Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Airline Security--Here We Go Again!

It's possible that I will never travel by air again. Only the direst of emergencies would cause me to endure the mess that has been created by our government and our air lines.

Every time a radical pulls a terrorist ploy on an airplane, all the idiots jerk their knees and impose inane restrictions on thousands of innocent travellers. Granny can't take her knitting needles on the plane, and that 3-year old toddler must undergo a random search because his number is up. The latest one seems to be that for the last hour of a flight a person may only sit still and pick his nose.

Mind you, I am willing to submit to reasonable measures to ensure that the passenger compartment is safe. That is, I am willing to show proper identification when I travel. I and my carry-on bag can and should be scanned. My laptop can go through the scanner separately. I will even take my shoes off. If something rings the bell, I will submit to a pat-down search. But if I do not want to check my bag, I should be able to take as much shampoo and shaving cream as I need in my carry-on bag, and maybe even a bottle of wine.

But the way it is done now, passengers for some flights spend more time in the airport than they do on the plane. For some of the shorter trips it is actually faster to travel by automobile. It's because too many people are subjected to too many security precautions.

The more absurd measures are either knee-jerk reactions or fill in work for people who are not competent enough to define the most effective measures or to implement them correctly.

For example there is a "no fly" list (good idea) and 3 other lists. Apparently only two of the 3 are actually used, since Abdulmutallab is on the third. Logic says that only two lists beyond the "no fly" list are needed:
  • the first is a "suspect list" of all the 1/2 to 1 million people whose life choices are such that we worry about them. Subject those on the "suspect list" to any and all restrictions and inconveniences you want to. They have chosen to behave suspiciously. If they don't want to be inconvenienced, they can choose to behave and associate with appropriate respect for humankind.
  • the second is an "express list" for frequent business travellers and others who demonstrate a long-standing reputation for trustworthiness.

I understand that the criterion for the "no fly" list is that of prior actions. The other two lists rely to a significant degree on (nasty word) profiling. I understand profiling as well or better than any of the nuts who are so vehemently opposed to it. A profile is not about a person's race or religion or the way he dresses, but rather about who he associates with, where he has been working or studying, and other actions he has chosen to perform. The simple fact is that every person that has committed a terrorist act fits a terrorist profile.

I'm also aware that a small number of people who fit the terrorist profile never have and never will do something bad. But they will be on the "suspect list." They and only they will be subject to the numerous and onerous restrictions. That is the result not of our meanness, but of their personal choices.

The rest of us can and should proceed with little or no inconvenience.