Talk:Airport security

Several issues

Most large airports have their own police force

Did the original writer mean that most airports have police on site all the time (undoubtedly true) or that most airports have a dedicated force e.g. the JFK airport police force. If the latter, is this true in the United States. It isn't true in, for example, the UK so should probably be changed. Pete 13:20, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't believe that what the writer meant is important. What matters is what it appears to say. In this case you could take either position. I took it to be their own police and not a dedicated force from the local department. After looking at the intro it seems to have several flaws including the one you mentioned. Another being the use of military. I believe that in some countries the military is the normal security force. I'm going to redo the introduction to try and make this a bit more accurate. Vegaswikian 18:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The world's worst failure of airport security was the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon using hijacked jetliners.

This is an awkward one. Didn't the hijackers have no weapons to speak of? If so, in what sense did airport security fail? One could easily argue that, for instance, the Lockerbie bombing was a greater failure. Pete 13:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The author may be referring to the box cutters that were used as weapons to intimidate the passengers and crew. Box cutters were legal to carry onboard prior to 9/11. So, I would agree that the article should be revised to reflect this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.22.20 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-10

Content to merge or ignore

Removed from Airline Security (which needs review):

gay boy Currently, in the United States of America, airline security is largely handled by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which provides airport security at major airports (400 to 429 airports).

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 spurred the adoption of heightened security measures. New technologies were developed prior to September 11, 2001, which would have provided airline security without requiring security screeners at airports. Prior to September 11, 2001, most airlines paid the salaries of the airport's security screeners. TSA is considering allowing the airlines and airports to rehire security screeners because the Federal Government and TSA believe too much money is being spent on security at airports.

Not sure how much is salvageable or not covered here, but airline security clearly should not duplicate airport security. zoney ♣ talk 15:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New article?

The world's worst failure of airport security was the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon using hijacked jetliners.

I think that was true if it is viewed as a failure of policy in that the airports carried out their instructions correctly, but the instructions were flawed. They didn't include a wide enough definition of what a weapon was. Airport and airline security are two sides of the same coin. Perhaps there should be a new article called something like Commercial air transport security which both redirect to. --Jll 16:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

indeed, the sept 11 terorrists didnt carry anything onboard that was banned from carrying at the time.. even today, we can carry bottles of wine, a sock full of coins, and fists and feet onboard a commercial aircraft. unbelievable! --Kvuo 02:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh-uh...no more wine. Not even listerine. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Airline vs. Airport security

I'm not sure what needs to be done with Airport security and Airline security. I think we need to really look at these two articles and move some of this stuff around, at least for the US operations. It is not clear from the articles where airport security ends and airline security begins. I don't believe that the TSA is responsible for security at the airport. They screen passengers and baggage. They also supply, at least at some airports, the bomb sniffing dogs. Airport security, I believe, is assigned by the FAA to the owner of the airport who then designates the responsible agency or department. The airlines are responsible for the security of their airplanes and must follow directives from the FAA and TSA and probably Customs. Access to secure areas of the airport are controlled by the owner of the airport with direction from some govermental agency. I think it is important to get this correct in the articles. Vegaswikian 07:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent developments

I think it would be interesting to actually add a bit of how security messures and policy has developed as well as were we stand today. However, I consider most of the airport security nothing but a scam to keep the public calm and what I can come up with just sounds a bit too partial. So I challenge somebody to give a good overview, prefereably with references. P.S. 00:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Need for history section?

Hi. It would be interesting to have a history section that outlines the development of the security process and the machinery itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.99.12 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-03

I think, this chapture is of great importance as this matter does not exist from the beginning of aviation and if there was no hijacking and terrorism, it would never got a matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.249.152 (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel

There needs to be a section for Israel on here. Ben Gurion Airport has the tightest airport security in the world, with some very unique security measures. --Mrskippy 09:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You read my mind, Skippy --- five months before I had the thought! :-) --Micahbrwn 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

History Section is Essential

My first experience with Airport Security would be surprising to most people under the age of 40 -- NONE. Zero. Nada.

In 1972, when I took my first airplane flight, you simply walked up to the ticket counter and then to the gate. No security line, no questions, no fence around the airport or the landing field.

Now the sheep (and I am, shamefully, baa-ing as loudly as anyone else) -- now we sheep meekly line up to be partially strip-searched, felt up, and otherwise man-and-woman-handled. Soon us cattle will be mass-x-rayed as well. The humiliation is now, the cancers will come later.

The day will come when the fences will be torn down, but not in my lifetime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.129.126 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-24

What's with the resealable plastic bags?

I'm curious. What's the (alleged) reason for requiring passengers to put liquids and gels in a sealed plastic bag? I can see banning liquids and gels (in case they're explosives) but what good does it do to ask people to keep them in a plastic bag? (If there's an answer to this, I think it would be worth putting in the article -- surely I'm not the only one curious about this!)

• News release about the plastic-bag requirement

• Maybe this sort-of answers the question. Putting the various containers of liquids in a single, clear plastic bag makes it easier for airport security officials to conveniently glance at them. Why it has to be sealed and resealable is not clear. It's also not clear whether use of a twist-tie or a knot counts as sealing. --Coppertwig 12:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

israel

what about ben gurion international airport? this airport is the most secur airport in teh world.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.133.197 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- funny how that one was missing. Took care of it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Statistics

The statistics cited for bomb detection in carry-on luggage by the TSA are extremely misleading. I've clarified them. The source provided originally supports my edit, leading me to question the motives of whoever originally wrote that segment. 66.66.154.162 (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Security flaws

Perhaps Bruce Shneier's tips on improving airport security can be mentioned. Eg its weird one may pack a gas lighter or a chainsaw in the hand luggage. Also, airport security is said to focus too much on arabic/light or darker-skinned persons. See http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/08/security_idiocy.html

Also, the site http://www.stupidsecurity.com/ was mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.194 (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles and references to criticism, tests, and failures would be good. Here is a great article http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security Gampgamp (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the article completely biased?

The whole article contains no mention of any criticism of the airport security. I won't deny that it is also my personal view, but I think that we, meaning people with the opinion, that airport security is a worthless, artificially engineered waste of money, is not so negligible. I like to refrain from writing to wiki as my English is limited, but someone should look into this. As the article stands, it just supports this activity and gives a feeling that it is an unquestionable necessity.

The arguments that can be given are along several lines: 1. false sense of security, as the "terrorists" can always think one step ahead, make up new ways to bypass the checks that look only for things that already have been tried 2. promoting "terrorism", as by giving up our freedoms and convenience, we show them, that they have actually succeeded and encourage them to do more 3. irrational choice of aircraft as the main security concern, when the "terrorists" can strike whenever they wish (see Madrid trains, London buses) 4. possibility of artificially overestimating the "terrorist" threat to make more money for the security business and to invade people's privacy.

I believe, that there is plenty of relatively mainstream material to each of these points, that can be cited as an opinion of a sizeable group of pepole.

Jan Ebr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.96.148.2 (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely valid point. You are correct this should be an article about propaganda and promoting false sense of security. This article needs to be examined and criticism put on the document. The US has spent over $40 Billion dollars on this single effort and it has had questionable value at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.91.225 (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A few minor adjustments

I made a few minor edits, but thought I should explain.

1) the United States section under Airport Security was prefaced by a link to Airport Racial profiling (in the place one normally finds a link to an article for which the section is a summary. This is not a summary for airport racial profiling, it's the broader topic of all security in US airports. I moved the racial profiling link down to the "see also" section, where more specific, related links go. I don't think the link is necessarily inappropriate, it just was inappropriate where it was placed (not because of content, but because of the convention described above).

2) In the See Also section there was a link to "Flying While Muslim". There is no page for that, it redirects to "racial profiling" in general. Since I just added the airport racial profiling article and it is a redirect (that redirects to a MUCH more general article), it seemed redundant, so I deleted it. Essentially, it's better covered by the airport profiling article.

Thanks! 204.65.34.157 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)