How much personal inspection is needed for safety against terrorism?

[Viking Prince]

Everytime a terrorist strikes in a new and original manner, security seems to take another swath of liberty.

After the PLO hijackings, airport securty got tighter. Well quite a bit tighter if you were El Al.

After 9-11 and the twin towers plus the Penagon -- the USA really began to tighten security and in ways that are not immediately obvious. You banking transactions are now looked at. Your telephone records and perhaps even some of your conversations may be looked at.

Then there are the bombings overseas. The Bali attack and now Fatal blasts hit Jakarta hotels.

So, what is the next little bit of security? Baggage inspection at hotels?

That is the question of this thread. How far should we go on this?

[webMaster412160]

Well in America you have 'big brother is watching you' The government is watching the local people and tracking calls, face book all can see, no privacy and so on. I think the people get depresed from it it olmost looks like no free will. If you would go to far, the people of that government would become the enemy and not someone who has trust in his government. Like now controling backs in the airport, scaning the ground to find boms or tracing calls to find and track down terrorists to prevent civilians getting killed.

I don't realy know it's good like now, if it prevents people getting killed yes it's good. But if the terrorists still get to kill people I would say the countries in the Middle East need more security, in Europe,America it's good for now.

[Pious Agnost]

I voted as though I were an American, that it has gone too far. But I think that the poll was lacking dimension which you couldn't have gotten without another 1000 choices.

Choices like which areas which aren't secure enough, for example the internet, the reins may have to be a little tighter, but the current powers entailed to the FBI, such as warrantless wiretapping, has gone too far

[Maverick]

All I know VP is that the 911 hijackers used box cutters, not a bomb or a chemical agent or anything like that, they used something that was permitted on a plane at the time.

And I don't really fear terrorism, they had a top airport security rep on 60 minutes a while back and he "could not comment" on how many terror suspects they apprehended since the terror attacks.

I don't have a lot of faith in airport security. There are tons of weapons in prisons where they do full body cavity searches. And let's be realistic a few professional soldiers can take a plane. Security is there to make you feel secure, that's why they got those pretty new uniforms that resemble a police officer's.

[Каие]

We went too far as soon as we started. The frontier of the state needs to be rolled back and not reimposed on any higher level, be it American or European Union.

[Poach]

Current security laws don't bother me in the slightest. I don't particularly care that I have to walk through metal detectors, have my bags inspected and have to submit to random shoe checks. Nor do I care that there are cameras in city centres and train stations, or that police can detain people for several weeks with no real evidence.

I'm not a terrorist or a criminal, I won't be getting caught with anything at those airports or end up having to answer for what I've done whilst a CCTV camera happened to be pointing my way.

Call me weak, apologist, or pull out that quote about people who surrender a little freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both, but I have no irrational hatred of measures that have no effect on me.

[razor-]

I don't really care if some goverment agency knows a few details about my private life or not, can't really understand what there is to fear.

[♔Jean-Luc Picard♔]

I think he airport security is a bit too much, but i have no problem with them tapping phones and such. If they want to know I am done with football practice, that is fine with me.

[Mangalore]

I think he airport security is a bit too much, but i have no problem with them tapping phones and such. If they want to know I am done with football practice, that is fine with me.

Problem with various security measures is precisely that wasting times tapping into your football practice calls doesn't increase security, but because of the data swamp they are accumulating detecting relevant information becomes kind of harder, not easier begging the question if these general measures really add anything to a targeted approach where you only observe groups and indivdiuals you know are affiliated with dangerous people.

[Phier]

The obvious solution is religious profiling.

[Каие]

The obvious solution is religious profiling.

Because it's so hard for a potential terrorist to just... change religion.

[seal]

Because it's so hard for a potential terrorist to just... change religion.

That reminds me when we invaded Iraq. I recall being on guard duty in front of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building listening to all the Iraqis tell me they were Christians, and therefore deserved a job.

[Phier]

Because it's so hard for a potential terrorist to just... change religion.

Its so cute when you take posts at face value, you know it right?

[seal]

It's the silliness and uselessness of it all that bothers me. These security practices in public areas are essentially designed as a "show of force" to instill a false sense of tranquility in the public. If someone really wants to kill a lot of people, they can do it. Therefore, I question the necessity of rolling back liberties and freedoms in the name of security, especially when it comes to more invasive governmental practices, like wiretapping.

[Каие]

Hey man, don't back out on me now. I've got those gold crosses, stars, crescents and A's which people need to sow into their clothes. Come on, I spent a lot of money and time on these.

[aduellist]

Hey man, don't back out on me now. I've got those gold crosses, stars, crescents and A's which people need to sow into their clothes. Come on, I spent a lot of money and time on these.

Like that sidekick guy in the first film of the current Mummy franchise? The one that wore every conceivable religious symbol around his neck so that the appropriate one was always available. That was hilarious.

One problem is that we're doing a bunch of stuff to provide the illusion of security and not many things that provide real security. Another problem is that, even if we went the full Police State route, we still would not be guaranteed to stop every "bomb carrying lunatic" of whatever stripe.

Since professional politicians have a pathological need to be seen to be "doing something", combined with bureaucracies' need to justify their own existence, I doubt we'll see a reduction in the current level of useless "security" measures.

[Stavroforos]

I think the way it is now is good.

[Maverick]

I think the way it is now is good.

Bet you have some great reasons for that too.

[Stavroforos]

Bet you have some great reasons for that too.

Well...yeah.

Less security is probably not safe, more security is intrusive.

[Mangalore]

Well...yeah.

Less security is probably not safe, more security is intrusive.

define "not safe" compared to other safety risks.