Security Developments after the Moscow Attacks

Today, a terrorist blew up a section of the international arrival area of one of Moscow's airports. Around 35 people died with scores more injured. The particular section of the arrival area where the explosion occurred was low on security guards but filled with travelers moving from place to place; also, the explosive device was hidden in a suitcase. This is a terrible tragedy, and we should make sure that something like this doesn't happen again.
Now, I don't know what threat detection machines were in place in the airport, but it evidently wasn't sufficient to stop the attack from happening. But do we really need more annoying (and legally questionable) gizmos and procedures at every point?
I think not, because no matter what new deterrents and checks are put in place, determined terrorists will try their utmost to get around them. So what we really need is better and more effective intelligence-gathering as well as security guards who will look for suspicious activity and behavior (as opposed to just suspicious objects (which, of course, should still be searched)). It seems like after every tragedy regarding national security comes a disproportionately stronger response that also comes with a (often unnecessary) tightening of people's civil liberties and civil rights. So for once, after a national security tragedy, can we stay sane?
Speaking of which, the USA PATRIOT Act, which was supposed to expire at the end of this year, lives another year, for senators and representatives have passed a bill that also happens to have a provision for extending that Act's length by a year. Why do we need that law again? All I can do is sigh and shake my head.

Peter Pan Buses: Good for People who Supposedly "Can't Grow Up"

I got back to college yesterday night. While I flew home, I came back on a Peter Pan bus. It was pretty nice because there weren't any inane weight restrictions and there certainly weren't any security checks of any kind. I just got on the bus and went on my way. Plus, the tickets were pretty reasonable (considering that it was pretty nice inside the bus): $25 per leg.
Until the TSA lets up on this ridiculous security theater (there, I said it), this is how I'll probably travel from now on for these distances (if someone doesn't drive me). (Of course, for longer distances still, road travel doesn't become such a good option.) Oh, and the quotes in the title? That's the sentiment of opinion writers who support the TSA rules; they think that we are all just acting childish in our opposition to the new rules. Is being violated childish? Plus, do you really expect that government officials won't misuse the scanners' images in some way soon?
But then again, the seats aren't especially comfortable on buses for long travel times (though they aren't any better on planes — the flight times themselves are just shorter). I think for distances close to that between my home and my college, the ideal solution would be high-speed rail. It'll be cheaper, quicker, and more comfortable than taking a bus, and it will probably have fewer hassles than flying. So when can we get that again?

Happy Thanksgiving! (and My TSA Experience)

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone! I hope you all are able to spend it with family, friends, and other loved ones; I've come home from college for the weekend.
On a related note, I did have to go through the new security procedures and I got the grope. That said, though I am still a bit wary of the whole thing, I'm happy to report that the security person was extremely polite, professional, hygienic (changing gloves before examining me), and didn't actually go directly over my nether regions, so not once did I feel truly uncomfortable in the process.
Once again, happy Thanksgiving to everyone!

Featured Comments: Week of 2010 November 7

There weren't too many comments this week, and they were spread out over different posts, so I'll repost most of them.

Ease: An Elementary Presentation Application

In response to Ease not working at all, an anonymous commenter said, "You should be at "Ease" to put it in the trash where it belongs...".

Airport Traveling Gripes

An anonymous reader had this to say: "This new full-body scan/procedure was really started by the failed Christmas attack of last year, not the cargo plane attempt. As you know, the attacker hid the explosives in his underwear, something that the new full-body scanner would have detected. The failed cargo plane attack sort of sped things up. I'm not saying I agree with the new full-body scans, but I just wanted to comment on your ": why should a plot to sneak explosives onto a cargo plane..." statement".

Thanks to all those who commented on this week's posts, and please do continue to do so. Again, if you like this material, please do subscribe!

Airport Traveling Gripes

In a week and a half, I will be heading back home by airplane for the Thanksgiving holidays. Thus, I will have to deal with all the truly ridiculous "security" measures at the airport that are being talked about today.
(Side note: there's a really nice xkcd comic about this as well, discussing how inconsistent it is to confiscate small liquid containers yet allow laptop batteries to go through.)
Anyway, there seems to be a real backlash (Derek Kravitz, Washington Post) against the new super-restrictive rules regarding full-body frisks and scanners; while before, when new restrictions were put in place, people would grudgingly accept them and move on, now most people think these particular rules cross the line of decent and sane security measures into the realm of indecency and violation of rights.
There are a couple of things I don't get about this (the new frisking measures, not the backlash). It seems like this was prompted by a plot to blow up a cargo plane. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this? OK, I'll say it: why should a plot to sneak explosives onto a cargo plane and detonate them remotely lead to restrictions allowing security officials to pat you down fully on passenger planes? There seems to be no cause-effect connection at all here; it just seems totally arbitrary.
Furthermore, the numerous quotes of passengers describing these new rules as the TSA treating passengers like criminals isn't hyperbole by any means; an analyst at a security consultancy in Oregon has described the new procedures as "the same frisking that police use with probable cause". This is more serious than "reasonable suspicion"; this means that the TSA has a strong feeling that every single traveler is probably a terrorist. Hence, I will also say this to the TSA: stop treating us like criminals! What ever happened to the presumption of innocence?
Finally, why is it OK for the government to be violating people like this? I remember learning in a set of videos required by my college over the summer that "unless there's consent, it's assault". Does that mean they're technically sexually assaulting us all? Or are they going to pull the excuse of "by flying, you are automatically consenting to all of our procedures"?

Political Police in Eastern Europe

The title, of course, doesn't really say anything new, until one reads this (BBC News).
It seems like Slovakian police planted explosives in an innocent traveler's bags on purpose; he got arrested (but was later released) upon landing in Ireland.
...huh?
What puzzles me most is why the police would do something like that. There is a sentence somewhere in the article about the Slovakian police wanting to test airport security, but even this is not clear at all in the rest of the article.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I...guess it's a fine thing to test airport security by trying to bring in these explosives, but wouldn't it be better for those same policepeople to go in themselves undercover with the explosives?
Why unnecessarily hassle (in the most extreme sense of the word) an innocent passenger? They never signed up to be a guinea pig to security testing.
Color me suspicious. I figure ulterior motives are at work (e.g. the Slovakian government has some sort of grudge against this guy and wants to arrest him any way possible).