Originally Posted by
Berealgetreal
The issue of screening all or none (baggage handlers, engineers etc) is no doubt a cost one. One that would be resolved overnight if an attack happened via these means. It's a totally reactive system and the politicians do what they need to do to avoid spending where they can. For them it's purely about staying in power nothing more nothing less.
I've always said "you screen everyone or you screen no one."
Here's the kicker: what if the current intelligence forces don't pick up 100% of the threats? All you need is 1% to get through and it's all over red rover. In the face of this, the encrypted software needs to go.
A National ID card and DNA register would solve a lot of problems and crimes but also create a lot of problems and be a massive loss of privacy.
I don't have a problem with it as I've got nothing to hide. Having said that, I can see very much how it could become a problem (the point sunfish makes).
Pilot A has been in the industry for 15 years with an unblemished record but is related to someone who is being watched by the authorities. Now what? Ultimately being related doesn't mean you are connected (quite the opposite in some families!). There are people at the airport today that are in this very situation.
I think the encryption issue is probably the quickest least expensive way to trap most of the problems and the government to its credit is trying on this front.
Spare a thought for the guys at security most of which are just doing a job. It would have to be the worst job, next to parking inspector, that I I could think of.
If we want maximum protection then we have to give into the screening and the loss civil liberties. In ways you have to wonder if it's really worth it as its being pointed out that there is no 100% fool proof system.
What you are proposing is basically George Orwell's 1984.
Yes, it's possible we could all be safer with cameras in every room of the house and no encryption. After all, what have the good guys to hide?
But Benjamin Franklin's famous quote resounds quite clearly in the current climate:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
So, if I may just pick a couple of words from your post:
If we want maximum protection then...
Who ever said we want maximum protection?
And from what? How many aircraft are exploding in the skies?
And at what cost?
A threat has just been thwarted, the system appears to be working.
If terrorism wasn't so dramatic that it constantly occupies front page news, we might be able to get on with dealing with the real threats to our society, such as suicide, domestic violence, crystal meth and the road toll.
I still feel safer in my cockpit than driving to work.
With regards to the encryption argument, if we let the good guys monitor our communication, then we let the bad guys do it too. That would backfire on us big time.
Bad Guy: "Hey, Fred, thanks to the Governments encryption back-door, I have hacked your teenage daughter's phone and I found a photo of her masturbating naked. It'll go on the internet tomorrow, unless of course I can borrow your ASIC for a couple of days..."
Fred: "Here's my ASIC..."
We all have something to hide.