4 ms·

> However, it's hard to imagine that we wouldn't be more secure hiring educated behaviorists to have a quick chat with passengers before they board a plane. "q

• EpicEng 13y ago
  Perhaps not that extreme, but I'm not aware of an inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Don't want to answer a few questions about your trip? Fine, you're either a threat or you're just being a jerk. You don't get to fly. You're coming up with problems with a theoretical implementation that doesn't even exist. And let's not go overboard on the "ask anything they want." These would be educated, skilled individuals. Asking inappropriate questions would not be per procedure. It is in everyone's interest to have safe flights, and if you're being difficult just to be difficult then tough shit, that's what you get.
  • DanBC 13y ago
    YouTube has very many videos of people being awkward assholes just for the sake of it, and then being outraged by the response they get no matter how mild and polite that response is. While it probably would be a good thing to drop the security theatre and to have better training there are going to be a bunch of Americans who resent the idea that someone is asking them a question before they board a plane.
  • BlackDeath3 13y ago
    >Don't want to answer a few questions about your trip? Fine, you're either a threat or you're just being a jerk. You don't get to fly. And if that was the extent of it, fair enough. Unfortunately, sometimes it's a little less "you don't get to fly" and a little more "I'm sorry sir, but we're going to have to detain you for several hours of invasive questioning". >These would be educated, skilled individuals. Asking inappropriate questions would not be per procedure. Maybe in CandyLand, this would be the case. Here on Earth, things do not always occur according to ideals.
    • EpicEng 13y ago
      Well I'm not proposing that we detain people who won't answer a question. Again, I'm not proposing a carbon copy of the Israeli system. Maybe in CandyLand, this would be the case. Here on Earth, things do not always occur according to ideals. Well, yeah, of course, but there's nothing you can do to prevent that. You could make that argument of literally any system. Of course some people will do the wrong thing. The idea is that you correct it and do what you can to prevent it.
      • pyre 13y ago
        > The idea is that you correct it and do what you can to prevent it. The US Government does not share this idea with you. It's much better to sweep it under the rug, because to admit to fault would hurt the public's confidence in The System(tm).
  • ldarcyftw 13y ago
    >These would be educated, skilled individuals. I'm pretty sure TSA was created with the same thoughts.
    • EpicEng 13y ago
      Well I suppose I'm hoping for good execution.
  • Silhouette 13y ago
    Perhaps not that extreme, but I'm not aware of an inalienable right to fly on an airplane. How about a combination of you paid for a ticket and freedom of movement is a basic human right? I'm not against reasonable and proportionate security, for air travel or anywhere else. But the kind of arguments some airports and airport security organisations have been making in recent years boil down to giving up all your legal rights to anything and not being guaranteed a service you've clearly paid for or even any sort of compensation if they deny you passage on some arbitrary grounds. (Sorry, one of our staff felt you raised your voice to them and we have a Zero Tolerance(TM) approach to that kind of thing -- look, it's right there on page 74 of the impractically long agreement you couldn't possibly have read before the web page timed out when you bought your ticket.) If you'll pardon the pun, that kind of reasoning would never fly under normal legal conditions. Courts in almost any jurisdiction would throw out a contract where you paid for something but weren't guaranteed what you paid for or some sort of reasonable alternative or compensation if for good reasons it wasn't possible to provide it. And if it wasn't provided and not for a good reason, you would probably be entitled to compensation for any consequential losses as well. I don't see any reason that airports, airlines, or for that matter government-mandated security organisations, should be held to a lower standard, or not held to any standard at all, just because someone mentioned words like "air" or "travel".
    • EpicEng 13y ago
      How about a combination of you paid for a ticket and freedom of movement is a basic human right? Neither are. We have passports. We have laws in place which restrict movement if needed. Just as driving is not a right, flying is not a right.
  • darkarmani 13y ago
    > Don't want to answer a few questions about your trip? Fine, you're either a threat or you're just being a jerk. You don't get to fly. Who would be left to fly once we got rid of all the jerks? > It is in everyone's interest to have safe flights, and if you're being difficult just to be difficult then tough shit, that's what you get. Why don't we work on making car travel safe first, since that would actually be a net-win on saving lives? Why are safe flights so much more important than the 50,000 people that die on the roads each year? More people die from driving in one week than from one plane crash.
  • tripzilch 13y ago
    > Don't want to answer a few questions about your trip? Fine, you're either a threat or you're just being a jerk. 2013 called, they want their "If you got nothing to hide"-argument back.
• justin66 13y ago
  > Would this would be a "quick chat" where they can ask anything they want, lying is a felony, and choosing not to answer would get you locked in a back room for "secondary screening" until ten minutes after your plane leaves? Good point, but it's sadly not that different than the way things work now. The difference would seem to be the TSA wouldn't need a provocation, whereas technically now they sort of do.