Chill. (4.00 / 5)

Wake me up when air travel becomes anywhere near as dangerous as driving. Then I'll start to worry.

These "measures" are all bullshit security theater. It's bad enough they're adopted in knee-jerk fashion after incidents; looking to impose them proactively would be even worse.

---

by: Steve LaBonne @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 16:37:08 PM UTC

Well (0.00 / 0)

1. Some I agree are theater designed to make the public relived the government is "taking action".

2. Just because one activity is more dangerous doesn't mean no one should care about security in another.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 16:52:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The theater reference is true, but the threat to civil liberties is real. (4.00 / 3)

I agree with Adam Bink's point.

The main point: the failure of the system to identify the Christmas bomber was THEIR failure: he was identified as a threat by his father, who went to the US Embassy to identify him(!), he was identified by others, he bought the ticket in cash(!), he flew, without any baggage(!) from Africa to Detroit(! Detroit, no coat, winter..), he bought a one way ticket(!) and as this is exactly the same set of circumstances that brought the "shoe bomber" to fly and get caught by "some people on the same plane (again)" one might assume that they would fix their own house before before starting to implement new invasive policies.  

And The Daily Show covered some of the same ground last night.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 16:56:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Precisely why the fallacy that the additional screenings (4.00 / 2)

will provide more security must be unveiled.

It was so clear to so many more people when Bush/Cheney were at the helm. The use of fear to disjoint the populace so that their civil liberties can be restricted, that is. Somehow, when Obama promises the same approach, folks stop seeing the obvious.

If anyone is looking for a business venture - how about starting a program educating international fliers how to spot, confront, and neutralize the threats arising from their fellow passengers. Self-defense +.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:34:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hindsight is perfect (4.00 / 2)

Spencer Ackerman explains this better.

you can have tougher screening of who is allowed to enter the US, but it's already an tremendous and insulting pain in the ass to visit the US. you really want to make that worse? to exclude thousands more perfectly ordinary unthreatening people?

you can demand more data sharing between agencies earlier but they are already overwhelmed by the volume coming in. how will you handle more? again, are you willing to have more false positives? more innocent people strip searched, more people detained, harassed, thrown into the little room, missing their flights, losing their visas, having their possessions and their privacy stripped away?

is this the country you all want to live in?

not me. but it's the one we're getting.

shoe inspection and upskirt shots and anal probing and liquid bans and all the rest of it are purely 100% bullshit.

it's very sad to see this kind of fearful foolishness on the front page.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

---

by: tatere @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 18:06:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Planes Are Weapons Now (4.00 / 2)

A part of me wonders why we as a nation are more willing to countenance restrictions on air travel than on ownership of conventional firearms.  

Gun control measures won't eliminate 100% of gun deaths, yet some restrictions are worth doing.  The same can be said for some air transportation security measures that won't guarantee a terrorist-free flight, but can make acts of terrorism more difficult.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 16:47:19 PM UTC

Adam, I humbly suggest... (4.00 / 2)

there is virtually no way to insure that someone who is determined to die won't be able to pull off a means of doing so.  And, if/when airplane travel offers too many obstacles, there is train travel, or wandering into Grand Central at it's peak.  

Re: scanners.  Consider this photograph.  See the clear outlines of the shin bones?  Not orthopedic quality, but that suggests a fair amount of radiation, don't you think? For frequent travelers, I presume that's an unacceptable level of radiation.  Are the airlines going to make travelers sign "hold harmless" waivers?  And, when they do, why not crank the dial all the way up so that the ribs, pelvic bones, and vertebrae become easily visible, too?

This is nuts.  I don't doubt your thesis that many of these "interventions" haven't been on someone's wish list and waiting for an opportunity, but where does it end?  And, where will it be "inappropriate" to insert those interventions?  Is being scanned/removing your shoes/etc going to be a future element of entering a church, going into a sports stadium, or attending a concert?

Because it's really silly to imagine that all terrorists will come from outside our borders and arrive by airplane... as, indeed, it's been demonstrated that they don't.  Just ask the families of those who died in the Oklahoma City bombing.  

These efforts strike me as (1) too little, too late, (2) doing what's easy as opposed to what might be more effective, and (3) a creeping perfusion of the national security state that wasn't supposed to be "American."

---

by: bystander @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:21:20 PM UTC

I partly agree (0.00 / 0)

And none of these measures provide 100% protection against an attack.

And seatbelts don't provide 100% protection from a car accident, nor bike helmets from bike accidents, nor mammograms from finding certain cancers, etc. etc. Doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile. I don't think the measure of usefulness should be whether something is 100% foolproof.

You're right that not all terrorists will come by airplane.  As a frequent commuter on Amtrak from DC to NYC, it plainly shocks me there is little security aside from bomb-sniffing dogs preventing someone from carrying a bomb onto the train and screwing up a major transit corridor. There is also not enough security on the heavily-used DC Metro. And there should be, in an ideal world. "Where will it end" and inconvenience for passengers is not an excuse, in my view.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:45:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Terrorists win when we waste money on airport scanners (0.00 / 0)

I'm boggled that a progressive would maintain such an irrational fear. This is your set of fundamental civil liberties we're talking about, not a box of prophylactics.

http://www.schneier.com/book-b...

As a frequent commuter on Amtrak from DC to NYC, it plainly shocks me there is little security aside from bomb-sniffing dogs preventing someone from carrying a bomb onto the train and screwing up a major transit corridor

It seems like the sane thing to do to me. It shocks me that you'd want to add the same sort of invasive disruption and delay to train terminals that we're forced to endure in airports, for no reason at all. We should be scaling back the pointless security theater, not increasing it.

The terrorists win only under one condition: when the populace at large is scared. That's why terrorist begins with "terror." Keep calm and carry on. You have more chance of being struck by lightning twice than you have of dying on an airplane.

---

by: RapsodiaStellare @ Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 00:31:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know... (0.00 / 0)

They use T-Rays... the radiation isn't nearly as toxic as X rays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

You can clearly see the hand of the guy pushing the scanner button in that picture.  If that guy isn't shielded, either the radiation isn't deadly or we are going to start hearing about a lot of airport scanner operators developing nasty diseases.  

Frankly, I'm willing to walk through the scanners (with the words F U G-MEN written on my butt cheeks) if it can save me time in the security line.  I do think though it should be optional... those who don't can do metal detectors and random patdowns.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:48:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Flying is like any other risky action (4.00 / 3)

One must weigh the safety, level of scrutiny, desire and need before one proceeds or chooses otherwise.

Even if we were to require a security background check on every single international passenger, the system would remain vulnerable to a dedicated group using terrorism in an attempt to make whatever point they are trying to make.

We need to get a whole lot more realistic about risk. The theater being enacted is to reassure the domestic fliers and that is primarily driven by economic reasons. Even so, the TSA should consider hiring a new choreographer because they look down-right foolish frisking infants on the TV, while the failure to connect the dots in the crotch bomber incident is clearly the root of the breach.

I've transited Schipol airport more times than I can easily count. I've gone through with only carry-on luggage and with large loads after visiting family and getting gifts. We bought the tiles for our kitchen in Turkey (which it turns out look a bit like hashish bricks in the Xray) and as a result answered numerous questions about our luggage, at the podium and behind the curtain. The one fact that stands out in the sorry saga of the crotch bomber is that his complete lack of any luggage did raise any flag in Schipol. I have been through the additional questioning, pat downs, and wiped for explosive and drugs residue. Not one plane was delayed because of it and did not feel violated in any way.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:28:21 PM UTC

hmm (4.00 / 1)

I always figured it was the Airline lobby holding back as much as possible out of fear that more restrictions = Less travel = less profit.  I just read something saying that a loss of 2 passengers per flight would cost the airlines 1.5 Billion.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:42:01 PM UTC

I'd prefer my privacy, thanks. (4.00 / 3)

A dollar spent on Airline security is just a dollar not spent elsewhere... like feeding undernourished youth, or health care.

I'll take marginally riskier flying for better social programs and more privacy, myself.

---

by: Xanaqui @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:44:39 PM UTC

... (4.00 / 1)

I definately agree in part.

My personal feeling is that some of the current measures are near worthless and could be changed for more effective procedures.    

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:50:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Security (4.00 / 2)

If we really wanted decent security on airlines, we'd redesign the processes, the roads, the landing strips, the airfields, and the airports - as well as on the airplanes. We're spending a pittance compared to what that would require.

Instead, we mostly get highly visible, modestly expensive, nearly worthless security that has rather negative effects on airplane travelers.

But even if we got decent security on airplanes/airports, that really wouldn't affect terrorism much. The goal of a terrorist isn't to blow up/hijack/use as a missile an airplane; it's to cause terror. If we harden airplanes/airports, they'll just attack somewhere else.

But don't take it from me (who has, at best questionable bona fides on security); take it from someone who's a security expert (at least in some fields):

Is Aviation Security Mostly for Show?

"...To be sure, reasonable arguments can be made that some terrorist targets are more attractive than others: airplanes because a small bomb can result in the death of everyone aboard, monuments because of their national significance, national events because of television coverage, and transportation because of the numbers of people who commute daily.

But there are literally millions of potential targets in any large country -- there are 5 million commercial buildings alone in the United States -- and hundreds of potential terrorist tactics. It's impossible to defend every place against everything, and it's impossible to predict which tactic and target terrorists will try next...

Our current response to terrorism is a form of "magical thinking." It relies on the idea that we can somehow make ourselves safer by protecting against what the terrorists happened to do last time."

---

by: Xanaqui @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 19:54:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

'Liberal' (0.00 / 0)

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

You can give back your card as one promoting freedom.
As far as realistic measures and what should be done are concerned : were you aware that the observation the FBI made about all the electronic 'tips' from the NSA were ; that they diverted manpower from time tested procedures...that actually worked ?

Homeland Security 'proved' itself at Katrina when it 'directed' FEMA  into disaster. Giving a bureaucratic monster more power and authority will not correct the basic need : Triage. This is a chance for the state to divert attention from the fact government is being run into the ground because it is doing stupid things with no attention to results for the amount of effort expended.

How ? By Pointing Fingers.

That means essential tasks are left undone. Also, it confirms the cynical analysis of the 'stages of progress of a project'. We are currently at blaming the uninvolved.

---

by: opit @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 21:49:44 PM UTC

Nobody has claimed so far that the "nude" scanner would have found the bomb! (4.00 / 2)

Come on, folks, don't you think if that technology was able to detect even such small quanitities (80g) of "plastics" explosives, this would have been reportedall over the media? In absence of any such statements, imho it's safe to assume that those new scanners are totally useless for preventing such attacks as Abdulmutallab's. It's just an expensive smokescreen to create a false impression of "seecurity", a big bailout to the industry, and last but not least yet another seriuous reduction of civil liberties. Don't get fooled by that crap!

---

by: Gray @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 23:19:26 PM UTC