4 ms·

> It's been proven these arbitrary restrictions don't actually enhance security. Agreed. > We need to see the TSA move to behavioral analysis for them to actu

> It's been proven these arbitrary restrictions don't actually enhance security. Agreed. > We need to see the TSA move to behavioral analysis for them to actually make a difference. They've tried this. In practice, it ends up being a very thin cover for racial profiling[0]. Of course, when the TSA itself admits[1] that there is no evidence of a threat of terrorism against aviation in the US, it's not surprising that more "advanced" techniques of detecting terrorism prove to be ineffective. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/racial-profiling-at-boston-airport-officials-say.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/racial-profiling-at-bos... [1] http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-in-leaked-doc-no-evidence-of-terrorist-plots-against-aviation-in-us/ http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-...

waps 12y ago
Of course there's a flip side of this coin. I think it's a very good bet that this action was not taken in a vacuum. So someone disguised a weapon or a bomb as an electronic device in their hand luggage, and got it on board and was caught. So who takes responsibility ? Because that's the million dollar question, although in this case, more like 100 million dollar question. If you make the TSA less onerous and the result is a plane plowing into a skyscraper, who pays ? I think this action is at least partially the result of insurance companies saying "not us". Do you have a better answer ?