21 ms·

It's about making people feel safe. We're not rational beings, so what do you do about an irrational fear? You invent a magical thing that protects from that i

It's about making people feel safe. We're not rational beings, so what do you do about an irrational fear? You invent a magical thing that protects from that irrational fear. You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more. You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality - short of forcing everyone to travel naked and strapped in like cattle, with no luggage. And even then, what about the extremist who works for the airline? So you invent some theater to stop people from panicking (a far more real danger). And that's a perfectly acceptable solution.

junofan 9mo ago
It’s a $12 bn/yr production. I don’t think that’s perfectly acceptable. Let’s invest in loudspeakers if all we’re doing is shouting at people.
WalterBright 9mo ago
> You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more. This can be traced to people in a car believe they can control whether they have an accident or not (and largely can). In an airplane, however, you have no control whatsoever.
- kleiba 9mo ago
  > This can be traced to people in a car believe they can control whether they have an accident or not (and largely can). This is true. In France, about two thirds out of the people dying in a car accident are the actual drivers responsible for the accident, according to the 2024 Road Safety Report.
  - gambiting 9mo ago
    And if France it's anything like the UK, the absolute vast majority of these deaths are people driving drunk at night. If you are driving in city traffic at 20mph commuting to work your chance of dying is nearly zero - there's always a chance someone else might be speeding and crash into you, sure, but it's nowhere near the general rate of deaths in cars. As a seque to this - knowing the above, I find it insane that various institutions are pushing for more and more aggressive driving aids.
    - graemep 9mo ago
      My perception is that drink driving is now pretty rare in the UK. The biggest dangers I see regularly on the road is simple aggressive driving. Overtaking too much, tailgating, multiple lane changes in one go (on motorways), not driving slower in bad conditions.....
    - andrepd 9mo ago
      That not true. Drunk driving is not remotely the biggest cause, let alone the "vast majority". Speeding is. And also: note you're only considering the pov of a person inside a car. In the last decade deaths among pedestrians and cyclists have skyrocketed, courtesy of society willingly accepting that it is normal and rational to have 4000kg vehicles with 180bhp being used ubiquitously to move 70kg humans to the grocery store. Since public infrastructure is completely designed around cars, with pedestrians and cyclists pushed to the edges or protected from cars by lines of white paint, it's no wonder this is happening.
      - gambiting 9mo ago
        I stand corrected - I looked it up and yeah, you are right, drunk driving is only the cause of about ~20% of road deaths in the UK. >>And also: note you're only considering the pov of a person inside a car. Well the person above was talking about how dangerous driving is, to which my argument still stands - if you are just commuting to work in or near a city, your actual risk is incredibly low(as the driver or passanger).
  - Dylan16807 9mo ago
    "largely" is true, but because planes are more than 3x safer people are still being wrong when they fear plane travel. People try to treat "largely" as "fully" and that fails.
    - sfn42 9mo ago
      It's not about statistics. It's about control and knowledge. I know if a car I'm in is driving safely. I can ask the driver to calm down or let me off. In a plane I have nothing. I'm just sitting in a tin can, no idea whether the pilot is flying responsibly or not. No idea whether the landing is routine as hell or kinda sketch. Even if i could talk to the pilot the only thing we can do is land. And have you thought about airplane landing? It's insane. This big clunky metal bird full of literal jet fuel coming in at like 400kmh or whatever, bouncing around on the tarmac as it's desperately trying to regain control and slow down. Honestly I don't see how a rational person could not be stressed out in that situation. Yes we all know it usually works out, but we also know if it doesn't work out we're very likely going up in a ball of fire. And no matter what the stats say it doesn't feel like a safe situation. It feels like a near death experience. Seriously. Every time I fly I mentally come to terms with the fact that I might die. Every time we take off and land I'm feeling the bumps and jerks, listening to the sounds and wondering whether this is normal. I fly at least a few times a year, and I don't take any drugs for it, but I fucking hate it.
      - graemep 9mo ago
        > I know if a car I'm in is driving safely. I can ask the driver to calm down or let me off. Do you know that all the other cars on the road that might hit yours are being driven safely? How do you feel about busses and trains? > And have you thought about airplane landing? It's insane. This big clunky metal bird full of literal jet fuel coming in at like 400kmh or whatever, bouncing around on the tarmac as it's desperately trying to regain control and slow down. A car is a metal box full of fuel kept under control by four rubber balloons. At least a plane is heavily monitored for safety, checked before every flight, and controlled by highly trained professionals. > Honestly I don't see how a rational person could not be stressed out in that situation. A rational person would not be worried. The fear is very much an irrational reaction and a psychological problem that a few people have. Most of us will happily go to sleep on a long flight and our biggest fear is boredom.
  - sfn42 9mo ago
    To add to this, here's a piece of anecdotal evidence. I've watched a lot of traffic accident videos in my life, and in the vast majority of the videos including two vehicles, both drivers are at fault. They may not be legally at fault, I don't really worry too much about that, but by my judgement they could have avoided the accident by paying attention or driving slower or driving less aggressively etc. Same goes for pedestrians by the way. The absolute vast majority of pedestrians who get hit by cars could have avoided it by paying attention and taking some responsibility for their own safety.
  - empath75 9mo ago
    > This is true. In France, about two thirds out of the people dying in a car accident are the actual drivers responsible for the accident, according to the 2024 Road Safety Report. --- This is because a large number of accidents don't involve another car.
    - kleiba 9mo ago
      Your point?
      - empath75 9mo ago
        It's a counter intuitive statistic, I was explaining why it makes sense.
- andrepd 9mo ago
  Crucially, deaths among pedestrians and cyclists are skyrocketing in the last decade; those people can't really "control" whether the 4-ton SUV with a 6' high bumper mows them and their kids down.
  - WalterBright 9mo ago
    I've driven around blind corners to discover people standing in the middle of the road. I also read in the paper about people being run over in crosswalks. I use crosswalks, too, and I make sure to look before I step into it. When I jog, I look at the driver's eyes to see if he sees me (if he doesn't, I step far off the roadside). Yes, as a pedestrian you do have a significant amount of control.
    - andrepd 9mo ago
      I just now noticed the username. There's really no point arguing with you on any topic is there Walter?
closewith 9mo ago
> You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality - short of forcing everyone to travel naked and strapped in like cattle, with no luggage. And even then, what about the extremist who works for the airline? This is said as an axiom, but we have protected against the motivated terrorist, as shown by the safety record.
- Muromec 9mo ago
  Mitivated terrorists pivoted to driving cars into crowds and shootings.
  - walthamstow 9mo ago
    Don't forget strapping knives to their hands and slashing into crowds.
  - closewith 9mo ago
    As horrific as truck attacks, mass shootings, and suicide bombings have been, no-one have been on the same order of magnitude as airborne terrorism attacks. The Bataclan, Las Vegas, Nice truck attack - all enormous tragedies. But compare to 9/11, Lockerbie, Flight 182, etc.
    - Scoundreller 9mo ago
      Bataclan = 132 deaths + ??? injuries Nice Truck = 86 deaths, 458 injured Lockerbie = 270 deaths (presumably 0 injuries) Air India = 329 (also presumably no injuries)
      - closewith 9mo ago
        Conveniently leaving out 9/11, was an attack on the scale of Bataclan, but due to the nature of air travel, had a much higher death toll.
BrenBarn 9mo ago
I seriously doubt that most people are happy with the tradeoffs of safety vs. convenience provided by the TSA. The general idea of x-ray, metal detectors, sure, that's all good. But the stuff with taking off your shoes, small containers of liquid, etc., no. I think if we reverted to a simpler system with fewer oddly specific requirements layered on top, most people would not feel significantly less safe, but would feel less inconvenienced.
- stephen_g 9mo ago
  The thing about shoes is just dumb anyway - I don't know if there was some period of time where it was required elsewhere around the world but I never experienced it. Literally the only times I've ever had to take off my shoes were during the two times I've visited the US (vs. a over a dozen trips to European and Asian countries). Liquid restrictions were also lifted in my country four or so years ago for domestic travel, so it's still annoying when getting ready for an international trip and I remember I still have to do that...
  - michh 9mo ago
    I flew out of the UK twice in relatively short succession in ~2018 and the first time was out of London City: did not have to take off my shoes. I was pleasantly surprised by this and concluded common sense had prevailed and it was no longer necessary. The second time was Gatwick, and based on my prior experience I did not take off my shoes. I got yelled at because "everybody knows you have to take off your shoes at the airport!". Then got subjected to an extra search of my luggage as punishment. Of course there was a razor in my bag of toiletries (one of those Gilette cartridge ones with a million blades - not an oldschool safety razor) and promptly 'got got' for that as it could have potentially injured the person searching my belongings. 0/10 would not recommend.
  - retired 9mo ago
    I have to take my sneakers off about three to four times a year while traveling around Europe.
  - cucumber3732842 9mo ago
dingaling 9mo ago
> It's about making people feel safe. I don't think that's a common perception of airport security. Few people take reassurance from it, most consider it a burden and hindrance that could stop them getting their flight if they don't perform the correct steps as instructed. The lifting of this restriction is an example, the overwhelming response is "oh thank goodness, now I don't have to pay for overpriced water" and not "is this safe?"
- palata 9mo ago
  I disagree. It is a burden and hindrance, but I'm pretty sure that if you just removed all the checks and let people board like in a bus, there would be complaints.
  - rdiddly 9mo ago
    They're not complaining on the bus...
    - fshr 9mo ago
      A bus isn't going to fall out of the air and land in the ocean. A bus isn't going to be hijacked and flown into the top of a building.
      - ghaff 9mo ago
        And the fact is that there's been some level of security since the 1970s or thereabouts after a fair number of hijackings. Any serious debate is about restrictions around liquids/knives/etc. (Some of which related to isolated incidents like the shoe bomber and others of which seem like pretty clear overreach--like I can't bring a hiking pole in carryon.)
  - sneak 9mo ago
    This is what JSX does and people love it.
- gampleman 9mo ago
wickedsight 9mo ago
> It's about making people feel safe. My guess it's more about being able to say: 'We did everything we could.' If someone does end up getting a bomb on board. If they didn't do this, everyone would be angry and headlines would be asking: 'Why was nothing put in place to prevent this?'
- HPsquared 9mo ago
  See also all the other myriad types of compliance theatre.
troupo 9mo ago
> You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality Ah yes, the insidious opponent who learns the inherent vulnerability of ... huge crowds gathering before hand baggage screenings and TSA patdowns. And these crowds are only there only due to a permanent immovable physical fixture of ... completely artificial barriers that fail to prevent anything 90-95% of the time.
- RA_Fisher 9mo ago
  Very true. The queues need to be improved.
graemep 9mo ago
It reminds be of how after a fire at a tube station a lot of people decided to commute by motorbike because of fear of fire.
kakacik 9mo ago
I know literally nobody panicking from some idea of terrorist attack against airplane, this is not a thing in Europe. Neither my old parents, neither any of my colleagues etc. Its not 2001 anymore and even back then we were mostly chill. But I can claim one thing for sure - people hate security checks with passion.
grishka 9mo ago
Airport security never makes me feel safe. It makes me feel violated and anxious. I haven't really flown before 9/11, but I have used the subway in my city daily both before and after they installed metal detectors and started randomly asking people to put their bags through a scanner. I'm deeply nostalgic for not having to deal with this utter bullshit.
afh1 9mo ago
The government who wages the wars and brings its terrors home invades people's privacy and comfort in the small amount of time they have away from the toll they put to pay their taxes, and the people are thankful, after all, all of it is for their safety.
moffkalast 9mo ago
Yeah as we've seen with MH370, literally nothing stops the pilot from committing mass-murder-suicide at any point. We just need to trust that they're not feeling particularly depressed that day.
- red_admiral 9mo ago
  While MH370 is still "officially" unsolved, there were definitely industry wide updates to processes after the Germanwings crash.
  - moffkalast 9mo ago
    Officially yes, unofficially there's really no other explanation.
stephen_g 9mo ago
A lot more people I've talked to about it say the theatre makes them feel uncomfortable and intimidated rather than making them feel safe. Airport security staff being so gruff and expecting people to know what to do (which casual travellers often don't), then not being able to properly explain what to do and shouting at people... I really don't buy that the illusion of safety is high on anyone's priority list, it's more that a bureaucracy will grow as much as it can, employing more and more people who might not have better prospects, and no politicians want to be seen to be "comprimising people's safety" by cutting things back. Then "lobbying" from those selling equipment and detection machines probably helps everything keep going. If it was actually cut back to a proper risk-assessed point of what's strictly necessary, people going thorugh would think "is this safe not having as much security" for about 30 seconds and then never think of it again.
- benjiro 9mo ago
  > Airport security staff being so gruff More of a issue that power goes to their heads. Do not get me started on airport security staff in the Netherlands that cracked some insulting jokes about my nationality. I was not amused... Or the idiotic "remove your shoes" so we can x-ray them... What next, go naked? O, that is what those new scanners are for that see past your clothing. If i can avoid flying, i will ... Its not the flying, its the security. You feel like being a criminal every time you need to pass and they do extra checks. Shoes, bomb test, shoes, bomb test ... and you do get targeted. The amount of times i got "random" checked in China as a white guy, really put me off going anymore. Arriving, 50% chance of a check. Departing, 100% sure i am getting 1 check, 50% i am getting two.... Even won the lottery with 3 ... (one in entrance in Beijing: "Random" bomb check, one for drop-off luggage, and one for security) .... So god darn tiring ... And nothing special about me, not like i am 2m tattoo biker or something lol. But yea, they see me, and "here we go again, sigh"...
  - randusername 9mo ago
    > More of a issue that power goes to their heads. I'm sure this exists too, but isn't the mundane rationale more likely? That gruffness is inevitable because the work sucks? Overworked, understaffed, the days blur together because it is boring, mostly sedentary work. They are ground down from dealing with the juxtaposition of their role; internally TSA are told they are important because their vigilance is heroic and prevents catastrophe, yet the general public views them with annoyance if not disdain. _Everyone_ they interact with is impatient, and at the that scale of human interaction nobody is really a person anymore, just a complication to throughput.
NL807 9mo ago
>It's about making people feel safe. It adds stress. I fondly remember flying in the 80s vs today. Travelling back then was more chill.
- ghaff 9mo ago
  Just a lot more people are flying today. Better information flows about flights help to some degree but more planes that are more packed are on the other side of the ledger.
andrepd 9mo ago
> You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more. On the contrary, a competent and responsible government should counter the hysteria, not enable it. It should protect citizens from car crashes rather than making a 18-lane highways through residential areas, and it should implement effective measures that reduce effective risk and panic regarding airline attacks, instead of pushing the fear even further with TSA.
acdha 9mo ago
> It's about making people feel safe. I think this is true but had to be seen in the bigger context: the Bush administration wanted people to feel that there were threats which required sacrificing things like civil liberties, balanced budgets, or not being at war because if you didn’t fight them “over there” the nebulous “they” come here in a never-ending swarm. Even at the time we knew that the threats weren’t serious but the people making those decisions saw it as part of a larger agenda.
- api 9mo ago
  I think it’s simpler, at least for some politicians. You have to do something. If any other terror attacks happen and you didn’t do something, then “why didn’t you do something?” So you do something.
ghm2199 9mo ago
One man's fear of safety is another man's job safety.
k2enemy 9mo ago
> It's about making people feel safe. I think it is the opposite. It is supposed to be a visceral reminder that we are not safe, and therefore should assent to the erosion of civil liberties and government intrusions into our lives in the name of safety.
tastyfreeze 9mo ago
> It's about making people feel safe. It doesn't make me feel safe. It makes me annoyed. Since TSA are government agents it also pokes a tyranny button for me. I despise TSA with a passion and there is not a damn thing I can do about it. They also have the gall to offer a paid service to get around the delays they cause with taxpayer money. If airport security checkpoints need to be done it shouldn't be government doing it.

junofan 9mo ago

It’s a $12 bn/yr production. I don’t think that’s perfectly acceptable. Let’s invest in loudspeakers if all we’re doing is shouting at people.

WalterBright 9mo ago

> You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more. This can be traced to people in a car believe they can control whether they have an accident or not (and largely can). In an airplane, however, you have no control whatsoever.

kleiba 9mo ago
> This can be traced to people in a car believe they can control whether they have an accident or not (and largely can). This is true. In France, about two thirds out of the people dying in a car accident are the actual drivers responsible for the accident, according to the 2024 Road Safety Report.
- gambiting 9mo ago
  And if France it's anything like the UK, the absolute vast majority of these deaths are people driving drunk at night. If you are driving in city traffic at 20mph commuting to work your chance of dying is nearly zero - there's always a chance someone else might be speeding and crash into you, sure, but it's nowhere near the general rate of deaths in cars. As a seque to this - knowing the above, I find it insane that various institutions are pushing for more and more aggressive driving aids.
  - graemep 9mo ago
    My perception is that drink driving is now pretty rare in the UK. The biggest dangers I see regularly on the road is simple aggressive driving. Overtaking too much, tailgating, multiple lane changes in one go (on motorways), not driving slower in bad conditions.....
  - andrepd 9mo ago
    That not true. Drunk driving is not remotely the biggest cause, let alone the "vast majority". Speeding is. And also: note you're only considering the pov of a person inside a car. In the last decade deaths among pedestrians and cyclists have skyrocketed, courtesy of society willingly accepting that it is normal and rational to have 4000kg vehicles with 180bhp being used ubiquitously to move 70kg humans to the grocery store. Since public infrastructure is completely designed around cars, with pedestrians and cyclists pushed to the edges or protected from cars by lines of white paint, it's no wonder this is happening.
    - gambiting 9mo ago
      I stand corrected - I looked it up and yeah, you are right, drunk driving is only the cause of about ~20% of road deaths in the UK. >>And also: note you're only considering the pov of a person inside a car. Well the person above was talking about how dangerous driving is, to which my argument still stands - if you are just commuting to work in or near a city, your actual risk is incredibly low(as the driver or passanger).
- Dylan16807 9mo ago
  "largely" is true, but because planes are more than 3x safer people are still being wrong when they fear plane travel. People try to treat "largely" as "fully" and that fails.
  - sfn42 9mo ago
    It's not about statistics. It's about control and knowledge. I know if a car I'm in is driving safely. I can ask the driver to calm down or let me off. In a plane I have nothing. I'm just sitting in a tin can, no idea whether the pilot is flying responsibly or not. No idea whether the landing is routine as hell or kinda sketch. Even if i could talk to the pilot the only thing we can do is land. And have you thought about airplane landing? It's insane. This big clunky metal bird full of literal jet fuel coming in at like 400kmh or whatever, bouncing around on the tarmac as it's desperately trying to regain control and slow down. Honestly I don't see how a rational person could not be stressed out in that situation. Yes we all know it usually works out, but we also know if it doesn't work out we're very likely going up in a ball of fire. And no matter what the stats say it doesn't feel like a safe situation. It feels like a near death experience. Seriously. Every time I fly I mentally come to terms with the fact that I might die. Every time we take off and land I'm feeling the bumps and jerks, listening to the sounds and wondering whether this is normal. I fly at least a few times a year, and I don't take any drugs for it, but I fucking hate it.
    - graemep 9mo ago
      > I know if a car I'm in is driving safely. I can ask the driver to calm down or let me off. Do you know that all the other cars on the road that might hit yours are being driven safely? How do you feel about busses and trains? > And have you thought about airplane landing? It's insane. This big clunky metal bird full of literal jet fuel coming in at like 400kmh or whatever, bouncing around on the tarmac as it's desperately trying to regain control and slow down. A car is a metal box full of fuel kept under control by four rubber balloons. At least a plane is heavily monitored for safety, checked before every flight, and controlled by highly trained professionals. > Honestly I don't see how a rational person could not be stressed out in that situation. A rational person would not be worried. The fear is very much an irrational reaction and a psychological problem that a few people have. Most of us will happily go to sleep on a long flight and our biggest fear is boredom.
- sfn42 9mo ago
  To add to this, here's a piece of anecdotal evidence. I've watched a lot of traffic accident videos in my life, and in the vast majority of the videos including two vehicles, both drivers are at fault. They may not be legally at fault, I don't really worry too much about that, but by my judgement they could have avoided the accident by paying attention or driving slower or driving less aggressively etc. Same goes for pedestrians by the way. The absolute vast majority of pedestrians who get hit by cars could have avoided it by paying attention and taking some responsibility for their own safety.
- empath75 9mo ago
  > This is true. In France, about two thirds out of the people dying in a car accident are the actual drivers responsible for the accident, according to the 2024 Road Safety Report. --- This is because a large number of accidents don't involve another car.
  - kleiba 9mo ago
    Your point?
    - empath75 9mo ago
      It's a counter intuitive statistic, I was explaining why it makes sense.
andrepd 9mo ago
Crucially, deaths among pedestrians and cyclists are skyrocketing in the last decade; those people can't really "control" whether the 4-ton SUV with a 6' high bumper mows them and their kids down.
- WalterBright 9mo ago
  I've driven around blind corners to discover people standing in the middle of the road. I also read in the paper about people being run over in crosswalks. I use crosswalks, too, and I make sure to look before I step into it. When I jog, I look at the driver's eyes to see if he sees me (if he doesn't, I step far off the roadside). Yes, as a pedestrian you do have a significant amount of control.
  - andrepd 9mo ago
    I just now noticed the username. There's really no point arguing with you on any topic is there Walter?

closewith 9mo ago

> You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality - short of forcing everyone to travel naked and strapped in like cattle, with no luggage. And even then, what about the extremist who works for the airline? This is said as an axiom, but we have protected against the motivated terrorist, as shown by the safety record.

Muromec 9mo ago
Mitivated terrorists pivoted to driving cars into crowds and shootings.
- walthamstow 9mo ago
  Don't forget strapping knives to their hands and slashing into crowds.
- closewith 9mo ago
  As horrific as truck attacks, mass shootings, and suicide bombings have been, no-one have been on the same order of magnitude as airborne terrorism attacks. The Bataclan, Las Vegas, Nice truck attack - all enormous tragedies. But compare to 9/11, Lockerbie, Flight 182, etc.
  - Scoundreller 9mo ago
    Bataclan = 132 deaths + ??? injuries Nice Truck = 86 deaths, 458 injured Lockerbie = 270 deaths (presumably 0 injuries) Air India = 329 (also presumably no injuries)
    - closewith 9mo ago
      Conveniently leaving out 9/11, was an attack on the scale of Bataclan, but due to the nature of air travel, had a much higher death toll.

BrenBarn 9mo ago

I seriously doubt that most people are happy with the tradeoffs of safety vs. convenience provided by the TSA. The general idea of x-ray, metal detectors, sure, that's all good. But the stuff with taking off your shoes, small containers of liquid, etc., no. I think if we reverted to a simpler system with fewer oddly specific requirements layered on top, most people would not feel significantly less safe, but would feel less inconvenienced.

stephen_g 9mo ago
The thing about shoes is just dumb anyway - I don't know if there was some period of time where it was required elsewhere around the world but I never experienced it. Literally the only times I've ever had to take off my shoes were during the two times I've visited the US (vs. a over a dozen trips to European and Asian countries). Liquid restrictions were also lifted in my country four or so years ago for domestic travel, so it's still annoying when getting ready for an international trip and I remember I still have to do that...
- michh 9mo ago
  I flew out of the UK twice in relatively short succession in ~2018 and the first time was out of London City: did not have to take off my shoes. I was pleasantly surprised by this and concluded common sense had prevailed and it was no longer necessary. The second time was Gatwick, and based on my prior experience I did not take off my shoes. I got yelled at because "everybody knows you have to take off your shoes at the airport!". Then got subjected to an extra search of my luggage as punishment. Of course there was a razor in my bag of toiletries (one of those Gilette cartridge ones with a million blades - not an oldschool safety razor) and promptly 'got got' for that as it could have potentially injured the person searching my belongings. 0/10 would not recommend.
- retired 9mo ago
  I have to take my sneakers off about three to four times a year while traveling around Europe.
- cucumber3732842 9mo ago

dingaling 9mo ago

> It's about making people feel safe. I don't think that's a common perception of airport security. Few people take reassurance from it, most consider it a burden and hindrance that could stop them getting their flight if they don't perform the correct steps as instructed. The lifting of this restriction is an example, the overwhelming response is "oh thank goodness, now I don't have to pay for overpriced water" and not "is this safe?"

palata 9mo ago
I disagree. It is a burden and hindrance, but I'm pretty sure that if you just removed all the checks and let people board like in a bus, there would be complaints.
- rdiddly 9mo ago
  They're not complaining on the bus...
  - fshr 9mo ago
    A bus isn't going to fall out of the air and land in the ocean. A bus isn't going to be hijacked and flown into the top of a building.
    - ghaff 9mo ago
      And the fact is that there's been some level of security since the 1970s or thereabouts after a fair number of hijackings. Any serious debate is about restrictions around liquids/knives/etc. (Some of which related to isolated incidents like the shoe bomber and others of which seem like pretty clear overreach--like I can't bring a hiking pole in carryon.)
- sneak 9mo ago
  This is what JSX does and people love it.
gampleman 9mo ago

wickedsight 9mo ago

> It's about making people feel safe. My guess it's more about being able to say: 'We did everything we could.' If someone does end up getting a bomb on board. If they didn't do this, everyone would be angry and headlines would be asking: 'Why was nothing put in place to prevent this?'

HPsquared 9mo ago
See also all the other myriad types of compliance theatre.

troupo 9mo ago

> You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality Ah yes, the insidious opponent who learns the inherent vulnerability of ... huge crowds gathering before hand baggage screenings and TSA patdowns. And these crowds are only there only due to a permanent immovable physical fixture of ... completely artificial barriers that fail to prevent anything 90-95% of the time.

RA_Fisher 9mo ago
Very true. The queues need to be improved.

graemep 9mo ago

It reminds be of how after a fire at a tube station a lot of people decided to commute by motorbike because of fear of fire.

kakacik 9mo ago

I know literally nobody panicking from some idea of terrorist attack against airplane, this is not a thing in Europe. Neither my old parents, neither any of my colleagues etc. Its not 2001 anymore and even back then we were mostly chill. But I can claim one thing for sure - people hate security checks with passion.

grishka 9mo ago

Airport security never makes me feel safe. It makes me feel violated and anxious. I haven't really flown before 9/11, but I have used the subway in my city daily both before and after they installed metal detectors and started randomly asking people to put their bags through a scanner. I'm deeply nostalgic for not having to deal with this utter bullshit.

afh1 9mo ago

The government who wages the wars and brings its terrors home invades people's privacy and comfort in the small amount of time they have away from the toll they put to pay their taxes, and the people are thankful, after all, all of it is for their safety.

moffkalast 9mo ago

Yeah as we've seen with MH370, literally nothing stops the pilot from committing mass-murder-suicide at any point. We just need to trust that they're not feeling particularly depressed that day.

red_admiral 9mo ago
While MH370 is still "officially" unsolved, there were definitely industry wide updates to processes after the Germanwings crash.
- moffkalast 9mo ago
  Officially yes, unofficially there's really no other explanation.

stephen_g 9mo ago

A lot more people I've talked to about it say the theatre makes them feel uncomfortable and intimidated rather than making them feel safe. Airport security staff being so gruff and expecting people to know what to do (which casual travellers often don't), then not being able to properly explain what to do and shouting at people... I really don't buy that the illusion of safety is high on anyone's priority list, it's more that a bureaucracy will grow as much as it can, employing more and more people who might not have better prospects, and no politicians want to be seen to be "comprimising people's safety" by cutting things back. Then "lobbying" from those selling equipment and detection machines probably helps everything keep going. If it was actually cut back to a proper risk-assessed point of what's strictly necessary, people going thorugh would think "is this safe not having as much security" for about 30 seconds and then never think of it again.

benjiro 9mo ago
> Airport security staff being so gruff More of a issue that power goes to their heads. Do not get me started on airport security staff in the Netherlands that cracked some insulting jokes about my nationality. I was not amused... Or the idiotic "remove your shoes" so we can x-ray them... What next, go naked? O, that is what those new scanners are for that see past your clothing. If i can avoid flying, i will ... Its not the flying, its the security. You feel like being a criminal every time you need to pass and they do extra checks. Shoes, bomb test, shoes, bomb test ... and you do get targeted. The amount of times i got "random" checked in China as a white guy, really put me off going anymore. Arriving, 50% chance of a check. Departing, 100% sure i am getting 1 check, 50% i am getting two.... Even won the lottery with 3 ... (one in entrance in Beijing: "Random" bomb check, one for drop-off luggage, and one for security) .... So god darn tiring ... And nothing special about me, not like i am 2m tattoo biker or something lol. But yea, they see me, and "here we go again, sigh"...
- randusername 9mo ago
  > More of a issue that power goes to their heads. I'm sure this exists too, but isn't the mundane rationale more likely? That gruffness is inevitable because the work sucks? Overworked, understaffed, the days blur together because it is boring, mostly sedentary work. They are ground down from dealing with the juxtaposition of their role; internally TSA are told they are important because their vigilance is heroic and prevents catastrophe, yet the general public views them with annoyance if not disdain. _Everyone_ they interact with is impatient, and at the that scale of human interaction nobody is really a person anymore, just a complication to throughput.

NL807 9mo ago

>It's about making people feel safe. It adds stress. I fondly remember flying in the 80s vs today. Travelling back then was more chill.

ghaff 9mo ago
Just a lot more people are flying today. Better information flows about flights help to some degree but more planes that are more packed are on the other side of the ledger.

andrepd 9mo ago

> You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more. On the contrary, a competent and responsible government should counter the hysteria, not enable it. It should protect citizens from car crashes rather than making a 18-lane highways through residential areas, and it should implement effective measures that reduce effective risk and panic regarding airline attacks, instead of pushing the fear even further with TSA.

acdha 9mo ago

> It's about making people feel safe. I think this is true but had to be seen in the bigger context: the Bush administration wanted people to feel that there were threats which required sacrificing things like civil liberties, balanced budgets, or not being at war because if you didn’t fight them “over there” the nebulous “they” come here in a never-ending swarm. Even at the time we knew that the threats weren’t serious but the people making those decisions saw it as part of a larger agenda.

api 9mo ago
I think it’s simpler, at least for some politicians. You have to do something. If any other terror attacks happen and you didn’t do something, then “why didn’t you do something?” So you do something.

ghm2199 9mo ago

One man's fear of safety is another man's job safety.

k2enemy 9mo ago

> It's about making people feel safe. I think it is the opposite. It is supposed to be a visceral reminder that we are not safe, and therefore should assent to the erosion of civil liberties and government intrusions into our lives in the name of safety.

tastyfreeze 9mo ago

> It's about making people feel safe. It doesn't make me feel safe. It makes me annoyed. Since TSA are government agents it also pokes a tyranny button for me. I despise TSA with a passion and there is not a damn thing I can do about it. They also have the gall to offer a paid service to get around the delays they cause with taxpayer money. If airport security checkpoints need to be done it shouldn't be government doing it.