A series of non-hyperbolic questions on the TSA

[jpgray]

1. By what criteria might we declare circumstances to have changed, and certain procedures to be no longer necessary?
2. By what criteria might we say our current security procedures are sufficient, and no more are needed?
3. Is there an acceptable level of terror attacks over a given period of time?
4. Should we attempt greater control over security for flights originating outside the US?
5. At what point might security cross the line for you?

I'll post my answers in a bit. If you would, please answer honestly and respect the answers of others.

[villager]

1. politicians can't do this -- just like they can't *not* have an enemy

...because if you acknowledge a yonder side to fear, an end to it, you willingly give up your main tool of manipulating the populace...

[uppityperson]

2. my quick andswers

1. When you have figured out how to solve the problem. For instance, make cockpit doors so people can't break into them. Screen cargo for bombs.

2. You can never prevent everything from happening. Something will happen at some point and you can prevent only most. Criteria: change is always necessary.

3. Yes. Not sure what that would be though. Again, can't prevent every asshole from doing something bad. For example, ou can lock your house, get security stuff installed, yet still you can be robbed or burnt down. Media could greatly help with this rather than OMGing the news,

4. As far as cargo screening, yes, all cargo (including usa) should be screened. Seems like other places are doing ok with metal detectors/etc.

5. When it is merely reactive to something rather than trying to increase safety. For instance that stupid liquid restriction in a quart ziplock bag. I've seen people get scolded for using a gallon ziplock with 1 small item in it.