4 ms·
So we should keep security the same until something terrible happens? Or should we continue to improe security based on new information and technology? What's
by aneth 16y ago
So we should keep security the same until something terrible happens? Or should we continue to improe security based on new information and technology?
What's irrational is to assume because nothing has happened in the last 8 years (successfully anyway) that our current measures are adequate for the next eight.
- barrkel 16y agoCan you not see the disparity between spending allocation changes, and the real actual risks, when comparing air travel vs road travel?
- aneth 16y agoIt might have something to do with the disparity between the effect of 9/11 on our country and the effect of 3000 highway deaths.
- dalke 16y agoPart of the problem is the lack of overall risk assessment. The OMB has pointed out that the TSA does not have way to judge how best to spend resources. As a result, we have ever increasing levels of passenger screening (focusing on the same threat model is like "keep security the same", right) while we still after 9 years don't have things like 100% cargo inspection (remember, the printer cartridges were flying as cargo) and no screening of ground crew. The irrational part isn't that we assume our current measures are adequate. The irrational part is the changes we're making have no rational basis, little public input, and any public objections are responded to with "we can't go into the details in public because it's too sensitive," which is a very non-democratic answer to something which affects so many people.