Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Issues for Traveling Photogaphers  (Read 19016 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6973


WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2006, 01:38:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Operationally impossible on a large scale. No airline or airport authority would tolerate the cost and delay this would cause. The solution, I believe, really needs to be to ensure that the pre-screening of electronic devices be efficient and effective and passengers be allowed to continue carrying them on board.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
DaveLon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2006, 02:20:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is not Air Canada that ultimately allows these things - it is the security authorities. Carriers and passengers are obligated to respect security arrangements decided by public authorities. Carriers may implement their own regulations of course, but they cannot be less stringent than regulations decided by the authorities in charge of security. The day our authorities do like the British are now doing it will be game-over for carry-on here too. Let us hope it doesn't happen.

But of course what's happening in London affects here too. If you are flying to or through the UK, it would be awakward to start here with a carry-on approach when it will be promptly disallowed at the other end.  Based on what I'm seeing broadcast by the BBC, and given the statement from British Airport Authority (BAA - the managers of UK airports) that the present regulations are "unsustainable", I've made-up my mind to avoid the UK for any travel until the dust settles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sorry I wasn't clear. While Air Canada is allowing stuff as I said the official statement came from The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

The email they sent me.

--------------

Dear Sir,
 
Thank you for your correspondence of August 12, 2006 regarding the transport of electronic items aboard aircraft.
 
The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) plays an integral role in the Government of Canada’s air security initiative.  Our mission is to protect the public by securing critical elements of the air transportation system, including the screening of passengers and their belongings. Our mandate is to deliver a consistent, effective and highly professional service that is set at or above the standards established by federal regulations.  
 
Please note that electronic devices are permitted in carry-on baggage.
 
We thank you, once again, for your e-mail.
 
CATSA Client Relations

----------------
Logged
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 493


WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 14, 2006, 08:08:27 AM »
ReplyReply

In a recent entry on his site, Ken Rockwell has an novel suggestion on how to avoid unnecessary airline delays. He suggests that people can get their pilots' licenses and (or) buy their own airplanes.

What do say, folks, wanna split a Leer Jet? Maybe its use could be handled in a manner similar to time-share condos.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
jimhuber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 14, 2006, 10:47:45 AM »
ReplyReply

" ...just as UPS and Fed Ex manage to deliver gear bought from B&H damage-free the world over."

FedEx, yes. All of my photo gear orders are delivered by FedEx, and so far none have been damaged.

UPS, well... there's a reason I call them United Parcel Squashers and will not ship anything with them. They've damaged far too many of my orders. How can a book packed in inflatable plastic pillows get pulverized?
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 14, 2006, 08:28:02 PM »
ReplyReply

There is one major problem with the scheme of separate planes for luggage:

It's only viable on the major routes.

Those major routes are fewer than you might think; they would need so much traffic that you could deal with the increased expense of launching another plane, without losing too much business.

Also, that solution would not really solve the problem for photographers.  
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8901


« Reply #45 on: August 14, 2006, 09:03:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is one major problem with the scheme of separate planes for luggage:

It's only viable on the major routes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73378\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 

The major routes are the major risk. Terrorists, like everyone else, want the biggest bang for their buck. (Unfortunate metaphor, I know.)

Mixing people with baggage is like mixing pedestrians with motor cars on our streets. It's not ideal regarding safety.

We should be moving towards a situation of planes that specialise in carrying passengers and planes that specialise in carrying baggage. Let never the twain meet.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6973


WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 14, 2006, 10:19:22 PM »
ReplyReply

After thinking about this problem long and hard and seen the discussion here, I am coming to the conclusion that the only real solution for passengers with electronics is to let us continue to carry them on board, but with the most efficient and intelligent security that technology and its implementation can provide to make sure there is no hanky-panky embedded in them. I don't think what is going on now is a solution, and I think that BAA and the airlines operating out of UK airports are rapidly coming to the same conclusion.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8901


« Reply #47 on: August 14, 2006, 11:43:12 PM »
ReplyReply

You are probably right, Mark, in respect of what's going to happen. As a species we seem to be very reluctant to take the economic risk of doing more than is necessary, but this might very well get us into trouble. The greenhouse effect is a good analogy. We know for sure that reduction of greehouse emissions will reduce the risk of calamity. Unfortunately, we don't know for sure what the risks actually are. Maybe we'll get by okay just as we're doing if most of the scientists have got it wrong and the changes that are taking place have another more profound cause which dwarfs our contribution.

On the other hand, if we take the recommended measures and assume the worst, there'll be no catastrophe if we later find out that such measures were unnecessary.
Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 15, 2006, 01:26:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mixing people with baggage is like mixing pedestrians with motor cars on our streets. It's not ideal regarding safety.

We should be moving towards a situation of planes that specialise in carrying passengers and planes that specialise in carrying baggage. Let never the twain meet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm afraid that the problem is not the baggage - it's the people. Filling up a plane with baggage is safe, but add people and you add risk. 9/11 would have happenden even if no carry on baggage was allowed, a determind human will find a way, there are enough loose items alredy aboard a plane that can be used.

Humans are the most dangerous predator on this planet, and removing the baggage is not going to change security that much.  
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8901


« Reply #49 on: August 15, 2006, 03:25:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Humans are the most dangerous predator on this planet, and removing the baggage is not going to change security that much. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73392\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a bit like saying, 'No need to lock your house. If a burglar is determined to break in, he'll get in anyway.' People without baggage are easier to screen more thoroughly.
Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 15, 2006, 05:27:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's a bit like saying, 'No need to lock your house. If a burglar is determined to break in, he'll get in anyway.' People without baggage are easier to screen more thoroughly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, it's more like saying that closing your attic window is not improving your security much if your front door is wide open.      

The point is that a determind terrorist don't need carry on baggage to get the "job" done. If it was that simple to get real security somebody would probably have thought about it decades ago, terrorist and planes are not exactly a new problem that cropped up in this century.  
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8901


« Reply #51 on: August 15, 2006, 06:44:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The point is that a determind terrorist don't need carry on baggage to get the "job" done. If it was that simple to get real security somebody would probably have thought about it decades ago, terrorist and planes are not exactly a new problem that cropped up in this century. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not sure what you are getting at. You mean a group of determined terrorists could take over a plane with their bare fists and a few Karate chops, James Bond style?  
Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 15, 2006, 07:12:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not sure what you are getting at. You mean a group of determined terrorists could take over a plane with their bare fists and a few Karate chops, James Bond style? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Don't have to be James Bond style. Just break off a few arm rests on the chairs and they would have nice clubs. Most people would then sit in place without interfering.  

I don't belive there is any great security advantage between good screening of carry on luggage, and no carry on luggage allowed.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8901


« Reply #53 on: August 15, 2006, 08:15:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't belive there is any great security advantage between good screening of carry on luggage, and no carry on luggage allowed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But there would have been with this latest incident, if I've understood the situation. A harmless bottle of drink (actually a liquid explosive) and a small camera with flash (actually the detonator when connected). The plot was not foiled by clever screening at the airport but by undercover espionage. Without that intelligence information, the terrorists might well have boarded the planes. Is that not the case?
Logged
collum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 15, 2006, 08:17:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Don't have to be James Bond style. Just break off a few arm rests on the chairs and they would have nice clubs. Most people would then sit in place without interfering.   

I don't belive there is any great security advantage between good screening of carry on luggage, and no carry on luggage allowed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

what's to stop someone from having the explosives surgically implanted? knee joint? abdominal cavity?
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8901


« Reply #55 on: August 15, 2006, 08:22:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
what's to stop someone from having the explosives surgically implanted? knee joint? abdominal cavity?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


They'd be very ill. I don't think a knee joint would hold enough explosive to blow up a plane.
Logged
collum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


WWW
« Reply #56 on: August 15, 2006, 08:46:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
They'd be very ill. I don't think a knee joint would hold enough explosive to blow up a plane.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

would encasing the material in something inert/protective make it easier? then use something the size of a hip joint (metal) as a detonator. i'm sure there are doctors who would both be qualified as well as perform the operation
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6873


« Reply #57 on: August 15, 2006, 09:26:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
what's to stop someone from having the explosives surgically implanted? knee joint? abdominal cavity?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They just need to explosives (liquid or solid) things protected in condoms... As they do with drug trafficking, no need to go thru surgery  
« Last Edit: August 15, 2006, 09:27:52 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
DaveLon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #58 on: August 15, 2006, 09:39:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I thought the item below would be of interest to this discussion especially in view of some of the latest comments. It is from a Security News Letter written by Bruce Schneier of Counterpane Internet Security, Inc.

   http://www.schneier.com
   http://www.counterpane.com

------------

Hours-long waits in the security line. Ridiculous prohibitions on what you can carry on board. Last week's foiling of a major terrorist plot and the subsequent airport security changes graphically illustrates the difference between effective security and security theater.

None of the airplane security measures implemented because of 9/11 -- no-fly lists, secondary screening, prohibitions against pocket knives and corkscrews -- had anything to do with last week's arrests. And they wouldn't have prevented the planned attacks, had the terrorists not been arrested. A national ID card wouldn't have made a difference, either.

Instead, the arrests are a victory for old-fashioned intelligence and investigation. Details are still secret, but police in at least two countries were watching the terrorists for a long time. They followed leads, figured out who was talking to whom, and slowly pieced together both the network and the plot.

The new airplane security measures focus on that plot, because authorities believe they have not captured everyone involved. It's reasonable to assume that a few lone plotters, knowing their compatriots are in jail and fearing their own arrest, would try to finish the job on their own. The authorities are not being public with the details -- much of the "explosive liquid" story doesn't hang together -- but the excessive security measures seem prudent.

But only temporarily. Banning box cutters since 9/11, or taking off our shoes since Richard Reid, has not made us any safer. And a long-term prohibition against liquid carry-on items won't make us safer, either. It's not just that there are ways around the rules, it's that focusing on tactics is a losing proposition.

It's easy to defend against what terrorists planned last time, but it's shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we've wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people in front of airport security -- and too many ways to kill people.

Security measures that attempt to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong.  It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer.

Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it'll catch the sloppy and the stupid -- and that's a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely -- but it won't catch a well-planned plot. We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes.

The goal of a terrorist is to cause terror. Last week's arrests demonstrate how real security doesn't focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It's a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off.

And what can you do to help? Don't be terrorized. They terrorize more of us if they kill some of us, but the dead are beside the point. If we give in to fear, the terrorists achieve their goal even if they are arrested. If we refuse to be terrorized, then they lose -- even if their attacks succeed.

-----------

Dave S
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #59 on: August 15, 2006, 09:39:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
They just need to explosives (liquid or solid) things protected in condoms... As they do with drug trafficking, no need to go thru surgery 
That depends on what kind of explosives are used.

The kind of explosives that are dangerous enough to blow up an aircraft or cause explosive decompression from within the cabin in the quantity you can store in a condom, are very rare and very, very unstable.

Putting those chemicals in condoms like they do in drug trafficking is an even more risky proposition than putting drugs in condoms. I'm not even sure that they won't react directly with the lubrication in condoms.

While your proposed scheme may be possible with the right knowledge and very careful measures, I think it's far more likely that someone finds a more efficient way of taking down an aircraft.
Logged

Jan
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad