6 ms·
For all the understandable outrage, this seems like a genie that will be very hard to put back in the bottle. What politician is going to risk canning a securi
by lukestevens 16y ago
For all the understandable outrage, this seems like a genie that will be very hard to put back in the bottle.
What politician is going to risk canning a security protocol when there's a not-unreasonable chance of a civilian airplane being blown up in the next few years? Who wants to be the politician that has to explain, after several hundred people died, why they canned any device or protocol which may have helped stopped the attack, however remote the likelihood?
I'm not saying it's rational or appropriate, I'm saying it's politically untenable, regardless of the horror stories like the one posted.
Perhaps airlines should offer 'enhanced' or 'standard' security flights, and people can choose whether they fly on a plane where everyone has pat downs or scans, or whether they don't. At least that way there would be a choice...
- hyperbovine 16y agoI cannot recall a similar issue sparking as much across-the-board outrage since the "war on terrorism" began. However taboo it may be to discuss relaxing security requirements, that may turn out to be the lesser of two political evils.
- ericd 16y agoI agree. I think any politician could reasonably trot out a counter to the "he took out our line of defense" with a "I stopped your kids from being x-rayed or groped by getting rid of something that would have been ineffective in stopping this attack".
- siculars 16y agoWhat is politically untenable are stories like these. This is an absolute nightmare.
- loewenskind 16y agoIt's too late to get rid of this ridiculous security theater but it's not too late to get rid of invasive and utterly ineffective procedures that are just getting started.