It's a one-sided issue which our government has said that they're gonna fix - small cost to attack, enormous cost to defend. The US had no other choice though. If one vulnerability is found, terrorists will just continue to exploit it, and it will erode trust in our transit networks.
Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes? Are alternative scanning methods just as effective? Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe? It's a tricky issue.
> Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes?
Isn't that how TSA already operates? Someone sneaks a bomb into their shoe and TSA makes me take my flip-flops off through the metal detector. Someone tries to blow up a plane with "gels" and TSA bans sealed water bottles. Someone stitches a bomb in their underwear and TSA sets up virtual strip-searches.
Until TSA mandates that everyone be stripped naked, anesthetized, and sealed in blast-proof capsules for the length of the journey, there will always be a way to sneak something deadly onto a plane. As terrorists get more clever, TSA will continue to fix the holes the terrorists find with continually more invasive, illogical, and civil-liberty-stripping mandates in the name of safety.
>> Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes?
That's exactly what happens now. The changes in TSA policy come after an attempted attack, and focus on what could have been done in the past to prevent that attack. As a member of the public, I've never seen the TSA actually put meaningful thought into how to make their procedures more effective, only more politically correct and politically 'safe'.
>> Are alternative scanning methods just as effective?
I'd like to point out that a bomber boarded an airplane, tried to attack it, failed, and burned his private parts, and upon landing was met by law enforcement. That's a success, as far as I'm concerned, and an opportunity for some laughs at his expense. It was so hard to get a bomb on an airplane that he took a low-quality, faulty explosive that he couldn't get to work.
>> Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe?
Honestly, I'd prefer the police and TSA respect their rights, and that people not live in panic or fear of terrorist attacks. A suicide attack happens so rarely and so unpredictably, so how are my freedoms any more protected if I submit to unreasonable searches?
In my opinion, trained psychological profilers would be much more effective.
Isn't that the best solution for them (putting people to sleep for the flight)? I'm still waiting to see what will happen when someone plays a terrorist by:
- using broken glass bottle (can be bought in the duty-free area)
- breaking one-time shaving razor you can buy on the airport and making a DIY knife
- stealing kitchen utensils from bars at the airport
- putting lighter gas into a small perfume container which you can take onboard, making spark from a normal battery, using some flamable spray to get more fuel
- disassembling some on board electric device (even stuff like lights) and warning to short it (that should cause some serious panic even if it's pretty safe in reality... who's actually aware of separate circuits?)
etc. at some point, people will start to realise that there are so many dangerous items on the airport itself, you don't need to bring anything with you. What will the TSA limit then?
Yes, and the latest round of terrorists seem to be incapable of detonating anything. You think they're just incompetent, or they've figured out that the damage inflicted is greater with an unsuccessful attempt that generates a flurry of new TSA procedures than with a successful one that just gets attributed to mechanical failure?
> If one vulnerability is found, terrorists will just continue to exploit it, and it will erode trust in our transit networks.
I don't see this. We have had one 9/11. We had one 7/7. Certainly RE: 7/7 that kind of stuff is VERY hard to prevent (no scanning possible) and UK society and public transport has changed _very_ little since this, if not at all.
However we are not seeing more 7/7 attacks.
Terrorists are in incredibly limited supply, certainly competent ones (Edinburgh Airport anyone? :D). We should possibly consider that we might see exactly the same number of terrorist attacks even if we had zero security.
It worth considering as opposed to being convinced that the barbarians are _definitely_ at the gates.
Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes? Are alternative scanning methods just as effective? Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe? It's a tricky issue.