Letters to the Editor
-
Bruce Schneier link, and a modest proposal
Patrick, the Bruce Schneier quote was great. Why no link to his blog? I tracked it down--the link for that particular entry is http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/what_the_terror.html if anyone wants to go read it. http://www.schneier.com/blog/ is the blog itself. Lots of good stuff there.
On a different tack, I'd love to see airlines offer "high security" and "low security" flights. You could accommodate them with different terminals in most large airports--i.e. make terminals 5-6 in LAX "low security," where passengers are subjected to the now-routine pre-liquid plot search, allowed to carry liquids on planes, not asked to remove their shoes, etc. You could have other flights be "high security" with the current measures, at a $20 premium to accommodate the feeling of being safer. I know this will never happen, but wouldn't it be great to see the public eventually overwhelmingly choose the low security flights? Let the free market decide!
-
Excellent Analysis of by the Pilot
In his recent column about the histeria gripping the nations airports the Pilot reaches some conclusions that have a much broader implication. As a frequently air passenger for work and fun, I have developed a zen attitude toward the hurdles of boarding a plane in our post 911 world. Without a little amused detachment I'm sure I would be as outraged and frustrated as the Pilot on evey occasion that I walk into an airport lobby. This training has helped me get through the equally absurd security measures foisted upon us by the current administration. The Pilot is spot on when he points out the obvious fact that even with terror attacks taken into consideration that air travel is incredibly safe and reliable. I would venture to say that our nation is still a bastion of safety and security even without the extroidinarily expensive and equally inept measures taken by our government to "secure the homeland." I for one would love to hear a politician say that we do not need to lose one iota of our freedoms in order to be secure from the terroist threat, whatever that is. It is painfully obvious that with better police work our nation could identify and track with ease each and every so-called terrorist in existance without eroding my ability to surf the net at the library, fly to Europe for vacation, make private phone calls to Egypt or whatever else I wanted to do. The mindless fear that our government is intent to thrust upon the citizentry is indeed the biggest story line of the post 911 world. If we had such biting insight from someone in the army, the FBI, the congress and other institutions of importance maybe we could wake up from the mickey our government dosed us with on the sly.
-
Freedom, Airline Revenues, and complaining
I love Patrick's articles!
I keep hearing all of the propaganda about how the terrorists want to take our freedom away. How can they? The only way we can lose our freedoms is by giving them up ourselves, which is exactly what we are doing when we allow the Government to violate our Fourth Amendment right in order to fly.
There was an article in the Economist a couple weeks ago, that had numbers that showed how much damage the security does to airline business: the more security, the less folks who fly.
I also think the reason many folks will not complain is for fear of being placed on the "No-Fly" list. And unlike others, most of us do not know anyone in the Whitehouse to get us off of it.
-
How feasible was the "liquid" terror plot
not very accoriding to this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
As to flying it has really become unpleasant.
I live in Bermuda and used to return back home to visit family and used to transit through the States after 911 I changed that since it was obvious that airport security was overwhlemed and ineffcient. After a couple of years I started transiting through the States again but no more.
Upon returning to Bermuda they refused to let a bottle of breast milk on board. This being her 10th flight since her birth we knew that the best way to prevent pressure from building up in her head during take off and landing was to bottle feed her. So we had to ask a very unsympathetic crew member once on board for water so we could use the bottle trick. Needless to say if I don't have to fly through the States I won't it to much a pain in the ass although Canada isn't much better.
By the way those random security screening are not so random my wife invariable ends up being randomly screened. She's British so I keep reminding her its payment for the UK helping out in Iraq.
-
There is some media complaining going on
Wrt "Where's the outrage?", John McLaughlin regularly makes issue of the need for "Trusted Passenger" systems, whether biometrics-based or whatever, to get away from the sad, blindly intrusive, and inefficient state of airline security now. Just search for biometrics on mclaughlin.com.
-
To secure or not to secure
i was recently traveling within the states on a very short trip and what is usually an easy decision about what to pack for 2 days really set me off. on the one hand, i could leave my makeup and hair products behind and get in and out of the airport quickly, or i could check my bag and take whatever i wanted. i spent a considerable amount of time juggling this decision, and in the end decided to check in my bag, and hope i wouldn't have to wait forever to get out of the airport. it wasn't THAT bad, but it was slightly annoying.
since i checked my bag, i had nothing to carry on the plane, no purse, no laptop, no jacket. then i remembered the chapstick in my pocket. before i got to the metal detectors, i asked the guy who checked my ticket whether i would be able to carry my chapstick. he took the cap off and inspected it and said he didn't know. i decided to put it in the tray with my shoes just to see what would happen. i did get stopped and rescanned for my belt, but the chapstick went right through, past 3-5 sets of security eyes. i don't know what to make of this, either TSA is slacking or chapstick doesn't pose much of a threat.
it's bad enough that we have to take off our shoes, considering that in the years since, nobody has carried bomb-making materials in their footwear (to my knowledge). it is really embarassing to think that the mighty superpower that is America would have people stand around in airports barefoot and/or in socks, and also, what that says about our intelligence in responding and preventing a terrorist attack. (Hello, Katrina...) it would be one thing if these mickey mouse measures actually made us feel safer, but they don't make me safe and they don't make me feel safe, and if they make you feel safe, then maybe you need to turn the TV off when the president is speaking.
the frightening thing is what this country has traded for "freedom." after 9/11, there were all these speeches about not letting the terrorists "win" by making us change our behavior. America's behavior sure has changed...
the TSA circus that is traveling by air is just one of the many examples of the freedoms we have traded in the name of national security. the signs at the security checkpoints in the airport, advise travellers not to make jokes or off-hand references to bombs, which will invoke more detailed inspection and further inconvenience. and if any of this is an objection to anyone, well we can be assured that the TSA behavior profilers will be immediately alerted of your suspicions.
can anyone say "police state?"