Airport Searches: Too Far or Necessary?

[JaredJames]

Out of curiousity, let's say that they ban this technology. Six months down the line a bomber gets on an aircraft and blows it up taking all 400 passengers with him. Through investigation they find the bomb was strapped to the guys chest and could have been detected via the full body scans.

How many people would then complain to (and possibly sue) the government for failing to instal these scanners (or some other similarly worded complaint)? How many people would be mad because we had the means to prevent the disaster but didn't use it?

People want protection but for some reason they don't want to be 'put out' in order to get it.

I believe in the UK, the people viewing the scans are isolated from the public. They don't get the chance to match images to the individual.

I've seen this a few times, where people complain about some new technology or system and it ends up being removed. Then when something occurs which could have been avoided by having said technology they are up in arms over it not being used and seem to forget why this is the case (I'm trying to find the link to the case I'm thinking of).
I'm not saying this is a reason for every new piece of technology to be implemented, but if people don't want something such as the full body scanners to happen for whatever reason, they need to be prepared to accept that if an incident occurs which they could have prevented then they have no right to be annoyed or sue in retaliation to personal injury / loss.

 

[NobodySpecial]

let's say that they ban this technology. Six months down the line a bomber gets on an aircraft and blows it up taking all 400 passengers with him. Through investigation they find the bomb was strapped to the guys chest and could have been detected via the full body scans.

What if the bomb could have been prevented by us banning muslims from flying, or putting them all in internment camps for the duration of the war on terror, or just a traditional final solution?

What if the next bomb is put on a food cart by a minimum wage illegal immigrant worker after the airline cut costs because of the reduced number of people flying?

What if the next bomb is a truck full of fertilizer in front of the TSA office by another McVeigh who was annoyed at being groped.

What if the next crash is a mid air collision caused by cuts in ATC to pay for the TSA?

 

[OmCheeto]

...what is the big deal now.

I believe it was predicted that this day would come:

"The United States is a free country, a strong country, a prosperous country," Schuitt said. "Many veterans gave their lives so we would have the right to focus our attention and energies on the DVD release of Joe Dirt, the latest web-browsing cell phones, and how-low-can-you-go hip-hugging jeans. It is a sign of our collective strength as a nation that we genuinely give a **** about the latest developments in the Cruise-Cruz romance. When Mariah Carey's latest breakdown is once again treated as front-page news, that is the day the healing will have truly begun."

From the Onion.
Written shortly after 9/11.
"A Shattered Nation Longs To Care About Stupid Bull**** Again"
October 3, 2001

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/25/2010-11-25_tsa_boycott_doesnt_hinder_thanksgiving_day_travel_but_winter_storms_in_northwest.html?r=news"
But besides a few protestors (one man was seen at the Salt Lake City airport in a Speedo-style bathing suit and others carried signs denouncing the TSA), the lines moved smoothly and travel was no more or less hectic than previous Thanksgivings.

"I would go so far as to say that National Opt-Out Day was a big bust," said Genevieve Shaw Brown, a spokeswoman for the travel company Travelocity.

ie, when you get down to it, the only people that seem to really care are those that want to be on TV or U-Tube. And the rest of us follow the story because aside from the USS Washington heading for Korea, it's a really slow news day.

 

[Gokul43201]

I believe in the UK, the people viewing the scans are isolated from the public. They don't get the chance to match images to the individual.

This is true for the US system as well.

I've seen this a few times, where people complain about some new technology or system and it ends up being removed. Then when something occurs which could have been avoided by having said technology they are up in arms over it not being used and seem to forget why this is the case (I'm trying to find the link to the case I'm thinking of).

But do you know that it is the same group of people that complained both times? After all, if 50% complained the first time and the other 50% complained the second time, it would still look like either way there was a lot of complaining going on, but no single person would have expressed contradictory views.

 

[JaredJames]

...

I fully understand the other possible ways of the event occurring. I very specifically worded the question for that reason.

The purpose of the question is simple:

If you don't wish to have a measure in place to prevent event X happening and as such you end up getting the measure scrapped, and then sometime in the future event X happens, do you accept that those people forfeit their right to complain that [insert authority] didn't do everything in their power to prevent X?

In response to you Gokul, I'm not sure on that matter. However as per the point of my post above, no person in such an event is going to just sit down and accept what's happened. They aren't just going to sit back and accept the situation as a "casualty of war" and something that was worth happening just so they could be happy in the knowledge they aren't being scanned anymore.

 

[NobodySpecial]

do you accept that those people forfeit their right to complain that [insert authority] didn't do everything in their power to prevent X?

Yes if the same people accept the blame when a different event happens because the investment was made in pointless theatre rather than inteligence.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes if the same people accept the blame when a different event happens because the investment was made in pointless theatre rather than inteligence.

I'm not talking about accepting blame for the actual incident. I'm talking about forfeiting your right to complain/sue.

I've highlighted in bold because I believe it should be those in support of the technology to blame, not the same ones as in my example (the opposing group if you like). If this is what you meant then just ignore this comment.

Regardless, I agree with you on that however I will add a caveat; you would have to prove beyond doubt that it was this specific technology being used which removed funding from the intelligence services for this particular circumstance. You'd have to prove that no other project/investment was to blame.

Again, this is why I worded it so specifically. It would be extremely unlikely that such an event, so perfectly outlined as I showed it would happen but I was simply using it to prove a point.

EDIT: I'm also going to add that your use of "pointless theatre" is a bit leading and assumes the technology as useless from the start, which is an unproven statement.

 

[Gokul43201]

However as per the point of my post above, no person in such an event is going to just sit down and accept what's happened.

I think you'd be surprised. I personally know at least one person who would.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm not talking about accepting blame for the actual incident. I'm talking about forfeiting your right to complain/sue.

I've highlighted in bold because I believe it should be those in support of the technology to blame, not the same ones as in my example (the opposing group if you like). If this is what you meant then just ignore this comment.

Regardless, I agree with you on that however I will add a caveat; you would have to prove beyond doubt that it was this specific technology being used which removed funding from the intelligence services for this particular circumstance. You'd have to prove that no other project/investment was to blame.

Again, this is why I worded it so specifically. It would be extremely unlikely that such an event, so perfectly outlined as I showed it would happen but I was simply using it to prove a point.

EDIT: I'm also going to add that your use of "pointless theatre" is a bit leading and assumes the technology as useless from the start, which is an unproven statement.

i find your theatre a bit pointless, too. so what if 400 people die in a plane bombing without this tech? that still doesn't mean it was cost-effective.

if this tech is driven by people's fears, then maybe we should also consider if those fears are driven by the media and are out of proportion to the actual threat. the threat you outline of complain/sue may also be out of proportion to the actual costs. and if congress can sign away people's right to privacy of their persons, what's to stop them from signing away your right to sue? (complaining may be a little harder to legislate away).

 

[JaredJames]

i find your theatre a bit pointless, too. so what if 400 people die in a plane bombing without this tech? that still doesn't mean it was cost-effective.

Right, so we've determined there's obviously a number of deaths to overall cost ratio that's acceptable. What exactly do you consider a 'good' number of deaths to prove the system is cost effective?

I'm also concerned that you clearly believe that the deaths of 400 innocent people is worth it, just so the average person traveling once or twice a year on holiday doesn't have to be subjected to this imaging technique.

As far as I'm concerned, if the system stops only one bomb getting through and no other events occur in the manner this machine defends against (no one manages to get a bomb through it on their person), it's done its job. Whether actively removing a threat or simply acting as a deterrent.

Note: I'm not commenting on the effectiveness of this system. For the purpose of discussion I'm assuming it works and my comments are based on this assumption.

 

[Proton Soup]

As far as I'm concerned, if the system stops only one bomb getting through and no other events occur in the manner this machine defends against (no one manages to get a bomb through it on their person), it's done its job. Whether actively removing a threat or simply acting as a deterrent.

i don't find this at all rational. what i hear you saying is safety at any cost. i have to assume that you would be all for this if only one life is saved.

and what i don't see you considering is that after you've spent all this money on equipment and personnel, possibly violating the rights of thousands, maybe millions of people in the process, is that the threat may simply shift to another strategy, leaving you no safer overall than you were before. suppose the threat shifts to pedestrian traffic? what means are you willing to resort to then?

 

[JaredJames]

i don't find this at all rational. what i hear you saying is safety at any cost. i have to assume that you would be all for this if only one life is saved.

Correct. But then I value life and if we have the ability to prevent a disaster such as this, why shouldn't we do it? We are putting people in a situation where they have no control over what goes on. Therefore there is a responsibility to ensure the safety of the passengers.

and what i don't see you considering is that after you've spent all this money on equipment and personnel, possibly violating the rights of thousands, maybe millions of people in the process, is that the threat may simply shift to another strategy, leaving you no safer overall than you were before.

Incorrect. Each time you remove an opportunity, you make it more difficult for a threat to get through to the target. You decrease the chances of the event happening (in this case blowing up / hijacking an aircraft), increasing overall safety. Based on what you've put above, having no security what-so-ever would be equally as safe as current security measures. This is simply untrue.
For every avenue of opportunity you remove, the safer you get. Ultimate safety would involve removing all possible ways for the threat to occur.

suppose the threat shifts to pedestrian traffic? what means are you willing to resort to then?

I don't understand what you are referring to with "pedestrian traffic", can you clarify?

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

At least a physician could tell me if I had a hernia while he/she was doing the same type of groping as the TSA workers are involved in. There is no law enforcement agency in the US that does so intimate an inspection, until after ones arrest.

No need to train enforcers to diagnose. That's extra training = extra salary = extra costs on ticket. I'm talking about training the agents to do things professionally and to have their jobs depend on it.

Men and women are already seperated, men examine men, and women examine women. The problem I think, most americans that have a problem with these searches have, is that there is a thing called the fourth ammendment which states we can't be searched without probable cause and then only upon a warrant being issued, it doesn't say we can be searched whenever the government feels it is the most expedient way. That ammendment has been abused quite a bit in the last couple decades though. It may be that people feel enough is enough and are finally standing up for their constitutional rights, I welcome that.

Well I'm neither an American, nor a lawyer, but if one chose to have a condition where an invitee must be searched before entering his house, that seems fair to me, strange maybe, but within his rights. I see airplanes like houses, they are not public property.

...allow every law abiding citizen who chooses to, to carry a gun, after all it is a constitutional right...

Well, surely not beyond the gate.

 

[JaredJames]

Well I'm neither an American, nor a lawyer, but if one chose to have a condition where an invitee must be searched before entering his house, that seems fair to me, strange maybe, but within his rights. I see airplanes like houses, they are not public property.

Like I said above, once on an aircraft you have absolutely no control. Nowhere to run / hide. If someone has a weapon and/or bomb there's little you can do about it within the aircraft environment.
I see it as a duty of the airport authorities to ensure the safety of the passengers and do everything in their power to make sure situations such as hijacking cannot take place. If it means searching people then so be it.
Would you rather sit on an aircraft knowing that no one has been checked and could be carrying anything? Or would you prefer to know that people have been checked and that they present as small a danger to you as possible?

And I agree, this isn't some government area, these are private aircraft and airports (at least in the UK) and if they want people searched before entering then it's no different to people being searched on entering a night club.

 

[xxChrisxx]

For all those people moaning about their rights. As mentioned above flights are conditional. They agree to let you on, after you agree to jump through whatever hoops they want.

Like I said before, you can buy your own plane and not have the hassle of searches before boarding.

So your rights aren't in anyway touched by this. Noones forcing you to be searched becuase you don't have to board a charter or plublic flight, and noones stopping you flying becuase there is always the option of going private with your own lovely jet.

 

[NobodySpecial]

So your rights aren't in anyway touched by this. Noones forcing you to be searched becuase you don't have to board a charter flight, and noones stopping you flying becuase there is always the option of going private.

And wiretaps aren't a problem because nobody is forcing you to use a phone, and searches aren't a privacy issue because no one forces you to buy a house, or a car - or wear clothes.

 

[JaredJames]

And wiretaps aren't a problem because nobody is forcing you to use a phone, and searches aren't a privacy issue because no one forces you to buy a house, or a car - or wear clothes.

Wiretaps - done without your knowledge are infringing on privacy. Apples and oranges. Wiretaps without your consent isn't the same as flying with your consent.

Searches for buying a house? If you are responding to the "search before entering" issue, then you are well within your rights to have every person entering your house searched. If you don't want to be searched, you don't enter the house. You choose to enter the house.

Clothes, not sure what they're doing here or what point you're trying to make here.

It all comes down to flying being a voluntary act and you are entering a private building, and private transport. If they want to check you aren't a threat to their business / assets you don't get a say in it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It all comes down to flying being a voluntary act

Fine in theory, but tell that to my customers, of Joe Flyer's employer.

 

[JaredJames]

Fine in theory, but tell that to my customers, of Joe Flyer's employer.

No one can force you to fly. If you choose to have a job that requires you to fly to visit employers / customers than you accept the fact you are going to have to submit to security checks to do so.

If you don't like it, don't have a job that requires you to fly.

You can argue this all you like, "there are no other jobs" or "I'll lose my job if I don't", but so long as you make the choice to keep the job you accept these searches at security.

As I see it, it comes down to whether or not a person has made a choice. If you have no say in something then yes, you are being forced into it and giving up rights. If you do get a say in it then you have decided to agree to the terms (whether it is going through security checks or otherwise).

You also didn't add this bit to the quote: "and you are entering a private building, and private transport". I find this to be the important aspect. You are using someone elses property, every person they allow to enter is a risk to them. They want to ensure that risk is as low as possible. I don't see a problem with a private company / person requiring those using their facilities are checked to ensure they won't endanger their property/assets.

 

[WhoWee]

Fine in theory, but tell that to my customers, of Joe Flyer's employer.

I agree - especially if you fly several times per week. I googled to confirm and the first airline club started in the 1930's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_lounge

There should be something that can be done for frequent business travellers to avoid the repeated scans or pat-downs.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/seat-2B/2008/02/19/Guide-to-Airline-Clubs/

 

[JaredJames]

I agree - especially if you fly several times per week. I googled to confirm and the first airline club started in the 1930's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_lounge

There should be something that can be done for frequent business travellers to avoid the repeated scans or pat-downs.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/seat-2B/2008/02/19/Guide-to-Airline-Clubs/

And then encourage a terrorist to fly continuously and become a frequent flyer so that they can benefit from slacker security checks?

VIP's in Britain used to benefit from this type of system. They could be taken through the terminal and bypass security/check in and go straight to a private departure lounge so they wouldn't be hounded by fans and the like. But after 9/11, that all stopped and they now have to check in and go through security like everyone else.

 

[WhoWee]

And then encourage a terrorist to fly continuously and become a frequent flyer so that they can benefit from slacker security checks?

VIP's in Britain used to benefit from this type of system. They could be taken through the terminal and bypass security/check in and go straight to a private departure lounge so they wouldn't be hounded by fans and the like. But after 9/11, that all stopped and they now have to check in and go through security like everyone else.

Perhaps limit the benefits to corporate accounts? It's been my experience that pleasure travelers don't frequent airline clubs unless on vacation with family.

I don't think this is reasonable, jarednjames.
"If you don't like it, don't have a job that requires you to fly.

You can argue this all you like, "there are no other jobs" or "I'll lose my job if I don't", but so long as you make the choice to keep the job you accept these searches at security."

Chances are, a job that requires you to fly every week more than likely offers higher than average compensation. If you have a family and travel constantly, chances are you would prefer not to - but do it because of the benefits for your family.

 

[Jasongreat]

Dr Lots-o'watts;3004829]
Well I'm neither an American, nor a lawyer, but if one chose to have a condition where an invitee must be searched before entering his house, that seems fair to me, strange maybe, but within his rights. I see airplanes like houses, they are not public property.

But this is not a case of the owners setting up their own security in their own house, this is a case of a third party setting up a security checkpoint in front of everyones house. I would be completely behind each individual airline setting up there own security, that way I would think that there would be differing options. If one airline went too far, people could choose a competitior. Carrying your analogy of an airline as being a house a little further, could it not be said that the customer would have the same right to protect himself as the renter does in a rental? Once they rent a room/apartment it is the renters castle and they can defend it with deadly force if necessary to protect their life. Once we rent a seat on the airplane, isn't it our perogative to protect our life while in that seat as well? In the US, we don't have a right to be protected by law enforcement, why should we then be forced to rely on law enforcement for out protection?

Well, surely not beyond the gate.

Well, surely I do mean beyond the gate. If guns could of been carried on the planes at the time of 9/11, I doubt box cutters would have had the same impact. Air marshalls are allowed to carry guns on board planes, if it is not entirely unsafe for them to do so, why then is it entirely unsafe for us to do so? Before 9/11 it was a widely held belief that terrorists would only hijack a plane, land it somewhere, and demand ransom. As soon as passengers, of the united 93(?) flight, learned that terrorists were intent on flying the planes into buildings to cause large losses of life, passengers decided to give their lives, to protect the large numbers of lives the terrorists were intent on taking. They did so unarmed, and they did pay with their lives. Imagine if they were armed, would they all have needed to die in order to accomplish the same thing? It is not out of the realm of possibilities that a few may have died in the fire fight, the plane might have even had a few holes shot in it, but the majority of passengers would likely have been saved.

 

[JaredJames]

Perhaps limit the benefits to corporate accounts? It's been my experience that pleasure travelers don't frequent airline clubs unless on vacation with family.

And a terrorist couldn't have a job (false company perhaps) and make it seem legit?

I don't think this is reasonable, jarednjames.
"If you don't like it, don't have a job that requires you to fly.

You can argue this all you like, "there are no other jobs" or "I'll lose my job if I don't", but so long as you make the choice to keep the job you accept these searches at security."

Chances are, a job that requires you to fly every week more than likely offers higher than average compensation. If you have a family and travel constantly, chances are you would prefer not to - but do it because of the benefits for your family.

It's still your choice to do that. No one elses. If you want the benefits of such a job you have to accept the security checks.

 

[JaredJames]

...

Guns on aircraft? You're joking. Those aircraft wouldn't be allowed to land in virtually any country outside the USA.

Guns on aircraft are dangerous, you puncture the skin you're in a bit of trouble. You don't want a bunch of people on board with the capability to do that.

An armed citized <> a trained air marshal. They don't even compare.

And how much does it cost to have individual airline security?

You are not renting an aircraft. It isn't the same thing.

So far as Flight 93 passengers being saved goes, not so sure about this. Not an expert on the crash so can't say one way or another.

 

[xxChrisxx]

And wiretaps aren't a problem because nobody is forcing you to use a phone, and searches aren't a privacy issue because no one forces you to buy a house, or a car - or wear clothes.

Bit of a strawman there bud, but very nice try.

A wiretap is generally without concent or knowledge. A closer comparison would be someone telling you 'this call may be monitored'.

A random search IS protected against. This isn't random, you are agreeing to some measures when you buy the ticket. You can't complain if you agree to the search. So again a closer comparison is a search before entering a night club. You can choose to so for the search and enter, or refuse and not enter.Just because most can't afford the hassle free alternative, doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

[NobodySpecial]

A wiretap is generally without concent or knowledge. A closer comparison would be someone telling you 'this call may be monitored'.

Suppose all cell phone providers put a line in their contracts saying 'all calls may be monitored' - well you are always free to start your own phone company.

This isn't random, you are agreeing to some measures when you buy the ticket. You can't complain if you agree to the search.

You agree to buying a house - suppose your local/state/federal government make it a condition of providing utilities/fire/police service/or road access - that you allow searches without a warrant? It's your choice to live in a house.

It's the same reason that things like regulations at work are compulsory - if you were allowed to opt-out of OSHA protection, or maternity leave etc then rejecting these would become a standard part of every contract. After all you have a choice to work there

 

[xxChrisxx]

Suppose all cell phone providers put a line in their contracts saying 'all calls may be monitored' - well you are always free to start your own phone company.


You agree to buying a house - suppose your local/state/federal government make it a condition of providing utilities/fire/police service/or road access - that you allow searches without a warrant? It's your choice to live in a house.

It's the same reason that things like regulations at work are compulsory - if you were allowed to opt-out of OSHA protection, or maternity leave etc then rejecting these would become a standard part of every contract. After all you have a choice to work there

I normally hate it when people point it out, but the above looks like a game of 'what's my fallacy'.

 

[JaredJames]

NobodySpecial, do you not understand the difference between a private sector and a public sector?

Private area - I have the right to request everyone is searched before entering. Failure to comply simply means refusal of entry (e.g. a nightclub).

Public area - You can't just randomly be searched (e.g. Trafalgar Square).

EDIT: I also agree with Chris' above post.

 

[Mathnomalous]

There is no audio and someone's rant on youtube is not considered factual. Does she think the airport scanner will make the milk radio active?

I don't know what this woman's problem is, nowhere in your link does it say that breast milk will be excluded from x-ray scanning, it says that in order to bring an amount in excess of 3 ounces will require additional screening at the x-ray point, not instead of x-ray.

It appears she's wrong and they're right.

The video was released by the TSA. It seemed to me she complied with all TSA security checkpoint guidelines; she went through the scanner without complaints, she was patted-down, she waited patiently for over 40 mins, and generally she seemed to behave in a collected manner. But, you are correct that the TSA's guidelines do not mention alternate procedures but additional procedures.

Still, I will take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself to discredit the TSA. Yes, I am biased against that organization. Here is more video proof (hopefully CNN is considered a legitimate source):

TSA Terrorize A Disabled 4 Year Old Boy By Removing His Leg Braces, Then Forcing Him To Walk:
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=13217&title=tsa-terrorize-a-disabled-4-year-old-boy-by-removing-his-leg-braces--then-forcing-him-to-walk

 

[Proton Soup]

Correct. But then I value life and if we have the ability to prevent a disaster such as this, why shouldn't we do it? We are putting people in a situation where they have no control over what goes on. Therefore there is a responsibility to ensure the safety of the passengers.

and are you going to argue somewhere else that no one is forcing them to fly, so there is no point of arguing their rights? they can't both have control and not have control.

Incorrect. Each time you remove an opportunity, you make it more difficult for a threat to get through to the target. You decrease the chances of the event happening (in this case blowing up / hijacking an aircraft), increasing overall safety. Based on what you've put above, having no security what-so-ever would be equally as safe as current security measures. This is simply untrue.
For every avenue of opportunity you remove, the safer you get. Ultimate safety would involve removing all possible ways for the threat to occur.

this is simply untrue. you do not have infinite resources. the money will be better spent somewhere else if you're only saving one life. it may sound wrong to you to put a price tag on lives, but the fact is that by not doing so, you are devaluing the lives of others. for example, that money may be better spent providing better police protection to crime-ridden neighborhoods.

I don't understand what you are referring to with "pedestrian traffic", can you clarify?

very simple. why are we fixated on acts of terrorism on airplanes? what's to stop a terrorist from walking into a crowd of people entering a subway during rush hour? or, gosh, at the airport?! he doesn't even have to make it past the scanners to kill a bunch of people.

this is really about protecting treasure, isn't it? because airplanes are expensive? or maybe it's to enrich people invested in scanners?

 

[JaredJames]

and are you going to argue somewhere else that no one is forcing them to fly, so there is no point of arguing their rights? they can't both have control and not have control.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. (Think I'm having a dumb day today).

this is simply untrue. you do not have infinite resources. the money will be better spent somewhere else if you're only saving one life. it may sound wrong to you to put a price tag on lives, but the fact is that by not doing so, you are devaluing the lives of others. for example, that money may be better spent providing better police protection to crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Your statement said that by removing one avenue for a possible terrorist attack, they simply move to another. Therefore you are no safer than you were before you removed said avenue.
So, from that I took you to be implying that no matter how much security we put in place we get no safer. In other words it appears you are saying that an airport with no security is equally as safe as an aiport with security. This is not true.

The more security we put in place the safer we get, by making it more difficult for attacks to occur.

Again, I'm not arguing this point wrt the scanners but security in general. EDIT: I'll add that I'm discussing airports/aircraft and their related threats only here. I'm working on the basis that the money is going to airport security in one way or another, but we have to decide how it's spent - which way will be more effective.

very simple. why are we fixated on acts of terrorism on airplanes? what's to stop a terrorist from walking into a crowd of people entering a subway during rush hour?

We've had that, and I can safely say I see no differences between security before and security now. (7/7 bombings)

I don't see how you can improve security in these areas. There is simply too many people for it to be effective. However, even Heathrow (I believe pretty much the busiest passenger wise in the world) wouldn't be that affected by these scanners. They don't slow things up as much as a full body pat-down.

I'd also add that leaving a public place is possible. You see something you don't like you have a chance to get away (circumstances dependent of course). In an aircraft this simply isn't an option.

this is really about protecting treasure, isn't it? because airplanes are expensive? or maybe it's to enrich people invested in scanners?

I'm more for protecting the lives of those on the aircraft. They have absolutely no control on board. In a public area you do have at least some control over what you do / where you go, how you react to people acting suspiciously.

 

[Office_Shredder]

what's to stop a terrorist from walking into a crowd of people entering a subway during rush hour? or, gosh, at the airport?! he doesn't even have to make it past the scanners to kill a bunch of people.

If nothing is stopping them from doing this, but they don't do it, what's the problem? It makes more sense to focus on targets that are being targeted

 

[Proton Soup]

If nothing is stopping them from doing this, but they don't do it, what's the problem? It makes more sense to focus on targets that are being targeted

you mean like buildings? the trade towers were specifically targeted initially (unsuccessfully) on the ground. the 9-11 hijackings were simply a means to an end to destroy the towers. hijackings seem unlikely now, given the new cockpit doors. if anything, they should frisk pilots instead of passengers.

the targets seem to be high profile items. the trade towers were an international symbol of american empire. blowing up planes may be a bit passe now. even the recent toner cartridges were addressed to synagogues.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm more for protecting the lives of those on the aircraft. They have absolutely no control on board. In a public area you do have at least some control over what you do / where you go, how you react to people acting suspiciously.

no, you only have an illusion of control.