From
this
post in BoingBoing we get a link to a column by
Patrick
Smith in today's
New York Times
titled "
The Airport Security Follies". Well worth a read, but it will make
you angry. If enough people read it, maybe...
To understand what makes these measures so absurd, we first need to
revisit the morning of September 11th, and grasp exactly what it was the
19 hijackers so easily took advantage of. Conventional wisdom says the
terrorists exploited a weakness in airport security by smuggling aboard
box-cutters. What they actually exploited was a weakness in our mindset
-- a set of presumptions based on the decades-long track record of
hijackings.
In years past, a takeover meant hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews
were trained in the concept of "passive resistance." All of that
changed forever the instant American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the
north tower. What weapons the 19 men possessed mattered little; the
success of their plan relied fundamentally on the element of surprise. And
in this respect, their scheme was all but guaranteed not to fail.
For several reasons -- particularly the awareness of passengers and
crew -- just the opposite is true today. Any hijacker would face a
planeload of angry and frightened people ready to fight back. Say what you
want of terrorists, they cannot afford to waste time and resources on
schemes with a high probability of failure. And thus the September 11th
template is all but useless to potential hijackers.
No matter that a deadly sharp can be fashioned from virtually anything
found on a plane, be it a broken wine bottle or a snapped-off length of
plastic, we are content wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and untold
hours of labor in a delusional attempt to thwart an attack that has
already happened, asked to queue for absurd lengths of time, subject to
embarrassing pat-downs and loss of our belongings.
The comments are worthwhile, too.