The recent Germanwings crash and apparent suicide neatly illustrates a perennial problem with security: you can't have perfect security where humans are involved. One of the immediate reactions in the wake of 9/11 was to demand lockable cockpit doors to prevent hijackers from gaining access to the controls. This was a good idea, and it made it much harder for anyone else to repeat the attack. But it made it much easier for someone who was a pilot to do it, because it greatly enhanced their ability to prevent others from stopping them.
Even rules that require two people in the cockpit at all times only increase the number of co-conspirators required. A future set of terrorists would need to get pilot training - or possibly just flight attendant training - but once in control of the plane would be unstoppable. Even a single terrorist would only need to disable one other person, in a surprise attack.
Security is a set of tradeoffs. You can make particular attacks harder, but it will be at the cost of making others easier, or making everything harder. Even security measures that simply cost money will eventually squeeze out other safety features, or reduce our ability to save lives in other mundane ways that also require money.
The analogy of the rogue pilot is particularly apt when you consider the powers that governments around the world are demanding in the name of fighting terrorism. They may work well at that (although this is often debatable), but they also make the "pilot" more powerful, and harder to stop when he decides to do the wrong thing.
We need to have conversations about security that recognize the tradeoffs that are being made in every case, not just of "money" or "freedom", but of security itself. We need to stop pretending they don't exist, and start focusing on the genuine threats. Things that kill real people every day, rather than one-off events like 9/11.
Even rules that require two people in the cockpit at all times only increase the number of co-conspirators required. A future set of terrorists would need to get pilot training - or possibly just flight attendant training - but once in control of the plane would be unstoppable. Even a single terrorist would only need to disable one other person, in a surprise attack.
Security is a set of tradeoffs. You can make particular attacks harder, but it will be at the cost of making others easier, or making everything harder. Even security measures that simply cost money will eventually squeeze out other safety features, or reduce our ability to save lives in other mundane ways that also require money.
The analogy of the rogue pilot is particularly apt when you consider the powers that governments around the world are demanding in the name of fighting terrorism. They may work well at that (although this is often debatable), but they also make the "pilot" more powerful, and harder to stop when he decides to do the wrong thing.
We need to have conversations about security that recognize the tradeoffs that are being made in every case, not just of "money" or "freedom", but of security itself. We need to stop pretending they don't exist, and start focusing on the genuine threats. Things that kill real people every day, rather than one-off events like 9/11.
