LETTER OF THE DAY: No surprise in random security checks
Published:Saturday | February 5, 2011 | 12:00 AM
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Having always believed that the only thing worse than having no security in place is having a false sense of security, I feel compelled to recount a recent experience I had while travelling through one of our island's international airports, recognising that same would be comical, were it not so potentially serious.
While checking in, I was told by a very polite and pleasant airline agent that I had been randomly selected 'by the computer' to undergo a detailed security search. I was further told that I would be questioned and searched when boarding the aircraft and that I was to listen for my name on the public address system just prior to boarding.
Having completed the check-in process, I was then somewhat amazingly permitted to leave the counter, go to my car and wander around the airport for a further two unsupervised hours.
summoned
Predictably, just prior to the regular boarding announcement, I was summoned via the loudspeaker and asked to proceed to the gate where I was searched and questioned in the exact manner that my polite and no doubt well-intentioned check-in agent had forewarned.
The question begs to be asked, therefore, as to whether a passenger is supposed to be informed over two hours in advance that they have been selected for a random and detailed security search and questioning session. Am I missing something here, or doesn't that allow a terrorist who has a weapon, explosive or something else to hide ample time to dispose of same or to simply depart the airport and live to fight another day?
One need not be a security professional to surmise that these 'random' checks are supposed to include the all-important element of surprise, and that passengers so selected are not expected to be informed hours prior to the actual search and questioning session taking place!
ad hoc security
This seems, on the surface, to be one more instance where well-intentioned airlines and security personnel actually have very little idea of how to truly enhance the overall security of passengers and, instead, are simply providing their own version of 'security' in an ad hoc and somewhat inconsistent manner.
Having subsequently checked, I can say, with confidence, that my experience in this regard is not an isolated one and I respectfully suggest that the powers that be conduct a review of these and other security measures to the benefit and peace of mind of all passengers, without waiting for a reactive investigation after, God forbid, a critical incident has occurred.
Reminded of the fact that the existing security procedures at North American airports were thought to have been adequate just prior to 9/11, I cannot help but wonder just how safe and protected we actually are.
I am, etc.,
JOHN P. AZAR
Kingston 5