38 ms·
>"[I]f tomorrow air passengers were offered the option of a 'secure' flight on which all passengers are subject to security, or a 'non-secure' one where they co
by d2vid 15y ago
>"[I]f tomorrow air passengers were offered the option of a 'secure' flight on which all passengers are subject to security, or a 'non-secure' one where they could go straight to boarding, hassle-free," he writes, "I promise you that many travellers would still take the 'secure' option."
I would take the "secure" option because who is left taking the "non-secure" option? Terrorists.
If all the flights were "non-secure", just like every train ride, then we spread the terrorists out and my odds are better.
- epo 15y agoThis quoted argument is moronic, he is saying in effect "either do it our way or not at all". No one is saying there should be no security at all. In the rest of the world there was pre-boarding security prior to 9/11, it was pretty much only the US where there was very little security on domestic flights, this presented a soft underbelly to attackers which only an idiot would have ignored. El Al is the perfect example of how flight security should be achieved, and yes, it involves profiling to select the people you want to pay most attention to.