Support NeoGAF

[TAJ]

Are we ignoring the fact that this baby set off a metal detector alarm and then wasn't checked?

Not fact.
Actually, the baby + mother combination set it off. The story doesn't even mention if the baby set it off when they went back. It could have been something as simple as 'button on mom's jeans + diaper pin'.

 

[Newduck]

The ridiculous thing about a lot of this is that even the screenings are not that secure, i've got through security without separating liquids, lighters , and sometimes razors. Almost always by accident.

Not every country on the planet has the same security rules either, whether shoes are removed, belts, laptops, whether it's a full body scan or whatever.

While screening and security is obviously needed, the only thing the TSA's process secure's is their yearly funding.

I wonder the yearly costs to the airports, and the hours spent by people/professionals through airline security.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Not fact.
Actually, the baby + mother combination set it off. The story doesn't even mention if the baby set it off when they went back. It could have been something as simple as 'button on mom's jeans + diaper pin'.

Yes, but the fact that both set off the alarm, you need to check both, not just one. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

 

[TAJ]

Yes, but the fact that both set off the alarm, you need to check both, not just one. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

In the moment, I'd check them both. What actually happened boggles the mind, though.

 

[thetechkid]

But the second you say we're not going to screen certain people, you don't think anyone who is trying to do harm won't try to use that hole in order to accomplish their goal??

Then screen no one and hand everyone a shotgun as they take a seat. Another option is to go with my idea of screening drivers and people who use the side walk, everyone is set on terrorists using on planes so we have a giant hole in our security. We should just check everyone as they enter and leave every building, send them through the screening machines as they leave their house, and install cameras everywhere so that we have all the security holes covered and the terrorists won't any holes to exploit. OR this crazy, be smart about it and not waste resources, time, and money on stupid screenings of everyone and be smart about who you check.

 

[Marty Chinn]

In the moment, I'd check them both. Later? lol

The moment you let the baby through without being checked, it's valid to have to rescreen everyone. Because once they have passed through, who knows what they could have done with whatever if they were carrying something dangerous. They could have passed it off to someone else, hidden it or so forth. So simply getting them back and rescreening them again isn't good enough. They need to rescreen everyone and search the terminal. I see nothing wrong with what happened. There was a security breach, and they need to make sure that it was nothing serious.

Then screen no one and hand everyone a shotgun as they take a seat. Another option is to go with my idea of screening drivers and people who use the side walk, everyone is set on terrorists using on planes so we have a giant hole in our security. We should just check everyone as they enter and leave every building, send them through the screening machines as they leave their house, and install cameras everywhere so that we have all the security holes covered and the terrorists won't any holes to exploit. OR this crazy, be smart about it and not waste resources, time, and money on stupid screenings of everyone and be smart about who you check.

Not every building is weighted equally. You screen based on potential harm. You can bet some buildings have higher security than others and there are places that screen to be secure. It's about high value targeting and they do limit screening like you said to be more efficient. The thing is a plane can become a giant weapon so that's why we screen people boarding them. We shouldn't need to look any further than 9/11 to see this. We have a prime example of it happening. I'm not one to live in fear or have super paranoia about checking everything, but I have no issue with a basic screening of everyone entering the gate of an airport. I believe anyone and everyone can be checked rather than being so narrow focused on a specific group of people. I don't think that's asking for much. We've been doing it for awhile now and I hardly feel my rights are being violated for doing a simple x-ray of baggage and going through a metal detector with an id check.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

The moment you let the baby through without being checked, it's valid to have to rescreen everyone. Because once they have passed through, who knows what they could have done with whatever if they were carrying something dangerous. They could have passed it off to someone else, hidden it or so forth. So simply getting them back and rescreening them again isn't good enough. They need to rescreen everyone and search the terminal. I see nothing wrong with what happened. There was a security breach, and they need to make sure that it was nothing serious.

unfortunately, I have to agree.

 

[TAJ]

Then screen no one and hand everyone a shotgun as they take a seat. Another option is to go with my idea of screening drivers and people who use the side walk, everyone is set on terrorists using on planes so we have a giant hole in our security.

My boss made me wait right outside of a mosque for him in a company cargo van like the day after Anders Breivik's attacks. Yeah, a white guy parked in front of a mosque in a van... That's going to go over well.

 

[YoungHav]

Lol at the thread title

 

[thetechkid]

Not every building is weighted equally. You screen based on potential harm. You can bet some buildings have higher security than others and there are places that screen to be secure. It's about high value targeting and they do limit screening like you said to be more efficient.

I'm trying to make the point of checking everything and everyone outrageous, I'm not saying we should seriously do that because that is stupid and a waste like I've said before. Also if I replace buildings with people, its what I've already said which you argued against.

The thing is a plane can become a giant weapon so that's why we screen people boarding them. We shouldn't need to look any further than 9/11 to see this. We have a prime example of it happening.

Why? One event decides how you do everything forever? Planes aren't the only thing that can cause massive damage, but because of 9/11 their somehow the focus of all this security. There have been other forms of terrorist attacks before and they all didn't require planes.

I'm not one to live in fear or have super paranoia about checking everything, but I have no issue with a basic screening of everyone entering the gate of an airport. I believe anyone and everyone can be checked rather than being so narrow focused on a specific group of people. I don't think that's asking for much. We've been doing it for awhile now and I hardly feel my rights are being violated for doing a simple x-ray of baggage and going through a metal detector with an id check.

I never said focus on a specific group, I said be smart about who you search. I could say search all middle eastern people (based on the crazy theory that they are all terrorists, not because I think they are) but that wouldn't mean that covered all terrorists. I'm not talking about the rights thing, thats been talked about a lot before. I'm just looking at it from the point of view that its a wasteful system the way it is now and could be more effective and not require so much extra work.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

TSA is just stupid. I'd honestly rather just run more risks without having them, than this Orwellian bullshit.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I'm trying to make the point of checking everything and everyone outrageous, I'm not saying we should seriously do that because that is stupid and a waste like I've said before. Also if I replace buildings with people, its what I've already said which you argued against.

And what I'm saying is we don't check everything either. We check things based on location and event and potential threat.

Why? One event decides how you do everything forever? Planes aren't the only thing that can cause massive damage, but because of 9/11 their somehow the focus of all this security. There have been other forms of terrorist attacks before and they all didn't require planes.

No, but it's proof of what kind of a threat it can be if we take it too lightly which in some ways we did before 9/11. Planes aren't the only things that tightened up on security after 9/11 happened so it's not like we just focused on that. We tightened down all over the place. You're kidding yourself if you think that's the only thing we heightened security on.

I never said focus on a specific group, I said be smart about who you search. I could say search all middle eastern people (based on the crazy theory that they are all terrorists, not because I think they are) but that wouldn't mean that covered all terrorists. I'm not talking about the rights thing, thats been talked about a lot before. I'm just looking at it from the point of view that its a wasteful system the way it is now and could be more effective and not require so much extra work.

I think having everyone go through a metal detector with an ID and screened baggage is something we should at least be doing. Truely random spot checks for additional checking isn't something I'm against either. I don't see how having a bare minimum screening of everyone who passes through the gate is that big of a deal. Are you saying some people shouldn't have to go trough a metal detector? Some people shouldn't have their IDs checked? What are you saying we should not do anymore at the airport?

 

[RiccochetJ]

something something slippery slope something something paranoia

Received a lot of responses from my post but I'm going to just start with the first one.

If someone really want's to blow up a plane, they will. We can't stop that from happening. No one can. I would like to make it difficult though.

Hell, I don't know the answer. I can still say with absolute certainty that I want even infants to be properly scanned.

 

[grap3fruitman]

 

[Kite]

Would you guys feel better if the TSA routinely allowed infants and small children to pass through unscanned?

 

["God's Beard!"]

Would you guys feel better if the TSA routinely allowed infants and small children to pass through unscanned?

Yes.

 

[Sophia]

Would you guys feel better if the TSA routinely allowed infants and small children to pass through unscanned?

I would feel better if they could make decent judgement calls regarding extremely low-risk groups.

 

[jediyoshi]

Do people honestly think that there aren't people out there who would use infants as bombs?

Wake the fuck up.

People also use forums for terrorist activities.

Shut down GAF nao.

 

[thetechkid]

And what I'm saying is we don't check everything either. We check things based on location and event and potential threat.

It doesn't sound like that from what you said before. You've said that if we don't check everyone then the bad guys will use that and use people who aren't being sought out to carry out their stuff:

But the second you say we're not going to screen certain people, you don't think anyone who is trying to do harm won't try to use that hole in order to accomplish their goal?

No, but it's proof of what kind of a threat it can be if we take it too lightly which in some ways we did before 9/11. Planes aren't the only things that tightened up on security after 9/11 happened so it's not like we just focused on that. We tightened down all over the place. You're kidding yourself if you think that's the only thing we heightened security on.

Again I never said it was the only thing that got heightened security, I said one thing and you keep talking as if I ONLY mean that everything only applies to one thing.

I think having everyone go through a metal detector with an ID and screened baggage is something we should at least be doing. Truely random spot checks for additional checking isn't something I'm against either. I don't see how having a bare minimum screening of everyone who passes through the gate is that big of a deal. Are you saying some people shouldn't have to go trough a metal detector? Some people shouldn't have their IDs checked? What are you saying we should not do anymore at the airport?

I don't have a problem with an ID check that isn't really that bad, the watchlist thats been used seems like a terribad idea and just inconveniences people because of similar names. Like with the story in the OP being scared that a baby is somehow carrying bombs in the diaper(or whatever the TSA thinks baby terrorists do) is excessive. Be a little rational about the searches and don't just go through everyone because "the terrorists will use anyone and any tactic to succeed."

 

[XMonkey]

Something something security theater.

 

[Marty Chinn]

It doesn't sound like that from what you said before. You've said that if we don't check everyone then the bad guys will use that and use people who aren't being sought out to carry out their stuff:

A basic check at the airport? Yes, I think for something as volatile and deadly as taking a large plane and crashing it, having a basic screening for everyone entering the area should be needed and not considered a big deal. Hijackings happen and the most notable ones happened just 11 years ago with a few attempts since then. It's silly to suggest that we should go easy there.

I don't have a problem with an ID check that isn't really that bad, the watchlist thats been used seems like a terribad idea and just inconveniences people because of similar names. Like with the story in the OP being scared that a baby is somehow carrying bombs in the diaper(or whatever the TSA thinks baby terrorists do) is excessive. Be a little rational about the searches and don't just go through everyone because "the terrorists will use anyone and any tactic to succeed."

So you object a baby going through a metal detector and if it gets set off that they should be checked? Why should we allow that to pass? I think it's perfectly rational that if a basic screening sets off an alarm with a baby, you check the baby. I'm not asking for all babies to be cavity searched, but what happened here is completely 100% reasonable.

 

[masud]

Only problem I see is that they let them go in the first place. Shutting down the terminal was the right call.

 

[jaxword]

Reminder that the current security screenings would not have stopped 9/11.

 

[Venfayth]

The thing is, walking through a scanner isn't a big deal. Making a kid go through a scanner isn't causing him any grief, the worst part about this whole thing is the delay it causes, which is relatively minor in the first place.

On one hand, the baby probably wasn't be used to hide any kind of weapon or bomb or whatever. On the other hand, it presents a security risk to never scan children or babies, and these kinds rules are rules for a reason, they should be followed through EVERY time.

All in all: I have no problem with the way this was handled. I don't really see anything "newsworthy" about it, either.

 

[Kite]

I would feel better if they could make decent judgement calls regarding extremely low-risk groups.

That is a good soundbite, but how would that work in the, you know, real world? Only scan the a-rab-looking dark skinned ones?

"Low-risk group", for real? I'm sure even the TSA will admit that the lil drool machines themselves aren't the ones trying to blow up the planes but the adults carrying them on board. So I dunno about the "low-risk" label lol

 

[Marty Chinn]

Reminder that the current security screenings would not have stopped 9/11.

The current security screenings could have stopped 9/11 because box cutters would not have been allowed on board. Maybe they would have found a different method, but the current rules have changed to minimize the potential danger of bring aboard objects to be used as weapons. Is it 100% full proof? No, but it is better than what we had on 9/11.

That is a good soundbite, but how would that work in the, you know, real world? Only scan the a-rab-looking dark skinned ones?

"Low-risk group", for real? I'm sure even the TSA will admit that the lil drool machines themselves aren't the ones trying to blow up the planes but the adults carrying them on board. So I dunno about the "low-risk" label lol

It kinda reminds me of people who want cops to shoot armed people in their arms to disarm the weapon from them instead of shooting with deadly force.

 

[TAJ]

The current security screenings could have stopped 9/11 because box cutters would not have been allowed on board.

I really doubt that they needed them.

 

[BigDug13]

They are most likely not restricted by the Constitutional obligations that the U.S. has.

That's kind of a funny statement. Other countries are not restricted by obligations to a document that was created to spell out the freedoms that Americans are supposed to enjoy.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I really doubt that they needed them.

You're right, harsh language would have kept everyone at bay.

 

[jaxword]

The current security screenings could have stopped 9/11 because box cutters would not have been allowed on board. Maybe they would have found a different method, but the current rules have changed to minimize the potential danger of bring aboard objects to be used as weapons. Is it 100% full proof? No, but it is better than what we had on 9/11.

Except that pre 9/11 security methods prohibited box cutters too. The hijackers simply found a way around the rules.

There's better ways to stop terrorism than a security theatre.

 

[Sophia]

That is a good soundbite, but how would that work in the, you know, real world? Only scan the a-rab-looking dark skinned ones?

"Low-risk group", for real? I'm sure even the TSA will admit that the lil drool machines themselves aren't the ones trying to blow up the planes but the adults carrying them on board. So I dunno about the "low-risk" label lol

Will admit? Try did admit.

It kinda reminds me of people who want cops to shoot armed people in their arms to disarm the weapon from them instead of shooting with deadly force.

Apples and oranges. You shoot with deadly force partially because someone is a direct threat to, but also because the odds of you missing their arm are extremely high. A lone baby by a family that raises no suspicions at all is a little bit different.

 

[SteveWD40]

Also, once you announce that a certain group won't be searched, they will be used to carry bombs. It's not like a terrorist is going to say "oh man, we'd have to kill a child, old lady, etc. Jihad canceled!"

Pretty much nailed the point. I watch those border patrol shows from time to time in the UK, my GF is always shocked when the old lady has a suitcase full of crack, "but she doesn't look like a drug dealer!", yes dear, that's why she was chosen as a mule.

 

[Tenck]

lol... /sigh
I'm almost glad that I haven't been on a flight since 9/11.
Everyone got fuckin' crazy.

I've been on numerous flights and haven't had any bad encounters. I guess some people just get lucky while other unfortunately suffer through this.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Apples and oranges. You shoot with deadly force partially because someone is a direct threat to, but also because the odds of you missing their arm are extremely high. A lone baby by a family that raises no suspicions at all is a little bit different.

You're missing the point. The point is you go for the broad guarantee rather than the narrow precision because in both scenarios, what happens if you miss? In both examples, it's an example of being more safe than sorry.

 

[Sophia]

You're missing the point. The point is you go for the broad guarantee rather than the narrow precision because in both scenarios, what happens if you miss? In both examples, it's an example of being more safe than sorry.

Except the situation in the original article isn't really "narrow precision", a fact that was admitted by two different people from the TSA. It was an extremely low risk situation and they decided to inconvenience everyone involved.

I'm saying don't scan the babies (as long as they're not removed from the presence of their parents or guardians), I'm saying shutting down the entire terminal is making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Except the situation in the original article isn't really "narrow precision", a fact that was admitted by two different people from the TSA. It was an extremely low risk situation and they decided to inconvenience everyone involved.

I'm saying don't scan the babies (as long as they're not removed from the presence of their parents or guardians), I'm saying shutting down the entire terminal is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Shutting down the terminal after the baby and mother set off the metal detector but the baby wasn't searched is overreacting? It's the right damn thing to do.

 

[Sophia]

Shutting down the terminal after the baby and mother set off the metal detector but the baby wasn't searched is overreacting? It's the fucking right thing to do.

Of course it's overreacting. Even the TSA admitted it was a low-risk situation. It was Port Authority that went crazy and shut everything down.

You would have a point if was a young adult male or something that got through, but it's not. It was a baby child that made it through by mistake. Who's parents were properly screened, I might add. I'll take my chances with those odds versus having the entire plane be inconvenienced over your "righteousness"

 

[Marty Chinn]

Of course it's overreacting. Even the TSA admitted it was a low-risk situation. It was Port Authority that went crazy and shut everything down.

You would have a point if was a young adult male or something that got through, but it's not. It was baby child that made it through by mistake. I'll take my chances with those odds versus having the entire plane be inconvenienced over your "righteousness"

The fact that the TSA is making the judgement of low risk and not wanting to do is proof enough that the TSA shouldn't be making judgement calls on a case by case basis like some of you want. It's not overreacting; it's a security breach. You don't know what triggered the metal detector. Why even bother scanning babies if you're not going to follow through? How many heads would roll if it turned out to be something and people found out that they knew about it and shrugged it off?

 

[antonz]

People have become Sheeple is the problem.

We refuse to use tools that pretty much the entire civilized world uses and claim some sense of superiority cause of it and instead decide to punish everyone.

We have toddlers being patted down and felt up by these government goons all for the facade of fairness and security.

 

[Sophia]

The fact that the TSA is making the judgement of low risk and not wanting to do is proof enough that the TSA shouldn't be making judgement calls on a case by case basis like some of you want. It's not overreacting; it's a security breach. You don't know what triggered the metal detector. Why even bother scanning babies if you're not going to follow through? How many heads would roll if it turned out to be something and people found out that they knew about it and shrugged it off?

You're asking questions to justify your own paranoia and/or righteousness. Of which neither of us can answer with a straight face without someone calling "BULLSHIT!" on us.

The article does not give any details about the parents. We can't determine just how much of a risk they were. There will always be a security breach somewhere, it's the nature of security. Going to the extreme and shutting down the entire terminal is an inconvenience and an annoyance to the other passengers.

George Carlin put it best; Take a fucking chance, will ya?

People have become Sheeple is the problem.

We refuse to use tools that pretty much the entire civilized world uses and claim some sense of superiority cause of it and instead decide to punish everyone.

We have toddlers being patted down and felt up by these government goons all for the facade of fairness and security.

Absolutely nobody under the age of three should be patted down. And nobody under the age of 13 should ever be removed from their parent or legal guardian. Period. That's something that's not up for debate.

 

[Marty Chinn]

You're asking questions to justify your own paranoia and/or righteousness. Of which neither of us can answer with a straight face without someone calling "BULLSHIT!" on us.

The article does not give any details about the parents. We can't determine just how much of a risk they were. There will always be a security breach somewhere, it's the nature of security. Going to the extreme and shutting down the entire terminal is an inconvenience and an annoyance to the other passengers.

George Carlin put it best; Take a fucking chance, will ya?

THEY SET OFF AN ALARM!

Again, I'm not advocating pat downs or cavity searches of babies. I'm talking about following through off an alarm being set off. It's the right thing to do not only for safety but with the rules and regulations that have been established. It's wreckless and careless to not follow through on the alarm being set off. It has nothing to do with paranoia being all mighty.

It's about following protocol and procedure when an alarm is triggered. They messed up by letting the baby through but the actions following were the correct ones to take after the incident.

I'm by no means a paranoid person. Heck the screenings are pretty lax to begin with and if you really put effort into it, you could probably get something by. Heck people try to prove it all the time and get arrested for it after the fact. I'm not saying what we have now is bulletproof but damn if an alarm is triggered, I at least want them to follow through with procedure.

 

[Sophia]

THEY SET OFF AN ALARM!

Again, I'm not advocating pat downs or cavity searches of babies. I'm talking about following through off an alarm being set off. It's the right thing to do not only for safety but with the rules and regulations that have been established. It's wreckless and careless to not follow through on the alarm being set off. It has nothing to do with paranoia being all mighty.

It's about following protocol and procedure when an alarm is triggered. They messed up by letting the baby through but the actions following were the correct ones to take after the incident.

I'm by no means a paranoid person. Heck the screenings are pretty lax to begin with and if you really put effort into it, you could probably get something by. Heck people try to prove it all the time and get arrested for it after the fact. I'm not saying what we have now is bulletproof but damn if an alarm is triggered, I at least want them to follow through with procedure.

It's all about judgement calls. Again, the article doesn't give us any info regarding the parents, or what info the TSA had on hand when they realized the child had gone through, but it was enough to call it a low risk situation.

On a related (and potentially hypocritical, but whatever) musing, the TSA is incompetent anyhow. "Following protocol" doesn't mean much to them given how many of their employees have been charged with sexual assault and/or drug related incidents.

And you sound paranoid. =P

 

[EYEL1NER]

I thought the a lot of GAF is against security theater bullshit.
Maybe they are all asleep still...

 

[Sophia]

I thought the a lot of GAF is against security theater bullshit.
Maybe they are all asleep still...

Dunno about the rest of GAF, but as a woman and given all the cases of TSA sexual harassment I'm 100% against it. I'll risk it against a terrorist.

 

[EYEL1NER]

Dunno about the rest of GAF, but as a woman and given all the cases of TSA sexual harassment I'm 100% against it. I'll risk it against a terrorist.

It's weird seeing people defend the TSA.
But I shouldn't be surprised, not after seeing people defend showing pornographic images to small children earlier.

 

[Shotgun Kiss]

I'm surprised at just how many people here are arguing "It's just a baby; who cares?". It's not difficult or unfeasible for an adult to use a baby to sneak something through undetected. God knows I've seen plenty of parents use their infant children to assist them in shoplifting (be it hiding items underneath them, or teaching their children to grab things from their stroller).

You either screen absolutely everybody, or nobody at all. Anything in between is discrimination and a security risk.

 

[Dead Man]

???

 

[SmokyDave]

???

!!!

 

[Imm0rt4l]

!!!

?!?

 

[RBH]

I'm surprised at just how many people here are arguing "It's just a baby; who cares?". It's not difficult or unfeasible for an adult to use a baby to sneak something through undetected. God knows I've seen plenty of parents use their infant children to assist them in shoplifting (be it hiding items underneath them, or teaching their children to grab things from their stroller).

You either screen absolutely everybody, or nobody at all. Anything in between is discrimination and a security risk.

What a random bump.