IP: Re: F.A.A. Announces Stricter Rules; Knives No Longer Allowed -- get out your dull chopsticks

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:32:09 -0500
> From: gep2 () terabites com
> Subject: Re: IP: F.A.A. Announces Stricter Rules; Knives No Longer Allowed
>         --  get out your dull
>         chopsticks
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
>
> One of the more curious reports I've heard here in Dallas is that American
> Airlines (based here in Fort Worth) is seriously considering to ban *all*
> carryon articles, presumably including attache cases, camera bags, and 
> notebook
> computers.  (I know from personal experience that it is **not** safe to check
> notebook computers and video camcorders on airplanes, even with serious 
> efforts
> to pack them well to protect them).  Eliminating the possibility of use (even
> just carrying) of personal computers aboard aircraft would doubtless have a
> serious advese effect on the notebook computer industry (of course, this 
> in no
> way downplays the "serious adverse effect" that things like terrorism have 
> on a
> whole range of other industries!)
>
> I certainly agree with you... I don't see how eliminating curbside baggage
> checkin, or not allowing passengers to await friends at the gates (or 
> likewise
> to see them off there) would have prevented what happened this week.  It 
> sounds
> to me more like they want to be SEEN as "doing something", regardless of 
> whether
> what they're doing is actually effective or not.  Honestly, I hate to see 
> people
> accept sheep-like any supposedly "security" measures which simply don't 
> make any
> sense.
>
> The one measure I've read about which I think **would** make a difference 
> is the
> use of passenger full-body imaging systems, which allow security staff to
> essentially see visually what is in passengers pockets (even body 
> cavities) etc.
>  This would visually show things like plastic/glass knives and other 
> possible
> weapons, something that existing metal detectors simply don't (and never 
> will)
> pick up.  The biggest argument against such imaging systems is reportedly 
> that
> they "look through clothing" (indeed, that's the purpose!) and thus display a
> clear image of not only weapons, guns, knives, and such but also genitalia 
> and
> other things that people are sensitive about and feel is an "invasion of
> privacy".
>
> On a list of rights and freedoms that I'd be upset about losing, and related
> concerns, I personally think that having hangups about being imaged
> (intimately!) would be one of the easier ones to conquer.
>
> Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
> Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment!  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
> 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
> 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/