Does current info like SS#, etc. need to be used more efficiently for security? Yes. Is Real ID the answer? No.

#28 >>”Basically, I believe, only one: Armored cockpit doors.”
There’s another: armed pilots. Israeli airlines greatly reduced rampant hijackings by training their pilots in gun control and arming them with pistols while on duty.

Let alone doing what? Lighting your shoes?

Didn’t Brandeis describe the right to privacy as the right to be left alone?

Trouble is the tools are all in place (existing laws) to accomplish the stated goals of “Real ID”.
They are just not used.
When the “criminals use the various states to game the system”, hammer them. Don’t turn them loose and then pass a law that punishes evrybody.
The only gun control laws that have emperical proof of success are those that mandate a fixed sentence for crimes committed with a firearm – usually in addition to the time for the crime.

I realize that my Valley Girl reference (s-o-o-o yesterday) is not really what I meant to say. What I really think is that there are plenty of Americans who put opposition politics above common sense security.

I fly a great deal. Most people are ready and able to deal with the TSA. I see very few complaints. (There are still the people who rarely fly and get flustered easily. I think there should be a line for them where the TSA helps them face the ordeal.)

As I said before, I favor a national ID card. The airlines could use the help. I carry my passport for domestic flights and it often speeds things along.

People leave home with food on the stove, use charcoal grills to heat on cold nights, store stacks of newspaper next to the gas hot water heater–and on and on! Did I mention taking the batteries out of the smoke detector? There has been public education since 1871 (the Chicago Fire), but the results have been far from ideal.

If we would observe our surroundings and report suspicious people, packages, etc., we could be more secure.

Oh, wait! We do that. I monitor the local fire departments and I hear calls for suspicious packages all the time; apparently people are not, as you assert, complacent and bored.

However, this issue is not quite the same, I don’t think, as the public having a perception that air travel is safe, that the Feds are at least giving a really good try at providing protection/detection. And since whenever I see airline passengers interviewed regarding the latest change in airport screening, and most say that the security measures and the delays they cause are worth it for the security and peace of mind, I would suggest that the general perception is not that national security is “s-o-o-o-o yesterday”.

You may be right that “Real ID” would not have prevented 9/11. With Real ID there may be future attacks, but that is not necessarily because of a Real ID failure.

The public is not safe and there is nothing to be gained by giving the public a false sense of security or “a perception they are safe” as you state it.

Our biggest security threat is a complacent and bored public that is feels that this whole terrorism thing is s-o-o-o-o yesterday!!!

First, Michael, your point: What measures, if they had been in place before 9/11, would have stopped it? Basically, I believe, only one: Armored cockpit doors. If the hijackers had not been able to enter the cockpits no matter what, 9/11 couldn’t have happened, at least not beyond the deaths of all the passengers and cabin crew, and the hijackers could not have martyred themselves.

True, the hijackers had weapons, but they were limited to weapons which would slip through security. Such weapons exist today; try taking away every passenger’s ballpoint pen, a potential lethal weapon.

The hijackers didn’t carry explosives; the plane did.

The hijackers had valid IDs.

Back to my second consideration: Security also includes emotional security. Therefore, measures must be taken which go beyond the strictly objective so that passengers and would-be passengers will feel safe. This justifies a good deal of the screening we experience. A major part of the government’s job after 9/11 was to make people feel safe flying again.

The news last year of liquid, mixable-on-board explosives led to the ban on carry-on liquids. This was not only possibly reasonable-though-reactive, it also forestalled the embarrassment/scare phenomenon that would have resulted from an official decision to treat the risk as negligible combined with the leaked news that there had been such a threat.

A key part of the air traffic security is the public perception that the government is on top of the situation, and if there’s anything we need to know, they’ll tell us. Even though some liberals have mocked the color-coded threat levels and the publication thereof, this is a significant part of public perception of being safe.

So, Michael, I think we have to look at your point, but also at this second point. The actions taken need (and the actions need to be taken) to effectively thwart if not prevent terrorism AND the actions taken need/the actions need to be taken which will give the public a perception they are safe.

(BTW, I don’t see how a “Real ID” will do either job.)

And to reference the Ben Franklin quote everyone’s been throwing around, I don’t think this situation qualifies as “temporary security” when the stated goal of terrorists is “death to America.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-Sturmbrigade_Dirlewanger

A national ID card is just around the corner.

There is no right to privacy. This is mainly true because there is no workable definition of “Privacy.” The Bill of Rights protects you against unreasonable state intrusion on your person, papers or property. But your DNA, fingerprints, photo image, etc. are fair game.

The Real ID is just the first step toward getting the states to make their driver’s license program a uniform and reliable identification system.

Illegal aliens will have a much tougher time if they can not get an official state ID.

I am for tougher standards for the states and a national ID card.

Perhaps I am relaxed about the idea because I do not have anything to hide. So far as “Big Brotherism” is concerned, people who have not read “1984″ since high school need to revisit it. We already know a great deal about our citizens. Why do you want to extend anonymity to those in the underground?

The point is also well-taken that passengers would now stop a hijacking. How about we citizens step up and stop crime? We used to–until it got to be legally more risky for the crime-stopper than for the criminal.