Which do you think is best; personal data protection or increased risk of planes being blown from the sky?

Question

This question relates to the proposed finger printing(which will be destroyed within 24 hours) of airline passengers to verify they are who they are supposed to be, travelling through the newly opened terminal 5 and the announced investigation into this intended anti terrorist measure.

Answer 1

There is no increased risk of airplanes being blown from the sky. You are watching way to much main stream media news. Flying is safer today than it ever has been. I have a theory, can't proove it, that more people are dying in increased auto accidents ever couple years because they are too scared or too tired of the airport security hassles to fly than died on 9/11 just because their in a car to go see Disneyworld or grandma and not an airplane. All this security c**p is killing more than it saves, I guarantee it.

Answer 2

Err, not allowing muslims on planes.

Answer 3

Well stuff data protection if we can stop terrorists, but the proposed checks at terminal 5 are a load of rubbish.  They are supposed to stop someone who has been through domestic security swapping boarding cards with someone who's been through international security.  So what's to stop them keeping their boarding cards and swapping bombs?  And why is it  important to stop people blowing up planes to the USA but flights to Glasgow are fair game?

Last time I flew from Gatwick, there were about 1,000 people  herded together in the queue for security.  If someone had detonated a bomb in the middle of that lot, it would have caused far more carnage than blowing up a plane.

Answer 4

The whole think stinks. Joe Bloggs and his wife and 3 kids get put through the mill and have their drinks taken from them at airport security they are inconvenienced at the drop of a hat they are made to stand in line like cattle. For what reason ?  I have to be careful in how I say this, the people who blow up planes are well known, and the background they have. So, exactly why do the majority of people have to suffer ? When a man, wanted for murdering a Police woman can dress up in a Burkha, and walk through airport security, board a plane, and flee the country, does that not say there is a problem with the system ? If less time was wasted on those clearly not falling into the terrorist profile, then and only then will the screening system work.

Answer 5

Not implementing it would leave risk at the same level it is now, not "increased". Attacks are already unlikely. We are, in fact, well protected. If they can implement such a program without further clogging up the system, then I'm all for it. The problem is that so many more levels of protection make the system less effective. It's like wearing six levels of padding and two helmets to ride a bicycle. Do that, and you'll find it hard to ride at all. Eventually, you make it more trouble than it's worth. The only way to be totally protected is to stay home.