Airline security is "security theater"
 

According to one expert heard on NPR this morning, the 32 oz. bag of liquid containers is 100% irrational, as the contents of said bag could bring down an airliner. What we have is "security theater" meant not to keep flying safe, but to fool the public into thinking they're safe.

I don't mean to ruin my fellow travellers' day, but was curious about peoples' reaction to this.

Last lot of experts I heard was telling us you couldn't pack enough liquid explosive to bring down a toy balloon.

Security and rationality have to be balanced. The only way to approach 100% safety is make everyone get on the airplane naked, undergo xrays to be sure nothing is hidden in their bodies, and ban all luggage whether carryon or in the hold.

Yes, that baggy of bottles could carry some bad stuff, but it's still somewhat better than allowing gallon ugs of whatever.

And the security screenings people go thru are not 100% effective, but they have stopped people with guns, knives, etc. trying to get onto aircraft.

Barring the naked traveler without luggage scenario, we just have to accept that there will be some risks.

>>What we have is "security theater" meant not to keep flying safe, but to fool the public into thinking they're safe.
<<

And Queen Anne's dead, so I'm told.

Translation, Patrick, please...

I'm guessing, "Why state the obvious?"

I think the decided that what could fit into the one bag couldn't crash a passenger jet.

Not sure what the threshold on that was or if multiple passengers combining their bag's contents was also a non threat or not. In fairness, about 50% of the things we're told throughout life are complete bs. Security is just like anything else, but as long as they're screening the bags carefully and using the metal detector like they always have, I'm fine with and generally shrug off whatever other assurances the system wants to spin for us.

Amazing how authoritative a lack of knowledge can sound. I guess no one here has ever seen what a handful of Semtex or C-4 can do, nor remembers that an explosive inside a handheld transistor radio brought down the 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
One must always remember that, what you are not aware of, does not necessarily not exist.

I heard that report this morning also, and I admit that I was taken with the phrase "security theater."

One more comment: Perhaps security theater isn't entirely worthless. I bet that it does cut down a bit on the rank amateur criminals.

Remember the recent thread on which someone alleged that unfriendly/rude Immigration + Customs agents would do a better job of keeping undesirables out?

If the TSA people "don't know" how much explosive it would take to "bring down an airliner" that apparently hasn't stopped them from deciding how much can be allowed on a plane.

Perhaps there is a "wheel of fortune" in the main TSA Headquarters office and they spin it periodically and whatever number comes up, THAT'S the one they go with.

On the precautionary principle, anything explosive *might* bring a plane down, even if it's engineered to much higher standards than we imagine, so I wouldn't blame the powers that be for being ultra-restrictive in that area.

But "security theatre" is also important - there's nothing worse for security than people in a panicky mood, so I've always assumed most of these operations have a strong element of general reassurance rather than a serious expectation of trapping a genuine terrorist(and yes, "Queen Anne's dead" is an old phrase for "Tell me something I don't know").

Dukey, my point on that thread was to remind people that the behaviour of customs agents can't be evaluated in the same light as, say, that of tourism officials, since the job of the former is to get information, not dispense it. Probing questions are rude if one is in a social situation or in a conversation with someone meant to help one, as a tourist official is, but not if one is being interviewed by a customs or immigration agent. It's likely just another interrogation tactic, but either way, not to be taken personally.

Now, to return to the topic at hand: notwithstanding my feeling that a lot of security isn't very effective,I have to say I find the idea of transport officials sitting around thinking up ways to fool people ranks right up there with tales relating how someone met Elvis on the road to Sacramento last January.

There are different kinds of trust, and a mistrust of the competence of this or that agency does not necessarily warrant a mistrust of their intentions or goals.

And of course I trust EVERYTHING I hear on NPR. Might as well use John Kerry and Howard Dean as your source.

Zeus - I suppose you think the "unbiased and honest" FOX Network is better? HAHAHA

What a preposterous statement, Zeus! NPR actually played a clip of an official at a hearing--it wasn't their own commentary.

If it were, I can assure you that it would be more trustworthy than what Rush or O'Reilly or the Liar-in-Chief spouts on a daily basis.