Re:Med Student Rescues Body Part From Airport Security
by shod on Sunday June 24, 2012 @10:36AM
(#4153391)
That's true when the risks outweigh the benefits, but it's not always true otherwise: we vaccinate everyone against smallpox to -keep- it rare!
Unfortunately, the cost of removing this sort of security theater as a deterrent is invisible and hypothetical, whereas the benefits are obvious.
Re:Med Student Rescues Body Part From Airport Security
by sausagefeet on Sunday June 24, 2012 @07:59AM
(#4153172)
I think there is a flip side of it too:
Fliers need to make it clear that they are OK with the fact that if they want to be treated better, security will not catch all security risks.
Re:Med Student Rescues Body Part From Airport Security
by ajb on Sunday June 24, 2012 @08:35AM
(#4153208)
Yes and no. Think of it this way: if you have a graph of security against cost, there is a line which represents possible tradeoffs of best security for a given cost. You are saying, we need to think about where we want to be on the line. I don't think we are even on the line.
Re:Med Student Rescues Body Part From Airport Security
by nacker on Sunday June 24, 2012 @11:19AM
(#4153481)
"The security professions need to learn a lesson which doctors have understood for some time now: treating everyone for a rare threat does more harm than good."
Nanny states need to learn this principle too: "First do no harm".
Suppose there is a drug which prevents heart attacks, but due to side effects, rare reactions, or just plain error, causes damage to a small proportion of people. If you have a 50% chance of a heart attack, taking it would be a good bet. But giving the same drug to everyone would be a medical disaster. Any treatment you give to a broad population had better be extraordinarily safe. The rarer the threat you are trying to address, the more easily you can do more harm than good.
Terrorism is rare.