Passenger revolt

British airline passengers in Malaga refused to board an airplane, and those onboard left the plane after two young men of "Asian" (Pakistani or Arabic) appearance raised suspicions.

My first reaction when reading the report was to shake my head at how silly and panicky - and racist - people could be. Until I got to the part about the men's behaviour.

Passengers noticed that, despite the heat, the pair were wearing leather jackets and thick jumpers (sweaters) and were regularly checking their watches.

At that point, it started sounding considerably more reasonable. And then it raised the inevitable question: Why was it the passengers who noticed and not airline personnel? Isn't there some mechanism in place by which boarding personnel can discreetly contact security agents? If not, there should be.

As it turns out, the two young men were cooperative, nothing was found either on them or on the plane and everybody got home safely in the end. So all indications are that the passengers' fears were unjustified.

However, it's obvious that they didn't trust the security measures already in place. There's been a great deal of discussion on the merits and dangers of racial profiling, with many people pointing out that behavioural profiling is more effective. Perhaps if passengers knew that such measures were in place, they would be less inclined to suspect everyone of Middle Eastern appearance, knowing that security personnel had already checked out anyone behaving oddly. This would work to the benefit of young Middle Eastern men as much as anybody, because they would be much less likely to be subjected to this kind of public suspicion. Behavioural profiling would also be much less controversial.

Hat tip to the Glittering Eye.


Technorati tags: Airline security

It's going to be a long, dry flight

It wasn't too long ago that airlines stopped serving up "free" drinks and food on most flights in response to the overwhelming demand for lower air fares. Travellers were encouraged to pack their own lunches and BYOB (bring your own bottle). Well, no more. Not since Scotland Yard busted a terrorist cell that intended to blow up planes over the Atlantic using ingredients smuggled onto the planes in beverage bottles.

Police believe that the terrorists planned to evade security measures by disguising explosive materials as mineral water, fizzy drinks and sugar.

Of course, the only response to this is banning all carry-on drinks on planes, right?

Well, the terrorists were going to detonate their ingredients with camera flashes, and nobody is banning those. For several years now, we've had to be prepared to prove to security personnel that our electronic devices worked as advertised, even taking a picture if necessary, to demonstrate that there were no plastic explosives stuffed in the battery compartment. So why not apply the same procedure to drinks? Everybody with carry-on drinks should be required to take a good, long swig under the watchful eyes of security screeners. Wannabe terrorists would think twice about carrying on nitroglycerin and peroxide and the rest of us could slake our thirst in peace.

The possible flaw in my reasoning is that nitroglycerin and peroxide might not actually taste that bad. For some strange reason, I've never tried to find out. Maybe they aren't that foul and a wannabe martyr could take a sip with a straight face. I presume that suicide bombers would hardly be concerned about long-term health implications.

Failing the drink-it-yourself test, airlines would do well to reinstate the drinks included policy. Somehow, paying three dollars more for your ticket is easier to stomach than shelling out the same three dollars for a bottle of water.

Note to airline and security executives: my consultancy fees are very reasonable. Have your people contact mine.

.
.
.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Previous post on the topic of Terrorism

Technorati tags: Terrorism, Airline security