Punctuated Equilibrium – Our approach to security at our airports has and continues to evolve. We go through periods of status quo tranquility until a happening wakes us up again. Consider how airport security changed after Lockerbie, 9/11, the “shoe bomber”, and the “underwear bomber”.
The question is – what will airport security look like on the other side of the public outcry against the TSA’s new (current) screening methods? Will the new imaging technology be ditched? Will we simply accept the new procedures? Will we revive profiling and remove it from the dirty word bin?
Yes.
ReplyDeleteYes.
Maybe. (We do some now based on actions and history. For example, don't we have higher security for people who pay cash for one way tickets? Seems a shame that I know that.)
I saw somewhere that a former official for El Al Airlines (Israel) suggested that the TSA's new technology won't help much, and he challenged the US to implement in just one airport, on an experimental basis, El Al security methods. I understand that part of their screening process involves interviewing every passenger, which doesn't seem very practical. But, given their security track record, it's an interesting idea.
ReplyDeleteOK, so in response to Tom's questions, here's my guess:
ReplyDeleteWe'll only ditch the new screening technology if there's a sense that it poses a health risk or if there are some actual problems with the release of pictures of nekkid people. (That's Lewis Grizzard's spelling -- N E Double K by god I D. Nekkid.)
We'll keep the new procedure of feeling passengers up because, methinks the public dost protest too much on this one.
And we might actually think more seriously about the fact that our children and grandmothers are not security threats when they fly.
Some comedian said: "If I'd wanted to have someone tentatively touching my crotch while averting their eyes, I'd have gotten married."
ReplyDelete