Time To Get Rid Of No Fly List Altogether?
from the from-the-mainstream-press? dept
We recently noted that some members of the "no fly" list are suing the US government, questioning why they're "too scary to fly, but not scary enough to arrest," and complaining that there's simply no way for them to even find out why they're on the list or to get off the list. That's resulted in a Chicago Tribune editorial suggesting we dump the "no fly" list altogether. In fact, the editorial goes even further, saying we should go back to letting people fly without having to show a government-issued identity. The argument is that this is really security theater, and there are lots of other things in place that would likely stop a terrorist attack:What no one seems to notice is that other improvements in security have made this one a needless burden.I have to admit I'm surprised to see an editorial like this in a mainstream publication like the Chicago Tribune. And while I agree that the no fly list is a joke, it should be admitted that many of those other "improvements in security" are equally as ridiculous, so citing them as the argument alone isn't very convincing.
The government required airlines to install reinforced cockpit doors to keep hijackers from taking the controls. It tightened security rules -- banning penknives, lighters, ski poles, snow globes, and liquids except in tiny bottles.
It initiated random pat-downs of travelers and gave extra scrutiny to those who did suspicious things. It deployed thousands of armed air marshals.
Equally important, travelers changed their mindset, meaning that terrorists can no longer count on passive victims. On several occasions -- starting with United Flight 93 on 9/11 -- passengers have acted to foil attacks.
With all these layers of protection in place, the rationale for the no-fly list has crumbled. Even if someone on the list can get on a plane, his chance of taking it over or bringing it down is very close to zero. And you know the other good thing? The same holds for an aspiring terrorist who doesn't make the list.
The government's tedious insistence on identifying all travelers and grounding some may convey an illusion of security. But we could live -- and I do mean live -- without it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil rights, no fly
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
True Security
This one action fundamentally changes the equation. The "terrorists" cannot possibly watch every American on the airplane at every moment--and it'll be the one they don't see which puts a bullet into them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: True Security
Besides, if you're frightened enough of terrorists to make that kind of move, then they've already won. They're not called terrorists because they blow things up, they're called terrorists because their entire aim is to induce the constant state of fear Americans seem to have lived in every day since 9/11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: True Security
On the other hand, having folks who qualified for higher levels of carry and conceal (by passing marksmanship tests and background checks) would be okay in a limited fashion....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: True Security
And besides, if you were in that crowd of "hundreds of morons with guns in an enclosed space" (your fellow Americans) I'm betting you'd be all kinds of civil, polite, and well-mannered. How is that a bad thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: True Security
What you're ignoring here is that "the terrorists" who acted on 9/11 weren't the least bit interested in preserving their own lives so the idea that the plane he/she/them are getting on may have a few armed passengers isn't likely to deter them at all. Nor was the shoe bomber deterred by the fact that he'd die along with everyone else and on and on and on.
Firearms aren't magic for those that carry or anyone else.
And keep in mind that "the terrorists" are almost always highly trained and motivated which reduces even more the notion that a plane load of people carrying guns is likely to deter them.
Sadly, armed passengers blow up as well as unarmed passengers.
Nor, given everything Mike outlines since 9/11 make a aircraft hijacking far less likely as "the terrorist" like other military and paramilitary operatives prefer soft targets to hardened ones.
I'm sure that there are equally high value targets that can be attacked more easily and more successfully than a passenger aircraft these days. Far more easily and with as great or greater effect.
As has been pointed out, it appears that the terrorists have, in one case, already won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
Fortunately for us, they're actually not. There have been very few successful terrorist attacks in the Western world since 9/11, and most unsuccessful ones were pathetic attempts that wouldn't have worked even if they weren't uncovered before they could act. Motivated? Sure, but most of them are amateurs and incompetent - even the 9/11 guys left stupid and blatant clues that could have led to the act being prevented (learning to fly a plane but specifically refusing the landing portion, for example).
"I'm sure that there are equally high value targets that can be attacked more easily and more successfully than a passenger aircraft these days. Far more easily and with as great or greater effect."
There are, which is why subways, buses, etc. have been targeted in other attacks around the world. It just happens that planes make more headlines when they're targeted, and so the "keeping people afraid" aim of terrorism is easier to achieve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
Did anyone else see how silly this comment was? It doesn't matter if the terrorist doesn't care that people can shoot him, it only matters that people can shoot him. Fear doesn't need to solve this particular problem.
And a hole in an airplane isn't as bad as you think. The air will leak out slowly enough that they can land before it becomes a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
The dangers of explosive decompression are way overblown. (pardon the pun)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: True Security
"Fear is when you're a helpless sheep dependent upon your largely apathetic indecipherable government to safeguard your wretchedly pathetic existence."
Funny thing about that. I'm not afraid - of terrorists, especially (more people die in road accidents every year than have *ever* been killed by terrorists). I would, however, be very afraid if I was surrounded by idiots with deadly weapons every time I flew.
I feel pretty sorry for your world view if you think that the only way for people to resolve their differences is under threat of random deadly force. Your world must be a very scary place, and I certainly wouldn't want to live there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
> never seen one.
You only believe people exists whom you've met or seen? You've never met or seen me. Maybe I'm a ghost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
So... you're saying that you support the idea of allowing random people to carry deadly weapons in an enclosed, cramped, potentially volatile environment to address a danger you don't even believe exists in the first place?
Wow.
I, on the other hand, have lived most of my life in countries (UK, Ireland, Spain - my whole life apart from approx. 1 year in the US) where actual terrorist attacks have taken place on a relatively regular basis (not just AQ but IRA, ETA, etc.). Again, if the population around me is armed, I think I'd be in far more danger from a random idiot having a bad day / mental issues than I am now from terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: True Security
Ben Franklin said it best:
""Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
First, there's the problem of a pressurized cabin. Second is the fact that humans are irrational. This could lead to complications that you really, really, REALLY don't need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean... Really?
"What if the only way to carry a gun on board was to have rubber bullets?"
Why do you need so much security on an airplane? He can't really do much and the passengers are already uberhyper about this. A gun only adds more problems than it solves. Even with rubber bullets, the fact remains that guns are still unsafe so high up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: True Security
:Lobo Santo claimed:
Unfortunately, a populace with easy access to guns tends to suffer from more gun crime. Classic examples are the US and Switzerland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: True Security
Two problems come to mind right off the top of my head.
One: passenger digs through carry-on bag looking for a snack, passenger in the next seat sees the gun in the carry-on and assumes terrorist.
Two: A terrorist does try to hijack the plane, A passenger pulls out a gun and starts shooting. Result, one dead hijacker, and half a dozen dead passengers hit by the bullets that missed.
There is NO need for anyone on board a plane to be armed. Even with a gun, the hijacker can't harm the aircraft if he can't get into the cockpit, and if he's trapped in the cabin with a couple of hundred angry passengers, he's not going to be a threat for long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: True Security
> plane to be armed.
Happens all the time, though. Federal agents are always flying around the country and when they do, they fly armed. Chances are there's a few on any given flight you're on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: True Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service#Equipment_and_practices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: True Security
No, they aren't. I fly armed with a real honest-to-goodness concealed gun on my hip. Agents in my agency aren't even issued tasers, let alone carry them on planes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The key point
travelers changed their mindset, meaning that terrorists can no longer count on passive victims. On several occasions -- starting with United Flight 93 on 9/11 -- passengers have acted to foil attacks.
9/11, by its very nature could happen only once.
not much of the rest is of any use.
btw guns are not required for this. Allowing guns on aircraft would simply result in extra crashes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guns not required
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guns not required
What about Chuck Norris?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OHHH THE TERRRRRROORRRRRISSTS!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OHHH THE TERRRRRROORRRRRISSTS!!!!
(The change in passenger attitudes happened anyway, within an hour, without gov't action).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OHHH THE TERRRRRROORRRRRISSTS!!!!
Now? There's no way in hell it'd work. Three guys with box cutters would stand zero chance against a plane full of people thinking they are going to die if they don't do something. And as Richard pointed out... that mindset changed within the hour... as evidenced by United 93
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OHHH THE TERRRRRROORRRRRISSTS!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would buy that line if the chance of someone getting contraband items on an airplane was actually very close to zero. It is not. TSA is a mixture of hardworking well trained people who care about security and idiots just like any other group/org/company out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Factor all of this in, and the chances of a successful attack is pretty much zero. 9/11 worked mainly because of a lack of terrorism awareness among passengers and the trust that - as in every other plane hijack that had ever taken place - the terrorists' intention was to land the plane. These factors will not exist in the next attempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Taking control of an airplane might require an inside man, or another unexpected activity. All they really did was change it so they can't use the same plan again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It might be more likely to blow up a plane than take control of it with a box cutter in today's environment, but you're still more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the airport than in an actual terrorist attempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most of the real security regarding terrorism should come from your intelligence agency before the plane is ever a factor. Making a political game out of something like a no-fly list is a huge mistake I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "no-fly list" is more dangerous than "terrorists".
Anyway, as in that piece linked to this week: Where *are* the terrorists? -- The only possible reason for their *absence* is that they don't *dare* stage another attack, and since "Al-Qaeda" is supposedly already being attacked as much as possible, that points most surely to gov't STAGING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "no-fly list" is more dangerous than "terrorists".
So it's McCarthyism all over again... Interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "no-fly list" is more dangerous than "terrorists".
No, "T. Kennedy" was on the list. Remember, it is a list of names, and sometimes some other bits of information, not of people. (If that distinction doesn't seem important, you don't understand it.) The addition of that name to the list does not seem to have been politically motivated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This goes for: increasing taxes, say for an expensive war.
or reducing sentences/consequences for sexting/"underage" dating. Etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best Idea Yet
US population drops to about 100m terrified morons who were alone at the time of the culling.
Over the next few days those brave survivors, carefully step out side and happily discover that they all have about 2 more guns each.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
charade
"Security" is just the sales pitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just The Other Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
still has some catching up to do
This piece seemed like a sloppy argument for a good idea. This sentence in particular caught my eye:
*sigh* If someone whose name is on the list gets on a plane, the likelihood of his wanting to take it over or crash it is very close to zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: still has some catching up to do
Never said it was a new idea. Just pointing out that it's in a mainstream pub which surprised me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]