Re:TSA announces “biometrics vision for all commercial aviat...
by eesmith on Thursday October 18, 2018 @04:15AM
(#18246790)
"The other side of the coin"? I think you have presented a strawman opposition.
Few argue there should be no security, but rather that a few simple changes, like hardening cockpit doors for the cockpit and a change to the hijacking policy (based as it was on the assumption that the hijackers wanted to live and, for example, go to Cuba), were enough "physical security to prevent people from hijacking what are essentially missiles."
How does yet more biometrics help? Is the cost justifiable?
We could have 5 security guards on every plane. That would surely help prevent people from 'hijacking what are essentially missiles', yes? But the costs aren't worth it. Eg:
"An assessment of the Federal Air Marshal Service suggests that the annual cost is $180 million per life saved. This is greatly in excess of the regulatory safety goal of $1-$10 million per life saved. As such, the air marshal program would seem to fail a cost-benefit analysis" - https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repositor...
The "illusion of safety" comes from putting policies into place which aren't justified by a reasonable cost-benefit analysis, but exist mostly for cover-your-ass reasoning.
Few argue there should be no security, but rather that a few simple changes, like hardening cockpit doors for the cockpit and a change to the hijacking policy (based as it was on the assumption that the hijackers wanted to live and, for example, go to Cuba), were enough "physical security to prevent people from hijacking what are essentially missiles."
How does yet more biometrics help? Is the cost justifiable?
We could have 5 security guards on every plane. That would surely help prevent people from 'hijacking what are essentially missiles', yes? But the costs aren't worth it. Eg:
"An assessment of the Federal Air Marshal Service suggests that the annual cost is $180 million per life saved. This is greatly in excess of the regulatory safety goal of $1-$10 million per life saved. As such, the air marshal program would seem to fail a cost-benefit analysis" - https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repositor...
The "illusion of safety" comes from putting policies into place which aren't justified by a reasonable cost-benefit analysis, but exist mostly for cover-your-ass reasoning.