Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

#21

Post by timepilot »

yequalsx wrote: post #13
timepilot wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I think your reasoning is well "reasonable". :) I also agree with you that the hijack/missile scenario seems unlikely at this point (existing safety precautions seem appropriate). I remain surprised (but happy) that terrorists have not gone after softer targets (malls, etc). For some reason, they remain very focused on airplanes (maybe the shock and awe effect). As a result, taking steps to make air travel…

No, I would not have a different view. It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden. Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion. The so called underwear bomber was stopped because when people see a man trying to ignite his underwear they stop him. We're not that h…

"It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden." - agreed

"Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion." - Understood. Personally, I'm ok with the virtual strip search. If the physical search is a "professionally executed" pat down, I'm also ok with it. My wife and I fly multiple times/month and so far this has been our experience. If the search turned into "groping", I would have a different view.

"Zero people have died in the U.S. from terrorism on airplanes since 9/11. It's extremely unlikely that a terrorist will blow up a plane with the security measures that were in place 1 year ago." - We just had a few close calls. The terrorists appear to be adapting.

"The next place to hide explosives are vaginas and anal regions. Do you think those should be probed as well? If a terrorist blows himself up at a TSA checkpoint should we have a checkpoint in order to get to the checkpoint?" - This is indeed the rub. Where do you "draw the line?" - is always the issue when discussing giving up/forcing people to give up personal liberties for the good of others. Nevertheless, we do it all the time. For me the scanners/searches have not crossed the line. For you, they have.

Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

#23

Post by orangecat »

timepilot wrote: post #10
orangecat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm suggesting that the risk of terrorists blowing up your flight using a method that backscatter machines would prevent, but that previous procedures would not prevent, is indistinguishable from zero. You're trading your civil liberties in exchange for nothing. And that would be fine, except you're also trading my civil liberties in the process.

I am well aware the scanners are flawed. However, I have not seen a study that shows the added benefit is "indistinguishable from zero." Please provide links, I may agree with you.

All I can do is point to the zero deaths since 2001 caused by passengers smuggling dangerous objects onto planes. Flying is far safer than many other common activities whose risks we gladly accept, and that would remain true even if terrorists blew up a fully loaded 747 every year.

And not specifically related to the new policies, but see here for plausible analyses that by inducing travelers to drive rather than fly, the TSA is on balance killing Americans: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/115092...

Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

#25

Post by jsz0 »

yequalsx wrote: post #5
timepilot wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure you are correct - I'm in the 2/3. I have been scanned several times and I'm fine with it. For me: safety > personal privacy.

I would like to know where you draw the safety vs. personal freedom line. How far is too far? For me we crossed the line a long time ago. It would be nice to hear a different perspective. As it stands now, a 13 year old boy or girl will be groped during an enhanced pat down. As I see it, 9/11 can't happen again. That is, an airplane will never again be hijacked and used as a missile. It's possible for someone to blow…

You're assuming that air port security exists in its current form to protect human life. Maybe it's more about protecting the aircraft. AQAP recently stated that their primary goal in attacking aviation targets is to inflict financial damage. Their reasoning is a relatively cheap attack has the potential to destroy a $300M+ aircraft. Like most other things in American politics you have to follow the money. A few hundred dead people is sad but a politically connected insurance company paying off a big claim for a blown up 747 is more likely to drive policy in this country. People die from preventable causes all the time. That's not really the issue here I suspect.

Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

#26

Post by tgflynn »

What strikes me is how few reports on this issue attempt to quantify the risks involved. Well over 30K people die each year in the US in traffic accidents (http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html) whereas only about 3K have died in the past 10 years due to airline terrorism. Hence the risk of being killed in a traffic accident is on the order of 100 times greater than that of being killed by a terrorist attack against aviation.

Now consider how willing most drivers are to trade a marginal increase in accident risk for a marginal increase in convenience (say driving 10 MPH over the posted speed limit to arrive at one's destination early).

In light of these risk preferences it is hardly surprising that many travelers are outraged at being forced by the government to undergo a humiliating and degrading procedure for such a minimal (and disputed at that) decrease in risk.

Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

#27

Post by derefr »

Semiapies wrote: post #11

Going by the answers to other questions, roughly 2/3 of respondents are also not worried about terrorism . Naturally, there's a huge number of permutations there, but this boils down to an awful lot of people perfectly willing to be looked at naked or felt up just because someone in charge says it needs to be done. This is part of why I've gotten into arguments with other libertarians who want to rain abuse on TSA em…

Maybe 2/3rds of people are just willing to be looked at naked/felt up for no reason whatsoever, not associating it with any sort of internal shame, only external social guilt. As long as they have some sort of social "hallway pass" to escape the repercussions, and thus guilt, of their (in)action (such as "I was drunk" or "he was wearing a lab coat" or "it was for a movie/documentary they're making" or "it will stop terrorists") they'll do whatever depraved things you like, and allow similarly depraved things to be done to them.

I call this the "Girls Gone Wild" hypothesis, although it's probably a corollary to Milgram (though one testable with less ethical questionability, certainly.)

Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

#28

Post by timepilot »

orangecat wrote: post #23
timepilot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am well aware the scanners are flawed. However, I have not seen a study that shows the added benefit is "indistinguishable from zero." Please provide links, I may agree with you.

All I can do is point to the zero deaths since 2001 caused by passengers smuggling dangerous objects onto planes. Flying is far safer than many other common activities whose risks we gladly accept, and that would remain true even if terrorists blew up a fully loaded 747 every year. And not specifically related to the new policies, but see here for plausible analyses that by inducing travelers to drive rather than fly…

"All I can do is point to the zero deaths since 2001 caused by passengers smuggling dangerous objects onto planes." - As I noted above, we have recently had a few close calls. It appears the terrorists are adapting. Personally, I'd rather we try to stay ahead of them than wait for your sentence to change to "well we had zero deaths until 2011 when ..."

"Flying is far safer than many other common activities whose risks we gladly accept, and that would remain true even if terrorists blew up a fully loaded 747 every year." - I have used this argument myself (yes I have argued your side as well). However, it does not capture the broader impact - economy etc (this may be why they continue to target planes). Frankly, I think the terrorists could accomplish their goals in many other far easier to accomplish ways but I wont help them here.

I understand your view. I just don't share it. You attacked mine by saying the scanners added zero value. I forwarded a link that while critical of the scanners also noted they were as "effective as a pat down". Unless you think pat downs add zero security, then we are back to security vs personal privacy.

Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

#29

Post by yequalsx »

jsz0 wrote: post #25
yequalsx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to know where you draw the safety vs. personal freedom line. How far is too far? For me we crossed the line a long time ago. It would be nice to hear a different perspective. As it stands now, a 13 year old boy or girl will be groped during an enhanced pat down. As I see it, 9/11 can't happen again. That is, an airplane will never again be hijacked and used as a missile. It's possible for someone to blow…

You're assuming that air port security exists in its current form to protect human life. Maybe it's more about protecting the aircraft. AQAP recently stated that their primary goal in attacking aviation targets is to inflict financial damage. Their reasoning is a relatively cheap attack has the potential to destroy a $300M+ aircraft. Like most other things in American politics you have to follow the money. A few hund…

Actually, I'm assuming that the person I responded to supports these policies in order to protect human life.

Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

#30

Post by timepilot »

yequalsx wrote: post #29
jsz0 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that air port security exists in its current form to protect human life. Maybe it's more about protecting the aircraft. AQAP recently stated that their primary goal in attacking aviation targets is to inflict financial damage. Their reasoning is a relatively cheap attack has the potential to destroy a $300M+ aircraft. Like most other things in American politics you have to follow the money. A few hund…

Actually, I'm assuming that the person I responded to supports these policies in order to protect human life.

you would be correct! :)
Post reply on HN