A pattern makes a kilt special.

Agreed ^ I think that if this were allowed, and something does happen most on here would be whining about the lack of security.

I don't think TSA is perfect, no government agency is. But I think that some security is better than none at all.

Good Germans used to say that Nazi Germany wasn't perfect.

So you're pulling a Godwin's Law on me? That ain't going to work hon. Also, I find those that compare government policies akin to Nazi Germany as lazy, knee-jerk and paranoid.

See the Mythbusters episode. They fired a gun out through a pressurized cabin window. (On the ground but the pressure differential was the same as normal in-flight conditions.) Buster (their crash test dummy) was unaffected.

Yeah, I would have no problem with that.

You miss the point, hon. In the original post, we weren't given a choice between TSA and "some security" -- we were given the choice between TSA and "no security" (although that might be an oxymoron). And if those were the only two choices (which they're not), I would opt for "no security". But, that's me. YOU don't have to fly Liberty Air if you're afraid. Feel free to subject yourself to the security masquerade that is TSA as often as you like.

You see, like other posters on this board, I'm old enough to remember flying with zero security at a time planes were being hijacked, and with minimal (but effective) security when planes were being blown up. The level of security didn't stop me then, when I was statistically much more likely to be involved in a dangerous situation on an aircraft -- it certainly wouldn't stop me now.

What stops me now is the assault upon my rights by a mockery of security that is, in fact, completely INeffective.

~~ Irish

I don't think it has much to do with Godwin's law, rather a healthy way to look at policies with a critical eye. The current situation practically forces us to compare our government's policies to those of totalitarian regimes, past and current. To accept what is forced upon us would mean that we have become complacent. I prefer to see with open eyes what's going on here. And I don't like it a bit. There is nothing that spells "freedom" under the ongoing policies.
Just my opinion.

^

Godwin's Law is a personal irritant to me. Most of the time X is compared to Nazi Germany, it is precisely because X is behaving in a totalitarian, anti-social, thugish and/or non-transparent manner. I see nothing wrong in comparing the type of things I have compared in the past to elements of the Nazi experience and I shall continue to do so when it is appropriate. I think the current state of affairs with regard to the dwindling freedoms in the US and elsewhere is a testament to the appropriateness of such a comparison and what can happen when people pooh pooh it.

The same stupid (IMHO) false dilemma nonsense as the original post gets posted in comments on almost every news website that runs a TSA story.

I can't decide if people who post this 1) actually think they are contributing to the political debate about air security, 2) know they're posting nonsense but enjoy the "fun", or 3) are deliberately posting disinformation by posting this "choice" to make readers say "why of course I'd never fly a non-security airline."

Whatever the reason, I find it really annoying to keep reading this IMHO nonsensical "choice".

Note: my comments are about the many scores of people who have posted this exact type of choice on CNN, WSJ, MSNBC etc., and is NOT intended to cast aspersions on the FTer who originated this thread.

+1,000,003.4

There was another FTer a few weeks ago who posted the two extremes (whatever TSA wants vs. no security) as a "survey" then came back a week later in a different thread and said "surveys prove most people in FT TS&S want no security at all." :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Do you want to wear full medieval armor everyday or go naked? Just choose one.

Do you want to live inside a bank vault or store all your valuables in your front yard? Just choose one.

Do you want all highways to be 10 mph or have no traffic laws at all? Just choose one.

I note that the OP in this thread was (merely) citing an article from somewhere else. But this sort of false dilemma is meaningless and will ultimately be quoted - wrongly - against those who want to see some sanity restored to airport security.

How did they do that? Lower the pressure inside to 1/2 ATM or something?

It's not nonsensical at all. I go to my office without any security. I go to the grocery store without any security. I go to the cinema without any security. I ride on the underground without any security. I ride on trains, buses and ferries without any security. Flying on a airplane can be done the same way.

That's fair enough. The point is that it needn't be an all-or-nothing choice.

My work place has a friendly receptionist at the front desk who will, politely, challenge someone she doesn't know who doesn't have a plausible story for being there. Out of hours, you need a magnetic card to access the building. 2/10 on the secure-office scale. I have friends who work in offices where you need a swipe card or be escorted in by someone with a swipe card. 6/10 on the secure-office scale. And so on. In Sydney, IME, train, bus and ferry services have drivers/pilots with radios if anything goes odd (1/10 on the secure-transport scale?) and the occasional police presence (just being there).

I'm not condoning or condemning any of those measures, just pointing out that there a continuum of solutions between "no security at all" and the entire TSA ID check/x-ray/scope-n-grope dramatic production.

Been there, done that.....

I can book a flight on a commercial airline and fly to the next island without being screened. It is only if I fly to an airport where I will deplane through a sterile area that I need to be screened. Same plane, different destination.

I've flown through GA as well- and in and out of Air Force base GA terminals without being screened. ^

Screening leaves me feeling annoyed rather than safer.

For my part, I responded based on the assumption that the OP actually meant "sensible admission procedures" as opposed to "absolutely NO security whatsoever, no not even a locked door, security camera or fake policeman walking around".

I think the scenario that I picture in my mind is similar to that of walking into an office building where smart data validation and security camera technology are used to maintain security and safety.

[PR walks into Airport Lobby]
Agent:Can I help you sir?
PR: Yes, I just want to check my bag in.
Agent: Certainly Sir, scan your DL and I'll apply the IR chip to your bag and send it on its way. Would you like to purchase our deliver first option?
PR: No thanks
[PR checks mobile phone to make sure bag was tagged to the correct destination and walks directly to the gate]
Security guard walks past PR at the gate: Morning Mr. PR, how about them Cowboys eh? (He's not a BDO, just being polite)
[PR nods, walks to boarding door and scans DL at the jetway entrance. Camera compares facial scan data from DMV / Passport Agency with PR's face and a turnstile opens allowing PR entry to the jetway. PR walks onto aircraft]
FA: Welcome aboard Sir. Drink?
PR: No thanks, I have my own Liter bottle of Evian Water in my bag
FA: Will you be joining us for lunch today, Mr. PR?
PR: No thanks, I brought my own protein shake and sugar-free yogurt with me. They are both the 12 oz. sizes, would you like to share some?