From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 11-03-2006 18:38
There are no real preventative measure. It is security theater. They make a big show of things, but it does not really offer any more security.
The security you now gain comes from your own and other passenger's heightened awareness. You are not going to let a couple of guys with knives hijack a plane. You are going to kick the shit out of them as soon as they show a knife, you might take a wound, at least your not dead.
All of the stuff out in front of the gates is just a big waste of time. The screeners tend to fail more tests than they pass, so if someone was really trying to smuggle some bomb or weapon on board they would not have a problem.
Does that mean that all of the screening process should be discarded? That answer is definitely no. They do serve a purpose. But it should be reduced back to the same level as it was pre-9/11. If you have the budget for more security, them make it worth while security. Take the 3 people who check that everyone has a license and a boarding pass and replace them with one person who walks around with a drug and bomb sniffing dog.
Then take the money saved from replacing the 5 screeners that watch the other screeners and put it towards pro-active investigation and disaster recovery.
All of the successes have come through investigative means. And if the worse does happen it is better to be prepared to handle the consequences correctly and safely.
That is where you get the most bang for your buck. That is how you will really make people safer. And that is how you will stop inconveniencing millions of people for no added benefits.
I've always found the 'statistically safer' claim rather silly. Cars have airbags, they have seat belts, the driver can be extra-cautious, the driver can swerve around things. Airplanes just go down, period, end of story. You'd think (or at least I do) that having technology like parachutes to save the whole aircraft and ejector seats for so long, that we might actually get some of that stuff on these giant planes that carry 300 people at a time. I guess it's only cost-effective for the military to bother with that stuff (to save one or two people and of course their very expensive war machine) - after all civilians just keep getting on planes no matter how many fly into the ground.
Commercial flying could be ridiculously safe, but I doubt it will be until at least one popular airline ups the stakes and the rest have to, too, to remain competitive. That's all they seem to care about, the bottom line.
I've always found the 'statistically safer' claim rather silly. Cars have airbags, they have seat belts, the driver can be extra-cautious, the driver can swerve around things. Airplanes just go down, period, end of story.
We just had a overpath here collapse and kill the people in cars underneath - they were driving extra-cautious at the time.
The average airline pilot is much more qualified than the average car driver. The average plane is more likely to be better inspected for flaws (and required by law) than the average car. Most pilots are not drunk...can't say as much for many drivers.
I may not feel safer in a plane, but I am. The illusion that you are in control in a car is just that an illusion...which evaporates very quickly when that drunk driver crosses the median and ends your life.
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 11-03-2006 22:10
There are also a fewer planes in the air than there are cars on the road with you.
Also you can be pretty sure that in any given plane there is a well trained individual in control. Anyone flying a commercial airliner has hundred of hours of testing and has most likely logged thousands of hours in flight.
I've always found the 'statistically safer' claim rather silly. Cars have airbags, they have seat belts, the driver can be extra-cautious, the driver can swerve around things. Airplanes just go down, period, end of story.
I agree in part, always have. In a car, I can control a great number of things that I can't when I am a passenger on a plane.
However, I *can't* control the rest of the world around me. My only car accident in my life was when I was hit by a guy runing a stop sign. There was nothing I could do to avoid it - when he hit me is when I first saw him. An airbag wouldn't have helped me if he had hit me a bout foot further back then he did. An airbag would have been nice considering where he did hit me, and where my head hit the windsheild, and where my knee went through the dashboard (despite a secured seatbelt). Unfortunately my car didn't have airbags
But aside from that, it's a simple matter of numbers: a higher percentage of automobile drivers and/or passengers are injured each year than are passengers of airplanes - plain and simple.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-04-2006 00:23
Safe??!!
Life is not "safe". Period.
It has never failed to amaze me that people worry about things being "safe".
Oh yeah, we are not supposed to play "tag" anymore. I guess Dodgeball is out, as well.
Is Tetherball still in? I used to remember slamming that ball into the face of my opponent...
Now, "risky" - that is something else.
And no, I do not think flying is all that risky (though there is certainly a risk, I believe it to be much less risky than driving a car or mountain-climbing, for example. Or playing smear-the-....well, I suppose you can figure out the last word - don't you DARE pick up that ball!).
I would place playing pavement full-contact football without padding as being very risky (still have some scars from that, and many in my 'Hood got broken bones from those games! )
But flying? Nah.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote: WarMage said:
The screeners tend to fail more tests than they pass, so if someone was really trying to smuggle some bomb or weapon on board they would not have a problem.
And what about the security people....
Flying out of Paris this summer, not too long after the Heathrow scare, we went thru security and all passengers were asked if they had gels, liquids, lighters, etc.... almost everyone knew about the restrictions and most said "no" and moved on to the bridge.
As we went down the bridge to our surprise we see 2 security guards waiting for us - i had never seen any on the bridge before - and they ask the same question about gels etc...
this time, however, people start whipping out bottled water, lighters, and so on. In other words they had lied to security the first time, but now they were too scared to lie a second time....none of these people were reprimanded, none were asked why they had initially lied...they all got on the same as flight as those, like myself, who had been honest.
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
I, for one, am kind of sick of being treated like a foreigner when I visit my own country. It used to be that if an American married a foreign national, the foreign national would get the benefit of the doubt. Now, because my wife is a foreign national, I get treated as if I'm not a citizen when it comes to airport security measures (i.e., have to wait in the special foreigner line to get all our bags opened and searched, etc.). Although it does seem to be getting better.
I agree completely with WarMage re: security theater. It is the illusion of security without the benefit of actual security.
i understand peoples thoughts of security theater but if thats what it is it is working its purpose of being a preventative making people think twice if they were to try something!!
The ones who seem to be scared the most are the politicians as they have been raising the level of security!!
The ones who seem to be scared the most are the politicians as they have been raising the level of security!!
This is the whole point of war of terror... You never know whether, when or where it is going to happen. Perhaps nothing will happen, perhaps they have avoided a huge disaster by catching that chap, but certainly that something bigger and scarier is being plotted right now somewhere just next to the centre of attention...
Anyway, my point is politicians, as individuals, are definitely not the ones who are scared the most; but the population is, as a whole frozen by this permanent scare. After 9/11 the people just do not behave in the same way as they used to, and this is a perfect way to keep one or several nations under control.
The politicians are only responding in what seems to be the most natural way in their people's view in order to keep their countries together.
The whole point of this "security theatre" (spot on Warmage) is:
1) to freeze the population in a state of terror, which results in unusual and unreasonable crowd behaviours
2) to force the States of the attacked population to react in a way that makes everyone pay attention to something that is not really the point, as well as waste time and money on short term and inaccurate solutions to keep this same population quiet.
And it works... It works so well that the longer it lasts the more likely we are going straight to get it back in the face very, very hard, and pay for it culturally, politically and economically. We have actually started to see clear results of this.
The "real" bombs are far from being the scariest things, just wait for the time bomb they're slowly but definitely throwing at us...
**** edit ****
quote: auto337002 said:
i understand peoples thoughts of security theater but if thats what it is it is working its purpose of being a preventative making people think twice if they were to try something!!
Well, these people have actually nothing to loose, they are willing to die in order to achieve their "duty"... so the point for them is not really about hesitating whether to try something or not, it is about hitting the target at all cost.
Well, these people have actually nothing to loose, they are willing to die in order to achieve their "duty"... so the point for them is not really about hesitating whether to try something or not, it is about hitting the target at all cost.
at all cost but not to be exposed or risk being caught before they carry out the attack!!
I have no choice but to fly, regardless of the risks. I'm off out to Barcelona on a job next week, and I must fly (albeit, infrequently) in the execution of my duties. To be honest, I'm not the sort of person to worry about such things anyway. If it's my time to go, it's my time to go. It's not as if I can do much about it, so I resign myself to my fate. I could be hit by a stray meteorite tomorrow - if there's life after death, I can laugh about it then.
I'm no more nervous about flying now than I ever was before all this, but the added stress and inconvenience of extra security protocols isn't so welcome. They're hardly culture-destroying measures by any stretch of the imagination, however...
"Oh my god! I have to take my belt and shoes off before I go through the metal detector to the plane? I can't carry a bottle of water on board unless I buy it in the departure lounge?! How will I ever cope with this! My way of life is ruined!"
I'm no more nervous about flying now than I ever was before all this, but the added stress and inconvenience of extra security protocols isn't so welcome. They're hardly culture-destroying measures by any stretch of the imagination, however...
"Oh my god! I have to take my belt and shoes off before I go through the metal detector to the plane? I can't carry a bottle of water on board unless I buy it in the departure lounge?! How will I ever cope with this! My way of life is ruined!"
Puh-lease!
If you are referring to what I said, you did not get it right; I can see how unclear I was in my post, sorry for the misunderstanding.
I was actually trying to describe the relationship between the following:
1) The terrorists apply pressure on both the people and the politicians in a different way; by doing this, they force the politicians to act in some way or another, as they "in charge"
2) The measures applied to tackle terrorism are inaccurate, costly and short term, but they give the illusion to the average people that "something is being done"
3) The population is not much safer, only more stressed and confused about these "Security Measures", but the resulting fear of the original pressure remains, and nothing is actually being sorted.
This is how I describe the War of Terror.
It reminds me of after the 7/7 in London, all the bin bags were removed from every train station in the UK (as far as I have been able to observe); they put them back over night a little more than a month ago, i.e. after the Heathrow threat - with apparently no reason to do so. It seems like an effort from the authorities to spread the word that "Everything is under control".
I am trying to be very attentive to these signs, as I find it very interesting to see how the Government gives this kind of "subconscious" messages.
lol - no problem, Kimson (and hello again, by the way), I tend to make my own points with an almost selfish disregard for those made earlier - despite the apparent coincidence in reference. It's probably indicative of mild autism that I blather on regardless and happen to offend those I'm supposed to be in conversation with... or I'm just a dick.
You make a good point, but then I also remember all bins within a hundred (or so) yards of all train station and bus shelters being removed back in the days when the IRA were a constant headline. As it happens, not so long ago, all the bins were removed from DLR stations, and have not yet been replaced. Bins elsewhere near public transport points are still scarce apart from the odd transparent liner - presumably, clear sacks reassuringly betray their contents to a casual observation.
"Is that an explosive device in that there bin, ticking?"
"No, it's a clockwork banana, sorry..."
I am happy to address the points in your last post...
1) Forcing an action does not necessarily denote control. In the case of gratuitous destruction of life and property, it simply introduces anarchy. All measures in response are simply an effort to re-introduce order. If their goal was to force an increase in national security measures and garner a hatred of their cause while inciting further aggression toward their race/culture/religion, then they have achieved that goal admirably! Well done, the world is a more menacing place for Muslims today because of them.
2) I'm not sure that any of the civil measures are really effective in directly tackling terrorism (presumably, this is the investigative responsibility of the police rather than solely the preventative duty of a ticket inspector) but it has long been my view that many measures are effective only in enhancing the illusion of order that so many find comforting in the execution of their daily lives. In this respect, they are generally effective - that is, until you come along and question it all. I am on your side in this - tell them all the Emperor has no clothes! I'm good for a laugh.
3) I can't say that "nothing is actually being sorted" without a much greater understanding of the work being done behind the scenes. I agree, again, that the fear for some is tangible. I just don't feel it myself - I'm more likely to get a knife in the face in exchange for my mobile phone than be blown to pieces by a terrorist device. I don't fear terrorism any more than I do the general lawlessness of the scum that haunt the streets of my city - and they've never really impressed me as much as they disgust me.
Well, considering the fact that I was far from getting your point either, I am happy to see that I am not the only one who tends to "make my own points with an almost selfish disregard for those made earlier "
Communication hey?!
Anyway, I totally agree with your additions; actually I often struggle to make myself clear and you certainly did it for me!
As for your point 3, I have to admit that I omitted to mention the work that is "being done behind the scenes", which was a mistake.
I do wonder to what extent work is being done, and what are the short and long term implications of it.
But I am digressing from the topic of this thread, so carry on guys
quote: White Hawk said:
"Is that an explosive device in that there bin, ticking?""No, it's a clockwork banana, sorry...
clockwork banana...reminds me of an obscure Kubrick movie, name escapes me....clockwork strawberry?
nah...clockwork tangerine? nope...sorry my mind is blank right now
:P
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
I suppose that may seem the case, DL-44, but one must get on with one's life, and one's life is made easier by the capital generated by one's employment. In my case, I am the only one who can do my job - at least, this is what I hope my employer continues to believe.
In the course of my duties, I must travel to Barcelona. Unless I fancy loading myself into a flight-case and piling-in with the rest of the kit aboard one of four articulated lorries bound for the venue by road, then my only option is to travel by air.
Of course, I could make the choice not to travel to Barcelona at all. I could decide that my job is not worth "risking my life for". I could even decide that leaving the house is just far too dangerous. In fact, when my employment ends because I never do the jobs I'm employed to do, and then my money runs out and I am forced to leave my home- perhaps then, I will have made a point and stood up for my right not to be put at risk by being obliged to travel by air.
When I'm starving and homeless and subject to the ravages and risks of street-living, perhaps it could be of some comfort to me that I at least asserted my right to refuse to fly as part of my job.
Thank you, DL-44, but no- I have no choice but to fly in much the same way as I have no choice but to wake up in the mornings and get on with my life regardless of any notion of impending doom, or indeed the certain knowledge of the futility of it all and the sould-sucking vagaries of the rat race. Thank you for filtering my tirade of nonsense for that little gem, though.
posted 11-03-2006 13:21
)
