Dial Back The Paranoia Meter

[MobBoss]

No, but he totally fails at risk assessment.

And you dont? Let me guess...your now an expert at risk assessment?

Please.

 

[GenMarshall]

because you think its a joke

I do not think airport security is a joke. Aint my fault that I misinterpreted your post as a sarcastic joke .

 

[Berzerker]

Aint my fault that I misinterpreted your post as a sarcastic joke .

sorry about inducing your misinterpretation

 

[Yeekim]

As far as I understand a number of people here stand for completely scrapping airport security measures. Do you people really propose that boarding an airplane should be as easy and check-free as catching a cab?

 

[IglooDame]

As far as I understand a number of people here stand for completely scrapping airport security measures. Do you people really propose that boarding an airplane should be as easy and check-free as catching a cab?

I don't know if you think I'm one of the number of people, but I'm not. I'm content with many elements of "post-9/11 screening". The explosives detection for checked luggage, the metal detectors for passengers and checked baggage, and the "no people on the concourse that aren't ticketed passengers", to cite the big three. And I do understand that they're not perfectly enforced.

It's the knee-jerk reactions to threats that I oppose. Perhaps banning boxcutters was necessary "security theater" because they specifically were hijacker tools (though there will never be another plane hijacked with them), but when they got past that to the stupid level of toenail clippers and such it went off the scale. "Better to be safe than sorry" can be taken to moronic extremes, and they did so. Expert after expert said that liquid explosives were far too unstable and difficult to deal with to possibly be used to blow something up in flight, but nevertheless we're all down to 1-ounce bottles of stuff. Shoe-bombs where the sole is lined with explosives can still make it through security whether the shoes are removed or not. And as I mentioned before, singling out one-way passengers ceased being even remotely effective screening for terrorists (at least, terrorists that could afford 50% more expensive plane tickets) a week after it was announced. They might as well implement having each passenger sign a "certification of non-terrorism" pledge upon boarding. And then there's the secret no-fly list. If someone is dangerous enough to be denied boarding of a commercial aircraft by name, why are they not dangerous enough to be investigated by police and indicted for whatever crimes they've already no doubt committed, or at least their name publicly announced so that the general public can be alerted about them? Isn't that what the "sex offender registry" is all about? Surely crashing planes in-flight is not their only terroristic threat to society? Put up a picture and some aliases on AMW, their potential terrorism effectiveness will go down a lot more than simply attempting to keep them off planes when they use known aliases.

 

[choxorn]

(at least, terrorists that could afford 50% more expensive plane tickets)

Well, if they're about to die, they can spend all the money they want.

 

[Yeekim]

I don't know if you think I'm one of the number of people, but I'm not.

No, I didn't have you in mind when I wrote it

I'm content with many elements of "post-9/11 screening". The explosives detection for checked luggage, the metal detectors for passengers and checked baggage, and the "no people on the concourse that aren't ticketed passengers", to cite the big three.

Definitely agree.

It's the knee-jerk reactions to threats that I oppose. Perhaps banning boxcutters was necessary "security theater" because they specifically were hijacker tools (though there will never be another plane hijacked with them), but when they got past that to the stupid level of toenail clippers and such it went off the scale. "Better to be safe than sorry" can be taken to moronic extremes, and they did so.

From here on, I am kind of divided. On one hand, I agree that about anyone could probably do more damage simply barehanded than trying to utilize "forbidden" nail-clippers in combat. On the other hand, I kind of see the justification: sometimes it is better to have a clear-cut, easy to follow rule like "ban everything sharp and metal" rather than draw some arbitrary line which would results in passengers and security both having to measure length of their pocket-knives and engage in disputes like "why could he keep his scissors - mine have blades only 5 mm longer...".

Expert after expert said that liquid explosives were far too unstable and difficult to deal with to possibly be used to blow something up in flight, but nevertheless we're all down to 1-ounce bottles of stuff.

Obviously some experts disagreed here...

Shoe-bombs where the sole is lined with explosives can still make it through security whether the shoes are removed or not. And as I mentioned before, singling out one-way passengers ceased being even remotely effective screening for terrorists (at least, terrorists that could afford 50% more expensive plane tickets) a week after it was announced. They might as well implement having each passenger sign a "certification of non-terrorism" pledge upon boarding.

Agree.

And then there's the secret no-fly list. If someone is dangerous enough to be denied boarding of a commercial aircraft by name, why are they not dangerous enough to be investigated by police and indicted for whatever crimes they've already no doubt committed, or at least their name publicly announced so that the general public can be alerted about them? Isn't that what the "sex offender registry" is all about? Surely crashing planes in-flight is not their only terroristic threat to society? Put up a picture and some aliases on AMW, their potential terrorism effectiveness will go down a lot more than simply attempting to keep them off planes when they use known aliases.

I don't really know if there is such list or how it works, but I'd imagine that a) unlike "sex-offender" registry, here we deal with people who are still suspects, rather than already convicted in something, therefore publishing such list would likely bring about an avalanche of lawsuits; b) they likely are being investigated by police.