4 ms·

Is it possible that "taking all bomb threats deadly serious" is actually a poor policy? Arguments against: 1) base rate of airplane-related terrorism is very lo

Is it possible that "taking all bomb threats deadly serious" is actually a poor policy? Arguments against: 1) base rate of airplane-related terrorism is very low 2) base rate of airplane-related terrorism that is preceded by a "credible threat" is much lower 3) can destroy lives of people who should know better (poor Sarah) Perhaps these teens are engaging in a bit of civil disobedience to protest the current state of affairs. (It seems that Sarah was not, but others may be responding to her plight.) [edit: formatting]

gedrap 13y ago
But if, in a very unlikely case, something actually happens then no one wants to be pointed out as the person who said 'lol idiots'. >>> 3) can destroy lives of people who should know better Yes. But on other hand, everyone in the right mind knows that joking about bombs and air planes is not funny for some certain institutions. So if they are smart enough to make jokes like that, they will totally find more ways to destroy or severely damage their lives. In Vilnius (Lithuania) airport, near the check in tables, there is a warning saying that you can't joke about bombs. Because every year or two there are some geniuses who are 'joking' that they have a bomb once they board a plane.
- chronid 13y ago
  I feel no one really cares about the possibility of a bomb being on a plane. Everyone fears the negative PR that will destroy them if they make a mistake - they are just covering their asses, not thinking about human lives. And that fear is what drives every "security policy" since 9/11. Who cares if those policies are useless? We placed them there, we are safe!
- visgean 13y ago
  Isnt that the problem? Why should be joking about bombs so serious? We pay airlines security to protect us, to use brains, not to simply enforce policies.

4 ms·

Is it possible that "taking all bomb threats deadly serious" is actually a poor policy? Arguments against: 1) base rate of airplane-related terrorism is very lo

by kylebgorman 13y ago

gedrap 13y ago
But if, in a very unlikely case, something actually happens then no one wants to be pointed out as the person who said 'lol idiots'. >>> 3) can destroy lives of people who should know better Yes. But on other hand, everyone in the right mind knows that joking about bombs and air planes is not funny for some certain institutions. So if they are smart enough to make jokes like that, they will totally find more ways to destroy or severely damage their lives. In Vilnius (Lithuania) airport, near the check in tables, there is a warning saying that you can't joke about bombs. Because every year or two there are some geniuses who are 'joking' that they have a bomb once they board a plane.
- chronid 13y ago
  I feel no one really cares about the possibility of a bomb being on a plane. Everyone fears the negative PR that will destroy them if they make a mistake - they are just covering their asses, not thinking about human lives. And that fear is what drives every "security policy" since 9/11. Who cares if those policies are useless? We placed them there, we are safe!
- visgean 13y ago
  Isnt that the problem? Why should be joking about bombs so serious? We pay airlines security to protect us, to use brains, not to simply enforce policies.