5 ms·

Shhhhhh! Don't let the authorities know, or they'll start silly security theatre there as well.

by axod 17y ago

mechanical_fish 17y ago
I'm not convinced of that, actually. We have historical precedent -- trains were bombed in Madrid, and there have been all sorts of transit bombings in the Middle East. But riding on the train is still not a big deal as far as I can see. Passenger aircraft may be uniquely suited to inane security theatre. They're already so inefficient and uncomfortable that it's relatively easy to get away with piling on additional inefficiency and discomfort. And the problem of securing them feels almost tractable -- they're only vulnerable at the start and end of the trip [1], they have very limited entrances and exits, they carry so little stuff that you feel as if you actually have a chance of screening it all. [2] The problem with security theatre on trains and buses, to say nothing of ships, is that you just can't make it plausible without making it so expensive that you might as well just shut it down. Theatre is no good if the audience can't suspend disbelief. --- [1] Well, technically, there are surface-to-air missiles. But somehow those are easy to handwave away. Theatre is a mysterious business. [2] You probably don't, of course, but reality is not at issue here.
- elblanco 17y ago
  It's really because trains cost a whole lot less than an aircraft....and that's about it. The theater of security has very little to do with protecting passengers if you notice. I'm always surprised nobody has just blown up the security line at an airport. Easy access to the line, hundreds of people, no security on the way to the line. It's about as soft of a target as you can find.
  - rdtsc 17y ago
    Both security theatre and terrorism is about managing perceptions. One is just a response to the other in the public + media domain. Also government will do whatever it takes to seem like it is doing something. Lots of rules, directives with cryptic long numbers separated by dashes, TSA employees with uniforms resembling those of real police officers, etc, etc. This is all very very different than actually doing something or making anything safe.
    - elblanco 17y ago
      I agree 110%. I think what I mean is that, the purpose of the security is 2-fold, to prevent the loss of expensive equipment, and to make people think that the security is for their benefit so that they continue to fly/ride/whatever and keep those businesses afloat. It just so happens that lots of the things you have to do to keep an airplane (the equipment) safe are the same things you need to do to keep people safe. If they were serious about the security of the people on the aircraft, they'd make it really simple instead of complex. Simple things like no carry-ons whatsoever and every flight has a marshal. None of this Monty Python-esque "only 1 carry-on unless it's a 'personal item' in which case you get 2 or it's a Thursday but you can only get in it during the flight above 20,000ft and no later than 60 minutes before landing, but only if your point of origin is Minnesota during the month of November or Kansas during the Spring -- and if it's electronic in any way shape or form, forget about it, unless it has an 'airplane mode', or is a watch that can resist depths up to 60m". edit the top story on reddit right now has this right "Only two things have made flying safer since 9/11: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."
  - TeHCrAzY 17y ago
    I disagree. It's because driving a train into a building is significantly harder than driving a plane into one
    - elblanco 17y ago
      At any rate, it's about property protection and not passenger protection.

Shhhhhh! Don't let the authorities know, or they'll start silly security theatre there as well.

by axod 17y ago

Shhhhhh! Don't let the authorities know, or they'll start silly security theatre there as well.

I'm not convinced of that, actually. We have historical precedent -- trains were bombed in Madrid, and there have been all sorts of transit bombings in the Middle East. But riding on the train is still not a big deal as far as I can see. Passenger aircraft may be uniquely suited to inane security theatre. They're already so inefficient and uncomfortable that it's relatively easy to get away with piling on additional inefficiency and discomfort. And the problem of securing them feels almost tractable -- they're only vulnerable at the start and end of the trip [1], they have very limited entrances and exits, they carry so little stuff that you feel as if you actually have a chance of screening it all. [2] The problem with security theatre on trains and buses, to say nothing of ships, is that you just can't make it plausible without making it so expensive that you might as well just shut it down. Theatre is no good if the audience can't suspend disbelief. --- [1] Well, technically, there are surface-to-air missiles. But somehow those are easy to handwave away. Theatre is a mysterious business. [2] You probably don't, of course, but reality is not at issue here.

elblanco 17y ago
It's really because trains cost a whole lot less than an aircraft....and that's about it. The theater of security has very little to do with protecting passengers if you notice. I'm always surprised nobody has just blown up the security line at an airport. Easy access to the line, hundreds of people, no security on the way to the line. It's about as soft of a target as you can find.
- rdtsc 17y ago
  Both security theatre and terrorism is about managing perceptions. One is just a response to the other in the public + media domain. Also government will do whatever it takes to seem like it is doing something. Lots of rules, directives with cryptic long numbers separated by dashes, TSA employees with uniforms resembling those of real police officers, etc, etc. This is all very very different than actually doing something or making anything safe.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    I agree 110%. I think what I mean is that, the purpose of the security is 2-fold, to prevent the loss of expensive equipment, and to make people think that the security is for their benefit so that they continue to fly/ride/whatever and keep those businesses afloat. It just so happens that lots of the things you have to do to keep an airplane (the equipment) safe are the same things you need to do to keep people safe. If they were serious about the security of the people on the aircraft, they'd make it really simple instead of complex. Simple things like no carry-ons whatsoever and every flight has a marshal. None of this Monty Python-esque "only 1 carry-on unless it's a 'personal item' in which case you get 2 or it's a Thursday but you can only get in it during the flight above 20,000ft and no later than 60 minutes before landing, but only if your point of origin is Minnesota during the month of November or Kansas during the Spring -- and if it's electronic in any way shape or form, forget about it, unless it has an 'airplane mode', or is a watch that can resist depths up to 60m". edit the top story on reddit right now has this right "Only two things have made flying safer since 9/11: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."
- TeHCrAzY 17y ago
  I disagree. It's because driving a train into a building is significantly harder than driving a plane into one
  - elblanco 17y ago
    At any rate, it's about property protection and not passenger protection.