Congressional TSA bill: No pat-downs of children at all sans parental consent

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_12628220-caf9-568a-9f6b-c84b3745d119.html

Of course, I'm sure John Pistole would consider any "tea-party constitutionalist home-schooling fringe radical" to be a terrorist for refusing to let his/her kids be searched by the army of high school dropouts.

The nice thing I did note in the article was the blatant acknowledgment that security theater is supported by lobbyists for the nudoscope industry.  And that dogs/behavioral detection are used in more critical theaters of operation such as the White House, Capitol Hill, and in wars.  With greater success.

[T.O.M.]

My worry about this whole uproar is that if the bad guys are paying attention, one of them might decide to send Junior off to paradise, and turn Junior into a walking weapon.  Gives me shivers just to think about, but I'm sure there's a nut job out there somewhere willing to give up a child in the name of the cause.

[Balog]

Chris: I'm sure they've tried it before, they rigged a retarded kids wheelchair with explosives and told him to roll to the .gov center in Ramadi when I was there. I still feel bad for the guy on the walls who had to shoot him, and the EOD team that had to detonate-in-place his corpse.

That being said, the non-porn-o-scope/sexual assaulty techniques used by other countries have kept them from succeeding.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes. THere's always are going to be loopholes that terrorists will slip through.

There is such a thing as a cost-benefit analysis.

How likely is a given threat to occur? And how much are we willing to pay, in freedom and in treasure, to head it off?

At some point there is such a thing as an acceptable risk level we must be willing to tolerate.

[De Selby]

Yes. THere's always are going to be loopholes that terrorists will slip through.

There is such a thing as a cost-benefit analysis.

How likely is a given threat to occur? And how much are we willing to pay, in freedom and in treasure, to head it off?

At some point there is such a thing as an acceptable risk level we must be willing to tolerate.

You know, if we'd spent half the money we did on security to improve roads and hospitals, we'd probably be saving a whole lot more lives (and actually improving day-to-day experience). 

Hard to get people interested in that though - the 24 fantasy is a real political force that politicians can cash in any time they want more money.  Since you can't get people excited about boring alternatives like roadway fatalities and alarming medical accidents, the money gets spent to shut down cockamamy schemes that, even if they succeeded every time, wouldn't kill nearly as many people in a year as bad doctors.

[MechAg94]

You know, if we'd spent half the money we did on security to improve roads and hospitals, we'd probably be saving a whole lot more lives (and actually improving day-to-day experience).  

Hard to get people interested in that though - the 24 fantasy is a real political force that politicians can cash in any time they want more money.  Since you can't get people excited about boring alternatives like roadway fatalities and alarming medical accidents, the money gets spent to shut down cockamamy schemes that, even if they succeeded every time, wouldn't kill nearly as many people in a year as bad doctors.

I think we do spend a lot more money on roads and hospitals than we do on security if you don't count the military and include state and local spending.  I'm not sure if there is a good way to look it up though.  

That said, I don't think more money is the answer to security so much as just more sanity. 

[roo_ster]

Yes. THere's always are going to be loopholes that terrorists will slip through.

There is such a thing as a cost-benefit analysis.

How likely is a given threat to occur? And how much are we willing to pay, in freedom and in treasure, to head it off?

At some point there is such a thing as an acceptable risk level we must be willing to tolerate.

Agreed.

We make such calculations every day for most every possible activity to the satisfaction of the adults who make such calculations.  It is only when gov't gets involved that we can not do so.  I'd much prefer a regime where different air fields & air lines could compete on security vs convenience. 

[RevDisk]

My worry about this whole uproar is that if the bad guys are paying attention, one of them might decide to send Junior off to paradise, and turn Junior into a walking weapon.  Gives me shivers just to think about, but I'm sure there's a nut job out there somewhere willing to give up a child in the name of the cause.

Yea.  Except I'd rather face near zero percent risk of terrorist activity, verses near hundred percent risk of scope creep of civil liberty infringements.  I've studied terrorism for quite a while, as I'm primarily a security geek.  Yes, there are those types of folks out there.  They're very rare, but they do exist and need to be shot.  But selling our entire country down the river to tyranny is not the answer.  It's a bad idea, and not cost effective anyways.   If the nuts hit again in a large scale, odds are pretty low it'll relating to aviation, it'll probably be shooting up a mall or blowing up a sports stadium.  That's the point of terrorism.  The point of defeating terrorism is giving the finger to said terrorists, continuing on with life and killing those responsible.  NOT, I say, NOT indulging in expensive oppression of your own people that only provides security by accident or side effect, if at all.  

If you wanted to end aircraft hijacking, it'd be very simple.  Retrofit all commercial passenger aircraft over a certain size to not be able to access the cockpit from the main aircraft and remote landing capacity in case of pilot incapacitation or whatnot.  You could dork with the concept by training/arming the entire crew, adding an automatic cabin/cockpit commo cutoff, whatever.   Expensive?   Absolutely.  It'd cost perhaps two or three weeks of our current security theater, and actually provide security.  Not total, but that's infeasible anyways.  The point of security is to make the critters go after other, easier targets.


De Selby is correct.  If we spent a fraction of the security theater budget on free lightning rods, epi pens for bee strings and shooting sharks, all sources of rare fatalities, we'd save significantly more lives.  Not saying we should do so, I'm just stating the cost efficiency.

[230RN]

If you wanted to end aircraft hijacking, it'd be very simple.  Retrofit all commercial passenger aircraft over a certain size to not be able to access the cockpit from the main aircraft and remote landing capacity in case of pilot incapacitation or whatnot.

(A) And that's not going to be expensive?

(B) And I'm a pilot sealed in my cockpit and they start killing my passsengers if I don't open the door?

Maybe we could just issue a Louisville Slugger to every boarding passenger and take them back at the destination.

[Boomhauer]

B) And I'm a pilot sealed in my cockpit and they start killing my passsengers if I don't open the door?

I'm fairly sure that SOP now is to keep the door locked and land the airplane immediatly.

[RevDisk]

(A) And that's not going to be expensive?

(B) And I'm a pilot sealed in my cockpit and they start killing my passsengers if I don't open the door?

Maybe we could just issue a Louisville Slugger to every boarding passenger and take them back at the destination.

A) Absolutely will be.  Almost two, perhaps even three weeks of the money we pour into security theater.  Hence why I specifically mentioned that point. 
B) Yea, tis why I mentioned that it may be desired to add a cutoff switch.  First item on the terrorism checklist, hit any one of a number of panic buttons.  Cuts off the intercom, fires up a transponder to scream "Aircraft potentially under terrorist attack", etc.  The pilot's first and only job would be to get the aircraft immediately on the ground.

B is already an issue that's addressed as a concern.  Current doctrine being taught to pilots is essentially: "Ignore the screaming or whatnot, just land the plane immediately".

[sanglant]

add nitrogen dioxide tanks next to the oxygen tanks, passengers get unruly put them down for the rest of the flight.

[CypherNinja]

Maybe we could just issue a Louisville Slugger to every boarding passenger and take them back at the destination.

We basically already do. You ever closely inspect those seat belts? They disconnect from the seat somewhat easily and the buckle probably weighs nearly a pound. If you pulled the buckle out to the end of the strap, then wrapped the strap around your hand two or three times so that the "hand to buckle length" was about the same length of your forearm, you'd have a fairly decent flail type weapon. Louisville Slugger it ain't, for sure, but it's nothing to sneeze at and everyone onboard has one.

Not saying it's a magic talisman or anything, but hey, the primary deterrent to hijackings these days is the fact that passengers won't play along after 9/11.