20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

Post by ctrlp » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:17 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #309

ctrlp wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre-check screening is the EZPass of the security state. Exchange your privacy for convenience. Submit to a background probe and permanent residence in a government database (and god knows what other consents are required) and you, too, can join the upper tier of society. Leave the filthy plebes and their shoeless drudgery and pat-downs behind you as you ascend into the clear air of the Verified(TM) elite. You pose n…

Aside from the interview, the government already has all the background check data in their databases already. It’s not like you’re applying for a security clearance where agents go around your friends, family and neighbors digging up undocumented dirt.

Post by ctrlp » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:17 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #322

ctrlp wrote: post #230

The obvious purpose of removing shoes at airports has long been more about security theater than safety. The authorities must be seen to be doing something to protect travelers or the industry might not survive the customer's perception of danger. But, the less obvious reasons surely include maintaining the function of the huge TSA security apparatus put in place after 9/11. The stated function of the TSA is to prote…

> The unstated (and unacknowledged function) that has perpetuated the practice despite every traveler hating it (and its obvious futility), is to intimidate travelers and provide a convenient mechanism of crowd-control. I think you're misguided here. I certainly do understand the viewpoint that this security theater is harmful (and agree, actually). But lets be honest: The TSA has nothing to do with "Scaring the shee…

Post by 123jay7 » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:19 PM UTC

u801e wrote: post #364

After the number of deaths and economic impact that resulted from the pandemic, I would be perfectly fine if we completely eliminated any type of security check associated with air travel. I would rather air travel be much like traveling by train, bus, or taxi instead of what it is now.

Post by xxpor » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:20 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #340

mLuby wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quibble: terrorism is using dramatic violence to achieve political ends. It just so happens that the victimized society often wants to increase security. The US had at least 3 major responses to 9/11: 1) seek revenge (invade Afghanistan, kill Bin Laden), 2) armor up (Dept. of Homeland Security), and 3) unify under nationalism (flags everywhere). It's pretty easy to imagine a timeline where some or none of those ha…

> 3) unify under nationalism (flags everywhere) People flying flags everywhere weren't a thing in the 80s or 90s?

Post by GDC7 » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #328

GDC7 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again your message proves that you think about the people outside the vehicle as A-class citizens and those aboard as B-class citizens. There are 300+ people on a train and 4000+ on a cruise ship, those things don't need to be used as a weapon to cause a very sad day for the whole Nation in terms of human lives lost. Even if the thing is not used as a weapon.

It is extraordinarily difficult to kill or maim people on land using a ship as a weapon - it will simply run aground, and there are guides aboard on ships big enough to cause damage when they are near the shore, as an additional defensive measure against incompetence and hijackings (insert obligatory Ever Given meme here). For trains, the situation is similar. Even if you manage to bomb a train, it's unlikely to caus…