![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeastA considerable number of so-called "security measures" are little more than what Bruce Schneier calls "security theatre" - they don't actually make us safe, but people often think they do. Consequently, money is often wasted on high-profile security which doesn't do anything to improve security, instead of being spent on low-profile security which would.
One such security measure is profiling. Not profiling in toto, but certain types of profiling - profiling based on ethnicity or religion, for example. Despite the mass media continually creating and reinforcing an association between terrorism and people of Arabic and/or Muslim background (leading to ludicrous incidents such as this and this, and 40% of Americans believing that Muslims should carry special ID), the reality is that many terrorist acts have been perpetrated by white people.
Many security experts, particularly those in the area of IT security, are aware that increased security often causes decreased convenience for many people. (Many of the security issues with Microsoft software stem from the fact that Microsoft has encouraged people to expect ease-of-use regardless of its impact on security. This is similar to encouraging people to leave the doors on their car open, and the key in the ignition, in order to minimise 'hassle'.) So it's not surprising that people are becoming increasingly fed up with airport security:
One such security measure is profiling. Not profiling in toto, but certain types of profiling - profiling based on ethnicity or religion, for example. Despite the mass media continually creating and reinforcing an association between terrorism and people of Arabic and/or Muslim background (leading to ludicrous incidents such as this and this, and 40% of Americans believing that Muslims should carry special ID), the reality is that many terrorist acts have been perpetrated by white people.
Many security experts, particularly those in the area of IT security, are aware that increased security often causes decreased convenience for many people. (Many of the security issues with Microsoft software stem from the fact that Microsoft has encouraged people to expect ease-of-use regardless of its impact on security. This is similar to encouraging people to leave the doors on their car open, and the key in the ignition, in order to minimise 'hassle'.) So it's not surprising that people are becoming increasingly fed up with airport security:
I have had it with the airport security checks. They make us remove more and more clothing, while letting us take less and less on board. Soon we'll be shelling out $1000 for the privilege of traveling naked in a three-foot caged pen. We won't be allowed to eat, drink, or pee during the flight. Communication will be prohibited, except for furtive glances with the flight attendants -- who, incidentally, will be robots with tasers. . . . My question was this: are the security checks really any more effective? To find out, I decided to re-enact the classic scene from the 1974 movie This is Spinal Tap, where bassist Derek Smalls puts a foil-lined cucumber down his pants, which is picked up by the security wand. Only I decided to go one better, by putting a buzzing vibrator down my pants."As a pleasure activist, i found the concluding paragraphs of the article to be particularly amusing. :-)
-- Shakes on a Plane
