3 ms·
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. With no tests, the quiet unassuming terrorist would still walk by. At least with a test with some efficacy a
by PKop 10y ago
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
With no tests, the quiet unassuming terrorist would still walk by.
At least with a test with some efficacy at catching legitimate terrorists even with false positives would be better no?
(Going only by the metric of catching terrorists.)
- jacquesm 10y agoYou could dedicate your resources to actual detective work instead of wholesale dragnet operation in the hope that something useful turns up. Makes for good security theater though.
- chrismcb 10y agoIf your metric is simply "number of terrorists caught" then sure a broken test is better than no test. But you are ignoring the cost of "catching" innocent people. Plus you are ignoring the cost of the administering the test.