Any ideas on how to design a truly secure airport?  To me, it seems like all of
the inconveniences have been specifically designed with a cynical intent to
avoid lawsuits, not necessarily to actually make things secure.

Could a smart person design something actually secure that doesn't account for
human rights and privacy [*], then could we see a path back to something that
*is* humane and workable?


______________
[*] I guess there's two kinds of utilitarianism, and here I'm advocating the
second type below:

I) "The redneck inspired" kind, where the state seeks self interest and gets to
do anything to preserve its existence. For example, torturing dissidents and
suspected associates of terrorists is seen as inevitably necessary in order to
preserve order.

II) "The Amnesty International inspired" kind, where the state seeks self
interest with a fear acting brutally. This is based on a knowledge that
torturing dissidents and suspected associates of associates of terrorists,
inevitably, by some law of human nature, ultimately makes a state less secure.
(You get false info, create even more dissidents, and radicalize the
mild-mannered associates.)  Here, human rights is not a universally sought after
good but a necessary tool for survival of the state, if grudgingly applied.

So, in this proposal for a human-rights-free airport security, torturing every
passenger for 2 minutes to see if they are planning something bad is rejected,
not because it's viewed as counterproductive under "A.I.-inspired
utilitarianism".

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Any ideas on how to design a truly secure airport?  

First plan: no airport at all, which is bound to happen sooner or later 
anyway since there is no alternative to fossile fuels that I know of for 
flying a plane.

If you build up the security level to the point that no terrorist passes 
through, I doubt you'll be left with many willing customers either. 
Remember that anything allowing you to take something that you swallowed 
on board without examination can probably be exploited. Not to mention 
the possibility of attacking the plane from the ground...

Designing airports to be more secure than they are now is not necessary 
anyway. Even if you could prevent all terrorist attacks on planes, you'd 
have to take care of all the other means of transportation (trains come 
to mind). I'm already surprised that the bad guys don't focus on easier 
targets now.

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:web.4b4db6fb3692b92a34d207310@news.povray.org...

> Could a smart person design something actually secure that doesn't account
for
> human rights and privacy

Are you saying those who design airport security are dumb? Is there a
maximum IQ limit in the job specification?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:

> Are you saying those who design airport security are dumb?

No, just handicapped by politics and economics.

In this world, rarely is the best technical solution the one that 
actually gets chosen. (Exhibit A: Betamax.)

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Any ideas on how to design a truly secure airport? 

We already have. More planes go down from mechanical failures than terrorism.

You cannot design a truly secure airport, as demonstrated by several wars in 
which bombers blew up runways.

If you ensured that every passenger was "safe", you now have to ensure that 
no pilot has been given $10million to crash the plane into a building.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4b4dfaf9$1@news.povray.org...
> If you ensured that every passenger was "safe", you now have to ensure 
> that no pilot has been given $10million to crash the plane into a 
> building.

For that matter, make the airport as secure as you want. Pack the passengers 
nude into giant plastic bags with air tanks after submitting them to an MRI. 
Don't allow any luggage on the plane of any kind. Use a computer program for 
a pilot.

Won't stop a ground-to-air missile launched somewhere along the flight path.

I approve of airport security in general, I think it's a good idea to at 
least stop the amateurs who want to cause harm and havoc. But someone will 
always find a way around it, I feel certain of that.

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message

Captain Jack wrote:

> I approve of airport security in general, I think it's a good idea to at 
> least stop the amateurs who want to cause harm and havoc. But someone will 
> always find a way around it, I feel certain of that.

Much better: Maybe try stopping people *wanting* to blow up planes?

Just an idea...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:4b4e0e7b$1@news.povray.org...

> Much better: Maybe try stopping people *wanting* to blow up planes?
>
> Just an idea...

That'd be great, but I'm not sure where to start with that. Last I heard, us 
hair-challenged apes were approaching 7 billion (the billion with 9 zeros, 
that is) here on this little blue marble out by the edge of the Milky Way. 
Even a tiny, tiny chunk of that number being disgruntled enough to feel 
justified in hurting innocent people is a lot of minds to change.

I'm all for it, absolutely, but I don't know how to do it. I do feel pretty 
sure that logical arguments won't yield much fruit. Once a man decides it's 
okay (or worse, righteous) to kill another human being, he becomes a tough 
nut to crack.

(Geez, do you think I mixed up enough metaphors and platitudes there? Who 
talks like that?)

(Well, okay, obviously, I do...)

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message

>> Much better: Maybe try stopping people *wanting* to blow up planes?
>>
>> Just an idea...
> 
> That'd be great, but I'm not sure where to start with that.

Agreed.

To me, the best strategy is to have enough security to stop the random 
crazy people, and then work on the root causes of the _large numbers_ of 
people who are unhappy for the same reason.

But now we're talking about *people*, and this is far beyond my area of 
expertise. :-(

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Much better: Maybe try stopping people *wanting* to blow up planes?
>>>
>>> Just an idea...
>>
>> That'd be great, but I'm not sure where to start with that.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> To me, the best strategy is to have enough security to stop the random 
> crazy people, and then work on the root causes of the _large numbers_ of 
> people who are unhappy for the same reason.
> 
> But now we're talking about *people*, and this is far beyond my area of 
> expertise. :-(
> 
Most people are unhappy. The root cause isn't people not liking the way 
things are, its them being told by lunatics that their is a reason for 
this, and that the solution is to kill a bunch of people that belong to, 
follow, believe in, or belong to, that reason. Sadly, #1 biggest problem 
in solving *that* problem is that, in most places, such bullshit is 
"protected", and where it isn't, its still lent undue credence, by 
clueless morons, that like to stand around claiming its just the people 
that don't *get* it properly doing stupid stuff, even while they stand 
their signing a petition to remove lobsters from signs, or some 
similarly stupid idiocy, because it might somehow offend their own 
*protected* gibberish.

In short. You need to watch out of people acting obsessed, crazy, 
unreasonable, and dangerous to others, then try to either a) fix the 
problem, or b) lock them up. Unless... its the "protected" sort of 
crazy, in which case you are supposed to ignore it and just add more 
full body scanners to the nearest airport, in hopes that you catch more 
underwear bombers than you do incensed idiots whining about being 
embarrassed that they wear adult diapers (which is one of the current 
stupid arguments among the anti-scanner people in the US).

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message