Yes, it is a show ('security theater', lol), but the thing is--why don't we stick with what was working before? Why do we need these new machines for greater invasions into privacy?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It (the faux security check) is a dog and pony show. It makes it look like the government is taking action after 9/11. It does little to guarantee our security in flight. But I agree, "if you gotta fly, you gotta play by the rules." It does suck, but people need to QQ about it.SenorToenails wrote:
We could try and go the Israeli way (and probably be branded as racist), but I doubt that would work in a large, diverse nation like the US. I object only because I don't really think it actually does much for security. How often did the US have plane bombings/hijackings before 9/11? Is the price we are paying really worth whatever security we have 'bought'?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I think a lot of people are pissed about the inconsistency of it. Sure, 'randomness' regarding extensive searches is a good thing, but how come Joe Blow TSA agent has to grab my junk and not the old man in front of me's? What exactly does that accomplish?
I can't help but wonder if a better method for national security would come from better intelligence, and not more inconvenience. Oh well...if you gotta fly, you gotta play by the rules. I just don't have to like it.
The solution to this is not telling people to QQ about it, but rather to encourage the feds to spend money on more effective intelligence. I realize how idealistic (and unrealistic) that sounds.