JetBlue defects to the dark side

[Pete from Boston]

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I certainly don't have anything to hide. In fact, I'm quite proud of my manhood. Aren't you?

1. I'm very, very sure someone who's transgender would disagree.

Agreed. 

Beyond that, speaking as someone who is male and has always been male, I do not like the idea of a TSA person "checking" me out there.

2. "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" misses the point; it basically legitimizes any government invasion of privacy in the name of "national security".

Unless they have a very good reason for such invasion of privacy, which is what it is (and the TSA usually does not), then it should not be allowed.  Period.

How do you identify who is a threat enough to have a good reason to invade this privacy?  In the meantime, what's too invasive to justify trying to save the lives of a hundred or more people?

Keeping our civil liberties involves accepting risk.  I can think of quite a few things they could do, but they all involve turning our political system on its head.

Any practical suggestions for today, since our political system isn't about to undergo upheaval?

[cl94]

While I am typically a strong advocate of personal liberties, for air travel, we need to give up a little bit of freedom to ensure our security. Unlike other forms of travel, if your plane crashes, you'll probably die. There is no escape from an aircraft while it is in the air. If somebody gets in there with a weapon and decides to use it, you're a sitting duck. The fatalities per major incident rate for air travel is sky high because of this. While a train or bus crash doesn't make the news unless people die, every plane crash makes national (if not international) news and a significant amount result in at least one death.

Metal detectors are great, but they can only sense metallic objects. It won't find a ceramic knife, certain IEDs, or other nonmetallic substances. An enhanced patdown won't necessarily catch everything. Remember how drugs are often smuggled into this country inside various body cavities. That's where the body scanners come in handy. You're not hiding anything if you're going through one of those. While I cringe at the thought of somebody possibly distributing pornographic images of millions of travelers, it's probably better than dying on a plane.

Given my background, I'm probably a little more willing to go through security. Family members have held high-level government positions well before 9/11 and you needed a pretty thorough security screening to get into certain sensitive facilities. A week after 9/11, 7 year old me got an enhanced patdown and wanding at the local Six Flags park along with everyone else entering the park. That's just life when people are made aware of security threats that were previously overlooked.

Granted, the time required to pass through security does dissuade me from flying unless the distance is long and the price is significantly less than taking the train or driving. It is quite a pain and I don't understand why they even have a few of the current regulations. Heck, in 2 weeks I'll be flying to DC not having flown in over 4 years. I'd rather not fly, but my round trip airfare is 30% less than what it would cost to park at my hotel.

[vdeane]

The one thing making us safer after 9/11 didn't even involve the government at all: it involved cultural perception.  Before 9/11, if someone hijacked a plane, people thought they would be hostages and would lie low and await rescue.  Now, if someone tries to hijack the plane, they'll have 20 passengers restraining them before they can even point their weapon at anything.  Pretty much every failed air attack since 9/11 has failed in this manner.  The national security state, however, has mysteriously managed to foil nothing except the smuggling of salad dressing and cigarette lighters.

We're far too focused on "things".  As long as we continue to go after "things", we'll always be a step behind.  Ideally, we'd combat terrorism by moulding our national behavior such that nobody would ever want to attack us.  It works great for countries like New Zealand.  Failing that, we could at least get a competent security agency that would do things like follow up on the tip from the father of the underwear bomber.  The buffoons at the CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, etc. need to be put out to pasture.  Note that this WOULD required a complete overhaul of the security clearance system to deal with our inter-connected world.  Currently, if a suspect crosses an international border, nobody can track it because everything is so compartmentalized.

[cl94]

The problem is that we do this and this while saying this.

Being serious, the EU has a linked system. I think that the US and Canada should link (and open the borders), but given the state of stuff in Arizona, I don't see that happening any time soon and the problem will only get worse.

[SSOWorld]

we have an interconnected system.  It's called NEXUS and SENTRI.

[dfwmapper]

The one thing making us safer after 9/11 didn't even involve the government at all: it involved cultural perception.  Before 9/11, if someone hijacked a plane, people thought they would be hostages and would lie low and await rescue.  Now, if someone tries to hijack the plane, they'll have 20 passengers restraining them before they can even point their weapon at anything.  Pretty much every failed air attack since 9/11 has failed in this manner.  The national security state, however, has mysteriously managed to foil nothing except the smuggling of salad dressing and cigarette lighters

That combined proper deadbolt locks on cockpit doors and simple changes like flight attendants blocking the aisle with the beverage cart before the cockpit door is opened to serve the pilots or let them out to use the toilet. A plane can no longer be used as a weapon, and if someone wants to destroy a single plane, there have to be better ways to do it that don't require being onboard.

[vdeane]

The one thing making us safer after 9/11 didn't even involve the government at all: it involved cultural perception.  Before 9/11, if someone hijacked a plane, people thought they would be hostages and would lie low and await rescue.  Now, if someone tries to hijack the plane, they'll have 20 passengers restraining them before they can even point their weapon at anything.  Pretty much every failed air attack since 9/11 has failed in this manner.  The national security state, however, has mysteriously managed to foil nothing except the smuggling of salad dressing and cigarette lighters

That combined proper deadbolt locks on cockpit doors and simple changes like flight attendants blocking the aisle with the beverage cart before the cockpit door is opened to serve the pilots or let them out to use the toilet. A plane can no longer be used as a weapon, and if someone wants to destroy a single plane, there have to be better ways to do it that don't require being onboard.

I don't think it's actually gotten to the point where those measures have actually been used.  Good that we have them, though.

Frankly, I'm surprised nobody has tried to bomb the line going in to security.  Of course, if someone did, the TSA would probably create a second checkpoint that you have to clear before you can try to clear security. 

I also imagine the mass revolt against the TSA would gain steam after the obvious measures that would be added after the first person tries a rectal bomb.

[jakeroot]

Frankly, I'm surprised nobody has tried to bomb the line going in to security.  Of course, if someone did, the TSA would probably create a second checkpoint that you have to clear before you can try to clear security. 

Don't worry, we can blame Call of Duty:

[cpzilliacus]

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I certainly don't have anything to hide. In fact, I'm quite proud of my manhood. Aren't you?

1. I'm very, very sure someone who's transgender would disagree.

Agreed. 

Beyond that, speaking as someone who is male and has always been male, I do not like the idea of a TSA person "checking" me out there.

2. "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" misses the point; it basically legitimizes any government invasion of privacy in the name of "national security".

Unless they have a very good reason for such invasion of privacy, which is what it is (and the TSA usually does not), then it should not be allowed.  Period.

How do you identify who is a threat enough to have a good reason to invade this privacy?  In the meantime, what's too invasive to justify trying to save the lives of a hundred or more people?

The Israelis do not engage in such crap at Ben Gurion Airport, and have a pretty good record in such matters.  As does El Al Airlines.

[Pete from Boston]

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I certainly don't have anything to hide. In fact, I'm quite proud of my manhood. Aren't you?

1. I'm very, very sure someone who's transgender would disagree.

Agreed. 

Beyond that, speaking as someone who is male and has always been male, I do not like the idea of a TSA person "checking" me out there.

2. "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" misses the point; it basically legitimizes any government invasion of privacy in the name of "national security".

Unless they have a very good reason for such invasion of privacy, which is what it is (and the TSA usually does not), then it should not be allowed.  Period.

How do you identify who is a threat enough to have a good reason to invade this privacy?  In the meantime, what's too invasive to justify trying to save the lives of a hundred or more people?

The Israelis do not engage in such crap at Ben Gurion Airport, and have a pretty good record in such matters.  As does El Al Airlines.

What is the practical application of whatever they do differently to a country forty times their size? 

[PHLBOS]

The Israelis do not engage in such crap at Ben Gurion Airport, and have a pretty good record in such matters.  As does El Al Airlines.

A few years ago at an El Al ticket counter at LAX; one gunman found out the hard way that you don't screw around with El Al even on the public side of an airport in the U.S.