7 ms·

Everyone who is against this needs to understand that these are necessary preventative measures. What is stopping someone from replacing their testicles with 2

by kyro 16y ago

Everyone who is against this needs to understand that these are necessary preventative measures. What is stopping someone from replacing their testicles with 2 cherry bombs whose wicks are then threaded out the urethra? Wear some tight jeans and you'll generate enough friction to ignite the wick, resulting in an explosion that'll knock down the water cups of passengers across the aisle.

fshaun 16y ago
What stops elaborate or clever contraptions getting by and inciting chaos? The fact that 99.99% of people are not terrorists. Airport security checkpoints cannot be considered a last stand against threats. It is one link in a chain including intelligence, passenger awareness, and aircraft design. The chain I describe is not security, but safety. "Screen for every potential danger" is not a viable goal for airport security. I prefer a statement like "decrease the likelihood of death (whoever's you care to measure) by 10x". While still vague, it gives some framework for comparing costs. To make up numbers, suppose for the same cost you could install backscatter machines and get a 10x reduction, or better radar infrastructure and get a 50x reduction. I know where I'd want my money. One externality here is the perception of safety. In some sense, it doesn't matter how good or safe flying is if people act (and spend...) as if every other plane were being bombed from the skies. But, I question if security gropes will really increase consumer confidence.
burgerbrain 16y ago
Those water cups are extrodinarily dangerous. Clearly a few cups of water are enough to take down any plain, that's why the TSA needs to screen for fluids.
- techbio 16y ago
  That, and bottled water in the gift shop will cost you 8 times the equivalent volume of gasoline.
andolanra 16y ago
Poe's law in action. Given the level of response the TSA has to ridiculous scenarios, I'm almost entirely sure that a TSA agent would read this and immediately begin planning a program to defend against the very real, entirely probably threat of terrorist cojones transplants.
- sukuriant 16y ago
  But would it do anything? Would the backscatter machine even see anything? What about something up the rectum. Knowing of these machines, terrorists will just find another place to stash the gear. If the backscatter machine doesn't protect against that, then what good is it, really? And, is that good sufficient for the invasion of privacy and health concerns? I say it isn't.
mkramlich 16y ago
Great, thanks for sharing that idea. Next they won't allow testicles on the plane. :)
duffbeer703 16y ago
Another under-appreciated attack vector is flatulence. Load up at the airport Taco Bell and you could easily light a fart that could set guy next to you on fire.
Cyndre 16y ago
or instead of cherry bombs why not some form of plastic explosive. The guys a suicide bomber - Someone convinced him of that and someone will convince him of this. Or a step further and why not in the stomach cavity. Soon you will be getting full x-rays just to get on a plane.

by kyro 16y ago

fshaun 16y ago

What stops elaborate or clever contraptions getting by and inciting chaos? The fact that 99.99% of people are not terrorists. Airport security checkpoints cannot be considered a last stand against threats. It is one link in a chain including intelligence, passenger awareness, and aircraft design. The chain I describe is not security, but safety. "Screen for every potential danger" is not a viable goal for airport security. I prefer a statement like "decrease the likelihood of death (whoever's you care to measure) by 10x". While still vague, it gives some framework for comparing costs. To make up numbers, suppose for the same cost you could install backscatter machines and get a 10x reduction, or better radar infrastructure and get a 50x reduction. I know where I'd want my money. One externality here is the perception of safety. In some sense, it doesn't matter how good or safe flying is if people act (and spend...) as if every other plane were being bombed from the skies. But, I question if security gropes will really increase consumer confidence.

burgerbrain 16y ago

Those water cups are extrodinarily dangerous. Clearly a few cups of water are enough to take down any plain, that's why the TSA needs to screen for fluids.

techbio 16y ago
That, and bottled water in the gift shop will cost you 8 times the equivalent volume of gasoline.

andolanra 16y ago

Poe's law in action. Given the level of response the TSA has to ridiculous scenarios, I'm almost entirely sure that a TSA agent would read this and immediately begin planning a program to defend against the very real, entirely probably threat of terrorist cojones transplants.

sukuriant 16y ago
But would it do anything? Would the backscatter machine even see anything? What about something up the rectum. Knowing of these machines, terrorists will just find another place to stash the gear. If the backscatter machine doesn't protect against that, then what good is it, really? And, is that good sufficient for the invasion of privacy and health concerns? I say it isn't.

mkramlich 16y ago

Great, thanks for sharing that idea. Next they won't allow testicles on the plane. :)

duffbeer703 16y ago

Another under-appreciated attack vector is flatulence. Load up at the airport Taco Bell and you could easily light a fart that could set guy next to you on fire.

Cyndre 16y ago

or instead of cherry bombs why not some form of plastic explosive. The guys a suicide bomber - Someone convinced him of that and someone will convince him of this. Or a step further and why not in the stomach cavity. Soon you will be getting full x-rays just to get on a plane.