knee-jerk reactions to airport security - chasing zero risk

[andyandy]

After the big terrorist scare of the underpants bomber, we are seeing once again a big review of airport security, and even more stringent passenger checks. Equally there are calls for an investigation as to why someone on a "watchlist" was able to carry out the attempted attack.......

but

how far can we take all this? At what point does the added hassle of airport travel become too big a price to pay? The current reports are that the new measures are adding over an hour to airport check in times. We already have 550,000 people on a "watchlist", how can you possibly fully monitor all of them? Massive alterations to our global travel infrastructure dictated by a sole failed bomber is a huge victory for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda strategy is as much about causing detrimental changes to western life as it is about numbers of dead, and yet we seem to almost completely ignore the former for the latter.....

As a sole annecdote, the post 9-11 measures which now require people to log their details in advance (ESTA), along with tracking of credit card and the introduction of fingerprinting are enough to dissuade me from travelling to the States as a tourist - just as the hassle of a visa dissuades me from going to Russia....

i would presume that the greater the security measures the greater the financial impact upon that country. So, is it a price worth paying?

Discuss :)

[Caustic Logic]

Hmmm... was that diabetes disguise story I heard true? (sry, haven't kept up). All insulin needles banned - only buyable at long-lines airport shops. Diabetics stop bothering. Dropping drawers now too. Absolute futility. The guy was not-screened-good enough in two foreign contires, why are doing this to me? Oil prices spike again soon. Recession still in effect. Oil supplies running low anyway. People change ways and barely ever fly. End of the "age of flight." Air travel is thus half-engineered down too 20% previous volume, mostly commerce related. Tiurism shifts back to he sea. Earth benefits. We live more local, ride horses, and make our own baskets from reeds, but still get iPods. It's a nice story. I am already playing my part. I just can't deal with a plane falling apart around me, so I can't take the risk. Cheers!

[commandlinegamer]

Well there is a simple solution to all this. Put everyone to sleep in the departure lounge, load them onto the plane, wake them up at the other end. And if you do crash they'll never know.

[Piscivore]

Well there is a simple solution to all this. Put everyone to sleep in the departure lounge, load them onto the plane, wake them up at the other end. And if you do crash they'll never know.

Worked in Fifth Element.

[scissorhands]

After the big terrorist scare of the underpants bomber, we are seeing once again a big review of airport security, and even more stringent passenger checks. Equally there are calls for an investigation as to why someone on a "watchlist" was able to carry out the attempted attack.......

but

how far can we take all this? At what point does the added hassle of airport travel become too big a price to pay? The current reports are that the new measures are adding over an hour to airport check in times. We already have 550,000 people on a "watchlist", how can you possibly fully monitor all of them? Massive alterations to our global travel infrastructure dictated by a sole failed bomber is a huge victory for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda strategy is as much about causing detrimental changes to western life as it is about numbers of dead, and yet we seem to almost completely ignore the former for the latter.....

As a sole annecdote, the post 9-11 measures which now require people to log their details in advance (ESTA), along with tracking of credit card and the introduction of fingerprinting are enough to dissuade me from travelling to the States as a tourist - just as the hassle of a visa dissuades me from going to Russia....

i would presume that the greater the security measures the greater the financial impact upon that country. So, is it a price worth paying?

Discuss :)

Sounds like its a bit of a hassle for you to spend an extra hour or so at the airport.
What do you suggest?
What price are you prepared to pay?

[portlandatheist]

I think the risk is a number greater than zero

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the risk is a number greater than zero

That sounds like a fair assessment of life.

And contrary to the belief of some, no one makes it out of here alive!

[FlamingMoe]

I'm not planning on flying anywhere in the near future, but I do know that if I do, I'll likely complete the armed flying training course for federal LEOs as a result of the Fruit of the Loom Bomber.

Not because I consider any statistically significant threat has surfaced, but because I'd get to dodge the TSA lines.

[portlandatheist]

That sounds like a fair assessment of life.

And contrary to the belief of some, no one makes it out of here alive!

Allow me to rephrase:
The threat is great enough to deem preventative measures of some kind a worthwhile endeavor.

[andyandy]

Allow me to rephrase:
The threat is great enough to deem preventative measures of some kind a worthwhile endeavor.

Sure, but what preventative measures are too much?

There are about 6000 deaths in the UK due to road traffic accidents every year. That's like two annual 9-11s. We could prevent them by banning any automobile transport....we could vastly vastly reduce them by making a mandatory speed limit of 20mph....or by reducing all speed limits by 20mph

but we don't , because the added hassle and impact upon society is deemed too great, regardless of the huge number who will die as a result. And yet, because this loss of life is spread out across the country and not grouped together in one go, we seem to place less of a value on preventing it. This seems at the very least a little irrational....

[Puppycow]

Hitchens has a good column on this (http://www.slate.com/id/2239935/)

Flying High
Why are we so bad at detecting the guilty and so good at collective punishment of the innocent?

[INRM]

It's not possible to have 100% security without 0% freedom. Asking for absolute safety is not reasonable or realistic.

[truethat]

Well there is a simple solution to all this. Put everyone to sleep in the departure lounge, load them onto the plane, wake them up at the other end. And if you do crash they'll never know.

Yep. Works for me.

I also think there should just be no carry ons at all on the plane. Everything loaded below. Why do you need to carry anything onto to the plane anyway.

[Ambrosia]

The threat is great enough to deem preventative measures of some kind a worthwhile endeavor.

... by politicians keen to be seen to be doing something so they can get re-elected ...

[WildCat]

Why do you need to carry anything onto to the plane anyway.
To avoid the $50 per bag fee the airlines are charging for checked baggage.

[Brainster]

how far can we take all this? At what point does the added hassle of airport travel become too big a price to pay? The current reports are that the new measures are adding over an hour to airport check in times. We already have 550,000 people on a "watchlist", how can you possibly fully monitor all of them?

It's called a computer. Should be pretty easy for the passengers on upcoming flights to be checked against the database and flagged where there is a match.

[WildCat]

It's called a computer. Should be pretty easy for the passengers on upcoming flights to be checked against the database and flagged where there is a match.
Not really, particularly when a person's name is in a language which doesn't use the Roman alphabet. See the many different spellings of Libya's leader for example.

[Travis]

Okay, I'm confused. Are we pissed that there is too much security or not enough? Because it seems some are mad at the delays but others are mad that the guy got through it.

[Puppycow]

Not really, particularly when a person's name is in a language which doesn't use the Roman alphabet. See the many different spellings of Libya's leader for example.

Everyone traveling internationally needs a passport. Each passport has a unique number, so it should at least be possible (in theory) to identify people who have passports, I think.

[Puppycow]

Okay, I'm confused. Are we pissed that there is too much security or not enough? Because it seems some are mad at the delays but others are mad that the guy got through it.

Both. We don't want to be delayed or inconvenienced, but we want them to catch the bad guys. Also, don't violate anyone's rights or profile anyone. Unless they're bad guys. Is that too much to ask?

[Travis]

Both. We don't want to be delayed or inconvenienced, but we want them to catch the bad guys. Also, don't violate anyone's rights or profile anyone. Unless they're bad guys. Is that too much to ask?

Well, you're only asking for all the liberties of freedom along with all the security of fascism.

[boyntonstu]

What if we had everyone sniffed by a dog and a pig in an attempt to see their emotional reaction?

[Rasmus]

Why do you need to carry anything onto to the plane anyway.

I take with me on nearly every flight

- a neck pillow
- nose spray
- ear plugs
- paper tissues
- chewing gum (if I rmemeber; I often don't, but it helps my ears)
- something to read
- my laptop (just because my regular luggage doesn't always make it to the same airport as i do, and I need my laptop.)

on longer flights, I'll add an mp3 player, more stuff to read and some chocolate.

Plus the things I carry on me: keys, wallet, money, ...

Why do I have that stuff with me? Because over the stretch of several hours chances are pretty good I'll need/want most of it.

Of course, the point is moot as long as terrorists keep planting their explosives on their body rather than their carry-on luggage. Also, it's a good thing the majority of terrorists these days seem to be rather incompetent. I am certain that if they were just of average intelligence and sufficiently determined there would be nothing to stop them.

[DavidJames]

Also, it's a good thing the majority of terrorists these days seem to be rather incompetent. I am certain that if they were just of average intelligence and sufficiently determined there would be nothing to stop them.I don't know, the new rules put in place for the last hour of flight are diabolically clever. No way any terrorists will crack that policy. ;)

[Eyeron]

Sorry, wrong video. Dangit.

[dudalb]

Both. We don't want to be delayed or inconvenienced, but we want them to catch the bad guys. Also, don't violate anyone's rights or profile anyone. Unless they're bad guys. Is that too much to ask?



And throw in World Peace while you are at it......

[CORed]

Yep. Works for me.

I also think there should just be no carry ons at all on the plane. Everything loaded below. Why do you need to carry anything onto to the plane anyway.

Because you want it to actually arrive at the destination when you do?

Because the airline charges you an extra $50 to check a bag?

Because you don't want to spend an extra 30-60 minutes at your destination staring at other people's bags going around and around on the carousel while waiting for your bag to arrive, assuming that it actually does?

I can only assume that you have little or no experience actually traveling by air.

Also, how exactly does prohibiting carry-ons contribute to security? Bombs can and have been put in checked baggage.

[Rasmus]

Somebody has to say it: Make it mandatory to fly commando! that'll make things safer.