>>>Just because the government, one with a long track record of lies and obscufation, says it was a legitimate threat doesn't mean it was.
>>
>>Helloooo...IIRC it was the English that announced the bust of the plot, done with help from the Pakistani government.
>>
>>I am really disgusted with the level of paranoia and conspiracy-theory being displayed on the UT. Really, people, do you honestly believe this? And here I thought most developers were relatively logical human beings. I'm amazed, and greatly saddened.
>
>I agree with you Dan. I think the conspiracy theory requires far too much cooperation between too many different parties to be viable. Someone, somewhere will let the cat out of the bag.
>
>I think what is more plausible is that this was a real threat but, as one would expect, the politicians and security forces will obviously try to get the maximum marketing bang for the buck. That's normal and to be expected. Both sides know how to use the media to further their own agendas.
>
>Having said that the response about no liquids in carry on luggage is laughable. This is security theatre at its best. What a joke. This is designed to show the public that the powers that be are doing something and looking after its citizens and customers. Its a feel good response for consumers with virtually no actual threat reduction value at all. No matter how much you change airline security you don't remove the threat. It simply moves to another target.


Especially when TSA, the new government agency created in the wake of 9/11, is still as leaky as a sieve. Checks by government watchdog agencies and independent media to see how much contraband gets caught at the airport show that an alarming amount gets through. This is consistent from study to study. They are an official government agency now -- gosh, that's good, right? -- rather than outsourced security firms, but little has apparently changed. The workers there on the front lines are poorly paid, poorly educated, and missing lots they are supposed to catch. Put it this way: if they were goalkeepers, they would be letting in 6 or 7 goals a game. That is unacceptable when the objective is nil.