[Leica] Re: Peter goes abroad, returns to tell about it!

[Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.net>]

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Allan Wafkowski wrote:

> It's inconvenient for all of us to fly post 9/11, but before we whine 
> too much let's remember that there are valid reasons for the added 
> security. I hope never to be in an aircraft that blows to pieces because 
> someone decided it was just too much trouble to one more camera.

Right.  Which is why I said, in my final paragraph which you didn't quote:

> Still, though the civil libertarian in me balks, I would rather be
> inconvenienced than blown up.

I'm with B.D. on this one--I *want* them to inspect my film. I just want
them to do it by hand rather than by X-ray.  Use chemical swabs, sure.  
If this means I have to make special arrangements and arrive early, even
pay a few dollars more, OK.  

But don't tell me that my film is perfectly safe when you don't know how
many times it will be x-rayed in a multi-flight journey. Don't keep upping
the ISO rating below which everything is "perfectly safe."  Level with me.  
Tell me the truth.  If I have to buy my film and have it processed at my
destination, OK, tell me that, too, and I'll deal with it.  

Ken's statement that the additional security measure's "don't make it any
safer"  is hard to prove.  Unless you strip-search every person and
closely inspect everything they carry, you can't guarantee anything, and
not even then are you 100% certain.  And if you did, the airlines would go
out of business.  So they do the best they can.  We really don't have
valid comparisons as to how much safer things are today than a year ago,
only that we're watching the security people more closely now and see more
of their mistakes.  They certainly can do better.  One way would be to
employ better paid and better trained security people, and look at
effectiveness of procedures before looking at cost.  Some things should
not be done by the lowest bidder.

I was saddened but not surprised to read a while back that Boeing backed
out of a potential security partnership with El Al--the safest airline in
the world.  The reason given was that El Al looks for terrorists, and in
the U.S., that's not how we do things--we look for weapons. Translation:  
Political correctness prevents us from "profiling," because we might
offend someone or be sued, so we can't look for things that might be
useful in identifying people who want to kill us.

- --Peter

> On Tuesday, May 21, 2002, at 01:47 PM, Peter Klein wrote:
> > I know I spoke lightly of the security inconveniences, because I believe
> > that the best way to deal with things you can't control is to laugh at
> > them.  Of course, for me, the security stuff was just an inconvenience,
> > and evidence presented on the LUG suggests that one or two x-rays is not
> > going to mess up my ISO 400 film.  In your case, it's a bit different.
> 




- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html