3 ms·

Yup. Btw: it's kind of shocking to see concrete and metal garbage receptacles (shrapnel-enhancing, hiding systems) in the US, after working abroad in FR and UK

Yup. Btw: it's kind of shocking to see concrete and metal garbage receptacles (shrapnel-enhancing, hiding systems) in the US, after working abroad in FR and UK. These things need to be proactively replaced with tiny alumin(i)um hoops and clear plastic bags. Even the HS I went to in the 90's had a pipebomb issue at some point and hence no lockers.

lsc 11y ago
I would argue the exact opposite. We need more "life goes on" and less fear. Like how the stock exchange opened the next day. I mean, changing garbage cans, really, is fine. It's not a huge cost and doesn't make it hard for us to continue to live our lives. If making a change to the garbage cans makes you feel better, go ahead. But think of the incredible cost of implementing the level of airline security we have now. For anything under four hours, you are better off taking a car. Sure, we're trying to improve our rail infrastructure to the point where that's an option, too, but we're a long ways off. The terrorists did some damage, sure... but the actual damage they did in the September 11 attacks has been dwarfed, at least economically, by the fact that we have essentially ruined our air-travel system in response.
- veddox 11y ago
  > We need more "life goes on" and less fear. Thumbs up for that. And respect to Boston for the way they handled the marathon bombings back in 2013. > the actual damage they did in the September 11 attacks has been dwarfed, at least economically, by the fact that we have essentially ruined our air-travel system in response. That however is a one-sided statement. The question is always: how many attacks did we prevent with the new security? You can't just weigh up 9/11 vs. the cost of airline security. You have to see 9/11 plus any attack that was prevented (which I agree is hard/impossible to measure) vs. our security costs. I don't deny that some air-travel security is OTT. But you can't claim it's pointless. (Quite apart from the fact that customers, out of fear, nowadays probably wouldn't fly with an airline that didn't provide an insane amount of security. Despite an almost century long track record of astounding safety, the air-travel industry still has to convince its customers all the time that flying is safe.)
  - mseebach 11y ago
    > But you can't claim [new airport security is] pointless. Actually, we can: http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find... TL;DR: "undercover investigators were able to smuggle mock explosives or banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials" To the extend increased security around air travel deterred anything, it's in the non-airport-screening efforts -- increased/better intelligence is a very plausible source, and the reinforced cockpit doors another.
  - douche 11y ago
    Yeah, it's pointless. 9/11 has pretty much eliminated the possibility of a successful hijacking of a commercial flight in the United States, between better security between the cockpit and the cabin, and the fact that if any group of hijackers tries to take over using boxcutters again, they'll be bumrushed by the other passengers and beaten to death. Before, a hijacking usually just meant that your vacation plans got a little upset by a detour to Cuba, before negotiations straightened things out. The last time I flew, I somehow got shuffled into a preferred-access security line. I showed my passport, and walked through to my gate, no dicking around with taking my shoes off, emptying my pockets out, dumping my laptop out of my bag, none of that garbage, and I was through to the gate 5 minutes after stepping out of the car. I did have to toss the last ounce or two of my coffee - clearly, something that I'm consuming in plain sight of the TSA weenies could be a volatile explosive compound. All in all, it was the best experience I've had with an airport since the days when there was no security. Or when I flew out of Germany or Switzerland.
- SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
  > Sure, we're trying to improve our rail infrastructure to the point where that's an option, too, but we're a long ways off. Which is fine until some idiot blows up a train, then all of a sudden that becomes a massive inconvenience (all in the name of public safety!) as well... Although interesting to see that that's exactly what happened on the 7/7 bombings in London and seems to have made zero difference re: security theatre on the Underground.
- bro-stick 11y ago
  That's a given, of course, and doesn't need mentioning... it's a false dichotomy. Reduce risks meaningfully with less security theater. Locking your front door and such, not taking off shoes, belt, pants and so on. Common sense plus data, not edge-case fears to balance risk reduction vs. practicality.

lsc 11y ago

I would argue the exact opposite. We need more "life goes on" and less fear. Like how the stock exchange opened the next day. I mean, changing garbage cans, really, is fine. It's not a huge cost and doesn't make it hard for us to continue to live our lives. If making a change to the garbage cans makes you feel better, go ahead. But think of the incredible cost of implementing the level of airline security we have now. For anything under four hours, you are better off taking a car. Sure, we're trying to improve our rail infrastructure to the point where that's an option, too, but we're a long ways off. The terrorists did some damage, sure... but the actual damage they did in the September 11 attacks has been dwarfed, at least economically, by the fact that we have essentially ruined our air-travel system in response.

veddox 11y ago
> We need more "life goes on" and less fear. Thumbs up for that. And respect to Boston for the way they handled the marathon bombings back in 2013. > the actual damage they did in the September 11 attacks has been dwarfed, at least economically, by the fact that we have essentially ruined our air-travel system in response. That however is a one-sided statement. The question is always: how many attacks did we prevent with the new security? You can't just weigh up 9/11 vs. the cost of airline security. You have to see 9/11 plus any attack that was prevented (which I agree is hard/impossible to measure) vs. our security costs. I don't deny that some air-travel security is OTT. But you can't claim it's pointless. (Quite apart from the fact that customers, out of fear, nowadays probably wouldn't fly with an airline that didn't provide an insane amount of security. Despite an almost century long track record of astounding safety, the air-travel industry still has to convince its customers all the time that flying is safe.)
- mseebach 11y ago
  > But you can't claim [new airport security is] pointless. Actually, we can: http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find... TL;DR: "undercover investigators were able to smuggle mock explosives or banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials" To the extend increased security around air travel deterred anything, it's in the non-airport-screening efforts -- increased/better intelligence is a very plausible source, and the reinforced cockpit doors another.
- douche 11y ago
  Yeah, it's pointless. 9/11 has pretty much eliminated the possibility of a successful hijacking of a commercial flight in the United States, between better security between the cockpit and the cabin, and the fact that if any group of hijackers tries to take over using boxcutters again, they'll be bumrushed by the other passengers and beaten to death. Before, a hijacking usually just meant that your vacation plans got a little upset by a detour to Cuba, before negotiations straightened things out. The last time I flew, I somehow got shuffled into a preferred-access security line. I showed my passport, and walked through to my gate, no dicking around with taking my shoes off, emptying my pockets out, dumping my laptop out of my bag, none of that garbage, and I was through to the gate 5 minutes after stepping out of the car. I did have to toss the last ounce or two of my coffee - clearly, something that I'm consuming in plain sight of the TSA weenies could be a volatile explosive compound. All in all, it was the best experience I've had with an airport since the days when there was no security. Or when I flew out of Germany or Switzerland.
SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
> Sure, we're trying to improve our rail infrastructure to the point where that's an option, too, but we're a long ways off. Which is fine until some idiot blows up a train, then all of a sudden that becomes a massive inconvenience (all in the name of public safety!) as well... Although interesting to see that that's exactly what happened on the 7/7 bombings in London and seems to have made zero difference re: security theatre on the Underground.
bro-stick 11y ago
That's a given, of course, and doesn't need mentioning... it's a false dichotomy. Reduce risks meaningfully with less security theater. Locking your front door and such, not taking off shoes, belt, pants and so on. Common sense plus data, not edge-case fears to balance risk reduction vs. practicality.