Disturbing news...35% favor ban

A new TripAdvisor survey reveals some disturbing findings:

“Seventy-seven percent of travelers said they would rather have enhanced airport screenings, even if it meant longer lines at the airport. Thirty-five percent of travelers said they would favor a ban on carry-on luggage if it would make flights more secure.” - full text of press release

The survey also says 82% favor some form of profiling.

And, from the TripAdvisor blog, on scanners:

We polled more than 2,200 people last week, asking  if they would be comfortable with U.S. airports using full body scanners that can see through clothing.  A resounding 78% said yes, scanners would enhance security.  The remaining 22% felt it was too much of an invasion of privacy.  Looks like the majority will feel more secure, as we’re likely to see 500 or so machines in play at U.S. airports by the end of this year, and many European countries — including the U.K., the Netherlands, France, and Germany — move closer to implementing mandatory scans. - read post 

Comments

[Miguel Marcos]

A TripAdvisor poll is not something I would necessarily call authoritative. What's their sampling, potential rate of error? Eh!

[Till]

MIguel is, of course, right in questioning the poll. But from everything one can read in opinions online It seems it is pretty much in sync with the general tendency of public opinion.

It is mass hysteria and fear. People in such a state are very vulnerable and people in power are very vulnerable to be called out if they don't do something to deal with the fear. It's not a rational thing.

I don't know what it would take to get rid of it besides getting rid off the people which is not a moral or a feasible thing.

Read the two articles I posted here from the WSJ. There was strangely no response to that post. I thought they were very good articles trying to rationalize the risk of flying.

[williamsg4713]

I'm not sure the question is worded in the right way to yield any valid conclusion. A question in the format "would you _____ if it made you safer" is going to tend to be parsed as presuming that _____ will make you safer. Would I eat a double order of french fries before flying if it made me safer. Well, I would...but only if you provide me convincing evidence that eating the fries will make me safe, and only if I get a satisfactory answer to the follow-up question "How much safer?" Those are the elements that get left out, and which some people would just as soon be left out.

As to the WSJ article, if it was the one about "I can whip LaBron James in hoops if you make the rule that one basket wins for me, no matter how many LaBron makes," then I thought it was about the most in-perspective piece written in a long time. I'd like to think it's attracted few comments because what is there to add?

Well, one thing I might add. One reason TSA at times acts a little neurotic is that the traveling public and the non-traveling but political public has put TSA and the federal government in exactly that position.