5 ms·

Not sure you are correct - I'm in the 2/3. I have been scanned several times and I'm fine with it. For me: safety > personal privacy.

orangecat 16y ago
Please learn how to rationally evaluate risks before voting. Edit: This was an immature personal attack, and I apologize. It really shouldn't be voted up; others have made the same point in a more constructive manner.
yequalsx 16y ago
I would like to know where you draw the safety vs. personal freedom line. How far is too far? For me we crossed the line a long time ago. It would be nice to hear a different perspective. As it stands now, a 13 year old boy or girl will be groped during an enhanced pat down. As I see it, 9/11 can't happen again. That is, an airplane will never again be hijacked and used as a missile. It's possible for someone to blow up a plane but not to turn it into a missile. There are lots of places where a terrorist can kill 200+ people that don't have any security at all. Given this, I don't understand why having the level of security in our airports is justified. We've made it so that airports are a much harder target than a sporting event. Thus, airports are much safer from a terrorism point of view. Enhancements to security are not needed and a waste of time. I genuinely would like to know why my reasoning is wrong in your opinion and where you draw the line.
- timepilot 16y ago
  Actually, I think your reasoning is well "reasonable". :) I also agree with you that the hijack/missile scenario seems unlikely at this point (existing safety precautions seem appropriate). I remain surprised (but happy) that terrorists have not gone after softer targets (malls, etc). For some reason, they remain very focused on airplanes (maybe the shock and awe effect). As a result, taking steps to make air travel as safe as possible seems reasonable. Now - how we do that is an open question. We have already had an underwear bombing attempt. How do we prevent this from being attempted again? The only solution I have seen is the current scanners and sadly the "pat down". If there is a better one, lets deploy it. If not, then it seems the argument is personal privacy > the lives of the unfortunate passengers aboard the plane that explodes when the terrorists are successful. No? If the underwear bomber had been successful, would you have a different view?
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    No, I would not have a different view. It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden. Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion. The so called underwear bomber was stopped because when people see a man trying to ignite his underwear they stop him. We're not that helpless. Life is risky. Zero people have died in the U.S. from terrorism on airplanes since 9/11. It's extremely unlikely that a terrorist will blow up a plane with the security measures that were in place 1 year ago. No need to go further. The next place to hide explosives are vaginas and anal regions. Do you think those should be probed as well? If a terrorist blows himself up at a TSA checkpoint should we have a checkpoint in order to get to the checkpoint? At what point does the security become theater to you?
    - timepilot 16y ago
      "It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden." - agreed "Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion." - Understood. Personally, I'm ok with the virtual strip search. If the physical search is a "professionally executed" pat down, I'm also ok with it. My wife and I fly multiple times/month and so far this has been our experience. If the search turned into "groping", I would have a different view. "Zero people have died in the U.S. from terrorism on airplanes since 9/11. It's extremely unlikely that a terrorist will blow up a plane with the security measures that were in place 1 year ago." - We just had a few close calls. The terrorists appear to be adapting. "The next place to hide explosives are vaginas and anal regions. Do you think those should be probed as well? If a terrorist blows himself up at a TSA checkpoint should we have a checkpoint in order to get to the checkpoint?" - This is indeed the rub. Where do you "draw the line?" - is always the issue when discussing giving up/forcing people to give up personal liberties for the good of others. Nevertheless, we do it all the time. For me the scanners/searches have not crossed the line. For you, they have.
      - OpieCunningham 16y ago
- jsz0 16y ago
  You're assuming that air port security exists in its current form to protect human life. Maybe it's more about protecting the aircraft. AQAP recently stated that their primary goal in attacking aviation targets is to inflict financial damage. Their reasoning is a relatively cheap attack has the potential to destroy a $300M+ aircraft. Like most other things in American politics you have to follow the money. A few hundred dead people is sad but a politically connected insurance company paying off a big claim for a blown up 747 is more likely to drive policy in this country. People die from preventable causes all the time. That's not really the issue here I suspect.
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    Actually, I'm assuming that the person I responded to supports these policies in order to protect human life.
    - timepilot 16y ago
      you would be correct! :)
timepilot 16y ago
@orangecat: If you are suggesting I'm talking a health risk, fair enough. If you are suggesting the added security from the scanners is minimal, also fair enough. If you are trolling, you know what you can do.
- orangecat 16y ago
  I'm suggesting that the risk of terrorists blowing up your flight using a method that backscatter machines would prevent, but that previous procedures would not prevent, is indistinguishable from zero. You're trading your civil liberties in exchange for nothing. And that would be fine, except you're also trading my civil liberties in the process.
  - timepilot 16y ago
    I am well aware the scanners are flawed. However, I have not seen a study that shows the added benefit is "indistinguishable from zero." Please provide links, I may agree with you.
    - Semiapies 16y ago
      Alternately, will you provide evidence that the scanners have been beneficial in any remotely significant way?
    - timepilot 16y ago
      The good and the bad: “While officials said [the scanners] performed as well as physical pat downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s audit arm, said Wednesday in written testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee. http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gao-raises-questions-about-effectiveness-full-body-scanners http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gao-raises-questions-abo...
    - orangecat 16y ago
      All I can do is point to the zero deaths since 2001 caused by passengers smuggling dangerous objects onto planes. Flying is far safer than many other common activities whose risks we gladly accept, and that would remain true even if terrorists blew up a fully loaded 747 every year. And not specifically related to the new policies, but see here for plausible analyses that by inducing travelers to drive rather than fly, the TSA is on balance killing Americans: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1150928-analyst-tsa-methods-will-kill-more-americans-highway.html http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/115092...

orangecat 16y ago

Please learn how to rationally evaluate risks before voting. Edit: This was an immature personal attack, and I apologize. It really shouldn't be voted up; others have made the same point in a more constructive manner.

yequalsx 16y ago

I would like to know where you draw the safety vs. personal freedom line. How far is too far? For me we crossed the line a long time ago. It would be nice to hear a different perspective. As it stands now, a 13 year old boy or girl will be groped during an enhanced pat down. As I see it, 9/11 can't happen again. That is, an airplane will never again be hijacked and used as a missile. It's possible for someone to blow up a plane but not to turn it into a missile. There are lots of places where a terrorist can kill 200+ people that don't have any security at all. Given this, I don't understand why having the level of security in our airports is justified. We've made it so that airports are a much harder target than a sporting event. Thus, airports are much safer from a terrorism point of view. Enhancements to security are not needed and a waste of time. I genuinely would like to know why my reasoning is wrong in your opinion and where you draw the line.

timepilot 16y ago
Actually, I think your reasoning is well "reasonable". :) I also agree with you that the hijack/missile scenario seems unlikely at this point (existing safety precautions seem appropriate). I remain surprised (but happy) that terrorists have not gone after softer targets (malls, etc). For some reason, they remain very focused on airplanes (maybe the shock and awe effect). As a result, taking steps to make air travel as safe as possible seems reasonable. Now - how we do that is an open question. We have already had an underwear bombing attempt. How do we prevent this from being attempted again? The only solution I have seen is the current scanners and sadly the "pat down". If there is a better one, lets deploy it. If not, then it seems the argument is personal privacy > the lives of the unfortunate passengers aboard the plane that explodes when the terrorists are successful. No? If the underwear bomber had been successful, would you have a different view?
- yequalsx 16y ago
  No, I would not have a different view. It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden. Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion. The so called underwear bomber was stopped because when people see a man trying to ignite his underwear they stop him. We're not that helpless. Life is risky. Zero people have died in the U.S. from terrorism on airplanes since 9/11. It's extremely unlikely that a terrorist will blow up a plane with the security measures that were in place 1 year ago. No need to go further. The next place to hide explosives are vaginas and anal regions. Do you think those should be probed as well? If a terrorist blows himself up at a TSA checkpoint should we have a checkpoint in order to get to the checkpoint? At what point does the security become theater to you?
  - timepilot 16y ago
    "It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden." - agreed "Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion." - Understood. Personally, I'm ok with the virtual strip search. If the physical search is a "professionally executed" pat down, I'm also ok with it. My wife and I fly multiple times/month and so far this has been our experience. If the search turned into "groping", I would have a different view. "Zero people have died in the U.S. from terrorism on airplanes since 9/11. It's extremely unlikely that a terrorist will blow up a plane with the security measures that were in place 1 year ago." - We just had a few close calls. The terrorists appear to be adapting. "The next place to hide explosives are vaginas and anal regions. Do you think those should be probed as well? If a terrorist blows himself up at a TSA checkpoint should we have a checkpoint in order to get to the checkpoint?" - This is indeed the rub. Where do you "draw the line?" - is always the issue when discussing giving up/forcing people to give up personal liberties for the good of others. Nevertheless, we do it all the time. For me the scanners/searches have not crossed the line. For you, they have.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
jsz0 16y ago
You're assuming that air port security exists in its current form to protect human life. Maybe it's more about protecting the aircraft. AQAP recently stated that their primary goal in attacking aviation targets is to inflict financial damage. Their reasoning is a relatively cheap attack has the potential to destroy a $300M+ aircraft. Like most other things in American politics you have to follow the money. A few hundred dead people is sad but a politically connected insurance company paying off a big claim for a blown up 747 is more likely to drive policy in this country. People die from preventable causes all the time. That's not really the issue here I suspect.
- yequalsx 16y ago
  Actually, I'm assuming that the person I responded to supports these policies in order to protect human life.
  - timepilot 16y ago
    you would be correct! :)

timepilot 16y ago

@orangecat: If you are suggesting I'm talking a health risk, fair enough. If you are suggesting the added security from the scanners is minimal, also fair enough. If you are trolling, you know what you can do.

orangecat 16y ago
I'm suggesting that the risk of terrorists blowing up your flight using a method that backscatter machines would prevent, but that previous procedures would not prevent, is indistinguishable from zero. You're trading your civil liberties in exchange for nothing. And that would be fine, except you're also trading my civil liberties in the process.
- timepilot 16y ago
  I am well aware the scanners are flawed. However, I have not seen a study that shows the added benefit is "indistinguishable from zero." Please provide links, I may agree with you.
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    Alternately, will you provide evidence that the scanners have been beneficial in any remotely significant way?
  - timepilot 16y ago
    The good and the bad: “While officials said [the scanners] performed as well as physical pat downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s audit arm, said Wednesday in written testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee. http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gao-raises-questions-about-effectiveness-full-body-scanners http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gao-raises-questions-abo...
  - orangecat 16y ago
    All I can do is point to the zero deaths since 2001 caused by passengers smuggling dangerous objects onto planes. Flying is far safer than many other common activities whose risks we gladly accept, and that would remain true even if terrorists blew up a fully loaded 747 every year. And not specifically related to the new policies, but see here for plausible analyses that by inducing travelers to drive rather than fly, the TSA is on balance killing Americans: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1150928-analyst-tsa-methods-will-kill-more-americans-highway.html http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/115092...