Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: JCDNWarrior on September 18, 2011, 07:17:37 am
-
Source story: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/09/nfl-orders-ankles-up-frisks-for-16-million-fans-enterting-stadiums-security-buffalo-bills/1
As the TSA is now starting to do enhanced pat downs at the NFL, I am curious what your opinion is on the TSA, and the security state itself. Does it bring more security, does it take away freedoms, is it to stop terrorism or something else? And lastly, is it worth it, and is it successful in what it does?
-
Does it bring more security, does it take away freedoms, is it to stop terrorism or something else? And lastly, is it worth it, and is it successful in what it does?
In order, No, Yes, It's to show people that Things Are Done, No, and No.
To elaborate, does it bring more security? No. Because Terrorists, as idiotic as their basic mindset is, aren't dumb enough to plot schemes that can be foiled by existing security measures. There just is no security procedure in the world that has no holes, or that cannot be subverted in some way by a person with enough determination.
Does it take away freedoms? Yes. By creating an air of insecurity and apprehension around the idea of travellling to other places, our freedom to make decisions is taken away on an emotional level.
Is it to stop terrorism or something else? Well, kinda. Personally, I am more convinced that this is more a case of politicians feeling the need to show the screaming public (or, more accurately, the media) that Things Are Done to make stuff more secure, instead of going with the established methods and procedures.
Is it worth it? No. See above; The only effect this whole security theater has is to weed out the kind of amateur idiots that would have been caught by less elaborate measures, or better trained personnel anyway.
Is it successful in what it does? Well, they certainly claim it is, based on the evidence of there not being any repeat "commercial airliner crashes into national symbol" incidents. But again I come back to my point about the people who plan major terrorist acts not being that stupid, trying the exact same trick twice isn't something you'd find in a terrorist plan. However, going by the number of incidents actually prevented by the TSA (little to none) vs the number of complaints regarding false positives and general mistreatment of regular people (lots and lots), I'd say their overall efficiency is rather low.
-
Does it bring more security, does it take away freedoms, is it to stop terrorism or something else? And lastly, is it worth it, and is it successful in what it does?
In order, No, Yes, It's to show people that Things Are Done, No, and No.
Thanks for the prompt response, definitely gives a few things to consider. Curious what others think as well, the more opinions the better. ;)
-
I elaborated my stance a bit more, hopefully that'll give people something to discuss.
-
Is it successful in what it does? Well, they certainly claim it is, based on the evidence of there not being any repeat "commercial airliner crashes into national symbol" incidents. But again I come back to my point about the people who plan major terrorist acts not being that stupid, trying the exact same trick twice isn't something you'd find in a terrorist plan. However, going by the number of incidents actually prevented by the TSA (little to none) vs the number of complaints regarding false positives and general mistreatment of regular people (lots and lots), I'd say their overall efficiency is rather low.
To me, it'd be far safer to institute a no-fly-zone beacon that prevents airliners (except in specific and narrow circumstances) from approaching national landmarks. Basically cause the airplane to turn away or pull up. An autopilot hack, if you will. Only really needs to be added to large Boeing and Airbus aircraft. But that won't happen since we have the TSA and pilots could get cranky if they lost complete control over the aircraft. It'd work at least in Airbus's setup where the computer has the final say. Boeing's (where the pilot has the final say) would be tougher to implement.
-
That's so not the point of the thread.
-
Is it successful in what it does? Well, they certainly claim it is, based on the evidence of there not being any repeat "commercial airliner crashes into national symbol" incidents. But again I come back to my point about the people who plan major terrorist acts not being that stupid, trying the exact same trick twice isn't something you'd find in a terrorist plan. However, going by the number of incidents actually prevented by the TSA (little to none) vs the number of complaints regarding false positives and general mistreatment of regular people (lots and lots), I'd say their overall efficiency is rather low.
Wasn't there a flight above detroit which somoene wanted to bomb, only to be stopped by another passanger? All those increased security measures don't do ****...
Then again, the ramped up security measures may 'scare off' potential terrorist attacks, but there were few of those to begin with.
-
I'd argue they do more to scare off normal people.
Face it, a determined suicide terrorist will not be deterred by security. A determined and intelligent suicide terrorist will look at targets not yet covered by the security theater.
Terrorists want to inspire fear. They want to shake the confidence in whatever institution they are targeting. Well, looks like they managed to make air travel much more uncomfortable for lots of people, while at the same time making people angry at the government. Job well done there.
-
I'd argue they do more to scare off normal people.
Face it, a determined suicide terrorist will not be deterred by security. A determined and intelligent suicide terrorist will look at targets not yet covered by the security theater.
Terrorists want to inspire fear. They want to shake the confidence in whatever institution they are targeting. Well, looks like they managed to make air travel much more uncomfortable for lots of people, while at the same time making people angry at the government. Job well done there.
Though honestly, the security lines are a perfect target for a suicide-bombing. In many airports, there's hundreds of people waiting. That'd scare me far more than crashing.
-
Yeah. I remember a few shootings and bombings in Russia taking place on airfields as opposed to airplanes...
-
if given the option i think id rather get fragged by terrorists than put up with the tsa's crap.
i agree with the e on this one that the whole tsa is really just for show, they didnt stop the shoe bomb plot, for example. furthermore passengers today are gonna be less likely to allow terrorists control of the aircraft, it happened with flight 93, it happened with the shoe bomb plot. now that the terrorist suicide tactics are known, passengers will try to counter them just because they know the alternative to fighting back is death. so i dont think the tsa is really required to stop these kind of plots, and i kinda wish they would just stick to transport security and not become a full fledged police force.
Is it successful in what it does? Well, they certainly claim it is, based on the evidence of there not being any repeat "commercial airliner crashes into national symbol" incidents. But again I come back to my point about the people who plan major terrorist acts not being that stupid, trying the exact same trick twice isn't something you'd find in a terrorist plan. However, going by the number of incidents actually prevented by the TSA (little to none) vs the number of complaints regarding false positives and general mistreatment of regular people (lots and lots), I'd say their overall efficiency is rather low.
To me, it'd be far safer to institute a no-fly-zone beacon that prevents airliners (except in specific and narrow circumstances) from approaching national landmarks. Basically cause the airplane to turn away or pull up. An autopilot hack, if you will. Only really needs to be added to large Boeing and Airbus aircraft. But that won't happen since we have the TSA and pilots could get cranky if they lost complete control over the aircraft. It'd work at least in Airbus's setup where the computer has the final say. Boeing's (where the pilot has the final say) would be tougher to implement.
modern aircraft has enough avionics to pretty much fly its entire route without the pilots touching the controls. would be cool if they added a feature that let the planes be flown remotely from the ground, so that if you do loose control of the aircraft to terrorists, you just flip a switch at the nearest atc center, a remote pilot takes over the flight, and the cockpit controls are locked out. then just have an armed marshal or two on each flight to protect the passengers.
-
would be cool if they added a feature that let the planes be flown remotely from the ground, so that if you do loose control of the aircraft to terrorists, you just flip a switch at the nearest atc center, a remote pilot takes over the flight, and the cockpit controls are locked out. then just have an armed marshal or two on each flight to protect the passengers.
I can't see how having something like that could possibly exploited :rolleyes:
Anyway, I'll be flying in January, so I'll have more first-hand information, and can form an opinion. If I get over frisked, I'll let you know. ;7
-
I can't see how having something like that could possibly exploited
"New York ATC hacked by terrorrists - 40 airplanes destroyed, many skyscrapers on fire, death toll exceeds last ten years of wars...."
-
yea, and then the silos light up. muahahahaha!!
on the other hand have terrorists ever managed to hack a uav? id think not.
-
It has been on the news that someone was able to read recon data and see the footage the UAV had made. No word on if they intercepted the transmission or 'entered' the UAV, but I geuss they only managed to pull that off because the US never bothered encrypting a few things because no one would be ever able to connect.
-
Does it bring more security, does it take away freedoms, is it to stop terrorism or something else? And lastly, is it worth it, and is it successful in what it does?
In order, No, Yes, It's to show people that Things Are Done, No, and No.
+1, but more emphatically. :mad: