The Contrast in Airport Security

[mcgillianaire]

Since August last year I have made three trips to India (via Bahrain, Dubai and Mumbai) and two trips to Oman (via Bahrain and Doha). I started each journey from four different airports (Heathrow Terminal's 3 & 4, Gatwick, Muscat and Chennai). In all those journeys the thing that stood out the most was the sharp contrast in security checks in each airport. It stood out for three main reasons.

Firstly, London's two biggest airports had been in a heightened state of alert since 9/11, 7/7 and particularly 10/8 (The August 2006 Transatlantic Aircraft Plot). Secondly, India had been victim to several terrorist attacks in recent years and were in the midst of an intelligence crisis involving a potential conspirator in the Mumbai Attacks of November 2008, who had allegedly made several trips to India, including one to Mumbai days before the attack. And thirdly, that the so-called police-state dictatorships of the Middle East had a more than passing interest in the current climate of the global terrorist threat and significantly, its implications on their security.

You'd think that most, if not all the airports I flew through would have had a fairly standardised (ie, stringent and thorough) system of security checks. Wrong. The gulf in security particularly that for hand-luggage, between the London airports and their Middle Eastern and Indian counterparts struck me as ironic. Here was a liberal democracy inconveniencing and invading the privacy of every passenger in the name of security, while in the authoritarian East there was a comparatively negligent and indifferent attitude to security.

In London, pat downs were performed on every single passenger, regardless of whether the metal checker detected anything or not. Rarely was one allowed to walk through the detector with their shoes and belt on. All liquids/sprays had to be in 100ml (or less) containers and scanned separately by the X-ray machine. Laptops and jacket-like clothings also had to be taken off/out and scanned separately by the X-ray machine. And following the alleged incident on Christmas Day, the authorities now want to rush in the body scanners. Civil liberty campaigners have challenged the government on whether the scans will contravene our child pornography laws.

In comparison, the security in the Middle East and India was almost non-existent. Few pat downs, hardly any of them as thorough as the ones in London. If the metal detector beeped and the security area was not teeming with passengers, the security guy would perform a token check with a handheld detector, but most of the time they seemed uninterested. None of the airports necessitated liquids/sprays to be held in transparent ziploc bags and not once did I see any container above 100ml disposed of. On every transit journey via Bahrain, Doha and Dubai, I was able to keep the 500ml+ bottle of water with me that I had picked up in either Mucat, Chennai or London Duty Free. And until Heathrow nabbed my 150ml deodorant on my latest trip last month, not even London's airports detected its illegitimate passage across the world and back in twelve separate journeys between August and November.

Unfortunately, I'm still not sure how strongly I feel about airport security. On the one hand I want air travel to be safe, especially as my family, friends and I frequently use it. On the other hand, I don't feel true to my liberal ideals by accepting these erosions into our personal spaces and civil liberties for the sake of protecting air travel. I'm not even sure the security in London's airports are as effective as they are made out to be necessary, especially when one considers that the more relaxed security regime in the Middle East and India has not resulted in any incident till date. Yet I get the distinct impression that the halcyon era of stress-free air travel has disappeared forever. Each new attack will erode the few existing liberties that remain and it could have a huge impact on global travel.

Comments

[loganberrybunny.livejournal.com]

I'm starting to wonder whether there might not be a case for developing a really huge network of high-speed rail lines across not only Europe but Asia and Africa too. Of course it wouldn't be as fast as flying, but the stress would be a lot less: Eurostar security arrangements seem to work okay.

As an example, London to New Delhi is a little over 4,000 miles. Given TGV-standard infrastructure, that journey could be done in 36 hours or so. A huge undertaking, yes, but compared to the security (and environmental) costs of air travel?

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Hmm. The idea is interesting but the logistics would be a nightmare, let alone the amount of political will that would be needed to execute it. I don't think it's something that will ever be realistically entertained at a governmental level. I mean see how long it's taken Britain to upgrade its Eurostar-network to the high-speed rail France have already had for a couple decades. An interesting idea nevertheless.

[kali-kali.livejournal.com]

My experience flying out of London Gatwick two weeks ago (so just five days before that Christmas Day incident) was odd - security didn't ask me to open my laptop (though it was in a separate bin for the scanner), they didn't ask me to take off my shoes (which, for the record, were four-inch high platform boots) and they practically ignored me as I went through the metal detector, which didn't beep, despite the piles of metal on my boots. No pat-downs, no nothing, even though I was also wearing bulky clothing (coat went through the scanner, but I was wearing four layers besides it).

You'd think they would have sent the boots through the x-ray scanner, because hell, boots like that would be the perfect place to try and smuggle stuff, but they didn't. I was confused about that too. I was expecting to have to take them off and have them go through the scanner, and have them poked at a bit more just to make sure they were solid. But nope. Meanwhile, people wearing canvas sneakers did have to have them put through the x-ray scanner. Go figure.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

I don't think they ask anyone to open their laptop anymore, unless they're really suspicious, but that's odd about the rest of your security check. Especially the shoes!

[lctrc-gtr-dde.livejournal.com]

I like the body scanners except if I were to implement them I would implement them with the passenger being able to choose from a selection of operators to inspect the scans, based on bios of each operator which could be downloaded onto a phone while in the airport. The operators would be of varying demographics. While in the scanner the passenger will also have the option of viewing a scan of their chosen operator.

Why? Because the only thing about the body scans that bothers me is that it creates a power differential. As Jerry Seinfeld remarked of his visits to the doctor "pants always beats no pants". That power differential must be eliminated or even skewed in favour of the passenger. Most passengers would probably opt for a randomly chosen anonymous operator, but I would want them to have the option.

But that doesn't eliminate the child pornography concern. I'm not aware of how the scanners work exactly, but I imagine it should be possible to automatically distort the scan image in such a way that what the operator sees isn't even in the shape of a human figure, but would still retain the necessary information. If this is possible I would prefer this option to the hassle and expense of the first.

[taxlady.livejournal.com]

I saw something on TV where the people looking at the scanner images couldn't see the person who was being scanned. I would worry about the radiation. But, apparently they don't work and wouldn't have caught the crotch bomb.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Yeh, I think they're saying the people viewing the images will be in some different location and not have any access to seeing the actual people scanned.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Interesting idea about the distorted image. I'm also concerned with the retention of the scanned images. As one report suggested, there would be quite a price for the image of a celebrity/politician on ebay and what's to stop a low-level security employee at Heathrow making some quick bucks.

[drunkendeadcat.livejournal.com]

yeah i know what you mean, there's pros and cons

[taxlady.livejournal.com]

It's mostly security theatre. The money would be better spent on more intelligence. The world never was and can't be 100% safe.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Absolutely true, totally agree.

[messicat.livejournal.com]

I find flying stressful enough as it is without all the security risks and checks. After security checks and scans in Sydney, we weren't even checked at Heathrow when we arrived, this was in 2004, about 6 months before the London bombings. A month later I got patted down on my way to France on the Eurostar by a giant security guard and it left me very shaken. Previous to that, I'd always been left alone. Then in 2008 on a trip to New Zealand, I had to unpack my luggage in front of everyone because one of the items in my bag was impervious to scans. They accused me of having liquid in a sealed container, it was a jewellery box containing a gift for the great aunt I was visiting. That was scary enough for me. I wish there were other options to flying.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Damn, that sucks!! Illustrates how shit traveling by air can be these days. Unfortunately if one wants to travel the world, besides the sea, there's only one way.