I'm hoping that this is finally the straw that breaks the camels back and people start to push back on these "security" measures. Not traveling via air is an option for some people but for most when they fly they aren't any reasonable alternatives. Making these invasions a prerequisite to flying means you are going to have strangers looking at you naked regularly or being groping (which I'm presuming is meant to be as invasive as possible to encourage use of the scanners). The alternative to this is turning down a job away from anybody you would like to see regularly, or any job that requires frequent travel or going to college in another state etc. And boy is your life about to suck if you travel with kids or someone elderly.
I sincerely hope that enough people push back to make a difference. I think for a lot of people, it's easier to just stop flying---and some people already have---than it is to protest the security theater. If it's clear to the airlines that they're losing a significant number of passengers due to the security measures, I would expect them to lobby against the security measures. Whether or not they will have an effect is another issue entirely.
I for one love travelling but hate flying. I see two options for people who enjoy international travel but don't want their privacy invaded by TSA.
1. Travel by boat. You can hitch a ride on a cargo ship to just about anywhere in the world: http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-c... It's more expensive than flying and takes longer, so this is probably not an option for most people.
2. Depart from another country. I recently traveled to New Zealand, and when I flew home from the Auckland airport to San Francisco, I had to go through an extra security screening because it was a US-bound flight. I was left with the impression that airport security in the rest of the world is not as draconian unless one of the endpoints of the flight is in the USA. So I suspect if you can drive or take the train to Mexico or Canada, you can avoid an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Last year, I took an Amtrak train from Vancouver to Seattle, and the border crossing was a piece of cake.
Edit: Does anyone know how airport security in Mexico or Canada compares to the US?
I fly SYD - LAX at least once a year. A few years ago, it was no bottles, shoes off, grope from local version of TSA at SYD. In my recent flight, no bottle restriction, no shoes off, no groping. A couple of small signs talking about liquid amounts but no sign of enforcement. I suspect that periodically the TSA tries to force higher screening on other countries, but for the most part the airlines/airports want to skip the cost (and aggravation for it's customers), and so get lax about it. Someone has to pay for extra floorspace for extra screening on US flights, as well as extra staff, facilities, equipment. When airlines will drop one meal in a flight to drive down costs, adding costs like this to flying has to hurt someone, somewhere, whether it's the airline or the airport. I'm guessing they don't forward the invoices to the TSA.
When you think about it, it's a net losing situation for the USA, because they can't possibly force every single country every single day to keep up the standards. And without a blanket coverage on the standards, the cause is hopeless because any wrongdoer is just going to pick an international flight to do the business.
Is there yet a web site yet that catalogues the security procedures at each airport? If some people consider avoiding flights, they might actually be interested in such info. Not the standard detectors which aren't that annoying, but things like control of liquids, these new scanners, the grope, etc. Can just imagine selling third-party widgets to travel sites:
"On this itinerary, you may be subject to these security checks: genitalia scan (arr: LAX) or grope (arr: LAX), liquid check (dep: SYD)."
This is a brilliant idea. If someone else doesn't do it, I may; I travel infrequently, but I sure as hell don't want to be putting my kids through either of the "options" right now. It would be wonderful to know how to route around it.
I really like that idea as a way to resist the security theater. It would give travellers the information they need to vote with their wallets for privacy over "security."
Someone downvoted you so I'm voting you back up. I thought the same thing when the concept came to me - the creator would cop a lot of criticism (even be mildly terrorised, funnily enough) from some quarters.
There's no real unrest in El DF (Mexico City) since it's far enough away from the U.S. border. All of the unrest in Mexico is either far north (Narco terrorists) or far south (Zapatistas). Mexico's an awesome place with a lot of culture, amazing food, cool people, and plenty of stuff to explore. If you're avoiding it because of the press fear-mongering I would urge you to reconsider.
(I'm an American who's been all over Mexico on several trips, most recently three months ago)
I flew through Heathrow post-Lockerbie and was running late for my fight. I kept glancing at my watch and getting pretty nervous at possibly missing the boarding window.
A guard nearby saw my body language and pulled me aside instantly. There was a table set up right next to the counter where they did an immediate search of my luggage, asked questions, where was I, etc etc. Nothing harsh, very polite, and I'm sure my reactions and body language were being watched the whole time. Afterward I was given my place back in line with a thanks.
That is how airport security should be. I know Israel takes it even 10 notches higher than this, and it seems to work just fine.
The most I saw in Heathrow was that they made me take off my shoes, and they wouldn't really make a fuss about it if you didn't do it. The only time they made me take my shoes off was when they found a swiss army knife in my hand luggage (I absent-mindedly took it, along with 15 kg of stuff, from my checked luggage because they were too heavy).
Even with a pretty large knife in my luggage, what happened was that I had to go through the metal detector with shoes off, and then I had to wait for the police for 20 minutes. They were very polite and told me that there would be no problem if the knife wasn't a "locking" knife (no idea why that's a problem), but they just kept it and let me go.
However, I imagine I didn't look like the typical terrorist, with four bags bursting with clothes as hand luggage.
Not sure why you were modded down, since several types of knives are illegal to carry around in public (not to possess on private property or to carry around well packed such as in original secure packaging though).
Flick-knives have been illegal since forever (in fact since 1959 according to Wikipedia - responding to the threat of "teddy boys"!). Locking knives that open under gravity and lock are also illegal.
If it has a blade longer than 3 inches, then you need a 'good reason' to be carrying it in public. If not, then under normal circumstances (rule 7 applies) it's fine so long as the blade is capable of folding. A locking catch is fine, but a fixed blade isn't.
It seems safe to assume it's just the fact that you were planning to carry it on to a plane that made them unhappy.
Hmm, I see. I don't know exactly how long it was, but it was maybe 2.5-3 inches. The fact that I was carrying a server, 20 liters of LEGO and a backpack with 3 laptops and another one with underwear probably made it look quite nonthreatening.
I had no problem carrying a longsword into and out of the UK. I called the London police in advance to ask if it was an issue, and they asked me whether I could conceal it on my person. Since I could not (it's a longsword), it was not classed as a knife and so was no problem.
Given I practice with both, this is very true. And it's not just that they see it coming. But the parent to my original comment was noting it was just a pocketknife, not a sword or something. A small knife can do way more damage at close range, is nearly impossible to parry when in distance, and moves crazy fast. The saying goes that if you get into a knife fight, you will get cut, and you might die. Regardless if you win the fight.
EDIT: I now notice it was you that made that original comment, so I'll answer that: A knife that opens with little effort and then locks into place allows for one-handed arming and stabbing, without the risk that the blade will snap back and cut the user. It also enables a blade the length of the handle to be stored in space slightly more than the length of the handle itself. A blade of the length of your typical pocket is considered sufficient to easily cause fatal damage even when used by an untrained fighter. In many countries there are exceptions for knives that require two hands to open, or where the blade must be held in place during usage or where the blade is below some set total length. The UK has fairly strict restrictions on knives in general, so most of those exceptions do not apply.
Ah, I see, thank you. My knife was a pocketknife (so it had screwdrivers and stuff as well on it), and the blade was a bit of a bitch to open with two hands, so it was impossible to open it one-handed. Regardless, the policemen were polite and understanding, and did at no point want to touch my junk.
@duke_sam: If this article from Jeffery Goldburg is to be believed, there are TSA officials on record as saying the groping is directly intended to push people through the other scanners, all the while ignoring any cavities which could hide plenty of explosives or other contraband.
Agreed. I've just taken the last half hour to write to my senators in hopes it will gain some attention. This will be a hard issue to battle though - no senator wants to sponsor a bill that might be blamed for a terrorist attack.
It's hard to remember that a mere ten years ago the TSA did not exist and now it is already groping our grandpas. It is a good thing we are so much safer now.
