Decreased actual security, or decreased fake security?
I mean, I’m perfectly comfortable getting on a plane now, in which people generally are allowed to bring laptops on flights originating overseas.
If they ban laptops in the cabin on foreign-originating flights, but for some inconceivable reason one particular airline is given an exemption to that rule just for the hell of it, without any supplementary procedures to make up for it–in other words, for that one airline the situation is exactly as it is right now–why would I feel any differently about it than I do now?
I absolutely would, assuming it’s cheaper (or I make money with the time I save).
The risk of dying in a terrorist attack on an airplane is tiny, and was tiny before increased security. Maybe it would increase with less security, but not by orders of magnitude.
If you had $500 a year to spend on your own safety, spending it on stopping terrorist attacks would be downright stupid for a typical American. Statistically, you’d be far better off paying for a random MRI of your pancreas every five years, I suspect–to say nothing of things like non-slip bathtub liners or defensive driving lessons.
There’s the old joke about the statistician who always smuggled an (unarmed) bomb on board every time he flew, in order to feel safe. Because what are the odds of two bombs on the same flight?
How high of a risk do you think would merit mandatory strip and cavity searches? I mean, apparently “too spoiled” to realize how important these security measures are, so what’s a little more fundamental safety, eh?
Personally, I’d say that even further inconvenience through beefed-up airport security would be justified when the risks of terrorism come anywhere near the risks of, say, road rage. When my bringing a laptop on a plane is anywhere near as dangerous as you bringing your cell phone in your car. Right now, there are many orders of magnitude between the two.
And the comparison to boats is actually kinda hilarious. Like… What? Dude, technology has moved forward. A lot. And we’re hampering ourselves because we’re afraid of statistically negligible cases of mass murder. Would you accept this kind of security on roads if terrorists started killing people using cars to recreate scenes from Burnout 3: Takedown?
Your odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are lower than your odds of being struck by lightning. Your odds of being killed in a terrorist attack that took place on an airplane is several orders of magnitude lower. At a certain point, there is such a thing as “acceptable risk”. Imagine treating some other part of your life the way you do air travel. Everyone around you would think you’re crazy. “Oh, can’t do pork, sorry, nitrates. Sorry, no, can’t drive, cars are too dangerous (orders of magnitude more dangerous than planes). Sorry, no kale, that stuff might have some caesium from Fukushima in it.”
Pfft. Suffice it to say I have no problem at all with airport/airline security as it has manifested itself to date. And the people wringing their hands over it I can’t take seriously.
I think it depends where you are - for example, I flew back to Australia from Los Angeles via Auckland once and we had to go through the security rigarmole at LAX, spend 13 hours in a 747, then go through the security rigamarole in Auckland right after getting off the plane - before we could go through customs and immigration - where literally the only place we’d been was on a 747 from LAX to AKL.
Then we had to go through the security stuff again to get on the plane to fly back to Australia.
I honestly don’t see get putting out by that, and I’ve experienced that same situation myself many times, in Japan or Taipei while flying to or from the US. The end of civilization as we know it, I’m just not seeing it here. A tempest in a teacup, that’s what I’m seeing.
It’s an irritating, tiring, annoying pointless nuisance that accomplishes nothing and inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people every day.
How does making my disabled, elderly dad take his fucking shoes off - causing him great discomfort, inconvenience and indignity - make flying safer for anyone?
It’s a huge pain in the ass, slows everything down, and is largely unnecessary. I have to arrive at the airport 4 hours early for international flights because I have to worry about being pulled out of line for a random search and questioning. Most of the time, I end up waiting around 2+ hours at the terminal, but it sure beats missing a transatlantic flight. That’s two hours I could have been working, or spending with my girlfriend, or even just masturbating and it would have been considerably more well-spent.
And all that, for what? To maybe prevent a hundred deaths a year? Again, imagine if we responded to other things as excessively and disproportionately as we did here. Lung cancer is a real killer - so we’re banning smoking, alcohol, and coal power plants, and letting people go through checkpoints.
If we reacted to road deaths the way we react to plane deaths, commerce would grind to a screeching halt. Think about that for a moment, then remember that your odds of dying in a plane anything is orders of magnitude lower than your odds of dying on the road per kilometer, and that the vast majority of those plane deaths are not terrorism.
The Sactual elfish person is the one who due to the irrational fear supports imposing an irrational ban on items in the cabin and displacing them to the cargo where there is a documented substantial risk.
But because the person is made so afraid of Al Qaeda Goes Boo, and afraid of the word “bomb” there is the support for the policy actually increasing the risk of the loss.
“Security theater! Tests have proven that TSA has only a 5% chance of finding a bomb! Why can’t we do something that actually improves security, as opposed to just going through the motions?”
“We are worried about bombs in laptops, and since we can’t screen them, we are going to ban them.”
“What a hassle! Let’s return to security theater!”
If you americans did not push always for your stupid regulations to be imposed globally, I would be happy to ignore you. But like the shoes, this will creep out for no purpose and will raise actual risk stupidly.
I was being screened at a staff entry point at an airport. No passengers allowed in this area, only red pass holding staff.
An obnoxious little twerp was being veryvery thorough with a low cost airline pilot. Taking a long time and examinng every item, swabbing it and then a very thorough pat down.
Iwasnext in line and getting impatient too.
The pilot said at the end, you do know that if i was a terrorist i could fly my plane in the next 20 min right into this search area.
Oh boy…you should have seen the aftermath of that statement. Hope he didnt loose his job. The fact that i was not called as a witness means maybe not.
When people say “Let’s do something that actually improves security”, they usually mean things like “Better intelligence sharing” or “explosive residue detectors in the holds of aircraft” or “requiring aircraft to have always-on GPS locators” or things like that.
Also, electronics have been carried on planes pretty much forever. A bomb in a transister radio was what bought down the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie - yet they didn’t ban transistor radios or walkmans etc from flights after that, despite those things actually being considerably less useful on aeroplanes than a laptop or a tablet nowadays.
Accepted. I now travel exclusively in my own RV. Whether business or pleasure I handle my own transport and lodging. I refuse to participate in the humiliating experience that modern travel has become.