It’s a topic that’s been hashed over and over again in the media, particularly recently (given the attempted attack that occurred on Dec. 25th), and Gizmodo summed up my sentiments pretty well.
For those of you that follow my “stuff” pretty regularly (stuff being twitter, this blog, whatever else), you’ll know I fly a lot. Maybe I’m jaded, but TSA has consistently seemed to be mostly a facade to give the american public a sense that the federal government is doing something to protect us against terrorist plots.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to die on a plane (I don’t know anyone who would). I don’t want the US of A to be insecure, or susceptible to terrorist (or other) attacks. This whole TSA vs. “the turrists” thing that’s been happening recently strikes me as very similar in many ways to network security vs. hackers (CS major, don’t judge).
It’s a game of cat and mouse, ultimately. We can do everything within our power to secure ourselves against a threat, but those people who want to get in (or attack us) will find a way. So the question becomes, how secure do we want to be? How inconvenient do we want our process of flying (or using our computers) to be? To jump back and forth between metaphors: Sure, we could require users to maintain 3 passwords, and require them to enter those three passwords as well as biometric scanning every 30 seconds, but no one would ever get any work done. Just like we could start requiring people to show up 24 hours before their flight, and go through rigorous background checks (all at their expense), just before they’re even allowed into the main concourse, but no one would fly (that’s about as secure as we’ll get, at least on the flight front).
To what end though? Is this really how we want to be going about “securing” ourselves? It’s been shown that it’s quite a bit more likely to be struck by lightning than it is to die in a terrorist attack. Does this mean we should refrain from wearing all metal, and construct elaborate tunnels underground? No, probably not. It’s more likely that one would die in a car crash than that they’d die in a terrorist attack. Does this mean we’re all supposed to sell our cars, and walk to the places we need to go? No, that would be ridiculous. Clearly you get the point.
I’m not advocating removing security, I think it plays an important role in keeping travelers and the country as a whole safe. I am advocating pausing, and spending some time actually thinking about the effects of the measures being put in place, and how effective they actually are. I’ve carried knitting needles through airport security, with no questions asked. I’ve also had too much technology in my bag, where the xray couldn’t see everything in it. I wasn’t asked to prove that this technology was actually technology, they just wanted to look through what I was carrying.
Obviously this is all anecdotal (albeit, by me, so clearly it has some meaning >_>), but it seems rather indicative of the rigor of TSA (this was pre Dec. 25). Let’s fix this before it gets out of hand, for both my sake, the sake of the reputation of the US, the sake of everyone else trying to fly within, into, or out of the US, and even the sake of TSA/airport employees. Please.
Tags: airport, change, government, technology
Aren’t knitting needles allowed? I’ve never been questioned about them and I’ve taken them on many flights. They could do damage, not from me, from but another stronger individual.
I’ve accidentally brought entire bottles of shampoo on airplanes with me. So people could accidentally bring the liquid components of bombs with them onto planes.
Chances are they won’t happen though.
Well, that’s just the point. Knitting needles are allowed, but they’re arguably as dangerous as pocket knives (not allowed).
I’ve accidentally carried chapstick onto a plane (something you’re supposed to declare), and never been called on it.
You can “accidentally” carry all sorts of things on, and some of the things you’re allowed to carry on could be dangerous also.