h a l f b a k e r y
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
Airport security people seem like a very unimaginative bunch. Instead of thinking pre-emptively, they leave it to creative terrorists to discover holes in their system, and only after the terrorist has exploited the hole, do they plug it.
Almost any measure employed by airports (eg. ban on liquids
and sharp items, shoe screening) is a response to something that has already happened. But what about things that *could* happen? We all know that the main weapon of terrorists is the element of surprise - they never use the same tactic twice.
Since security people are obviously incapable of stepping in terrorist's shoes, why not leave it to the public?
Airports should initiate a competition: Anyone who manages to smuggle a certain amount of a substance on board wins $10,000. The substance would be something harmless like baking soda. But security people would be trained to search for that substance just as vehemently as explosives.
Obvious loopholes in the security system would be discovered in a matter of weeks and be fixed before terrorists have a chance to exploit them.
By making everyone think like a terrorist, passengers themselves would be better at spotting them, and security guards would be more alert.
[link]
|
| |
You need to stop everyone carrying it just in case it wasn't found...
...sell 'terrorism tickets' at about a tenner each (GBP10, USD23.30). Only those who have purchased a ticket and had it logged at check-in are eligible to win a prize for smuggling baking soda undetected. |
|
| |
Otherwise, you'd have students with baking soda coming out of every orifice and packed into every part of their luggage doing a 'brute force' attack on the system. |
|
| |
But otherwise, I really like that idea [+] |
|
| |
I like and dislike this idea. |
|
| |
I think the thoughts of cavity searches and flight delays would keep most people from trying to beat the system so I agree with [vinceCubed] about the student onslaught because they have less to lose and more of a desire to prove something, but this would allow terrorists to try plan new avenues of attack with impunity and possibly getting funded to do it. |
|
| |
This would allow a real life criminal (not just terrorist) to make test runs of their latest smuggling technique before trying it for real. |
|
| |
It's a win-win-draw for them. If they smuggle enough baking soda they either get $10000 or the chance to smuggle something less innocuous next time. If they get caught with soda they avoid prosecution and can scratch that smuggling technique of the list. |
|
| |
The purchase of a special ticket would make no difference to the above scenario. |
|
| |
Furthermore, anyone truly determined to 'cause problems' on an aircraft can probably pick up all the ingredients they need from duty free once they're past security. |
|
| |
I know I'm getting repetitive with this but the majority of the security measures that the public sees at check-in are being done just to be seen; for reassurance. It's the work behind the scenes that is doing the real job, and that's far more proactive in its approach. |
|
| |
Couldn't a real terrorist use this as a alibi (I was trying to win the Terrorist Competition. It's fake explosive, I swear.)? |
|
| |
[Big Bird Shade] that's all well and good apart from the fact that it's not baking soda and it is explosive... I can see the alibi being found out. |
|
| |
Perhaps this could be replaced by a random smuggling invitation. Random passengers are informed when they purchase a ticket that they are invited to smuggle baking soda on board; if they manage it then they get USD10,000 (GBP4034.40 at today's rate), if they don't want to try or fail then there's no loss to them. |
|
| |
"Really, Officer! The chances of any aircraft having a bomb on it are very small, and the chances of any aircraft having two different bombs on it are almost nil. So I'm just smuggling this one onboard to make it impossible for there to be another one. I promise to not set it off." |
|
| |
Perfect - another way to keep everyone all riled up about 'terrorism' so the gubbamint can keep using it as an excuse for world domination. [-] |
|
| |
//can keep using it as an excuse for world domination// |
|
| |
Ok... so the Middle East now represents the whole world? |
|
| |
Read what again? The terrorists Bush declared war on are almost exlusively in the Middle East, or at least that's where they come from. I don't recall North Korean, Chinese, Indian, or European extremists ever evoking a declaration of war on terrorism from our president. While there are folks in those countries converting to E.I. (Extremist Islam) every day, the religion driving them is centered in the Middle East. Using it as an excuse for "world domination"? I'm sorry, but before making a ridiculous statement like that, make yourself a list of how many nations the United States is currently "dominating" (and I don't mean economically, I mean military subjugation) then compare that to how many nations there are in the world. |
|
| |
I could be wrong but the way I read the statement implied that the terrorism threat, (although real) is just another in a long string of reasons to keep the US military coffers lined and world citizens, (including their own), under the US thumb so to speak. |
|
| |
The Middle East is just the latest crisis, not the whole world. |
|
| |
Again, I freely admit I may have misinterpreted the statement we both read. |
|
| |
As for domination; military force is but one pressure which can be applied. To discount political or economic leverage is to voluntarily wear blinders while viewing the larger picture. |
|
| |
I would also, (though not an advocate of terrorism by any means) question the motives of those driven to such lengths to make themselves heard. |
|
| |
Are they the actions of conquerors, or actions of the oppressed? |
|
| |
One thing that we cannot forget is that airline terrorism was a result of using items that were allowed on the plane. Nothing had to be smuggled. Even today after you ban liquids, toothpaste, hair gel, and nail clippers, a TRUE terrorist would just simply find something else to use as a weapon. |
|
| |
Disappointed with the idea. I thought it was going to be something along the lines of the archery competition that the cunning Sheriff of Nottingham devised in order to capture the terrorist outlaw, Robin Hood. Perhaps planting a wealthy enclave of western businessmen in the heart of Baghdad and declaring the area totally secure could achieve this objective. 'Terrorists' would be queuing up to attack it. You could call it something exciting and mysterious like...ooh I don't know...the Green Zone. |
|
| |
"We all know that the main weapon of terrorists is the element of surprise - they never use the same tactic twice" |
|
| |
As [Murdoch]. We are lucky (for a special value of 'lucky') that terrorists usually aren't imaginative. I tend to remember in great detail those few horrific moments when they have been. |
|
| |