<p>There’s a current Cafe thread on whether government GPS tracking of citizens, without warrant, is appropriate in our society. There are a variety of opinions, as you’d expect.</p>
<p>Reading those got me to thinking about a discussion I had recently on airport security. In the course of this discussion one professional expressed the opinion that airport security needed to be strengthened “for the good of the country.” Given the many difficulties travelers report negotiating the existing airport security I was a bit surprised at this response. I asked how often he flew, and he responded “Oh my wife is afraid of flying, so we never fly.”</p>
<p>I’ve taken roughly three hundred flights since 9/11 and authorities have yet to find a reason to suspect me. How much proof of innocence does one need?</p>
<p>BTW, in addition to metal detectors and explosives “puffer” machines, our local airport has been selected to test the new digital body scanners. Just curious … does anyone know what the NEXT generation of scanner will be like???</p>
<p>Well… you have about three trains of thought in your post. Government tracking… airport security devices… value of having flown 300 times (and now deemed “ok”). </p>
<p>There’s a diversity of views on safety/security in American society. I’m wondering what extent this is due to the NEW prevailing (?) view that an individual can never “prove” one’s innocence … and therefore must be continuously viewed as a potential threat.</p>
<p>so the new rule becomes after 25 slights a passenger can skip the safety screening … and then every terrorist in the world immediately takes their 25 flights so they can fly risk free … wouldn’t that be the outcome?</p>
<p>How do you propose to let frequent flyers get a break without creating additional safety risk?</p>
<p>Because on an airplane, everyone is a potential threat, no matter what their background. Some may recall the disaster (PSA 1771) where a former employee of an airline bypassed security and boarded a plane while carrying a .44 cal revolver. The resulting crash, which killed all aboard, led to a federal law requiring all airline employees and flight crews to pass through screening.</p>
<p>How many times have you seen stories about people snapping and listened to their neighbors and friends deny that there was anything wrong? Yes, security is a pain in the neck, but there’s good reason for it.</p>
<p>And respectfully, the notion of proving one’s innocence and the implication that we’ve somehow shifted the burden of proof to the innocent is misplaced. The innocent until proven guilty dogma applies to punishment not permission to engage in conduct.</p>
<p>Me, neither, but they’ve made me throw away a fair amount of toothpaste and shaving cream.</p>
<p>Question: Suppose my toothpaste tube actually contains some weird, minty, foaming, cavity-fighting, tooth-whitening, explosive gel. Why do they make me throw away the 7-ounce tube but allow me to keep the twenty-five 2.9-ounce tubes?</p>
<p>“Because on an airplane, everyone is a potential threat, no matter what their background.”</p>
<p>And everyone who owns a firearm and ammunition is a potential threat too, but the society manages without requiring a psych exam of every gun owner each time they leave their house. (And yes, as a matter of fact I do own a firearm … and no, I’ve never considered shooting anyone with it.)</p>
<p>As I already mentioned in one of the earlier threads, we all are being subjected to a biological experiment of unprecedented proportions - there are several groups of doctors raising their voices against the mass use of medical devices that have not been cleared by the FDA. Yup, I’m talking about the body scanners. There is an argument that the amount of radiation one gets is not significant; however, as one doctor pointed out, the scanners concentrate their radiation within one’s skin, a rapidly dividing organ, and the consequences of the use of such radiation have yet to be determined…</p>
<p>I’m more concerned about the psychological experiment that’s making us docile and compliant. I don’t like my children growing up to think that it’s normal to be searched, scanned and interrogated.</p>
<p>It’s a dilemma, I agree. I live in the DC area, and I see giant fences and guard posts being built around everything. I sometimes think that the only real effect would be to make would-be terrorists choose different targets.</p>
guess this one depends on the lens through which you look at events … we have multiple events every year where a few gun owners go on a spree and kill innocent folks … “luckily” most of these events on kill 1-5 people. So you’re willing to have a few events a year where someone can something like a bomb (or even merely a gun) onto a plane?</p>
<p>“I’m more concerned about the psychological experiment that’s making us docile and compliant. I don’t like my children growing up to think that it’s normal to be searched, scanned and interrogated.”</p>
<p>Exactly. I can deal with the new world as it’s come to be … but I worry about young people who have known no other.</p>
<p>I had to throw away a couple of things last trip because I forgot to bring a zip loc bag (sunscreen, lotion small jar of maple sugar/syrup). The stuff would have been okay, had it been in a bag, but was not okay because it wasn’t in a zip loc bag. Makes no sense whatsoever, and is annoying.</p>