caskance

There's a big difference between "a little impedance" and "risks human life". War waged with robots will still cost money.

If politicians make bad decisions, perhaps you should try fixing that instead of sacrificing the lives of young men for a small chance of making those decisions more painful.

A lot of people make stupid cases. Should giving birth be dangerous so that people are reluctant to have unwanted children? Should sending email be dangerous so that people receive less viagra spam?

Of course there is. Every modern iPhone has a unique ID and its own private key.

When that happens, sure, let's be happy. Until then, forgive us for not having an aligned interest in giant corporations being above the law.

The only frightening part of your story is the insecurity of the human experts.

Wants mean little. I want to marry Taylor Swift.

Firstly, I said "perhaps deliberately, perhaps not" because I am not claiming that they intentionally wanted to provide security theater. I don't think that motive is relevant. I'm replying to a specific statement to explain that there is a benefit, even though it is intangible. Of course there are other bad effects, like inconvenience to travellers, and other good effects, like providing stable jobs to otherwise unemployably stupid Americans who live in or near airport-bearing cities.

In retrospect, I should have mentioned that last bit instead as a tangible benefit, but I only just now thought of it.

Why value tangible benefits over intangible ones?

Calling it an illusion implies that air travel is not safe, when in fact it is very safe. However, people did not feel safe, so the government constructed an agency (perhaps deliberately, perhaps not) to provide security theater and help people feel safe.

In general, American citizens today are safe from terrorism. If anything, the greatest danger comes not from terrorists themselves but from the American peoples' unjustified fear of terrorism. We could use some more security theater.

I find it unlikely that consumers are as safety conscious as you imagine them to be. Think about how many people currently text or do other things to distract themselves while driving. They willingly choose less safety in order to be able to do something else while in transit. Pushing this behavior to its natural conclusion is what will allow self driving cars to be accepted even if they are 10% less safe than normal drivers.

Even if they had similar access, a leak is still dangerous because it allows them to behave as if they have the information without divulging as much about their own capabilities.

In my experience, the people who work with technology do the same, just with different sound bites.

That feeling is warranted. Relative to the US, Bolivia is impotent.

What does that have to do with what I said? Why do you think I mentioned life insurance?

Why not? They are in some countries, like Finland. It seems to work OK.