The
failed airplane bombing on December 25 has raised a slew of questions about security measures around air travel.
This article describes how President Obama has taken personal responsibility for the attack and ordered security measures to be tightened.
The question that comes to my mind is, where do we draw the line in terms of privacy vs. security? According to the article, the president "pledged not to “succumb to a siege mentality” sacrificing the country’s civil liberties for security." And yet, we have the potential use of full-body scanners at airports. Well, I'm glad
someone knows where the line is.
Personally, I'm one of the group of people that says, look at how rare an occurrence like this one is. And I don't travel on airplanes often. I'd rather have less stress, more privacy, and less time standing in line at the airport and take my chances. The problem is, opinions are so varied on this issue. How do you dictate policy in a country with such a variance in opinion?

In the aftermath of the incident, officials and citizens alike are smacking their foreheads because of evidence that we should have seen the attack coming. In hindsight, it's easy to put together the pieces and say, "It's so obvious! How was this guy allowed onto the plane?" The reality, however, that it's much harder to see the pieces ahead of time.
Yes, the system failed, but these things will happen, no matter how tight security measures. It's a matter of human error. There will be some things that slip through the cracks. The question is, how much are we willing to sacrifice to diminish the size of those cracks?