blue-eyed, overweight, 60ish
men from Texas, I would EXPECT to be scrutinized. This is political
stupidity.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
have sent a letter complaining to the home office. That is definitely
NOT company policy.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
Boston, Chicago, L.A., San Francisco, etc. Many of these airports place
baggage claim VERY far from the gates, and always outside the 'secured
area'.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Mark˛
Absolutely.
Profiling is necessary and helpful, yet sadly ignored due to idiot clubs
like the ACLU.
Profiling simply means the identification of patterns, and intelligently
using what you've learned from experience.
Experience indicates that the elderly hispanic lady shouldn't be bothers to
remove her shoes...while 30-year-old Mohamed with the middle eastern accent
walks straight through behind her.
If any readers are offended by the above, then I would suggest they
re-think.
When a young lady is raped, shall we start screening other women as possible
suspects?
According to some logic that is all too common...I guess we will...
David J Taylor
[]
> I really can't remember noticing that at any of the airports I've been
> at. When you get off the plane, you have to get your bags first, then
> go through the Customs area, then you exit after Customs and then you
> are in the main part of the airport terminal, but until you get
> there, its mainly only getting your baggage and going through
> Customs. That is a restricted area for passengers and Customs only.
> When I went to Scotland two years ago to Edinburgh. Its not as big as
> Glasgow airport. After getting off the plane, I picked up my bag from
> the carousel, then got in a long line for screening, passports, etc.
> then exited that area, and met my friends. No souvenir shops till I
> got out the baggage, screening area I am sure of that. I think we
> must be talking about different areas in
> airports.
In Edinburgh airport, if you are on a domestic flight, you will be
discharged from the gate into the general airside passenger area upstairs,
which you walk through before going downstairs to collect luggage. IIRC,
on international flights you must collect baggage first and then do
passport control. Once released, you are landside, not airside.
So only on domestic flights would you be subject to shopping temptations!
David
Cynicor
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> I went through Heathrow last night. No shoes off, no laptop out, no
>> stupid, random crap at the security check. However, Virgin was doing
>> checks at the ticketing windows before that. A guy came up and asked to
>> see our passport and itinerary. I said that we had an e-ticket, and he
>> asked for a printed copy of my itinerary again. I showed him a travel
>> sheet that I had typed myself, listing the three legs of my trip. He
>> asked me if there were three people with the same name, and I said no, I
>> was traveling open-jaw. He looked again and put a security sticker on my
>> passport. So that's official - you can now type your own "official"
>> itinerary and this serves as some sort of evidence.
>
> Send that story to your congressman.
> :)
> Really.
When they redistricted us a couple of years ago, my congressman became the
guy who was the IRA's chief sponsor here. So his record on supporting
terrorism is somewhat mixed.
Matt Silberstein
<mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> in
<s3Dde.533$tp.149@fed1read04> wrote:
[snip]
>It's happened twice with United, twice with Alaskan Air (and both times I
>had two 44 Magnums IN MY SUITCASE...since you can't carry them
>on...AND...they don't let you lock the suitcase!!...only the cun case within
>the suitcase!!!), once with American, and more with others I can't recall.
>This means two firearms were left un-guarded...two separate times.
>
>Most recently, my bags WERE taken to a holding point at LAX via United from
>Hawaii, but that was a two day bump-delay (my bags arrived a full two days
>before I did...stand-by).
We accidentally took a knife on board a plane. In hand held luggage
that was "specially" screened. I felt so safe.
Matt Silberstein
No, they should not do profiled searches. Profiled searches *reduce*
security.
Let me explain. Suppose I have some limited budget for searches, say
$1,000,000. It costs me $100 each search, so I can do 10,000 searches.
And 1,000,000 people go through the airport. If I do the searches
randomly each person has a 1/100 chance of getting searched. Now
suppose I have some criteria that I think identify possible terrorists
(look Moslem, male, 20-30, etc.). There are, say, 5,000 of those
people go through. If I search all of them that takes half my budget.
So I do half as many random searches and each person has roughly half
the chances of being searched. Now if the terrorists are bloody stupid
they won't bother to change their behavior at all. They will send in
the same kind of person and I will catch them. But if the terrorist
show any kind of intelligence they will figure out my criteria (very
easy to do, btw) and send in someone who does not fit the criteria.
Now I have cut in half my chance of finding them with a search.
Matt Silberstein
<mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> in
Sorry, I actually did think and the above is wrong. Think of the more
common profiling: black vs. white. All studies show that blacks are no
more likely to use drugs as whites, but "experience" tells cops to
check out blacks way more often.
>When a young lady is raped, shall we start screening other women as possible
>suspects?
>According to some logic that is all too common...I guess we will...
>
Your example is nice, but foolish. If someone is raped you don't check
women because you have *evidence* that women did not do it.
RK
baggage pickup in five years at least, even in situations that are
truly chaotic and anyone off the street could have a field day.
Incidentally, in Nigeria many years ago the was a real rush to pick up
bags off the plane between passengers and 'baggage handlers' who would
pick up your bag, walk five or six feet with it and then charge a
'carrying fee' for you to get it back! I've never had anything stolen
from a checked bag, but they I wouldn't dream of putting anything of
value in one. The scary part of this is that the same guy who is
robbing a pair of binocs could be putting a bloody bomb in the bag. If
he worked at Logan Airport, where incredible holes in employee security
have been found (and this despite 9/11) he or she could probably put
the thing together right in his workspace. Meanwhile they're still
patting down granny at the security checkpoint.
Mark˛
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:2fre71psu32jooisr...@4ax.com...
How many white guys flew jets into buildings in '01, bub?
Cynicor
"RK" <rkg...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1115125395.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
They could cut out the middleman by charging you $10 to pat down granny.
Everybody wins! :D
Mark˛
It's not that the terrorists have to bo "stupid, blah blah blah."
It's that there just haven't been too many white guys (read ZERO) willing to
sign up as Al K. suicide bombers.
Ron Hunter
profiling' because he wrote 90% of his traffic tickets to people with
Hispanic surnames. Never MIND that the area where he patrolled was 95%
Hispanic... sigh.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
statistically, more blacks than whites DO use certain types of drugs.
Just as more Native Americans are likely to use things like peyote than
Anglos. Each ethnic group seems to have its own preferences for how it
gets high. So what you state, doesn't exactly stand up.
BTW, women DO commit rape, and many are in prison for it now.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
So how many 60 year old Anglo men have been known to fly airplanes
into skyscrapers? How many 3 year old black children have been caught
with bombs in their diaper bags? How many Oriental women have hijacked
airliners? THINK.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
our bags, then went through what they laughingly called 'customs'.
After a glance at our passports, the lady asked if we had anything to
declare, we said 'no', and she buzzed open the door to the main part of
the airport terminal. Nowhere NEAR as easy to get back into the US at
DFW, where some bags were opened, and examined. They use profiles to
determine who gets inspected. Does it work? I don't know, it doesn't
keep the terrorists out, because they are smart enough NOT to carry
anything suspicious in.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
> On Mon, 2 May 2005 21:26:03 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark²"
> <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> in
> <s3Dde.533$tp.149@fed1read04> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>It's happened twice with United, twice with Alaskan Air (and both times I
>>had two 44 Magnums IN MY SUITCASE...since you can't carry them
>>on...AND...they don't let you lock the suitcase!!...only the cun case within
>>the suitcase!!!), once with American, and more with others I can't recall.
>>This means two firearms were left un-guarded...two separate times.
>>
>>Most recently, my bags WERE taken to a holding point at LAX via United from
>>Hawaii, but that was a two day bump-delay (my bags arrived a full two days
>>before I did...stand-by).
>
>
> We accidentally took a knife on board a plane. In hand held luggage
> that was "specially" screened. I felt so safe.
>
>
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
David J Taylor
[]
> When we flew to Frankfurt, we stayed in a secure area until we
> reclaimed our bags, then went through what they laughingly called
> 'customs'. After a glance at our passports, the lady asked if we had
> anything to declare, we said 'no', and she buzzed open the door to
> the main part of the airport terminal. Nowhere NEAR as easy to get
> back into the US at DFW, where some bags were opened, and examined. They
> use profiles to determine who gets inspected. Does it work? I
> don't know, it doesn't keep the terrorists out, because they are
> smart enough NOT to carry anything suspicious in.
I assume you mean via Edinburgh? That was the airport I commented on.
Be aware that the UK and Germany are both part of Europe, so you would not
expect a very fussy passport inspection or customs procedure. Also, don't
assume that just because security is not obvious it is not present. What
is the fuss about getting back in any case - it's bags going air-bound
which matter.
Frankfurt is one of those airports where there are temptations before
baggage reclaim, which someone else commented about.
However, I go along with the other folk who recommend:
- don't pack anything critical or expensive, including chargers and mains
leads
- don't try and be "clever" with security folk
David
eawck...@yahoo.com
> You know, I have never had any problem going through airport
security.
You have already noted in previous missives that you _are_ willing to
bend over, so this comes as no surprise. If the guards ask you to kiss
their guns, heck, to lick their genitals, I'm sure you would do it in
the interests of the greater good.
> It's much the same as going into any security area. I do miss being
> able to meet friends and relatives at the gate, rather than at
baggage
> claim, though. Somehow it doesn't seem to infringe on what I
consider
> basic freedoms. Maybe you need to spend some time in a country that
> really isn't at all free to get some alternative experience with
which
> to compare.
You've forgotten so soon, eh? Again, no surprise. Your lack of memory
pisses on the graves of the Founding Fathers and every soldier who has
died for your "freedom" to be assaulted at an airport, before "Federal"
buildings and, if necessary, in the street itself.
Now, to address your lack of reading comprehension:
"Those who give up essential liberty for safety deserve neither" (or
somesuch). I'll leave it to you to figure out the exact quote, who
said it, and why it was said.
However, in this case it doesn't really apply since, as I _clearly
stated_ (go on, re-read what I wrote) and backed up by Official
Government Reports, you are surrendering your liberty for >>NOTHING<<.
Zip. Zero. Not the faintest whiff of security.
When Franklin said the above, his comment was directed to those who
believe there is some sort of freedom-security conservation law at
work. Had he been aware that 200 years later there would be millions
of people who would surrender their freedom for _nothing_ he would have
said something like: "Those who give up their essential liberty for
nothing are flat out fruitcake morons who deserve what comes their
way."
Nitwit. Learn to read before you write.
eawck...@yahoo.com
> They SHOULD be doing profiled searches.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/03/07/wo_barnett072803.asp?p=1
(Many other hits that say basically the same thing.)
> If ALL the 9/11 hijackers had been bald, blue-eyed, overweight, 60ish
> men from Texas, I would EXPECT to be scrutinized. This is political
> stupidity.
Fighing the last war is always the stupid approach. Oooooh that
Maginot Line did a damn good job, eh?
As I said a few minutes ago: your ilk deserves what is coming your
way. Why others suffer at the same time is the real crime here.
Cynicor
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Sigh.
> So how many 60 year old Anglo men have been known to fly airplanes into
> skyscrapers? How many 3 year old black children have been caught with
> bombs in their diaper bags? How many Oriental women have hijacked
> airliners? THINK.
How many Anglo men have blown up the fed building in OKC? How many Chechen
women have been involved in school and theater hostage taking? How many
Middle Easterners have NOT blown up airplanes? The point is that you're
predicting future performance based on what you've seen in the past, and
it's not that likely that they will try the same tactics again. If there is
another attack being planned, it's not necessarily going to come from where
you're looking. The reason 9/11 was a successful attack was because we were
"fighting the last war" - if we knew that hijackers were going to be on
suicide missions, people on the planes would have fought back instead of
following the common knowledge at the time that you should get negotiated
out.
Ron Hunter
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 11:02:05 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> snipped
>
>>Sigh.
>> So how many 60 year old Anglo men have been known to fly airplanes
>>into skyscrapers? How many 3 year old black children have been caught
>>with bombs in their diaper bags? How many Oriental women have hijacked
>>airliners? THINK.
>
>
>
> Date: 11/29/1987
> Location: Andaman Sea
> Airline: Korean Airlines
> Aircraft: Boeing 707-300C
> Registration: HL-7406
> Fatalities/No. Aboard: 115:115
> Details: The plane crashed while on a flight from Abu Dhabi to
> Bangkok. Detonation of an explosive device in the passenger cabin left
> by two passengers who exited the plane at Abu Dhabi. A 75 year old man
> and Korean woman were arrested as they tried to use fake passports to
> fly to Rome. While under guard, the man bit into a cyanide capsule and
> died. The woman, a North Korean agent, confessed to the crime.
>
> http://www.aviationexplorer.com/boeing_accidents.htm
>
>
> ********************************************************
>
> "The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
> singular, and unsatisfactory."
>
> Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
> to
> Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
> November 14, 1866
Well, she didn't hijack it, didn't even stay ON the plane. Even though
suicide isn't frowned upon in certain Oriental cultures, I don't know of
a case involving a suicide bombing on an aircraft. Certainly current
precautions would have detected the bags filled with explosives.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
likely to respond with total involvement that passive acceptance now.
The next disaster will probably involve a ship.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
If you can't make your point, you call names, insult others, and
generally try to distract one from the issue.
Plonk/
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
eawck...@yahoo.com
> You are the person who is being crude, rude, and acting like a child.
> If you can't make your point, you call names, insult others, and
> generally try to distract one from the issue.
You "insulted" me by suggesting I was unaware of what it is like to
live in a free country ... and when I _prove_ you don't know what you
are talking about, you start crying. Poor baby.
"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Who said that?
> Plonk/
Plonked by another idiot. Oh, the pain! The pain!!
eawck...@yahoo.com
> I agree that the trick will never work again. Passengers are more
> likely to respond with total involvement that passive acceptance now.
> The next disaster will probably involve a ship.
First, you tell us that the security at the airport is to prevent
repeats of the airplane-into-building scenario.
I point out that cockpit doors prevent that, and you start whimpering
about how I have supposedly never lived in a "free country" and then
plonk me (the gall!) when I make you cry.
Then, you are all for "profiled" searches and telling us that it is
"political stupidity" that is preventing its wide use at airports.
When someone points out the basic flaw in the plan -- ie, proves that
it is you who are stupid (or at least ignorant) -- how quickly bleating
changes to "oh, the trick will never work again".
Conclusion: you are an intellectually dishonest kook (cf. MarkH^2).
Go ahead, make yourself a liar and respond! Ha ha ha!
Cynicor
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
> I agree that the trick will never work again. Passengers are more likely
> to respond with total involvement that passive acceptance now. The next
> disaster will probably involve a ship.
I don't know. How do you fly a ship into a building?
Peter
>>
> When we flew to Frankfurt, we stayed in a secure area until we reclaimed
> our bags, then went through what they laughingly called 'customs'.
> After a glance at our passports, the lady asked if we had anything to
> declare, we said 'no', and she buzzed open the door to the main part of
> the airport terminal. Nowhere NEAR as easy to get back into the US at
> DFW, where some bags were opened, and examined. They use profiles to
> determine who gets inspected. Does it work? I don't know, it doesn't
> keep the terrorists out, because they are smart enough NOT to carry
> anything suspicious in.
Not only profiles- a number of persons get randomly targeted as well,
If you fly inside the "Schengen" members in the EU there is hardly any
checking at all.
-peter
Mark˛
Box-cutters count as "suspicous," and we know they carry those...
Mark˛
I was trying to figure out who you PLONKED, because I couldn't see their
post.
-Turns out I had previously plonked him myself!
Good call, Ron.
:)
Mark˛
Yep.
There was a similar story involving gang-related arrests and young blacks &
hispanics.
-Never mind the fact that the overwhelming majority of gang members in US
cities are non-white...tend to be black/hispanic. Funny how that works...
Math, anyone???????
Sheesh.
Mark˛
"John A. Stovall" <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3uaf719an065id4ii...@4ax.com...
>> So how many 60 year old Anglo men have been known to fly airplanes
>>into skyscrapers? How many 3 year old black children have been caught
>>with bombs in their diaper bags? How many Oriental women have hijacked
>>airliners? THINK.
>
>
> Date: 11/29/1987
> Location: Andaman Sea
> Airline: Korean Airlines
> Aircraft: Boeing 707-300C
> Registration: HL-7406
> Fatalities/No. Aboard: 115:115
> Details: The plane crashed while on a flight from Abu Dhabi to
> Bangkok. Detonation of an explosive device in the passenger cabin left
> by two passengers who exited the plane at Abu Dhabi. A 75 year old man
> and Korean woman were arrested as they tried to use fake passports to
> fly to Rome. While under guard, the man bit into a cyanide capsule and
> died. The woman, a North Korean agent, confessed to the crime.
Congratulations.
Now do the math, and decide which of the profiles are most likely to contain
the most would-be hijackers/bombers, etc.
Hint: It still isn't the elderly.
Every trend has it's deviations, but it doesn't mean you've got to suddenly
pretend there is no trend.
You are presenting the argument of ignorance for the sake of political
correctness.
This sort of toxic political correctness may well be what someday brings
this country to the bottom, as it dumbs EVERYONE down and replaces thought
with the robotic reactions of thin-skinned idiots.
Mark˛
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 12:39:12 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> snipped
>>
>>Well, she didn't hijack it, didn't even stay ON the plane. Even though
>>suicide isn't frowned upon in certain Oriental cultures, I don't know of
>>a case involving a suicide bombing on an aircraft. Certainly current
>>precautions would have detected the bags filled with explosives.
>
> explosives on Russian passenger jets, killing all 89 aboard, bribed
> her way aboard the plane, according to Russian Prosecutor General
> Vladimir Ustinov.
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/15/russia.planecrash/
>
> Now you know of two cases.
Let us know when it becomes the norm.
Hint to point: Every trend has it's blips.
You've presented a blip.
They prove only that you're hyperfocussing on the exception and missing the
point.
Unfortunately, there are enough like you that we'll keep checking kids and
grandmas in nearly equal proportion to groups we know are more likely to be
connected with terror.
Mark˛
"Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:8ZadnWbhXMK...@speakeasy.net...
Again.
Criminals abound.
Murder is committed for a variety of reasons.
None of this erases the clear and irrefutable fact that there is a pattern
of terror attacks carried out by Muslim extremists...in a pattern that
overwhelmingly dwarfs these other incidents you mention.
Don't promote blindness.
See both.
But don't miss the hurricane for the occasional April shower.
Cynicor
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:2FVde.11727$tp.5216@fed1read04...
>
> "John A. Stovall" <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:cqef71d1srcq9mfhl...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 12:39:12 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> snipped
>>>
>>>Well, she didn't hijack it, didn't even stay ON the plane. Even though
>>>suicide isn't frowned upon in certain Oriental cultures, I don't know of
>>>a case involving a suicide bombing on an aircraft. Certainly current
>>>precautions would have detected the bags filled with explosives.
>>
>> MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- One of two female suicide bombers who set off
>> explosives on Russian passenger jets, killing all 89 aboard, bribed
>> her way aboard the plane, according to Russian Prosecutor General
>> Vladimir Ustinov.
>>
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/15/russia.planecrash/
>>
>> Now you know of two cases.
>
> Let us know when it becomes the norm.
> Hint to point: Every trend has it's blips.
> You've presented a blip.
Now add in the women who helped in the Moscow theater raid, and the school
hostage crisis last year. It's no longer a blip, it's the trend.
> They prove only that you're hyperfocussing on the exception and missing
> the point.
I think that focusing on anyone who might appear to be Middle Eastern is
hyperfocusing. And once it's known that you do that, a group like al-Qaeda
will simply recruit more John Walker Lindhs and Timothy McVeighs to do their
work for them. You only need a handful.
Cynicor
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
Okay, so how do you tell that someone is Muslim by sight for profiling? And
wouldn't those determined to do damage simply hide these characteristics
next time through?
Mark˛
Only if it's to the exclusion of all others.
>And once it's known that you do that, a group like al-Qaeda will simply
>recruit more John Walker Lindhs and Timothy McVeighs to do their work for
>them. You only need a handful.
I agree with you to the extent that no group should be ignored, or assumed
beyond risk...but some groups DO warrant a higher degree of scrutiny.
Mark˛
You can't always to that, of course.
There is no denying that the vast majority of *extremists* continue to be of
middle eastern origin.
It's also true that most wearing a panty over their head in a bank are up to
something.
-Just because there are innocent freaks who simply ENJOY wearing panties
over their heads does not erase the fact that those who wear them into a
bank are immediately a bit suspect.
:)
Now don't bother picking apart my analogy...because it's not a perfect
fit... :)
I just hope we'll start paying attention to common sense trends, and not be
neutered by those who are offended too easily.
I am a large, imposing male.
-That I might be more likely to frighten a lone young lady at night does not
offend me.
I usnderstand that there are associations that might cause her to see me
differently than a slightly-built guy that's 5 foot two inches tall. She is
more likely to be mugged by someone with the means to mug her.
You are more likely to be killed by a middle eastern muslim than by a
Timothy McVey when flying on airplanes.
ASAAR
> They SHOULD be doing profiled searches. This is like not checking
> for bombs in the luggage because the person fits the description of the
> hijackers. STUPID.
> If ALL the 9/11 hijackers had been bald, blue-eyed, overweight, 60ish
> men from Texas, I would EXPECT to be scrutinized. This is political
> stupidity.
Actually, there were seven additional hijackers and they all
escaped scrutiny. Why? Because those seven happened to be bald,
blue-eyed, overweight 60ism men from Dallas. Their cover was
impeccable. Two of them were even listed on the Republican rolls as
being "pioneers". :)
Matt Silberstein
<rphu...@charter.net> in <ikNde.31522$Jg7....@fe03.lga> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2005 21:26:03 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark˛"
>> <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> in
>> <s3Dde.533$tp.149@fed1read04> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>It's happened twice with United, twice with Alaskan Air (and both times I
>>>had two 44 Magnums IN MY SUITCASE...since you can't carry them
>>>on...AND...they don't let you lock the suitcase!!...only the cun case within
>>>the suitcase!!!), once with American, and more with others I can't recall.
>>>This means two firearms were left un-guarded...two separate times.
>>>
>>>Most recently, my bags WERE taken to a holding point at LAX via United from
>>>Hawaii, but that was a two day bump-delay (my bags arrived a full two days
>>>before I did...stand-by).
>>
>>
>> We accidentally took a knife on board a plane. In hand held luggage
>> that was "specially" screened. I felt so safe.
>>
>>
>Lucky you weren't selected for random gate check...
I was not clear: we are selected for the gate check. They missed the
small swiss army knife that was accidentally left in the luggage.
Which, btw, was not my "worst" story. About 4 weeks before 9/11 I was
traveling back from a business trip to Germany. I picked up my luggage
and headed to customs where I was picked out for a luggage search. At
which point I realized to my horror that I had picked up the wrong
bag. (Since then I have made *absolutely* sure my bags are clearly
mine.) So I had to explain to the inspector that I had the wrong bag
and could we please just go out and get the other one rather than
subjecting me to a long "discussion" and cavity search. For whatever
reason he actually let me do that, took a quick look, and let me on my
way. I don't know how I dogged that bullet because it seems to me a
great way to smuggle things. Switch bags before customs. If they find
something say it is the wrong bad and you have the checks to show it.
--
Matt Silberstein
All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Matt Silberstein
<rphu...@charter.net> in <KJOde.34641$QR1....@fe04.lga> wrote:
>David J Taylor wrote:
[snip]
>> - don't try and be "clever" with security folk
>>
>No, they certainly aren't interested in jokes...
I have the Sony F707. Every time I go through the inspection I tell
them that I camera in the bag that has a "suspicious" looking shape. I
certainly do *not* tell them it looks like a gun. Which it vaguely
does and I don't want anyone to get the least big concerned.
Matt Silberstein
<mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> in
>
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:2fre71psu32jooisr...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 3 May 2005 00:26:28 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark²"
>> <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> in
>>>> They SHOULD be doing profiled searches. This is like not checking for
>>>> bombs in the luggage because the person fits the description of the
>>>> hijackers. STUPID.
>>>> If ALL the 9/11 hijackers had been bald, blue-eyed, overweight, 60ish
>>>> men
>>>> from Texas, I would EXPECT to be scrutinized. This is political
>>>> stupidity.
>>>
>>>Absolutely.
>>>Profiling is necessary and helpful, yet sadly ignored due to idiot clubs
>>>like the ACLU.
>>>Profiling simply means the identification of patterns, and intelligently
>>>using what you've learned from experience.
>>>Experience indicates that the elderly hispanic lady shouldn't be bothers
>>>to
>>>remove her shoes...while 30-year-old Mohamed with the middle eastern
>>>accent
>>>walks straight through behind her.
>>>
>>>If any readers are offended by the above, then I would suggest they
>>>re-think.
>>
>> Sorry, I actually did think and the above is wrong. Think of the more
>> common profiling: black vs. white. All studies show that blacks are no
>> more likely to use drugs as whites, but "experience" tells cops to
>> check out blacks way more often.
>
>How many white guys flew jets into buildings in '01, bub?
>
How do you define white? They were not Negro if that is what you mean.
Now do you really think they are going to be stupid enough to send the
exact same looking group of people the next time? What does a Moslem
look like anyway?
Matt Silberstein
<rphu...@charter.net> in <sdNde.31513$Jg7....@fe03.lga> wrote:
>>>When a young lady is raped, shall we start screening other women as possible
>>>suspects?
>>>According to some logic that is all too common...I guess we will...
>>>
>>
>> Your example is nice, but foolish. If someone is raped you don't check
>> women because you have *evidence* that women did not do it.
>>
>>
>I don't believe the black and white issue is under discussion.
I was using it as a comparison.
> And,
>statistically, more blacks than whites DO use certain types of drugs.
And more whites use other types of drugs. Guess which have higher
penalties.
>Just as more Native Americans are likely to use things like peyote than
>Anglos. Each ethnic group seems to have its own preferences for how it
>gets high. So what you state, doesn't exactly stand up.
Sure it does. Again, blacks are no more likely to use drugs than are
whites. They just arrested more.
>BTW, women DO commit rape, and many are in prison for it now.
I was commenting on the previous posters silly remark. In the cases
where it is not clear *from the evidence*, rather than from profiling,
that it was a man I hope that the police do consider women.
Matt Silberstein
<mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> in
>
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:i4re71d2f9rl21paa...@4ax.com...
>> No, they should not do profiled searches. Profiled searches *reduce*
>> security.
>>
>> Let me explain. Suppose I have some limited budget for searches, say
>> $1,000,000. It costs me $100 each search, so I can do 10,000 searches.
>> And 1,000,000 people go through the airport. If I do the searches
>> randomly each person has a 1/100 chance of getting searched. Now
>> suppose I have some criteria that I think identify possible terrorists
>> (look Moslem, male, 20-30, etc.). There are, say, 5,000 of those
>> people go through. If I search all of them that takes half my budget.
>> So I do half as many random searches and each person has roughly half
>> the chances of being searched. Now if the terrorists are bloody stupid
>> they won't bother to change their behavior at all. They will send in
>> the same kind of person and I will catch them. But if the terrorist
>> show any kind of intelligence they will figure out my criteria (very
>> easy to do, btw) and send in someone who does not fit the criteria.
>> Now I have cut in half my chance of finding them with a search.
>
>It's not that the terrorists have to bo "stupid, blah blah blah."
>It's that there just haven't been too many white guys (read ZERO) willing to
>sign up as Al K. suicide bombers.
>
J.W.L.
HTH. HAND.