The shoes and belts thing is ridiculous, I agree. But there's a legitimate reason for the liquid ban to which I'm not sure there's much of a solution, is there?
Not the original commentor, but I'd say two things:
* Airport security got much more invasive post-9/11. For decades before that, people flew safely without these tight security measures. So, how much of the intensification is actually preventing another 9/11 versus just making us all feel like the government "did something"? I don't have an answer (genuinely I don't know :), but there are opinions all over the spectrum here.
* Even if we do accept that all the security steps are necessary and there isn't much we can change, we can still find it miserable and dehumanizing.
So, being able to travel by train, where security checks are either noninvasive or not even required, is a breath of fresh air. That's the point the commentor was making. They weren't proposing they could fix airports.
The issue with removing these kind of regulations is always the same: there's fairly little political goodwill to be gained by it, and massive amount of potential loss if it were to backfire. So it just doesn't happen. It's why it's so important to fight pointless security theaters like this before they are introduced, because it is night impossible to get rid of them later.
This confuses me, because it seems like almost everyone I talk to, across the political spectrum, thinks airport security is overkill.
Conservatives could argue for reducing it because it might save money, and liberals could argue for reducing it because it might reduce incidence if racial profiling.
Yeah, I am not saying you're wrong, I am honestly just confused by it.
Perhaps it's that few pols are willing to roll back restrictions and then be "responsible" next time there's a terrorist attack. Kinda like how Dukakis was big into rehabilition and forgiveness for prisoners, which was great until a released prisoner committed violent crimes and of course then the blame is laid on Dukakis.
The chances of another 9/11 happening are basically zero because of two factors: 1) better cockpit security, and 2) 9/11 happening.
Before 9/11, a hijacking meant you were going to be late for dinner. If everyone cooperated, it would basically just be an inconvenience. Since 9/11, a hijacking means you are going to die. Turns out near-certain death is quite a good motivator for getting people to fight hijackers.
Similarly, before 9/11 cockpit access was pretty lax. You weren't supposed to have other people in the cockpit, but it happened all the time. The door was there more to stop people from wandering in than keeping anyone out. Since 9/11 that door stays shut with very few exceptions - and it is now strong enough that breaking through the door is practically impossible. A pilot is never willingly going to open that door to a hijacker - see the "near-certain death" above.
This would still apply even without any passenger screening at the airport. You can't really do anything once you get on board the airplane, so why even bother bringing anything on board?
There are plenty of public places with as much people (if not more) than a typical airplane with free access without liquid/luggage/identity checks, yet they don't seem to be blowing up every other day.
If those checks were actually deterring terrorism I'd expect those other public places with less checks but just as much potential victims be attacked instead.
Is there a legitimate reason for the liquid ban? AFAIK it was a response to a failed terrorist attempt similar to the shoe bomber, but it's likely that the ban has little to no effect on overall safety.
That article you linked is just one big causal fallacy. It claims that the TSA admitted that the liquid ban was bullshit, citing a Slate article which does not itself even quote the TSA lol.
I'm not a chemist, but I'm under the impression that the liquid explosives in the 2006 plot are a much more feasible approach to explosives than what the shoe bomber attempted.
I'm also not going to pretend like I have any idea how effective any of these security measures are, I'm only explaining that I'm under the impression that there's at least a real precedent for them.
I don't know what the solution is to terrorism in air travel, but it's a very hard problem and the liquid limit isn't something that personally bothers me that much -- who wants to carry around full bottles of shampoo and shower soap and whatever else anyway?
I can't help but think the liquid limit was put in to limit drinking as well, thats a big part why its a thing at stadiums and other events. If they let you bring in a water bottle people would fill it with vodka and then you get 300 frat boys throwing up on the plane to panama city beach.
Don't they still allow you to bring duty-free alcohol on board? I'm not a frequent flier, but as I understand it any liquids bought post-security can be brought on the flight.
Whatever bottle of liquid they fear you have you can literally turn around and hurl at the crowd of 400 people in the tsa line behind you. Its total theater, reactionary legislation that helped establish an entrenched for profit security apparatus industry that will lobby for its existence until the end of time. If people want to cause harm there's no shortage of ways.
This isn't really a fair argument. As far as I understand, at least in the case of the 2006 plot, the bomb still needed to be constructed (i.e., ingredients mixed, detonator placed inside, etc). If you have something in a water bottle you're just carrying through security and it's volatile enough to simply throw at a crowd and cause harm, I don't think you've got a great chance of even making it very far, maybe not even to the airport in the first place lol.
