said by StuartMW:Actually I wouldn't (can't speak for others). I recognize that life itself is risky. If one travels by air there is a remote possibility that the plane could be destroyed by terrorism. It could also crash because of a flock of birds. Or I could have an automobile accident. Or I could fail to see a 18-wheeler while crossing the road.
The point is that any security should be appropriate to the level of risk and in a (supposedly) free society allow citizens to go about their business with a minimum of fuss.
The term we use at work with regards to risks associated to safety and security is ALARP, which stands for
As
Low
As
Reasonably Practicable.In other words, measures should be taken to keep risks as low as possible, but without going overboard to the point where is becomes unreasonably costly and a major hindrance.
When dealing with risk, it's a case of diminishing returns. As some point you need to assess that you're taking enough precautions, but not too many. You can't eliminate risk completely, it is not possible.
I think the TSA and many other aviation security agencies have gone way overboard. They've entered the zone of diminished returns where there is very little reduction of risk but at considerable expense and public inconvenience.