Air travel security is retarded - why?

[TheWorstPlayer]

Air travel security should have two goals:
- Stop people from compromising air travel
- Avoid inconvenience to people not trying to compromise air travel

Current measures achieve neither goal. Take, for instance, prohibition from traveling freely with liquids. Normal people want to fly with liquids (see: Michael Vick) and it is a relatively large inconvenience for them to make us leave toiletries at home, pack little baggies, take them out of our bags, not buy drinks before going through security, etc. I give it at least a 7 on the inconvenience scale. But what does it do for deterrence? How much liquid do people really need to make bombs? Seems like they could easily get around these measures by having multiple people flying and combining their liquids.

And if you think about the chances that a)there are terrorists trying to attack planes and b)they want to use liquid attack measures and c)they would not have been caught before the ban on liquids and d)they will be caught/deterred after the ban on liquids, I think it should be obvious that this is a lot of inconvenience for very little deterrence.

There are other examples. Would love to hear people's pet peeves on this topic, what people have done to make it easier on themselves, what TSA should be doing, etc.

[jjp]

The middle aged white guy travelling with three little kids (and wife and grandparents) and carrying two car seats on a flight from Miami during tourist season should not be stopped for additional search if he doesn't set off the alarm.

[jjp]

The main problem is too much carryon luggage. Why is there too much carryon luggage? Because the airlines hire crooks and retards to handle it. Nobody wants to check a bag because it will get lost/broken into/take an hour to show up on the carousel. Because the federal government has the authority to regulate air travel, Congress and the executive branch are in the pockets of the airlines. So there are weak protections for travelers' luggage and airlines handle it cheaply.

Charge people $10 for every bag they carryon (if it is worth protecting, like a laptop, you will pay the $10) but put great protections for checked baggage.

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
The middle aged white guy travelling with three little kids (and wife and grandparents) and carrying two car seats on a flight from Miami during tourist season should not be stopped for additional search if he doesn't set off the alarm.

[/ QUOTE ]
slippery slope

i agree though

[Allinlife]

also I found it interesting that after you pass the security check, you can buy a can of drink (350ml) in the store past security check point / carry it with you on to flight w/o any further checks.

[Cancuk]

[ QUOTE ]
also I found it interesting that after you pass the security check, you can buy a can of drink (350ml) in the store past security check point / carry it with you on to flight w/o any further checks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is pretty obvious as they're assuming that they checked you, so the new can of pop doesn't have anything in it.

[lozen]

[ QUOTE ]
The main problem is too much carryon luggage. Why is there too much carryon luggage? Because the airlines hire crooks and retards to handle it. Nobody wants to check a bag because it will get lost/broken into/take an hour to show up on the carousel. Because the federal government has the authority to regulate air travel, Congress and the executive branch are in the pockets of the airlines. So there are weak protections for travelers' luggage and airlines handle it cheaply.

Charge people $10 for every bag they carryon (if it is worth protecting, like a laptop, you will pay the $10) but put great protections for checked baggage.

[/ QUOTE ]


NO its cause people are to impatient to wait for there luggage.

Also the stupid questions Did you pack the bag yourself. No my cousin chanting In Allahs name did.

[TheWorstPlayer]

Oh, taking off your shoes going through security is another high inconvenience, low deterrence measure completely analogous to the liquid restrictions. Who the [censored] decides on what gets implemented and where can I write to complain?

[HP]

without getting too conspiracy theory or anything, can anyone answer the OP?

the most reasonable explanation I can think of is the people in charge will think it looks like good security even though it´s not. Both to put retards at ease and to deter retarded terrorists from trying

eh?

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
And if you think about the chances that a)there are terrorists trying to attack planes and b)they want to use liquid attack measures and c)they would not have been caught before the ban on liquids and d)they will be caught/deterred after the ban on liquids, I think it should be obvious that this is a lot of inconvenience for very little deterrence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cost of restricting liquids: x

Cost of a plan load of people flying into a large building: y

I believe x < y

[ QUOTE ]
The middle aged white guy travelling with three little kids (and wife and grandparents) and carrying two car seats on a flight from Miami during tourist season should not be stopped for additional search if he doesn't set off the alarm.


[/ QUOTE ]

While this sounds good in theory, the second a group of people are segmented like this, the terrorists will be using this demographic of people to do their work.