Is airport security necessary?

Nothing "alone" gets the job done. Police work is not just the cop on patrol, children don't learn just from listening to the teacher in class, and unfortunately, I won't lose weight and get healthier just by doing some pushups.

But the reactions I've seen here regarding the TSA seems to indicate that a good start to improving airport security would be to take the TSA and maroon them on a desert island somewhere.

And since I used to work for airline security (not the TSA, and not an American one), I can't quite agree that airport security is as useless as indicated.

Bingo!

I asked due to posts such as

"We took even more measures that were NOT effective, and severely intrude on people's lives. (usually due to poor execution and poorly-trained workers) :  We increased screening at airports.  We pat down grannies and 4 year-olds.  We prevent people from flying because they are on a list(or they have the same name as someone on that list.)   We do NOT prevent the underwear bomber.   We do NOT prevent the shoe bomber." 

TSA...completely unnecessary.

Mall-type security...fine.

All of the security changes since 9/11 are a complete over-reaction.  They are there to provide the masses with the illusion of security because their previous illusion was shattered.  The reality is that you are just as safe/vulnerable flying now as you were on Sept 10th, 2001.

If those changes hadn't been made, however, the masses would be up in arms demanding to know why changes haven't been made.... so something had to be done.  The problem is that most of the changes made (and ridiculous amounts of money spent) actually fixed very, very little.

That was my post, and it was posted AFTER you posted your question.  But I get your point....

I disagree with Kido, it's a question we need to ask continually. 

We also need to decide what the "use" of airport security, in its current form,  is before we call it "useless."

If the "use" is to prevent knives and lighters and water bottles and soda and makeup and all sorts of things on planes.... then it's quite useful.

If the "use" is to make the majority "feel" safe while flying and to provide a good visual of the government "doing something" then it's also useful.

If the "use" is to *actually* make flying safer then I would say the usefulness is questionable. 

I think it's worth asking if it's EFFECTIVE or to what level it is effective.  It's a valid question worth discussing.

But USELESS?  If there's a use, no matter how small or insignificant then it's NOT useless.  It's a yes or no question.  It's like asking if someone is dead or not.  They are or they are not.  Yes or no.  But if you wanted to discuss if they are healthy or not, or to what level of healthy they are - sure.

So do you think it's USELESS?  That the x-ray machines for bags and people and checking ID's and the machines that test for residue has NO USE?  Even if it's a deterrent.then, it's a use.  Is it just the same as letting anyone on board without checking who they are or what they have with them? 

The result was the same but WITHOUT those checks, I'm assuming the people that took over the planes for 911 would have used guns, not box cutters, if there was no security or if it was useless.  They just happened to find weak spot in the security and exploited it.  Unfortunately, security is a reactive thing.  Criminals are finding new ways and security has to react to close the door and prevent recurrence.

Since they found something, then they provided a use.  So not useless.  Next question?

Thanks for the link, BTW!

...I've heard the same thing about not thoroughly inspecting cute little grannies...but, think about it.  A smart terrorist isn't bringing the explosives/firearms/etc. onto the plane themselves...if they're smart.  They'll get it on board using the cute grannie or the oblivious child who isn't watching their belongings, etc.

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I'm willing to sacrifice the extra 30 seconds to ensure everybody's getting thoroughly checked out.  

How much of that was recovered from liquids in greater than 3 oz quantities carried in gallon rather than quart bags; or hidden in shoes?

The need to screen has been there as long as I have been flying (which is nearly 50 years). After the hijacking episodes of the 1970's, they put more measures into place, most of which are reasonable. Metal detectors? Great. That magic "sniffer" that blows air over me to detect explosives? Makes sense? That short wave screener that lets them see me naked? Intrusive, but maybe useful.

Taking off my shoes, removing my laptop from the case (but not my tablet, cell phone, or other electronics)? Having to use a quart ziplock bag - not just proving that the amount of liquids are equal in quantity by folding the gallon into quarters; or that the liquids are safe by drinking some of them? Useless theater.

Well maybe not grouchy.

All that's needed is a private security firm for General Purpose.  This frisking of everyone and blasting people with radiation is completely over the top and yes...unnecessary.

Next they'll be doing the same baloney at malls, bus/train stations, etc.

...oh wait...

Useless no.  Do they provide the proper amount of security for the money we spend on the TSA?  Hell no.  A completely bloated and wasteful government organization.

We could provide the same (if not more) security for FAR less money if it were run by a private organization.

Measures are normally brought in as a response to an even that has just happened, not against a threat that has been carefully considered.  It's one day too late then!

For example; In my opinion, the waterways of the world are horrifically unsecure.  The next terrorist attrocity, to my mind, will be river based - whether it's in London down the Thames or in NY up the Hudson.  Too easy to put a massive amount of explosives on a boat and just float it into the middle of your target.  Yet it won't be until the day after such an attack our ports and waterways will introduce intermediary check points etc.