keith_w (in response to Thomas Clausen) wrote:
> I understand about your inconvenience, Thomas, but what the airlines are
> doing
> is not about YOU!
Actually, it *is* about "me," and all the other "me's" that fly.
> We, the rest of the flying world, are *all* at risk, tremendous risk, because
> of a couple of insane terrorist organizations.
> It's VERY real, okay?
No one denies this. It's the *response* that is less than intelligent.
Let's take this "no liquids" policy for a start. The alleged terrorists
were supposedly going to use TATP (acetone peroxide), an explosive
that's not as powerful as, but *much* more unstable than, nitroglycerin.
What do our security organizations start demanding of the general
public? "Hey, that bottle of possibly unstable liquid explosive you're
carrying? TOSS IT IN THIS GREAT HUGE BIN WE'RE PARKING RIGHT BY OUR
SECURITY GATE FILLED WITH OTHER BOTTLES THAT MIGHT CONTAIN UNSTABLE
LIQUID EXPLOSIVE. What's that you say? It might *explode*? Oh, don't
you worry your pretty little empty head about it, sir/ma'am. Just go
ahead and do it. Trust us. We're minimum-wage security PROFESSIONALS."
Uh-huh. Yeah. Sure. Riiiiiiiiight.
This is totally irrational, unless you see it as a freakin' enormous
public relations exercise with no intrinsic security value whatsoever.
In other words, let's screw over hundreds of thousands of people
worldwide, not to actually protect them, but simply so that we can be
seen to be doing something. Keep those cameras rollin', News at 11:00!
See what good little security people we are?
Another example: Can't take non-prescription drugs on board in carry-on,
even if they're in pill form? Great. *I* suffer from Irritable Bowel
Syndrome, and without a combo of both prescription and non-prescription
drugs, will have a flight "experience" somewhat akin to crude torture,
involving no food, no water or other beverages, and visits to the
in-flight toilets every half hour for the duration, with the added
oh-so-pleasant possibility of being doubled up in agony from intestinal
cramping for twelve hours or so. If I were a prisoner being
transported, the Geneva Conventions would disallow such treatment of me.
But I'm just a paying passenger, who apparently has no right to expect
that the airlines or our vaunted national security organizations
actually use their freakin' *brains* when thinking about security
precautions.
My laptop computer might contain explosives? Well, you'll just have to
put it in with the CHECKED BAGGAGE, sir. That way, when the bomb
actually goes off, it'll blow the doors off of the cargo hold a fraction
of a second *before* it kills everybody on board. Mission accomplished.
Don't you think we're doing a good job on our new security procedures?
Oh, and if it isn't a bomb? Well, we'll take care of that, too -- the
thieves who've insinuated themselves into our baggage-handling
facilities will make sure that your laptop finds a nice new home
somewhere between your origin and destination, or the 18-year-old with
the iPod permanently wired into his brain-stem will smash your
multi-thousand-dollar piece of high-tech into useless junk. Have a nice
day.
> Some flight paths are more at risk, and if you insist on going to or from
> there, you'll either have to put up with the many safety measures or not go.
Neither reasonable, possible or even necessary in the majority of cases.
Running Madly Off In All Directions is *not* an intelligent or
effective way of implementing security procedures. Instead of simply
banning, banning, banning, security organizations need to get much, much
smarter. The El Al approach to security on their flights should be
standard practise for *all* high-risk flight corridors worldwide, and
optional on as "as-needed" basis everywhere else.
> I'm sure you heard about the at least 10 commercial aircraft they had planned
> to blow up after they were full and in the air? All at once, if they could.
> But, the folks in UK stymied that exercise...stopped them cold.
> For now.
> Avoided some 2000+ deaths, maybe more!
Or possibly none. See, for example, Colby Cosh's discussion of this
point here: http://www.colbycosh.com/#wewc
> And *you're* ticked about how *inconvenient* this is for frequent business
> fliers such as you... amazingly selfish point of view, if you don't mind my
> saying so!
Hey, it's a triple-threat. It's not *just* inconvenient, it's *also*
stupid *and* ineffective! Woo-hoo! Don't you feel safer NOW?
I don't have a problem with security procedures. I really don't. Like
so many people, however, I *do* have a problem with thoughtless,
pointless, stupid, ineffective, politically-correct,
cast-our-nets-as-widely-as-possible-so-we-don't-offend-any-one-group
security procedures. People like Bruce Schneier at Counterpane Security
have done extensive thinking and implementation of real security
procedures, and have critiqued the "security" we have at airports time
and again. There's no point in having inconvenient security if it's
ineffective. And in any case, these alleged terrorists (and I *do*
believe they're more than just "alleged") *weren't* stopped by "airport
security" (which is a virtual oxymoron anyways). They were stopped by
other security methods before they ever got near an airport, and thank
God for that, because if we had to depend on the idiocy we call "airport
security," they might have succeeded.
As it stands now, the airport authorities and the airlines have done
virtually *nothing* to stop the morons, freelance mooks and organized
crime that infects our baggage-handling, they've done *nothing* to put
the airlines and their insurers on the hook for losses we may suffer due
to these stupid restrictions, and they've done *nothing* to assure the
general public that traveling won't simply become so pointless that
hardly anyone will fly anymore. Trust me, *then* (to use the old
cliche), the terrorists will have won, because none of us "infidels"
will every sully their fair lands again by actually traveling there.
I'm not interested in returning to pre-9/11 airport security. I want
the El Al model, worldwide, NOW. The Israelis are practically the only
ones who've actually thought about airline security, and they're the
gold standard for this.
The rest of us are just goofs.
Garth
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|