From janitors to managers, Miami airport employees are watching you

Morton Davis wrote:

"mrtravel" wrote in message
...

If they thought there was something important about it, then I would
expcect them to tell someone. However, I doubt the annectdotal
information regarding takeoffs and landing only instruction.



Yet it was THE most important information that was ignored, eh?
plonk



Ignored by who? Who did the janitor tell, reporters AFTER 9/11?

I think it's great that all employees that work there are going to be
trained to look for this "behaviour", whatever it is, so security can
be alerted.

I've had many jobs, and seen many things that I think should have been
the object of someone's attention, but unfortunately in the jobs I
worked, security belonged to one task force, and few of us had radios
to communicate to them when WE saw something we needed to see. Ditto
with working for a postal franchise. People trust us with the most
weird requests, but we have no ability to report any of these weird
things to Customs, Immigration, or anyone who might care. I've seen a
lot, but it's not part of my training to act on anything suspicious,
short of telling a customer, "I'm sorry, you can't mail alcohol or
perfume."

S.


Chuck Whealton wrote:
berm.uda tri.angle wrote:
Thanks for the heads up. Will have to remember this next time I
travel through MIA not to act "suspicious" (whatever that is, since
tey're not telling us).

Eventually I'm sure this is going to spread to other airports. I can
see it spreading to malls, everywhere. Ugh...the terrorists have won.


airport vigilantes wrote:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...fla-news-miami
From janitors to managers, Miami airport employees are watching you

By Ken Kaye
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
September 6, 2006

Passengers at Miami International Airport soon will be scrutinized by
many sets of eyes, beyond federal security officers and police.

MIA is to become the first airport in the nation where aviation
employees, from janitors to senior-level managers, will receive
behavior recognition training to spot suspicious people or potential
terrorists.

"Every employee who works around airport goes to the bathroom and goes
to lunch, and wherever they are, they're going to be trained to
recognize behavior that is suspicious," airport spokesman Greg Chin
said Tuesday.

Initially, about 1,600 Miami-Dade Aviation Department employees will
receive four hours of training, starting Thursday. The first class
will include 50 to 75 upper level administrators.

Eventually, the course will be offered to 35,000 airport employees,
including those who work for airlines, skycap services and various
vendors, Chin said.

"The aim is to have as many eyes and ears in the airport as possible,"
he said.

About 88,000 passengers come and go from Miami International each day.

Miami-Dade County police officers, and specifically those under the
airport's incident containment team, will be the course instructors.
Those officers already have been trained by New Age Security Solutions
of Washington, D.C., Chin said.

Rafi Ron, president of that firm, is the former security director for
Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, and pioneered
training employees to recognize potentially dangerous behavior.

"This is not profiling," said airport spokesman Marc Henderson.
"You're looking for patterns that would be out of the ordinary."

The airport is undertaking the training program without prompting from
the Transportation Security Administration, said Lauren Stover, MIA's
Assistant Aviation Director of Security and Communications.

"It's independent of the TSA," she said. "It was an initiative that
the police and I wanted to move forward on as an additional layer of
security."

Berm, I have to ask why this is a problem. One day when you're flying
it may have been that janitor that kept the aircraft that you or a
loved one are traveling on from being blown up.

It's a shame, but this is the world we now live in. We've seen what
those who don't agree with our way of life can do to us if we're not
careful. Unfortunately, I don't believe the dislike of America (right,
wrong, or inbetween) is going to end anytime soon.

Why would this bother you?

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

Sapphyre wrote:
I think it's great that all employees that work there are going to be
trained to look for this "behaviour", whatever it is, so security can
be alerted.

I've had many jobs, and seen many things that I think should have been
the object of someone's attention, but unfortunately in the jobs I
worked, security belonged to one task force, and few of us had radios
to communicate to them when WE saw something we needed to see. Ditto
with working for a postal franchise. People trust us with the most
weird requests, but we have no ability to report any of these weird
things to Customs, Immigration, or anyone who might care. I've seen a
lot, but it's not part of my training to act on anything suspicious,
short of telling a customer, "I'm sorry, you can't mail alcohol or
perfume."


Yeah, I can see how wanting to mail alocohol or perfume might make that
person a terrorist.

In art. , John wrote in part:
On 10 Sep 04:11 -0700, "chuck_whealton" wrote:

Where I did most of my editing for space
That's why I have no problem with all airline personnel being trained
to give people a second look. If your'e not doing anything wrong, you
have nothing to worry about.

So you believe:

"if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry
about."

What an idiot you are.

So it is OK with you if the authorities do illegal searches of you or
your home?

Oh, I see. You aren't doing anything wrong. Then it's OK.

Actually, I don't see the problem with everyone keeping an eye out for
suspicious behavior and alerting authorities.

Of course there is the hazard of extra negative attention to those who
are unpopular or to those who have an enemy (dumped lover, etc.) but
anyone actually making an arrest would be trained to arrest only for more
probable cause, upon penalty of losing a gigantic lawsuit or losing a
criminal conviction or both.

If terrorists, those who dumped vindictive lovers, and a few members
of unpopular demographic/political groups targeted by crank
suspicious-activity-reporters have quadruple risk of a hand search of
baggage and/or extra attention paid to the X-raying of carryon baggage,
that's fine with me!
I wish they could adequately examine everyone and every piece of
baggage! But they can't! If they manage to hand-search the baggage of
every terrorist but also in addition to every homosexual targeted by some
anti-gay crank, as a gay man I would think that's a big improvement in air
travel safety over what most airports have now!

Don't bring explosives or weapons or terrorist handbooks or the like
onto a plane, and the worst that can happen to you is some extra
attention!

Another thing that I favor - having security employees watching everyone
(visibly, through visible cameras, and through hidden cameras) and doing
"behavior profiling" - targeting for extra attention people who have
exhibited specific behaviors disproportionately done by terrorists. When
someone catching attention in that area shakes up if a flight attendant or
blue-haired lady or talkative apparently-a-fellow-passenger comes out of a
nearby lounge or the pizza stand or or thin air or wherever and asks the
passenger where the passenger is going and what the passenger will be
doing there, that's when the real extra questioning by people in uniforms
starts.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In art. , John wrote in part:
On 10 Sep 04:11 -0700, "chuck_whealton" wrote:

Where I did most of my editing for space
That's why I have no problem with all airline personnel being trained
to give people a second look. If your'e not doing anything wrong, you
have nothing to worry about.

So you believe:

"if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry
about."

What an idiot you are.

So it is OK with you if the authorities do illegal searches of you or
your home?

Oh, I see. You aren't doing anything wrong. Then it's OK.

Actually, I don't see the problem with everyone keeping an eye out for
suspicious behavior and alerting authorities.

Of course there is the hazard of extra negative attention to those who
are unpopular or to those who have an enemy (dumped lover, etc.) but
anyone actually making an arrest would be trained to arrest only for more
probable cause, upon penalty of losing a gigantic lawsuit or losing a
criminal conviction or both.

If terrorists, those who dumped vindictive lovers, and a few members
of unpopular demographic/political groups targeted by crank
suspicious-activity-reporters have quadruple risk of a hand search of
baggage and/or extra attention paid to the X-raying of carryon baggage,
that's fine with me!
I wish they could adequately examine everyone and every piece of
baggage! But they can't! If they manage to hand-search the baggage of
every terrorist but also in addition to every homosexual targeted by some
anti-gay crank, as a gay man I would think that's a big improvement in air
travel safety over what most airports have now!

Don't bring explosives or weapons or terrorist handbooks or the like
onto a plane, and the worst that can happen to you is some extra
attention!

Another thing that I favor - having security employees watching everyone
(visibly, through visible cameras, and through hidden cameras) and doing
"behavior profiling" - targeting for extra attention people who have
exhibited specific behaviors disproportionately done by terrorists. When
someone catching attention in that area shakes up if a flight attendant or
blue-haired lady or talkative apparently-a-fellow-passenger comes out of a
nearby lounge or the pizza stand or or thin air or wherever and asks the
passenger where the passenger is going and what the passenger will be
doing there, that's when the real extra questioning by people in uniforms
starts.

- Don Klipstein )

موقع الخيمة
إخباري عربي شامل
سياسي، إقتصادي

JOHN BENNETT writes:

Unfortunately the American way is generally not the best although
you can be forgiven for thinking it is:-))

Ah. So you've lived here, then.

Tell us: when, where, and for how long?


People generally don't dislike Americans, but they do despise your
governments and the way in which you elect them.
HTH

Unfortunately, "people generally" have ****-all say in the matter,
don't they?

On the topic of being liked: Being liked is a good thing. If it
isn't on offer, however, I'll gladly settle for being feared.

Where, pray tell, you supercilious, gap-toothed Limey ****, did you
ever get this amusing idea that we have any obligation whatsoever to
seek -- let alone meet -- your approval?



Geoff

--
"Liberace was a great piano player, but
he sucked on the organ." -- Mike Oxbig

Geoff Miller wrote:
Where, pray tell, you supercilious, gap-toothed Limey ****, did you
ever get this amusing idea that we have any obligation whatsoever to
seek -- let alone meet -- your approval?


If the USA stopped meddling in world affairs (usually with very negative
consequences), then we (non americans) would have no say in your
government. But because your governments have traditionally made a point
of meddling in world affairs, often preventing progress, and lately
making the world much worse off and increase middle east instability
(and hence motivation/drive of terrorists, then foreigners do have a say
in criticising your government because it impacts us all in a negative way.

We don,t have a right to vote in the USA. We don't have a right to
oveerride the USA's veto at the UN. We have to suffer through the
consequences of the USA's terrible foreign policies.

The USA should be forced to stay within its own political boundaries
until it elects a leader that at least knows the name of the leaders of
its neighbouring countries. Having some dumb president want to please
his 3 war criminals (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) and sign off on some
invasion of a country he doesn't know about is very dangerous.

Which is more dangerous ? Leader of a country that sends an army to
destroy a country without UN approval and with disapporval of its
closest allies ? The leader of a country that sends an army to destroy a
country knowing full well there is no evidence to justify such an
invasion ?

Or some leader that agrees to abide by the NPT and allows UN inspectors
for peaceful development of nuclear energy, fully within its rights, and
only once the USA starts to bark loudly against that country does it
start to use rethoric to motivate the world to further hate the
american's double standards ? At least if the USA forced Israel, India
and Pakistan to sign the NPT before hitting Iran, it might be more credible.

American people don't realise this, but Iran was set to re-elect its
moderate government until the USA started to meddle in their election ,
at which point, the people moved to elect the more anti-american leader.
And the USA's rethoric is purposefully making Iran move against the USA.
So the USA is actively building up an enemy instead of toning down the
rethoric to tun Iran into a normal nation.

Consider how, by toning down the rethoric and offering carrots, they
were able to get Lybia to become a "friendly" nation. Why don't they do
that to Iran ? Simple: Because the USA has no interest in making Iran a
"friendly" nation because the USA wants enemies it can talk about to
divert attention from domestic issues.

In article , Geoff Miller wrote:

JOHN BENNETT writes:
I edit for space
People generally don't dislike Americans, but they do despise your
governments and the way in which you elect them.

I consider the elections and the actions of those who win the elections
to be separate issues, with complaints more against those that win the
elections.

Unfortunately, "people generally" have ****-all say in the matter,
don't they?

I say that if half the people who sat on their @$$e$ on all or any of
the days when the polling places were open made a trip there to make their
vote count, things would be a little different. Especially if more voters
cared to vote in primary elections when a same-party challenger to one or
more critters worth firing was on the ballot!

Heck, I proudly state to have voted in every primary I could have when
a presidential candidate or a congresscritter was running, starting with
1980! For that matter, in the primary contest for president, I have a
100% track record against the one of my party of registration that went
into the following November election, and I currently regret only one of
my past votes in that area!
One that I do not regret was my write-in presidential primary vote in
1996 for Paul Tsongas, who was battling long term illness while my state
ballot had no same-party opposition to Clinton that year.
Although I do note Clinton as presiding over all Federal annual budget
surpluses since 1969 including two that remain surpluses if SS surplus is
excluded, I believe still today that Tsongas would have done even better -
especially given Clinton's opposition to this little bipartisan
defecit-reduction thingie having the name Penney-Kasich! But then again
how good were the chances of a Massechussets Democrat so soon after
Dukakis?

On the topic of being liked: Being liked is a good thing. If it
isn't on offer, however, I'll gladly settle for being feared.

I do consider it good to be liked by those who we are giving sales
pitches to in the area of assisting us being feared by our enemies!
I do doubt that an isolated USA can make Iraq a peaceful democracy AND
make Afganistan a peaceful nation free of significant USA enemy forces and
make Pakistan free of significant USA enemy forces - 5 years minus a few
hours and Osama bin Laden is still free? Plus Iran and North Korea? How
about South Korea having a bigtime movie playing well in part from
anti-American sentiment while we are worrying about North Korea? In
addition to France being a little short of 100% wrong among their many
disagreements with the USA as of all times since 2002 or so! How about
the other Islamic fundamentalist regimes that USA is not warring against
for now but could become forces to contend with when petroleum gets
scarcer than it is now? Example - Saudi Arabia, a kingdom with
per-capita income (including wherever the petrodollars go) and wealth
(maybe excluding government property such as maybe palaces and their
contents and the like )in the first-world range and median individual and
family income and wealth in the 3rd world range that we allowed to dictate
to us against letting women soldiers drive USA military vehicles on their
roads during the first "Gulf War"?
Yes, we have battles to fight, with many of those fought better if we
had other nations helping us fight them!

Where, pray tell, you supercilious, gap-toothed Limey ****, did you
ever get this amusing idea that we have any obligation whatsoever to
seek -- let alone meet -- your approval?

I think that USA needs to battle enemy forces too big and numerous for
USA alone to battle, especially after the attack on Iraq that led to a
mess that USA is still battling with.

I think that USA could have better explained a lesser need for friends
in the international community if USA had gotten Osama bin Laden's head on
a platter sometime in the past 4.999 years!

- Don Klipstein )

John wrote:
On 10 Sep 2006 04:11:10 -0700, "chuck_whealton"
wrote:


JOHN BENNETT wrote:
"Chuck Whealton" wrote in message
oups.com...

We've seen what
those who don't agree with our way of life can do to us if we're not
careful. There are so many ways to live your life.
Unfortunately the American way is generally not the best although you can be
forgiven for thinking it is:-))


Unfortunately, I don't believe the dislike of America (right,
wrong, or inbetween) is going to end anytime soon.

People generally don't dislike Americans, but they do despise your
governments and the way in which you elect them.
HTH

Why would this bother you?

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com


John, I don't want to make myself misunderstood about how I feel about
the way we live here in America. I generally like the way we do
things, but there are a million+ things that stand out as bad and are
done differently AND better in other countries. I'm not going to list
them here to start a flame war.

I'm glad that most people tend to dislike our government and not
necessarily Americans. I voted against the current administration both
times, though I won't sit here bad mouthing them.

The unfortunate part is that the last time people attacked our
lifestyle (good, bad, whatever your opinion), it was innocent people
who paid.

That's why I have no problem with all airline personnel being trained
to give people a second look. If your'e not doing anything wrong, you
have nothing to worry about.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

So you believe:

"if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry
about."

What an idiot you are.

So it is OK with you if the authorities do illegal searches of you or
your home?

Oh, I see. You aren't doing anything wrong. Then it's OK.

They're two different things, John. The airport is a public place with
many people using it. You can call me an idiot all you want. I have
no problem with it. If I do, I can just take a different mode of
transportation.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

John wrote:
On 11 Sep 2006 03:04:26 -0700, "chuck_whealton"
wrote:


John wrote:
On 10 Sep 2006 04:11:10 -0700, "chuck_whealton"
wrote:


JOHN BENNETT wrote:
"Chuck Whealton" wrote in message
oups.com...

We've seen what
those who don't agree with our way of life can do to us if we're not
careful. There are so many ways to live your life.
Unfortunately the American way is generally not the best although you can be
forgiven for thinking it is:-))


Unfortunately, I don't believe the dislike of America (right,
wrong, or inbetween) is going to end anytime soon.

People generally don't dislike Americans, but they do despise your
governments and the way in which you elect them.
HTH

Why would this bother you?

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com


John, I don't want to make myself misunderstood about how I feel about
the way we live here in America. I generally like the way we do
things, but there are a million+ things that stand out as bad and are
done differently AND better in other countries. I'm not going to list
them here to start a flame war.

I'm glad that most people tend to dislike our government and not
necessarily Americans. I voted against the current administration both
times, though I won't sit here bad mouthing them.

The unfortunate part is that the last time people attacked our
lifestyle (good, bad, whatever your opinion), it was innocent people
who paid.

That's why I have no problem with all airline personnel being trained
to give people a second look. If your'e not doing anything wrong, you
have nothing to worry about.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

So you believe:

"if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry
about."

What an idiot you are.

So it is OK with you if the authorities do illegal searches of you or
your home?

Oh, I see. You aren't doing anything wrong. Then it's OK.

They're two different things, John. The airport is a public place with
many people using it. You can call me an idiot all you want. I have
no problem with it. If I do, I can just take a different mode of
transportation.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

You are the one who "doesn't get it".

So it alright with you if the government does illegal search and
seizures of a US citizen.

If the government is taking away your rights then, according to you,
"You must be doing something wrong".

Is that your thinking?

Actually, I do get it, John. I just don't agree with you. This will
also be my last response on this subject since I'm not interested in
starting a flame war with you.

You've gone from how you don't want additional airline employees
keeping an eye on anybody to how you don't want illegal searches and
seizures.

First, no, I don't want to be illegally searched, however, an increased
amount of scrutiny is a given at airports. It's to protect people in
general - not to harrass individuals, though some individuals are going
to get additional scrutiny and probably feel like they are being
harrassed.

There are people who like to kill Americans via airports. They carry
things like boxcutters and in some cases, explosives in their shoes,
and cruise aircrafts into buildings. I'm sure that's just the start of
what they're capable of, and they appear to be good at it.

While I'm in the airport, a public place, if they want to search me
they can search me and no, it doesn't mean I've done anything wrong.
They do it because this is the type of environment we live in. You
calling me an idiot while trying to make your point isn't going to
change that. Am I glad it's come to this? Heck no, but it has whether
I like it or not.

If you don't like it, simply don't take commercial aircrafts or
purchase your own small aircraft. Or perhaps you could write to your
local representatives in Congress to voice your displeasure with
additional airline employees being trained to look for suspicious
activity.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com