2 ms·
The argument is not about whether the method is 99% effective. The argument is about whether the method works as intended 99% of the time, which means that 99%
by Confusion 16y ago
The argument is not about whether the method is 99% effective. The argument is about whether the method works as intended 99% of the time, which means that 99% of the time, nobody is bothered by it and it may have the positive effect of catching a terrorist if one happens to pass by.
Incidentally, lets suppose the method was 99% effective and that one in a million passengers is a terrorist. That would mean that 10K innocent passengers would be suspected of being a terrorist for every real terrorist. There would be a 99% chance of catching the terrorist and a 100% certainty of harassing ~10K innocent folks, which gets them stripsearched, put on no-fly lists and demeaned in other ways. All under the guise of making air travel safer, which is complete BS, because the examples of journalists still making it through security with unchecked devices are numerous.
- anamax 16y ago> a 100% certainty of harassing ~10K innocent folks, which gets them stripsearched, put on no-fly lists and demeaned in other ways. Actually you don't have to do anything demeaning or persistent to someone who trips the filter.