Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by timepilot 5688 days 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?

2 comments

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?

"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.

So your line is slightly beyond the current TSA policy. What happens to your line when a terrorist successfully destroys a plane full of people with a anal cavity bomb? Do you and your wife submit to cavity searches or, as you stated, your "personal privacy > the lives of the unfortunate passengers aboard the plane that explodes when the terrorists are successful. No?".
"How do we prevent this from being attempted again?"

"We" won't, bluntly enough. Nor will hyperparanoia do anything about the next stunt. What do you do when a lunatic swallows or rectally inserts some explosives?

The answer is that you accept that there are reasonable measures and unreasonable measures. Use only reasonable measures. Accept that there is a finite risk of someone getting past those measures. Recognize that you're more likely to die while driving to an airport than in flight from all causes, not merely the extreme outlier possibility of someone deliberately trying to kill people on your flight.