Amtrak

[Green Maned Lion]

What is your answer for what should be done? Take away all security? What would happen on airplanes and in airports, then?

First of all, within about 5 years all airline terrorism would stop dead in its tracks. Terrorism is the act of causing disorganization through fear, and the very act of responding to it- in ANY way- makes it a success. A terrorist attack does not need to reach its completion for it to succeed, a point far too many people ignore. If we stopped responding at all to terrorism in the air, terrorism in the air would stop because it would no longer be effective at its purpose.

Secondarily, hijacking of airliners for more simple reasons (piracy being the main one I can think of) would increase significantly.

But to get back to my main point, the purpose of the 9/11 attacks weren't to bring down a couple of landmark buildings. The purpose was to create the lock-down security we now have to go through, living in fear of another one.

Security can and should be unobtrusive. Profiling is a key to sensible security. Not necessarily of race (although it should contribute) but also age, emotions, history, decorum, and tons of other items. Dangerous people do tend to fit into a certain pattern. As for instance, a skinny woman dressed in skintight pants and a skintype halter, wearing thin sole sandals is NOT carrying a bomb on their person. Ignoring a bodily search of such a person makes sense. Someone wearing baggier clothing? Well, you have a chance of something being hidden there.

 

[NorthCoastHiawatha]

What is your answer for what should be done? Take away all security? What would happen on airplanes and in airports, then?

First of all, within about 5 years all airline terrorism would stop dead in its tracks. Terrorism is the act of causing disorganization through fear, and the very act of responding to it- in ANY way- makes it a success. A terrorist attack does not need to reach its completion for it to succeed, a point far too many people ignore. If we stopped responding at all to terrorism in the air, terrorism in the air would stop because it would no longer be effective at its purpose.

Secondarily, hijacking of airliners for more simple reasons (piracy being the main one I can think of) would increase significantly.

But to get back to my main point, the purpose of the 9/11 attacks weren't to bring down a couple of landmark buildings. The purpose was to create the lock-down security we now have to go through, living in fear of another one.

Security can and should be unobtrusive. Profiling is a key to sensible security. Not necessarily of race (although it should contribute) but also age, emotions, history, decorum, and tons of other items. Dangerous people do tend to fit into a certain pattern. As for instance, a skinny woman dressed in skintight pants and a skintype halter, wearing thin sole sandals is NOT carrying a bomb on their person. Ignoring a bodily search of such a person makes sense. Someone wearing baggier clothing? Well, you have a chance of something being hidden there.

Yes, yes, yes this is basically what Ive been trying to tell people for years. Also it is my firm belief that the hardened cockpit doors are the only effective thing we've done.

 

[VARider]

Yes, yes, yes this is basically what Ive been trying to tell people for years. Also it is my firm belief that the hardened cockpit doors are the only effective thing we've done.

Securing the cockpit doors was important, and increased security significantly. The rest of the TSA activities (shoes, liquids, IDs under a magnifying glass, body scans) are mostly show.

The important thing to remember is that without a secure cockpit an airplane might be used as a weapon, as in 9-11. A train cannot be used as a lethal weapon in the same way.

 

[AlanB]

I believe that if Amtrak would enforce the security procedures they already have it would enhance security on the trains. 1. We have rarely been asked for photo ID with our tickets when boarding an Amtrak train. There is no visual security at the station in which we board to observe "strange" behaviors or rowdy passengers preparing to board. I have many times reboarded trains at a stop without being asked for my ticket or ID. :unsure:
I suppose that my wife and I, at nearing age 60 and WASP, dont look like terrorists but we would not be offended if Amtrak always asked for photo ID with our tickets when we board and made it manditory that when I got off to take photos at a station stop that I produce my ticket when I reboarded.

Many times there was no attendant at the doors of some coaches or sleeping cars and anyone could get on the train for quite a while before anyone onboard staff would notice. On one of our trips last year two young men boarded our sleeper with stolen tickets. If someone had checked the photo IDs, as did eventually happen before the train left the station, they would never had gotten on board (They had no IDs and were eventually whisked away by police when it was found they had a suspicious looking package in their luggage.). We would not be offended if there was a search of carry on luggage, in the manner that bags are searched at athletic events. It probably wouldnt be a bad idea to have baggage scanners for checked bags as well. :unsure:

Bill,

While the photo ID thing may have caught the two people that stole those tickets, in general it's not a very helpful tool at stopping terrorism. It's a feel good measure, it makes people feel good that we're doing something, and it makes it look like we are doing something.

But seeing as how not a single Amtrak employee has ever received any training on how to spot a fake ID; it renders the entire process largely useless. Even with training, it would still be highly questionable as to its usefulness. Consider the fact that our Border Patrol agents have received countless hours of training on how to spot phony ID's. Despite that fact, one can no longer cross the border with Canada or Mexico with just a driver's license and a birth certificate. The reason? The trained agents couldn't always spot phony driver's licenses, what with 50 different states issuing licenses, and most states having several different styles of licenses.

And then consider the fact that at least 4 of the terrorists who died in the planes that hit the Twin Towers were carrying valid NJ driver’s licenses. Mind you they had bribed a clerk at NJ's DMV to get those licenses, but beyond that fraudulent act, the licenses themselves were genuine. So had those guys boarded an Amtrak train with a bomb, Amtrak's ID check would not have stopped anything. Just like airport security that was in place that fateful morning didn't stop them from boarding those planes that hit the towers.

 

[sunchaser]

I'm sure that most of the people on this board would not be selected for a random search-but then again some of us do look a bit odd!!! :lol: Since most if not all here usually behave ourselves, we shouldn't have any problems.

Some???? :lol: :lol: :lol:

YOU TALKING ABOUT ME? :huh: :lol:

No, I was talking about me..look at my profile picture! :lol:

 

[sunchaser]

What is your answer for what should be done? Take away all security? What would happen on airplanes and in airports, then?

First of all, within about 5 years all airline terrorism would stop dead in its tracks. Terrorism is the act of causing disorganization through fear, and the very act of responding to it- in ANY way- makes it a success. A terrorist attack does not need to reach its completion for it to succeed, a point far too many people ignore. If we stopped responding at all to terrorism in the air, terrorism in the air would stop because it would no longer be effective at its purpose.

Secondarily, hijacking of airliners for more simple reasons (piracy being the main one I can think of) would increase significantly.

But to get back to my main point, the purpose of the 9/11 attacks weren't to bring down a couple of landmark buildings. The purpose was to create the lock-down security we now have to go through, living in fear of another one.

Security can and should be unobtrusive. Profiling is a key to sensible security. Not necessarily of race (although it should contribute) but also age, emotions, history, decorum, and tons of other items. Dangerous people do tend to fit into a certain pattern. As for instance, a skinny woman dressed in skintight pants and a skintype halter, wearing thin sole sandals is NOT carrying a bomb on their person. Ignoring a bodily search of such a person makes sense. Someone wearing baggier clothing? Well, you have a chance of something being hidden there.

GML, I'm not sure how terrorism would stop in that instance, but I do think that they are laughing at us scrambling to prevent their attempts, & all the new rules we add because of them.

They attempt to use our laws & freedoms to achieve their goals.

I certainly don't have the answers we need in this situation.

I do agree with you that much of it could be prevented by being observant of passenger behavior.

I certainly do not want to see airline type security on the trains, but I would not be surprised if they do something similar at some point.

I think I would still want to ride the trains, but it would not be as pleasant to have to run a gauntlet of security to board a train.

 

[JayPea]

Perhaps I'm being naive here, but it seems to me that much more severe damage could be done to an Amtrak train outside of the train than from within the train itself. The Palo Verde derailment of the Sunset Limited comes to mind. I personally think it's a long ways from random searches to TSA agents and metal detectors and X-Ray machines and the like.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

GML, I'm not sure how terrorism would stop in that instance, but I do think that they are laughing at us scrambling to prevent their attempts, & all the new rules we add because of them.

Sunchaser, think about it in the form of playground bullying. The bullies pick on the kids who get the most upset when being told "Jo momma is so fat...", while the kids who are thinking to themselves "You don't know my mother, what the hell would you know? " will find themselves no longer a target. Why? Because they ignore, you get no satisfaction from bullying them.

The purpose of preparing a bomb, as a terrorist, isn't to kill people. Killing a few thousand people is not a numerically significant concept in a nation of 300 million. It has no real affect on us, taken as a whole. The purpose, rather, is to scare the pants off of the survivors, and also to make them resent.

Since 9/11, can you honestly say the average Americans opinion of our government, of her police, and of our freedom has improved? Of course not. The younger generation have gone so far as to resent all of it. It has been creating increased unrest, and resultantly, political instability. Our government was more stable during the Civil War than it is now.

That, rather than the unfortunate deaths of 9/11, was the goal of that attack.

Now, imagine the attack happened, and we shrugged our shoulders. Imagine that the united nation angrily denounced the terrorists, and in that solidarity, instead of asking to crouch behind increased security, lessor freedoms, and huddle in fear... we instead avowed that terrorists were just a pain in the ***. We instead avowed to carry on our daily lives as if nothing had happened.

The terrorists had just wasted millions of dollars, and several able bodies, to find out we really are too strong to attack. If they felt their efforts were for nought, they'd stop.

See the logic?

 

[jis]

You should note that there has not been a successful hijacking of an El Al aircraft since 1968 nor a bombing since 1969. I ask in all sincerity what TSA procedures airport procedures would you eliminate? What would you change?

While I am not in a position to give you a concise list of things since I have not studied the situation in great enough detail to craft such, I am happy to share some thoughts on the matter to give you some idea of where I stand. It would appear to be reasonable to do so by contrasting the Israeli system with ours to some extent.

A quick comparison of what the Israelis do with what we do seems to show certain significant differences. A significant issue is that our laws do not permit the sort of profiling that the Israelis use regularly to pre-sort individual before they even get to the first security checkpoint, which is the X-Ray for checked baggage - a checkpoint that you have to pass through even if you only have hand baggage. When you are standing in that line which as I said is the first thing that happens, someone from Ben Gurion Security comes over and has a chat with each passenger. If you are a business traveler you can have your security profile filed ahead of time electronically through your accredited business agent, which the Security folks will pick up on their computer using a confirmation number that you provide them, and take it into consideration. But either way, this person makes an assessment and flags you accordingly. Your entire treatment is then governed by this flag, plus of course anything else that they may discover in due course.

Now this person who engages you in a conversation is a highly trained person, and is a far cry from the typical agents of TSA that you come across at security barriers in the USA. It takes resources to train adequate numbers of them to be effective. Ignoring the overall geopolitics and history of it for the moment, Israel, what many might agree, does face an existential threat every day, so they choose to make the investment.

Compared to that we are not facing that sort of an existential threat, and hence we try to make things look impressive while keeping the resources needed within certain bounds, and make no mistake, there is an element of effectiveness underlying it all, specially in case of aviation security. Instead of the interview at airport we use the CAPS II system which is a name/identity based system to flag persons, but its error rate presumably for both false positives and negatives is probably quite high. Hence the grandmas getting SSSS-ed. And of late they have also added the element of completely random selection for royal treatment, having possibly realized that CAPS has too many false negatives.

For incoming flights we use APIS as the source of information for pre-clearance, again mostly a name and identity based system. This is why you have to provide certain additional information for international flights. The Israelis do that and in addition lock down the flight 40 minutes prior to arrival at Ben Gurion, i.e. no getting out of your seat no matter what, once you are in lock down. This essentially means that any flight coming into Israel from outside is in lock down when it enters Israeli air space. It is not even clear what would be the equivalent of that in case of the US should we ever face an existential threat like Israel. OTOH it is well documented that US has denied access to US air space to flights that they flagged as a result of scanning APIS list of passengers who boarded the flight.

But it is hard to convince oneself that all of the more visible acts at security barriers in the US actually enhance security rather than just making a show of doing something. IMHO many if not most of the acts regarding trains falls in this "visible act of doing something but with questionable effectiveness" category. I am of course ready to be convinced otherwise

 

[rtabern]

I think it's a good effort to try and keep passengers safe (in Chicago)... but NOT really on the train. While it might prevent someone from getting on with some "bad stuff" in Chicago -- what is preventing someone from getting on one stop down the line outside of Chicago (Glenview, Naperville, Joliet, South Bend, etc.) that has pretty much no security in place?? Keeping the railroad safe is going to be a lot harder effort than a plane that goes from point A to point B... I mean are you going to stage bomb dogs in Winnemucca and Colfax and all the small little stops along the way? I dont know what can be done because it would be such a massive undertaking!!

 

[AAARGH!]

First of all, within about 5 years all airline terrorism would stop dead in its tracks. Terrorism is the act of causing disorganization through fear, and the very act of responding to it- in ANY way- makes it a success. A terrorist attack does not need to reach its completion for it to succeed, a point far too many people ignore. If we stopped responding at all to terrorism in the air, terrorism in the air would stop because it would no longer be effective at its purpose.

GML, I think your logic is way too simple for the situation, and basically flawed.

These fanatics are not bullies on the playground. They will not stop if ignored.

The Jews in Europe had said ignore it and it will go away when the N_azi party came to power. Look where that ended up.

If we stop responding to the terrorists, it will make it much easier for them to escalate their attacks until we have no choice but to respond. Like the Jews in Europe, it might be too late by then.

 

[sunchaser]

GML, I'm not sure how terrorism would stop in that instance, but I do think that they are laughing at us scrambling to prevent their attempts, & all the new rules we add because of them.

Sunchaser, think about it in the form of playground bullying. The bullies pick on the kids who get the most upset when being told "Jo momma is so fat...", while the kids who are thinking to themselves "You don't know my mother, what the hell would you know? " will find themselves no longer a target. Why? Because they ignore, you get no satisfaction from bullying them.

The purpose of preparing a bomb, as a terrorist, isn't to kill people. Killing a few thousand people is not a numerically significant concept in a nation of 300 million. It has no real affect on us, taken as a whole. The purpose, rather, is to scare the pants off of the survivors, and also to make them resent.

Since 9/11, can you honestly say the average Americans opinion of our government, of her police, and of our freedom has improved? Of course not. The younger generation have gone so far as to resent all of it. It has been creating increased unrest, and resultantly, political instability. Our government was more stable during the Civil War than it is now.

That, rather than the unfortunate deaths of 9/11, was the goal of that attack.

Now, imagine the attack happened, and we shrugged our shoulders. Imagine that the united nation angrily denounced the terrorists, and in that solidarity, instead of asking to crouch behind increased security, lessor freedoms, and huddle in fear... we instead avowed that terrorists were just a pain in the ***. We instead avowed to carry on our daily lives as if nothing had happened.

The terrorists had just wasted millions of dollars, and several able bodies, to find out we really are too strong to attack. If they felt their efforts were for naught, they'd stop.

See the logic?

As someone who has experienced bullying, I can say that ignoring the bully does not make them stop. Most of the time, they continue to bully to the point of violence. I have also seen it with my children.

The terrorists we are discussing are not just doing to terrorize. Their stated purpose is to kill. They believe they will be rewarded for dying when they kill us.

I am not suggesting that we cower in fear because of their behavior. You have noticed that when TSA clamps down more, they try another method-it's not because they think we are afraid, it is because they believe that it's their duty to kill us because they believe we are evil.

Now, the real question is how to keep those that want to hurt & kill us from doing so without disrupting our daily lives or curtailing our personal freedom. As I said before, I don't have that answer. As for flying, we don't fly much at all, so that has affected us minimally. We have not been affected much riding the train out here, but that may change. We haven't seen any security out here yet, even while traveling by train.

 

[Ispolkom]

But it is hard to convince oneself that all of the more visible acts at security barriers in the US actually enhance security rather than just making a show of doing something. IMHO many if not most of the acts regarding trains falls in this "visible act of doing something but with questionable effectiveness" category. I am of course ready to be convinced otherwise

Very well put. I think that as long as there are grade crossings the random searching of carry-on baggage at a big train station like Chicago is just security theater.

 

[GoldenSpike]

....what is preventing someone from getting on one stop down the line outside of Chicago (Glenview, Naperville, Joliet, South Bend, etc.) that has pretty much no security in place?? Keeping the railroad safe is going to be a lot harder effort than a plane that goes from point A to point B... I mean are you going to stage bomb dogs in Winnemucca and Colfax and all the small little stops along the way? I dont know what can be done because it would be such a massive undertaking!!

My thoughts exactly. Worse, how about the unstaffed stations - a chain is as strong as its weakest link? TUK near SeaTac airport for example is the first/last stop related to Seattle...get on...leave an item on train...get off anywere along the way perhaps during a smoke stop.......guess what?

Re bomb dogs, last year while on a w/b CZ, when we pulled into Grand Junction, CO, ten agents and two dogs were waiting for our

arrival to make a sweep of the train. I had a feeling we would have greeting party. Before arriving at the station I noted a vehicle parked along the tracks facing the station.

Several of us chatted with one of the officers. They cover several states and travel around making random sweeps.

 

[the_traveler]

Regarding random ID checks, I had my ID checked ONCE - and that was not even aboard an Amtrak train! In NOL, before boarding the SL, a NOL Police Officer was checking the ID's of EVERYBODY boarding! Aboard a train - even when the ticket said "Check Valid ID on Train" (or however it's worded), I have never been asked!

As far as the airport "Security" circus, my friend had a bottle of after shave lotion that was less than 1/2 full in his carry-on bag. He was told he must check the bag, because it was more than a 3 oz bottle! (Remember, it was less than 1/2 full - or under 2 ounces!) They said they could not allow it because the bottle was over 3 ounces! :blink:

 

[amtrakwolverine]

, or everyone would stop flying commercial.

more passengers for amtrak

 

[jis]

As far as the airport "Security" circus, my friend had a bottle of after shave lotion that was less than 1/2 full in his carry-on bag. He was told he must check the bag, because it was more than a 3 oz bottle! (Remember, it was less than 1/2 full - or under 2 ounces!) They said they could not allow it because the bottle was over 3 ounces! :blink:

I am surprised they din't also complain about it not being placed and sealed in a plastic sandwich bag :lol: .

 

[sunchaser]

As far as the airport "Security" circus, my friend had a bottle of after shave lotion that was less than 1/2 full in his carry-on bag. He was told he must check the bag, because it was more than a 3 oz bottle! (Remember, it was less than 1/2 full - or under 2 ounces!) They said they could not allow it because the bottle was over 3 ounces! :blink:

I am surprised they din't also complain about it not being placed and sealed in a plastic sandwich bag :lol: .

Last time we flew I checked everything but my carmex & mints- I figured they would pitch a fit about the mints, but they didn't. I really wanted to have some lotion with me, but didn't have any pre-labled bottles small enough!

 

[PRR 60]

...As far as the airport "Security" circus, my friend had a bottle of after shave lotion that was less than 1/2 full in his carry-on bag. He was told he must check the bag, because it was more than a 3 oz bottle! (Remember, it was less than 1/2 full - or under 2 ounces!) They said they could not allow it because the bottle was over 3 ounces! :blink:

That is correct, the measure is the size of the container, not the volume of liquid in the container. The container must have a liquid capacity of 3.4 ounces (100 ml) or less. That way there is no subjective judgement required as to how much is in the container. The requirements are applied consistently from screener to screener and airport to airport. When dealing with thousands of screeners in hundreds of airports, you make it as easy as possible. Having to judge how much liquid is in a bottle is subjective and will result in inconsistency.

Now, if you really want to get into an interesting (?) discussion, how large a toothpaste container is permitted through security? The answer is 3.4 ounces. But, that is liquid volume ounces. Toothpaste tubes are sized by ounces of product weight (mass, to be technically correct). Roughly speaking, 3.4 ounces (volume) of toothpaste weighs 4.4 ounces (weight). So, technically speaking, you could carry on a toothpaste tube marked 4.4 ounces and meet the 3.4 ounce liquid maximum. I don't suggest that because you would have to hope your screener has a degree in physics and knowledge of the density of toothpaste to realize a 4.4 ounce tube of toothpaste is OK. I just get a 3 ounce tube and don't worry about it.

 

[jis]

Now, if you really want to get into an interesting (?) discussion, how large a toothpaste container is permitted through security? The answer is 3.4 ounces. But, that is liquid volume ounces. Toothpaste tubes are sized by ounces of product weight (mass, to be technically correct). Roughly speaking, 3.4 ounces (volume) of toothpaste weighs 4.4 ounces (weight). So, technically speaking, you could carry on a toothpaste tube marked 4.4 ounces and meet the 3.4 ounce liquid maximum. I don't suggest that because you would have to hope your screener has a degree in physics and knowledge of the density of toothpaste to realize a 4.4 ounce tube of toothpaste is OK. I just get a 3 ounce tube and don't worry about it.

Considering that most even otherwise educated people appear to know squat about Physics, I think your approach is the prudent one.

 

[MrFSS]

Now, if you really want to get into an interesting (?) discussion, how large a toothpaste container is permitted through security? The answer is 3.4 ounces. But, that is liquid volume ounces. Toothpaste tubes are sized by ounces of product weight (mass, to be technically correct). Roughly speaking, 3.4 ounces (volume) of toothpaste weighs 4.4 ounces (weight). So, technically speaking, you could carry on a toothpaste tube marked 4.4 ounces and meet the 3.4 ounce liquid maximum. I don't suggest that because you would have to hope your screener has a degree in physics and knowledge of the density of toothpaste to realize a 4.4 ounce tube of toothpaste is OK. I just get a 3 ounce tube and don't worry about it.

Considering that most even otherwise educated people appear to know squat about Physics, I think your approach is the prudent one.

I don't even know how to spell fisechs.

 

[the_traveler]

I dont evan no how to spel. (I guss that what got me a govt job! )

But I can book train trip good! :lol:

 

[Guest]

I have a Nobel Prize so they are putting me in charge of the BP Oil Spill cleanup in the gulf! (My degrees are from Mail Order Tech and School of Cake Design,most famous graduate is Sarah Palin!!)

 

[the_traveler]

Breaking news!!!!!!

It was just announced that I will be awarded the Nobel Prize for Phescs for 2011 for explaining how Global Warming had caused so much snowfall in Texas and North Carolina during the winter of 2009-1010, while Rhode Island had brown grass showing most of the winter!

But I must decline, since Amtrak doesn't serve Norway!

 

[WICT106]

I don't even know how to spell fisechs.

It's Fizz-ickz, right ?

*kidding*