The End of Carry-on Laptops, Cell Phones, Wris****ches, etc.

Miss L. Toe wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

Steven L. wrote:
Experts: Air security focuses on past threats
Laptops, cell phones and watches pose potential danger


I figured out the solution to this and all other passenger-born attacks
on commercial aviation a long time ago:

Trusted flyer identification

Frequent airline travelers, or those who wish to avoid the more
draconian security measures can voluntarily submit themselves to an FBI
security check. Those who successfully pass the security check (and
nobody who's visited Pakistan will ever pass),

Does that include people who have worked at the US embassy in Pakistan ?

No, those people should just be shot immediately. Just to be safe.

In article , Ron O'Neal
wrote:

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
news
Per Steven L.:
and assemble their weapon in a locked restroom, security experts warn.

Obvious solution: locate the facilities in the middle of the cabin with no
doors
or curtains. It would even have additional value as passenger
entertainment.
--
PeteCresswell

I hear the next terrorist tactic is to immobilize passengers and crew with
spray cans of Silly String.

Hey - that stuff and a lighter can be pretty dangerous, I hear.

--
~~~

wrote in message
ups.com...

Miss L. Toe wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

Steven L. wrote:
Experts: Air security focuses on past threats
Laptops, cell phones and watches pose potential danger


I figured out the solution to this and all other passenger-born
attacks
on commercial aviation a long time ago:

Trusted flyer identification

Frequent airline travelers, or those who wish to avoid the more
draconian security measures can voluntarily submit themselves to an
FBI
security check. Those who successfully pass the security check (and
nobody who's visited Pakistan will ever pass),

Does that include people who have worked at the US embassy in Pakistan ?

No, those people should just be shot immediately. Just to be safe.


With ex-ambassadors first on the list ?

wrote:

Steven L. wrote:

Experts: Air security focuses on past threats
Laptops, cell phones and watches pose potential danger



I figured out the solution to this and all other passenger-born attacks
on commercial aviation a long time ago:

Trusted flyer identification

Frequent airline travelers, or those who wish to avoid the more
draconian security measures can voluntarily submit themselves to an FBI
security check. Those who successfully pass the security check (and
nobody who's visited Pakistan will ever pass),

What does visiting Pakistan have to do with anything. You can meet
terrorists anywhere. How does this "trusted" ID prevent someone from
being paid by the terrorist to carry the deadly "stuff" past security?

Steven L. wrote:
Experts: Air security focuses on past threats
Laptops, cell phones and watches pose potential danger

(AP) -- The next terrorist attack could be carried out by airline
passengers who hide bomb ingredients in hair gel or baby milk bottles
and assemble their weapon in a locked restroom, security experts warn.

The announcement Thursday of a foiled plot to blow up jetliners flying
from London to the U.S. using explosives hidden in hand luggage could be
the opening of a new chapter in air travel, they said: hours-long
security checks, visual inspections of prescription drugs, bans on
everyday items.

Bomb experts and troubleshooters for airline security interviewed by The
Associated Press said mobile phones, computers, wrist watches or
anything else with a battery should be prohibited from flights.

Perhaps most chillingly, they warned that security staff at airports are
not looking for the right things -- and the change in tactics required
would likely overwhelm current security operations.

"That theater we see, of people taking off shoes, is not going to stop a
suicide bomber. The terrorists have already sniffed out the weak spots
and are adopting new tactics," said Irish security analyst Tom Clonan,
who noted that security measures usually are designed for the last
attack, not the next threat.

He said a terrorist group will almost certainly try to blow up a plane
with a bomb assembled on board unless security measures improve
fundamentally.

Anti-terrorist authorities in Britain and the United States declined to
describe the bomb design in the foiled plot -- whether it was primarily
liquid or, more likely, contained liquids in a more complex ingredient
list.

Whatever the case, experts predicted passengers may soon have to change
their travel habits radically.

"Every businessman needs to have his laptop on a long-haul flight, and
now you won't be able to. Even a battery-operated watch would provide
enough power for a detonator. All you need is one shock," said Alan
Hatcher, managing director of the International School for Security and
Explosives Education in Salisbury, England.

Airlines have toyed with the idea of banning innocuous personal-care
items from carry-on luggage following previous security scares, only to
have the focus change because of the difficulty of enforcing tougher rules.

But Thursday's developments could dramatically increase the likelihood
that security will come first no matter what the logistical hurdles.

The technology for the kind of liquid or crystallized explosives
possibly involved in the thwarted terror plot is not new.

The threat first appeared in January 1995 in the Philippines, when
police stumbled on a suspected al-Qaeda plot to target U.S.-bound planes
with bombs based on nitroglycerine carried on board in containers for
contact lens solution.

At that time, aviation authorities announced plans to ban aerosols,
bottled gels and containers of liquids holding more than 30 milliliters,
about an ounce, on U.S. airliners departing Manila, but the idea was
never properly enforced.

Even then, baby formula was excluded from the ban -- even though, in
powdered form, it can provide a good vehicle for masking crystallized
explosives.

A decade later in Belfast, Northern Ireland, an Algerian man was
convicted of possessing 25 computer disks detailing how to bring down an
aircraft using, among other things, crystallized explosives hidden in a
container of talcum powder.

During that trial, FBI explosives expert Donald Sachtleben testified he
built and detonated three bombs based on the instructions found in the
Algerian's home.

Despite this decade-old knowledge, airport security officials around the
globe still permit passengers to carry a wide range of containers onto
planes without any visual inspection.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/ter....ap/index.html

[
Basically, you'll have to board the plane with the clothes on your back,
and whatever emergency medicines you have to take during the flight.
Nothing else.

Probably not even a hearing aid if you need one.

The not-so-friendly skies.

Soon stripped naked and chained to your seat will be "the only way to fly"!

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:01:22 GMT, "Steven L."
wrote:

Experts: Air security focuses on past threats
Laptops, cell phones and watches pose potential danger

(AP) -- The next terrorist attack could be carried out by airline
passengers who hide bomb ingredients in hair gel or baby milk bottles
and assemble their weapon in a locked restroom, security experts warn.

The announcement Thursday of a foiled plot to blow up jetliners flying
from London to the U.S. using explosives hidden in hand luggage could be
the opening of a new chapter in air travel, they said: hours-long
security checks, visual inspections of prescription drugs, bans on
everyday items.

Bomb experts and troubleshooters for airline security interviewed by The
Associated Press said mobile phones, computers, wrist watches or
anything else with a battery should be prohibited from flights.

Perhaps most chillingly, they warned that security staff at airports are
not looking for the right things -- and the change in tactics required
would likely overwhelm current security operations.

"That theater we see, of people taking off shoes, is not going to stop a
suicide bomber. The terrorists have already sniffed out the weak spots
and are adopting new tactics," said Irish security analyst Tom Clonan,
who noted that security measures usually are designed for the last
attack, not the next threat.

He said a terrorist group will almost certainly try to blow up a plane
with a bomb assembled on board unless security measures improve
fundamentally.

Anti-terrorist authorities in Britain and the United States declined to
describe the bomb design in the foiled plot -- whether it was primarily
liquid or, more likely, contained liquids in a more complex ingredient list.

Whatever the case, experts predicted passengers may soon have to change
their travel habits radically.

"Every businessman needs to have his laptop on a long-haul flight, and
now you won't be able to. Even a battery-operated watch would provide
enough power for a detonator. All you need is one shock," said Alan
Hatcher, managing director of the International School for Security and
Explosives Education in Salisbury, England.

Airlines have toyed with the idea of banning innocuous personal-care
items from carry-on luggage following previous security scares, only to
have the focus change because of the difficulty of enforcing tougher rules.

But Thursday's developments could dramatically increase the likelihood
that security will come first no matter what the logistical hurdles.

The technology for the kind of liquid or crystallized explosives
possibly involved in the thwarted terror plot is not new.

The threat first appeared in January 1995 in the Philippines, when
police stumbled on a suspected al-Qaeda plot to target U.S.-bound planes
with bombs based on nitroglycerine carried on board in containers for
contact lens solution.

At that time, aviation authorities announced plans to ban aerosols,
bottled gels and containers of liquids holding more than 30 milliliters,
about an ounce, on U.S. airliners departing Manila, but the idea was
never properly enforced.

Even then, baby formula was excluded from the ban -- even though, in
powdered form, it can provide a good vehicle for masking crystallized
explosives.

A decade later in Belfast, Northern Ireland, an Algerian man was
convicted of possessing 25 computer disks detailing how to bring down an
aircraft using, among other things, crystallized explosives hidden in a
container of talcum powder.

During that trial, FBI explosives expert Donald Sachtleben testified he
built and detonated three bombs based on the instructions found in the
Algerian's home.

Despite this decade-old knowledge, airport security officials around the
globe still permit passengers to carry a wide range of containers onto
planes without any visual inspection.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/ter....ap/index.html

[
Basically, you'll have to board the plane with the clothes on your back,
and whatever emergency medicines you have to take during the flight.
Nothing else.

Probably not even a hearing aid if you need one.

The not-so-friendly skies.
]


Still, it's safer than driving. LOL!

ZenIsWhen wrote:
"Steven L." wrote in message
ink.net...
Experts: Air security focuses on past threats
Laptops, cell phones and watches pose potential danger

(AP) -- The next terrorist attack could be carried out by airline
passengers who hide bomb ingredients in hair gel or baby milk bottles and
assemble their weapon in a locked restroom, security experts warn.

The announcement Thursday of a foiled plot to blow up jetliners flying
from London to the U.S. using explosives hidden in hand luggage could be
the opening of a new chapter in air travel, they said: hours-long security
checks, visual inspections of prescription drugs, bans on everyday items.

Bomb experts and troubleshooters for airline security interviewed by The
Associated Press said mobile phones, computers, wrist watches or anything
else with a battery should be prohibited from flights.

Perhaps most chillingly, they warned that security staff at airports are
not looking for the right things -- and the change in tactics required
would likely overwhelm current security operations.

"That theater we see, of people taking off shoes, is not going to stop a
suicide bomber. The terrorists have already sniffed out the weak spots and
are adopting new tactics," said Irish security analyst Tom Clonan, who
noted that security measures usually are designed for the last attack, not
the next threat.

He said a terrorist group will almost certainly try to blow up a plane
with a bomb assembled on board unless security measures improve
fundamentally.

Anti-terrorist authorities in Britain and the United States declined to
describe the bomb design in the foiled plot -- whether it was primarily
liquid or, more likely, contained liquids in a more complex ingredient
list.

Whatever the case, experts predicted passengers may soon have to change
their travel habits radically.

"Every businessman needs to have his laptop on a long-haul flight, and now
you won't be able to. Even a battery-operated watch would provide enough
power for a detonator. All you need is one shock," said Alan Hatcher,
managing director of the International School for Security and Explosives
Education in Salisbury, England.

Airlines have toyed with the idea of banning innocuous personal-care items
from carry-on luggage following previous security scares, only to have the
focus change because of the difficulty of enforcing tougher rules.

But Thursday's developments could dramatically increase the likelihood
that security will come first no matter what the logistical hurdles.

The technology for the kind of liquid or crystallized explosives possibly
involved in the thwarted terror plot is not new.

The threat first appeared in January 1995 in the Philippines, when police
stumbled on a suspected al-Qaeda plot to target U.S.-bound planes with
bombs based on nitroglycerine carried on board in containers for contact
lens solution.

At that time, aviation authorities announced plans to ban aerosols,
bottled gels and containers of liquids holding more than 30 milliliters,
about an ounce, on U.S. airliners departing Manila, but the idea was never
properly enforced.

Even then, baby formula was excluded from the ban -- even though, in
powdered form, it can provide a good vehicle for masking crystallized
explosives.

A decade later in Belfast, Northern Ireland, an Algerian man was convicted
of possessing 25 computer disks detailing how to bring down an aircraft
using, among other things, crystallized explosives hidden in a container
of talcum powder.

During that trial, FBI explosives expert Donald Sachtleben testified he
built and detonated three bombs based on the instructions found in the
Algerian's home.

Despite this decade-old knowledge, airport security officials around the
globe still permit passengers to carry a wide range of containers onto
planes without any visual inspection.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/ter....ap/index.html

[
Basically, you'll have to board the plane with the clothes on your back,
and whatever emergency medicines you have to take during the flight.
Nothing else.

Probably not even a hearing aid if you need one.

The not-so-friendly skies.
]


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

The end result seems to be having the passengers submit to a strip search,
the likes of which are used with prisoners entering prison.
and, as we all know, those strip searches have NEVER stopped the flow of
money, drugs, and weapons into the prisons - or control of the outside FROM
within those prisons.

That's because the prison is still on the ground, and visitors come and
go every day.

In this case, the "prison" is at 40,000 feet, and nobody can get in or
out. At altitude, you're more isolated than if you were imprisoned at
Leavenworth.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

wrote:
Steven L. wrote:
Experts: Air security focuses on past threats
Laptops, cell phones and watches pose potential danger


I figured out the solution to this and all other passenger-born attacks
on commercial aviation a long time ago:

Trusted flyer identification

Frequent airline travelers, or those who wish to avoid the more
draconian security measures can voluntarily submit themselves to an FBI
security check. Those who successfully pass the security check (and
nobody who's visited Pakistan will ever pass), are issued a biometric
identity card that can be used to expedite airline security checks.

In effect, that would result in racial profiling. Any Pakistani
nationals, Saudi nationals, Iranian nationals, etc., would never qualify
for the biometric identity card--since nationals from all those
countries have been linked to terrorism before.

And that would be opposed by the entire European Union as a racist policy.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L. wrote:

In effect, that would result in racial profiling. Any Pakistani
nationals, Saudi nationals, Iranian nationals, etc., would never qualify
for the biometric identity card--since nationals from all those
countries have been linked to terrorism before.

Since Americans have been linked to terrorism, would all Americans be
profiled?

ZenIsWhen wrote:
The end result seems to be having the passengers submit to a strip search,
the likes of which are used with prisoners entering prison.
and, as we all know, those strip searches have NEVER stopped the flow of
money, drugs, and weapons into the prisons - or control of the outside FROM
within those prisons.

That's because they are brought in by people who work for the prison.
If I were American, I could get a job at a US prison. Lousy pay in some
states, but reasonable benefits. They strip search prisoners going in,
they do some screening on visitors, but to the best of my knowledge,
they don't search employees. If they did, they certainly wouldn't be
doing by strip search. When that starts, that stuff won't get into
prisons either.

S.