Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:07 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post

... Upon googling, this is called an "escort pass" or "gate pass," and it can apparently be used for accompanying passengers who are minor children or have a disability. (Also for meeting such people at their arrival gate.) I didn't need to present any documentation in my case -- my aunt was merely her adorably out-of-it self.
When my daughter worked for an airline, I could fly standby almost free, but I didn't have a seat. I could get a similar pass at the airline desk to go to the most likely gate. I more than once wound up flying out on a different airline from the one planned.
  #102  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:48 PM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,066
In somewhat timely news, on January 3 the TSA missed a gun which managed to make it onto an Atlanta to Tokyo flight. The passenger informed Delta, who informed the TSA.

WAG on my part, but the passenger probably just forgot about it but then realized having a gun in Japan (and probably trying to bring it back) was probably a bit of a problem and shouldn't have happened in the first place.
  #103  
Old 01-14-2019, 02:16 AM
suranyi suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I don't have a "position" ó I merely mentioned TSA's battle with milk as an overreach.

What is more interesting to me is your position in this little sub-discussion. Kindly explain that! I don't want to put words in your mouth but it appears your position is something like:
"I don't believe TSA failed to follow its policy on human milk. I don't believe that TSA workers, out of spite, made a mother miss her flight. Yes, you provided a YouTube link but I don't click on YouTubes; and I won't waste my time Googling for your story. If you want me to believe the claim, kindly find a non-video link."
Is that about it? If not, please help me understand.

In any event, I have no interest whatsoever in correcting your confusion about the TSA milk behavior. I am far more interested in understanding this little sub-discussion.
Um, when our son was a baby we carried milk through the TSA checkpoints with no problem. They pulled the bottle aside for special handling, and they checked it for explosives residue, but they let it through.
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!
  #104  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:45 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
You can't compare the cost of prevention to the cost of what already happened. My field involved spending extra money on silicon to prevent those chips failing later. Screening is much like that. It is also the case that a disaster is useful in prodding people to take preventative measures.
You can compute whether the screening is worth it by comparing screening costs to the cost of a terrorist action multiplied by the probability of it occurring. There is a lot of room for argument there, but comparing the cost to the cost of things that already happened is invalid.
Standing in line does have a cost, but anyone feeling the cost is too high can buy faster access to the gate.
I'm not sure where I was comparing costs of prevention to past costs. Instead, I (and others) said simple, inexpensive steps could prevent recurrence of the types of attacks that occurred on 9/11. The rest impresses me (and others) as purely theater, with little benefit in preventing future incidents.

However, that theater does not come without costs. Not only monetary (which I suspect might exceed the cost of a limited number of air accidents, but I've not seen the analysis.) I don't think it fair to simply characterize standing in line as an inconvenience which can be avoided by passengers spending additional money. There is also a "cost" resulting from making civilians perceive/fear a greater degree of danger than "reasonable." And causing them to accept as "normal" being treated as potential criminals, needing to meekly submit to (at OHare at least) often confusing and rude commands barked by uniformed and armed quasi-military personnel.

Even if we are only talking money - what are annual expenditures on TSP? Around $7.5B? Now what portion of that budget results in what degree of incremental safety? If the first $1B achieves 99% of the desired results (just WAG), why not send the remaining $6.5B elsewhere, where there will be greater gains in public health and safety, and less costs in inconvenience and instilling unnecessary fear? Expand health care/nutrition subsidies, gun buy backs, or any number of other efforts to enhance public health and safety. Or DON'T spend it - unless you want to view TSA as a subsidized pubic employment program.

Quote:
You personally can do things to prevent a auto accident. A safer car. Drive defensively. Modern safety electronics.

But you are helpless in the face of most terrorist attacks.
I'd suggest there are numerous steps government takes to enhance driving safety. And if the gov't wished, they could do more. I'd also suggest there are other potential threats, which the individual is relatively helpless to prevent (lead in drinking water?), that the gov't could spend add'l money on, potentially yielding greater health/safety benefits with fewer non-monetary costs.

I'm simply suggesting viewing TSA efforts on a straightforward cost/benefit analysis. If you argue that infinite expenditures are warranted to avoid a single potential air death by terror, then such discussion is impossible.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #105  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:26 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
Um, when our son was a baby we carried milk through the TSA checkpoints with no problem. They pulled the bottle aside for special handling, and they checked it for explosives residue, but they let it through.
On one occasion, one TSA employee in one airport followed TSA procedures for handling milk. Therefore, on every occasion, every TSA employee at every airport followed TSA procedures. Got it.
  #106  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:47 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,547
I remember in the 80s-90s, when I used to travel for work I'd often buy a 5th of gin at my destination to be able to mix myself a couple of drinks in my hotel room. I'd return home w/ a partially filled bottle in my carryon. If the seal was unbroken, there was no issue. If the seal was broken, the screeners would simply ask what it was, possibly take a sniff - ISTR offering to take a swig of it. Then I could order a tonic water and mix myself drinks on the plane. Different times...
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #107  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:29 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply echoreply is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I'm simply suggesting viewing TSA efforts on a straightforward cost/benefit analysis. If you argue that infinite expenditures are warranted to avoid a single potential air death by terror, then such discussion is impossible.
I've had similar discussions to this thread with people who genuinely believe that it is a fair trade off to spend huge amounts of money on airport screenings to potentially avoid a few terrorist deaths, instead of similar amounts of money on something else to likely avoid many accidental deaths. The explanation being that terrorism is deliberate actions, so it is worth spending all that money. [Picard face palm meme] Yes, it is impossible to have reasonable discussion with somebody arguing from the position that the benefit is worthwhile, regardless of cost.

Screenings are the last ditch effort to prevent terrorist (and other criminal) action on airplanes, and should not be thought of as a main method to stop and catch terrorists. If a plot has gotten that far, then we've already lost. All the terrorists have to do to avoid the screening is decide to attack something other than an airplane.

The resources spent on exceptional screening would much better be spent on intelligence gathering and traditional policing. Not that those don't also have problems, but catching terrorists in the planning and organization stages has had much more success, and is effective for plots against things other than airplanes.
  #108  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:34 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
On one occasion, one TSA employee in one airport followed TSA procedures for handling milk. Therefore, on every occasion, every TSA employee at every airport followed TSA procedures. Got it.
Do you have any evidence that TSA employees do not routinely Follow TSA procedures for handling milk? Besides a youtube video, without cites? So, you have a youtube, wit a isolated incident, thus you assume the TSA is failing ther.

And here is the TSA's response to that isolated incident:
https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2010/12/07/...creening-video
Nearly a year ago, a passenger going through airport screening on two separate occasions requested that her breast milk be visually inspected and not screened by the X-ray machine. She filed a complaint with TSA regarding her screening experience. TSA investigated the matter and sent a letter of apology to the passenger in March of this year. The passenger has flown since these events occurred and has provided TSA a written confirmation that she no longer experiences issues.
...

We extend our sincere apologies to any passenger who may have experienced discomfort and inconvenience during the screening process. We appreciate hearing from passengers and encourage you to share your experiences with us. Although the proper screening procedures were followed at the time, we acknowledge this particular passenger experienced an out of the ordinary delay, and have worked with our officers to ensure we proceed with expediency in screening situations similar to this.

Last edited by DrDeth; 01-14-2019 at 12:36 PM.
  #109  
Old 01-14-2019, 01:07 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Do you have any evidence that TSA employees do not routinely Follow TSA procedures for handling milk?...

And here is the TSA's response to that isolated incident:
....[/I]
Cite for my using the word "routinely"? (I could tell you the answer, but I'll follow your example and insist that YOU provide the cite. No fair peeking at the Spoiler!)
SPOILER:

No, until now the only instance of 'routin*' in the thread was Voyager's mention of "George Carlin routine"

So ... in conclusion:
(a) You managed to Google one of the incidents without my help. Well done!
(b) You confirmed my point, which was that TSA doesn't always follow their own regulations, exactly as I claimed all along.
(c) The victim, who IIRC is a lawyer, escalated her complaint and got TSA management to retrain the faulty employees!! Yay! Go TSA? Go lawyers?
  #110  
Old 01-14-2019, 01:10 PM
suranyi suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
On one occasion, one TSA employee in one airport followed TSA procedures for handling milk. Therefore, on every occasion, every TSA employee at every airport followed TSA procedures. Got it.
This wasn’t one occasion. We travelled with our son on many flights.

I’m not saying they always followed procedure. But in our experience, covering numerous examples, they usually did.
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!

Last edited by suranyi; 01-14-2019 at 01:11 PM.
  #111  
Old 01-14-2019, 04:23 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Cite for my using the word "routinely"? (I could tell you the answer, but I'll follow your example and insist that YOU provide the cite. No fair peeking at the Spoiler!)
SPOILER:

No, until now the only instance of 'routin*' in the thread was Voyager's mention of "George Carlin routine"

So ... in conclusion:
(a) You managed to Google one of the incidents without my help. Well done!
(b) You confirmed my point, which was that TSA doesn't always follow their own regulations, exactly as I claimed all along.
(c) The victim, who IIRC is a lawyer, escalated her complaint and got TSA management to retrain the faulty employees!! Yay! Go TSA? Go lawyers?
Wow, somebody, once had a issue! And you berated another poster for saying "Um, when our son was a baby we carried milk through the TSA checkpoints with no problem."

So, you had nothing but a crappy youtube about a isolated incident. And then you dismiss anecdotal evidence, even tho that was all you had.
  #112  
Old 01-14-2019, 05:10 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Wow! This sub-"debate" has descended into gibberish. People are leaping to false conclusions and imputing opinions groundlessly.

"Last Tuesday John Smith walked across the street without getting murdered. Therefore guns are not a problem in America." "Bill ate an aspirin and his headache went away. Health crisis solved!"

If y'all must indulge in utter nonsense, at least try to make it humorous, okay?
  #113  
Old 01-14-2019, 05:35 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by echoreply View Post
I've had similar discussions to this thread with people who genuinely believe that it is a fair trade off to spend huge amounts of money on airport screenings to potentially avoid a few terrorist deaths, instead of similar amounts of money on something else to likely avoid many accidental deaths. The explanation being that terrorism is deliberate actions, so it is worth spending all that money. [Picard face palm meme] Yes, it is impossible to have reasonable discussion with somebody arguing from the position that the benefit is worthwhile, regardless of cost.

Screenings are the last ditch effort to prevent terrorist (and other criminal) action on airplanes, and should not be thought of as a main method to stop and catch terrorists. If a plot has gotten that far, then we've already lost. All the terrorists have to do to avoid the screening is decide to attack something other than an airplane.

The resources spent on exceptional screening would much better be spent on intelligence gathering and traditional policing. Not that those don't also have problems, but catching terrorists in the planning and organization stages has had much more success, and is effective for plots against things other than airplanes.
Do you have a cite that intelligence gathering is short on money? I'd be in favor of increasing it if so, but not out of the TSA budget.
For air travel, we've probably reduced accidental deaths as far as we can in the US. For other types of travel we can certainly put more money into infrastructure, but that is capital spending, not immediate spending like TSA, and the amount needed dwarfs the TSA budget.
But the biggest fallacy is treating terrorist attacks as random events. If we relaxed security, why would the terrorists not attack the weaknesses - the way they have attacked large crowds at gatherings. That the terrorists have moved from airplanes to crowds shows that security is indeed working.
  #114  
Old 01-14-2019, 05:43 PM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
...
But the biggest fallacy is treating terrorist attacks as random events. If we relaxed security, why would the terrorists not attack the weaknesses - the way they have attacked large crowds at gatherings. That the terrorists have moved from airplanes to crowds shows that security is indeed working.
I'm sorry - where have the common attacks on crowds been - at least in the US? The Boston marathon? Vegas? Given the prevalence of guns - and vehicles - it amazes me that there aren't more. Any committed terrorist with nothing more than a few guns and rudimentary explosives could take out 10s of people in any air terminal - or big city commuter station, or crowded mall, or amusement park...
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #115  
Old 01-14-2019, 05:49 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
Altho I think much of what the TSA does is security theater, I tend to agree with this. There have not been any shoe bombers successfully getting onto airplanes since they started inspecting everyone's shoes. Evidently, this tactic has fallen out of favor with would-be terrorists, due to this approach.

Related to the OP: it's hard to prove a negative.
Or another way to look at it - the attempted shoe bombing was successful because one loser with a lousy explosive in his shoe has succeeded in requiring millions of people to remove their shoes for security, adding to annoyance, slowing lines, and increasing costs for everyone. The inevitable response from the TSA to the shoe bombing might have been part of the reason for the attempt. Even if it doesn't work, it does, because we are so predictable in how we'll respond.

There's more than one way to win a terror war. If you can make your enemy's population paranoid and tie them down with endless security regulations, you can call that a win.

The TSA has not stopped a single attack we know of. When tested, they routinely let through a high percentage of obvious threats like guns in a carry-on bag. A drug smuggler might be deterred by a 20% chance that his drugs will be found, but a terrorist organization that can get 80% of its attacks through security is going to be very happy.

The real reason we haven't seen more hijackings is because they only worked because they exploited the old system which told people that in the case of a hijacking they should just sit quietly and wait for authorities to deal with it. That loophole allowed a few guys with box cutters to take over an entire airplane full of people.

Today, those terrorists would have to get through a locked door, and by the time they managed that they would be swarmed by passengers. NO ONE is going to allow terrorists to take over a plane without a fight anymore, because no one wants to ride a missile to their deaths. Back when the biggest risk of a hijacking was that you might have to catch a flight home from Cuba it was a different story.

We are spending billions to protect ourselves from the LAST threat. In an open society, that's a ridiculous thing to do, as there are always soft targets to be found. Harden one, and the focus of terrorists will shift to another.

What happens when terrorists start derailing trains? Or attacking water treatment plants to release massive clouds of chlorine gas or something? Just add more security to those specific targets? Where does it end?

Last edited by Sam Stone; 01-14-2019 at 05:51 PM.
  #116  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:01 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
What happens when terrorists start derailing trains? Or attacking water treatment plants to release massive clouds of chlorine gas or something? Just add more security to those specific targets? Where does it end?
I've wondered why they haven't done more train derailments. They're spectacular, the barriers to entry are low and it doesn't seem that risky. What gives?
  #117  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:16 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,392
That confuses me as well. A dozen terrorists with portable welding rigs and $20 worth of steel could bring rail traffic to a near halt. And the only way we could stop them would be to somehow monitor every mile of rail on the continent, which would be nearly impossible. I've wondered why rail hasn't been hit since 9/11.

Maybe all they care about is body count, and American rail is mostly freight. But stopping freight movements would be just as damaging, and it doesn't explain Europe, which has both lots of terrorist wanna-bes and lots of passenger rail. Does not compute.
  #118  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:20 PM
galen ubal galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
I've wondered why they haven't done more train derailments. They're spectacular, the barriers to entry are low and it doesn't seem that risky. What gives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
That confuses me as well. A dozen terrorists with portable welding rigs and $20 worth of steel could bring rail traffic to a near halt. And the only way we could stop them would be to somehow monitor every mile of rail on the continent, which would be nearly impossible. I've wondered why rail hasn't been hit since 9/11.

Maybe all they care about is body count, and American rail is mostly freight. But stopping freight movements would be just as damaging, and it doesn't explain Europe, which has both lots of terrorist wanna-bes and lots of passenger rail. Does not compute.
Hard work, somewhat specialized equipment and training. How many welders, for example, are also terrorists? My best guess, anyway.
  #119  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:49 PM
suranyi suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
That confuses me as well. A dozen terrorists with portable welding rigs and $20 worth of steel could bring rail traffic to a near halt. And the only way we could stop them would be to somehow monitor every mile of rail on the continent, which would be nearly impossible. I've wondered why rail hasn't been hit since 9/11.

Maybe all they care about is body count, and American rail is mostly freight. But stopping freight movements would be just as damaging, and it doesn't explain Europe, which has both lots of terrorist wanna-bes and lots of passenger rail. Does not compute.
There have been terrorist attacks on rail in Europe.

But attacks on air can be much more spectacular. Consider 9/11. It wasnít the airplane crashes themselves that made them so bad, but the destruction of the World Trade Center. Nothing like that can happen with rail.
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!
  #120  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:55 PM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
But attacks on air can be much more spectacular. Consider 9/11. It wasnít the airplane crashes themselves that made them so bad, but the destruction of the World Trade Center. Nothing like that can happen with rail.
And nothing like that can happen w/o access to the cockpit.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #121  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:09 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Why is everything a one way ratchet against freedom?
Well, I'll see your freedom to keep your shoes on during airport check-ins and raise your freedom to marry any single consenting adult you fancy irrespective of gender.

I'm not crazy about airline security procedures myself, but I think it's a bit hyperbolic to moan about how freedom is always being restricted but never increased. Uh, no, sometimes and in some ways we do get more freedom to do what we want in our society.
  #122  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:14 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
...
But the biggest fallacy is treating terrorist attacks as random events. If we relaxed security, why would the terrorists not attack the weaknesses - the way they have attacked large crowds at gatherings. That the terrorists have moved from airplanes to crowds shows that security is indeed working.
uh, I read it just the opposite. There are gazillions of targets. Most can't possibly be protected. So if we spend tons of money and waste millions of hours of time making airplanes safer, terrorists will just strike something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I'm sorry - where have the common attacks on crowds been - at least in the US? The Boston marathon? Vegas? Given the prevalence of guns - and vehicles - it amazes me that there aren't more. Any committed terrorist with nothing more than a few guns and rudimentary explosives could take out 10s of people in any air terminal - or big city commuter station, or crowded mall, or amusement park...
But there are some. And we've done nothing to make them harder to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
I've wondered why they haven't done more train derailments. They're spectacular, the barriers to entry are low and it doesn't seem that risky. What gives?
Because not enough Americans take trains. So it's not scary.

It's not about body count per-se, it's about scaring people. It's about making us afraid to fly, and adding burdensome requirements that put a drag on the economy.

What I wonder is why lots of other soft targets that I can easily think of aren't attacked. Like the line to get through airport security. If you have someone who doesn't mind dying, it would be really easy to take a suitcase full of explosives into the security line, wait until you are in the middle of pack of people, and detonate yourself. Bonus points if you take out the security screeners and the scanning machines.

I don't want to list all the others I've thought of, both because you'll all think I'm a terrorist and because I honestly don't want to give ideas to potential unimaginative terrorists. (The security line thing has been published dozens of times that I've seen.) But there are plenty of easy opportunities for terrorism. And really no way to prevent that without locking up the entire population.
  #123  
Old 01-15-2019, 08:55 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
...What I wonder is why lots of other soft targets that I can easily think of aren't attacked. ...
The most likely explanation I can come up with is - FOREIGN-ORIGINATED TERRORISM IS FAR LESS OF A THREAT THAN WE ARE GIVEN TO BELIEVE! I've never heard an explanation why foreign terrorists are fixated on planes, and could not shift their attention to malls, major highway interchanges, commuter train stations, concerts and sporting events, amusement parks...

But someone must be profiting (monetarily or otherwise) from the expenditures toward airport security theater, and the fostering of a culture of fear in airports.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #124  
Old 01-15-2019, 11:27 AM
suranyi suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
uh, I read it just the opposite. There are gazillions of targets. Most can't possibly be protected. So if we spend tons of money and waste millions of hours of time making airplanes safer, terrorists will just strike something else.
But there are some. And we've done nothing to make them harder to do.
Because not enough Americans take trains. So it's not scary.

It's not about body count per-se, it's about scaring people. It's about making us afraid to fly, and adding burdensome requirements that put a drag on the economy.

What I wonder is why lots of other soft targets that I can easily think of aren't attacked. Like the line to get through airport security. If you have someone who doesn't mind dying, it would be really easy to take a suitcase full of explosives into the security line, wait until you are in the middle of pack of people, and detonate yourself. Bonus points if you take out the security screeners and the scanning machines.

I don't want to list all the others I've thought of, both because you'll all think I'm a terrorist and because I honestly don't want to give ideas to potential unimaginative terrorists. (The security line thing has been published dozens of times that I've seen.) But there are plenty of easy opportunities for terrorism. And really no way to prevent that without locking up the entire population.
There have been attacks like that. At the Rome and Los Angeles airports, IIRC. And a major one at the Brussels airport not all that long ago. How quickly we forget!
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!
  #125  
Old 01-15-2019, 03:28 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
uh, I read it just the opposite. There are gazillions of targets. Most can't possibly be protected. So if we spend tons of money and waste millions of hours of time making airplanes safer, terrorists will just strike something else.
The impact of 9/11 was not just the buildings destroyed (which can't happen for crowds or trains) but that the entire air system shut down. Yes, doors are now reinforced - but if you can get anything on the plane, some plastic explosive will solve that problem for you.
Quote:
But there are some. And we've done nothing to make them harder to do.
Surely you've been screened when going into a place with lots of people like a concert or even a fair. And the police have ways of controlling access to places with lots of people, like Times Square on New Years Eve. I remember at least one shooting in a terminal outside security, but there are enough armed officers there that it is not going to be that major of a problem.
Quote:
Because not enough Americans take trains. So it's not scary.
All subways I've been on recently have had multiple announcements about abandoned packages.
Quote:
It's not about body count per-se, it's about scaring people. It's about making us afraid to fly, and adding burdensome requirements that put a drag on the economy.
The drag has been there since the Cuban hijacking. The economy has managed. And I'm happy to see that explosive sniffing dogs eliminated the requirement to take off my shoes on my last flight. TSA seems to be (slowly) moving to less intrusive methods. Plus the new scanner at the Indianapolis airport didn't require laptops to be removed. (For those without laptop friendly bags.)
  #126  
Old 01-15-2019, 03:33 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
The most likely explanation I can come up with is - FOREIGN-ORIGINATED TERRORISM IS FAR LESS OF A THREAT THAN WE ARE GIVEN TO BELIEVE! I've never heard an explanation why foreign terrorists are fixated on planes, and could not shift their attention to malls, major highway interchanges, commuter train stations, concerts and sporting events, amusement parks...

But someone must be profiting (monetarily or otherwise) from the expenditures toward airport security theater, and the fostering of a culture of fear in airports.
As I noted, there is screening at amusement parks and concerts and fairs. And courts also.
Thanks to action against ISIS and al Qaeda, there is probably less of a threat now than in 2002, say. Alas I don't think we can ever go back to the age of innocence from the 1960s.
  #127  
Old 01-15-2019, 04:22 PM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
As I noted, there is screening at amusement parks and concerts and fairs. And courts also.
Thanks to action against ISIS and al Qaeda, there is probably less of a threat now than in 2002, say. Alas I don't think we can ever go back to the age of innocence from the 1960s.
Yes, and countless bollards installed. And cops now tuck their pants in their combat boots!

I'm not suggesting zero security, but the whole - remove your shoes and belt - unless we don't want you to today, and treating you as a terrorist if you forget to remove a quarter or a TUMs from your pants pocket, serves no useful purpose that comes close to justifying the costs.

As I view the recent death toll, I think we have more to fear from homegrown crazies than foreign air terrorists.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #128  
Old 01-15-2019, 10:34 PM
suranyi suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,813
By the way, in Shanghai they x-ray your bags before you can enter the subway. I just came back from a visit to China and they have far more security measures visible than we Americans do. So it is possible to increase security at many of those soft targets. But do we want to?
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!
  #129  
Old 01-16-2019, 07:37 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
The most likely explanation I can come up with is - FOREIGN-ORIGINATED TERRORISM IS FAR LESS OF A THREAT THAN WE ARE GIVEN TO BELIEVE! I've never heard an explanation why foreign terrorists are fixated on planes, and could not shift their attention to malls, major highway interchanges, commuter train stations, concerts and sporting events, amusement parks...

But someone must be profiting (monetarily or otherwise) from the expenditures toward airport security theater, and the fostering of a culture of fear in airports.
yup

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Yes, and countless bollards installed. And cops now tuck their pants in their combat boots!

I'm not suggesting zero security, but the whole - remove your shoes and belt - unless we don't want you to today, and treating you as a terrorist if you forget to remove a quarter or a TUMs from your pants pocket, serves no useful purpose that comes close to justifying the costs.

As I view the recent death toll, I think we have more to fear from homegrown crazies than foreign air terrorists.
and to be clear, I am not arguing for no security. Strategically placed bollards and metal detectors seem like a good thing. It's the ridiculous security theater at airports that I object to.
Let's make everyone remove their shoes. Fondle transwomen who have penises. Make people buy their drinks and snacks inside the airport. (No home made pb&j for you, that's a jell.) Forbid small pocket knives. That's all crazy, and adds very little of anything to our actual safety, but it makes flying a lot more expensive and unpleasant.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017