DISQUS

Jeremy · 3 years ago

When you criminalize Gatorade, and only the criminals will have Gatorade.

The Cure · 3 years ago

What is the function of the countermeasures that are being put in place in air ports? If you believe that, on some level, they are intended primarily to protect us from a terrorist threat, then, yeah, this really is a bad strategy. I think there are at least two other ways of looking at this.

The first is analogous to an IPS or IDS or whatever security solution is fashionable at the moment. The person in charge of network security knows that sooner or later something really bad is going to happen, and ultimately there isn’t a way to make sure that it won’t. The IPS functions as a means of diverting accountability. Either it creates the appearance of due diligence, or it can even persuade the attacker to be careful enough to not get caught or bring their game to a really sophisticated level that no one could be expected to block (insertion attacks are kind of like the shoe bomber in this analogy). Airport security is the managed perception of due diligence on the part of the decision makers in government in order to avoid accountability.

There is another way of looking at this that is even more cynical. If you are going to base your claim to power on the presupposition that you are going to do more than “the other guy” to combat a real or imagined threat, then you really have to demonstrate this somehow. It also helps to choose a means of expression that a lot of people are going to see and remember. Lots of people fly on airplanes, and forcing people to take their shoes off and walk across a dirty floor in their bare feet really makes an impression, after all. Even if there wasn’t a serious terrorist threat, we would still have to check our Gatorade at the terminal. It’s just too useful as a reminder to the electorate of why we need these particular people in power.

There are real strategies that we could employ to combat terrorism, and they exist across the political spectrum. It seems likely that any effective strategy would involve some major changes to our society that people who are comfortable with the status quo won’t like. Consequently, they aren’t really widely discussed or debated, and I don’t think the will exists to implement them anyway. Ultimately, however, I just don’t think these airport security schemes have anything to do with it. However, none of this is necessarily bad strategy from some other perspectives…

adam · 3 years ago

They're going to have the hair bomber, and we'll all end up looking like skinheads.

Josh Daymont · 3 years ago

Have you considered the possibility that the TSA restrictions are designed less to keep planes safe and more to make passengers *feel* safe and therefore ensure people continue to use air travel?

Thomas Ptacek · 3 years ago

If that's the case, it's had the opposite effect: the current trend story seems to be people making the dumb risk decision to drive short-haul trips instead of taking shuttles, not because of fear but because of intolerance of security delays.

Chris · 3 years ago

If the new rules are permanent, then the reaction is insane^H^H^H^H^H^Hpoorly thought out.

OTOH, if the authorities believe that only a portion of the would-be perps for this particular attack have been caught, then perhaps by banning the kinds of items these specific bad guys are (note present tense) planning to use, this specific attack can be nullified w/out every last perp being captured (until they plan a different attack, that is).
At least I am hoping this is the thinking. I can't think of another reason these latest rules make sense, as far as actual (as opposed to make-believe) risk reduction is concerned.