NY Times OP/ED: A Smarter Approach to Airline Safety
Nov 14, 2014, 8:46 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 330
NY Times OP/ED: A Smarter Approach to Airline Safety
Nov 14, 2014, 10:51 am
#2
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the Cone of Silence
Programs: UA Gold; AA Dirt; HH Diamond; National Emerald; CONTROL SecretAgent Platinum; KAOS EvilFlyer Gold
Posts: 1,499
"Running the T.S.A., like running any agency, is in part a public relations job. Getting to a true “risk based” approach to security screening will require not only smarter policies but also a campaign to explain to travelers that some of the annoying procedures they like to think keep them safe are nothing more than security theater."
Nov 14, 2014, 10:54 am
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
The last paragraph is nice:
"Running the T.S.A., like running any agency, is in part a public relations job. Getting to a true “risk based” approach to security screening will require not only smarter policies but also a campaign to explain to travelers that some of the annoying procedures they like to think keep them safe are nothing more than security theater."
"Running the T.S.A., like running any agency, is in part a public relations job. Getting to a true “risk based” approach to security screening will require not only smarter policies but also a campaign to explain to travelers that some of the annoying procedures they like to think keep them safe are nothing more than security theater."
Nov 14, 2014, 2:36 pm
#4
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the Cone of Silence
Programs: UA Gold; AA Dirt; HH Diamond; National Emerald; CONTROL SecretAgent Platinum; KAOS EvilFlyer Gold
Posts: 1,499
That's true to a point, but, Pissy and others in the "homeland security government-industrial complex" are smart enough to understand that they have to maintain a baseline fear level in the public in order to continue to exist by solving problems that they created. Right now, they have paranoid unions and blowhards like Peter King to do their dirty work for them.
Nov 14, 2014, 3:25 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
That's true to a point, but, Pissy and others in the "homeland security government-industrial complex" are smart enough to understand that they have to maintain a baseline fear level in the public in order to continue to exist by solving problems that they created. Right now, they have paranoid unions and blowhards like Peter King to do their dirty work for them.
No argument there. What I considered 'nice' was the fact that a major media outlet identified sheeple stupidity as an impediment to good security. That and use of the phrase "security theater".
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
That's true to a point, but, Pissy and others in the "homeland security government-industrial complex" are smart enough to understand that they have to maintain a baseline fear level in the public in order to continue to exist by solving problems that they created. Right now, they have paranoid unions and blowhards like Peter King to do their dirty work for them.
No argument there. What I considered 'nice' was the fact that a major media outlet identified sheeple stupidity as an impediment to good security. That and use of the phrase "security theater".
Nov 14, 2014, 3:35 pm
#6
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the Cone of Silence
Programs: UA Gold; AA Dirt; HH Diamond; National Emerald; CONTROL SecretAgent Platinum; KAOS EvilFlyer Gold
Posts: 1,499
Nov 15, 2014, 11:04 am
#7
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
I love this bit:
Well, yeah, it's certainly smarter to have screeners look for C4 instead of water bottles and snow globes.
But "random" and "unpredictable" are no more secure, and any increase in screener discretion will only give them greater power to abuse.
While the program has improved wait times at security checkpoints, a truly risk-based approach would rely more on randomization. Unpredictable, variable measures are likely to be more effective than routine belt and shoe searches. It would also make sense to allow screeners more discretion. All that time devoted to policing shoes could be better spent observing passengers.
But "random" and "unpredictable" are no more secure, and any increase in screener discretion will only give them greater power to abuse.
Nov 15, 2014, 11:24 am
#8
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Unpredictable, variable measures are likely to be more effective than routine belt and shoe searches.