I work for an airline, and considering some of the flight attendants I have seen this might be an idea worth considering.
But to a large degree, I agree with those who say that the terrorists have won. The idea is to force an over-reaction. Much of the TSA and other security measures are an over-reaction, and thus al-Qaeda got what it wanted - lots of attention for them (not all of it positive, I grant you, but attention is attention), and making the US and the West look scared, which they do, and are.
Unfortunately
this is right on the money. Is it worth a significant amount of inconvenience to save a few lives? At some point the answer is No, but nobody wants to admit it.
We could save a lot of lives if we implemented a national speed limit of 25mph. But we aren’t going to do it because it isn’t worth it.
People are more afraid of events that kill a lot of people at once than they are of events that kill a few people at a time, even if the few-people events kill more people overall. It’s really hard to do a rational cost-benefit analysis when you are scared, and people are scared of terrorism. The other thing to fight against is the idea that there is some solution that will catch everything, and also not produce any false positives.
The other big bias at work here is that people are more afraid of perceived outsiders killing them than in-group members doing so (not to mention furniture), regardless of the actual threats. Terrorism combines mass casualties, memorable and unique death mechanisms, and out-group fear in one package.
One small ray of hope there is that if the “group” assigned to terrorists becomes less exotic, then people overreact less. In a globalizing world, maybe exotic boogie men will become rarer.
Isn’t it hilarious how after dozens of mass shootings, including one with a plethora of dead schoolchildren, we can’t have a conversation on gun regulation without being accused of wiping our collective ass with the U.S. Constitution…
…but fly a couple of planes into buildings? For a decade and a half afterward I can’t even carry a full bottle of shampoo on a plane.
Another point on security theater, by the way: You know those shopping malls you’ll find nowadays inside of the security checkpoints? I can think of at least a couple of ways to make bombs using things you can buy in those shops. And a lot more, if I can posit collusion from someone working in those shops.
The moment they announced Homeland Security and draconian TSA procedures I knew Osama had won. Osama been dead years now and he still rules our lives. Wake up sheeple!
I gotta say, it’s pretty hilarious that the guy worried about the infinitesimal chance of being blown up on a plane accusing others of “wringing their hands” over the issue.
I agree about the “illusion of security.” I have long said that the point of the whole TSA screening was not to make people safer, but merely to make people feel safer. I remember flying in November, 2001. Granted, they were still in the process of setting security rules. This was long enough ago that passengers in Coach actually got meals on longer flights. Our dinner trays came with plastic knives but metal forks. I told my husband that if I were up against some lunatic who wanted to kill me with tableware, I’d rather he had one of the airline’s metal butter knives and a plastic fork.
I believe that part of the reason why screening rules are never revisited is that they are afraid that admitting that a rule was put into place that didn’t actually serve to make people safer would make passengers question a lot of the rules. So if they said, “We’ve done some analysis and we’ve decided that letting people carry on a 16-oz bottle of shampoo is no less safe than a 3-oz bottle” some people would reply, “Well, that makes sense. Now how about this taking-off-my-shoes business – can you show me some data that indicate this makes me safer? And how about how I have to pull my CPAP out of its case – does that make me safer?”
Speaking of which, if they don’t allow me to take my Surface in my carry-on baggage, will they also force me to check my CPAP? OK, if they lose my CPAP I won’t die if I have to sleep a couple of nights without it, but I’m sure there are other medical devices out there that people absolutely must have or face dire consequences. If they can’t tell if there are explosives in my computer, how can they tell if there are explosives in my CPAP?
What’s worse is the US expects the entire rest of the world to implement the same rules, so the entire air-travelling population of the world gets inconvenienced regardless of whether it’s actually an appropriate response to the issue.
If the USA wanted to be stupid and crazy all by itself, the rest of the world could just say “okay” and shake our heads.
but no, the USA works hard to impose the latest stupid, useless rules on rest of world by various bans, and requirements and by its market power size, succeeds.
Don’t forget that our friends at the Tub Stacking Agency also have a financial interest in making security screening as annoying as possible. Tired of taking of your belt and shoes? TSA-Pre makes your life so much easier!
I saw the same thing from Customs and Border Protection two weeks ago returning from France through Philadelphia. Every single person had to wait in line to talk to a CBP agent, no matter whether they had cleared through the automated kiosks or not. An extra 45 minutes of standing in line, with all of your bags, in a sweltering hot room makes one hell of an advertisement for Global Entry.