Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Nov 2010 22:34 UTC
In the News As none other I know how problematic it is to discuss matters related to politics on the web. However, every now and then, there's no way around it, and this is one of those moments. There's this thing going on at airports in the US, and while many will see it as a separate issue, the body scanner issue, and the sad stories it has spawned, are symptoms of a far larger problem that is a direct threat to everything we've fought for during and since the Enlightenment.
Thread beginning with comment 450215
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

"And for what? Because 3500 people died 9 years ago? It sucks for those 3500 people and their relatives, but dear lord, 150000 people are murdered every year in the US alone. And let's not even get started about how many people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq due to West's involvement (including that of my own country, sadly).

Yeah, and if you or someone you loved are killed the next time a plane gets flown into a building (or worse), I guess that's just too damn bad. I mean, people are murdered every day, so why should anybody give a shit about protecting lives?

I'm not saying that these scanners/pat downs are the solution... if there are better alternatives that won't jack the price of plane tickets sky high (they're way too expensive already and the reason why I only fly once every couple of years), then let's do that. But, common sense would tell you that if you don't want planes getting hijacked/blown up, you're going to have to search people in one way or another before they board planes.
"


First off, no one said life was safe. But its stupid to trade freedom for safety. Second off, who in their right mind, even if they are facing certain death, is going to let terrorists hijack a plane in the next 100 years? Don't you think terrorists know this? The only reason the first attack succeeded was because the "hostages" thought they would be ransomed. Third, these machines do nothing to prevent a terrorist from having a bomb sewn up inside them. If they are willing to die, what's the harm in a bit of extra surgery? They only really have to make it on the plane alive.

Edited 2010-11-17 01:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

First off, no one said life was safe. But its stupid to trade freedom for safety. Second off, who in their right mind, even if they are facing certain death, is going to let terrorists hijack a plane in the next 100 years? Don't you think terrorists know this? The only reason the first attack succeeded was because the "hostages" thought they would be ransomed. Third, these machines do nothing to prevent a terrorist from having a bomb sewn up inside them. If they are willing to die, what's the harm in a bit of extra surgery? They only really have to make it on the plane alive.


So you're saying we should just shut down security altogether and let nut jobs carry whatever the hell they want on an airplane? Sure, folks probably wouldn't let terrorists hijack a plane again, but if there were several of them carrying AK-47's aboard, I'm not sure they'd have a lot of choice in the matter. More to the point though, I wouldn't want to be one of those people on the plane who had to try and stop a gang of terrorists packing fully-loaded automatic weapons.

Although what we have in place now may not be fool-proof, I'm sure it's at least better than nothing.

Edited 2010-11-17 02:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

No, he's saying strengthen the doors, hire some air martials, and let everyone get on with life without being molested. There hasn't been an alqaeda strike in Australia due to good police work/intel sharing. Security scanners won't do squat if a terrorist decides to get on a plane, land in your country and drive a bulldozer down a crowded shopping mall. You think you're safer but you're not. They can strike at any time from any place.

Reply Parent Score: 9

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Although what we have in place now may not be fool-proof, I'm sure it's at least better than nothing.


If it is not proven to be effective catching people yet used as a solution then all you're gaining is a false sense of security. Add to that the cost of the whole project and the indignity already discussed and I think you could argue that this solution is worse than nothing.

Doing "nothing" would have lead to further/better discussions about security, no health nor privacy concerns and would have been a great deal cheaper.

But as always with governments, it's more important to be seen to do something than to actually do the right thing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

If not the person you are responding to then what most of us are saying is that the current innefective security needs to be shutdown and replaced with effective security practices which actually result in increased safety and risk detection.

Adding more checkpoints, blinky points and fancy machines has not and will not inherently increase safety; it only makes people who see the blinky lights feel safer.

The argument is not that all security measures should be removed but that effective security measures should be employed instead of the current methods.

Reply Parent Score: 3