lederhosen: (Default)
[personal profile] lederhosen
For those who aren't keeping up with Australia's excitements, United Airlines flight 840, bound for Los Angeles, dumped 60 tons of fuel and returned to Sydney last night after the finding of "a note written on a sick bag warning of a bomb on board".

Well, it didn't actually say that. What it said was "BOB", which - in a feat of deduction reminiscent of Batman - was translated as 'Bomb On Board'.

Aside from being a common abbreviation for 'Robert', it turns out 'BOB' is also used by aircrew to mean 'Best On Board': "...it indicates from the perspective of people on board the aircraft, whether it's passengers or cabin crew, that someone sitting in a particular seat ... to put it quite bluntly, looks good."

This over-reaction is now being cast as evidence that we're on the ball, ready for everything the terrorists can throw at us. A cynic, OTOH, might feel that when three letters on a paper bag are sufficient to cause major disruption at Australia's biggest airport, then the terrorists have trained us very nicely indeed. The whole point of terrorism is to sow chaos and scare the hell out of people; when you can get them so paranoid they're jumping at shadows, why bother with suicide bombers at all? Mission accomplished, already.

Date: 2004-07-27 07:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] drzero.livejournal.com
[inspector cluseau voice]

Oh mah god, it's a Bob

[/voice]

Date: 2004-07-28 06:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ex-cerebrate131.livejournal.com
Would a metacynic feel that the two are, in fact, functionally indistinguishable?

Date: 2004-07-28 07:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lederhosen.livejournal.com
IMHO it should be possible for rational, intelligent human beings to react appropriately to plausible threats, without considering a paper bag labelled 'BOB' to be a plausible threat. (If there's one thing every terrorist loves, it's lengthy explication - why on earth would they use an ambiguous acronym to issue a threat, rather than spelling things out?)

Ratcheting up threat-sensitivity to its maximum level is *not* a useful way to do business - while the genuine threats will very likely be flagged somewhere in there, they'll be drowned out by the false positives.

Date: 2004-07-28 07:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ex-cerebrate131.livejournal.com
rational, intelligent human beings

Well, that settles it. We're fucked.

Date: 2004-07-28 07:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lederhosen.livejournal.com
I'd have been terribly disappointed if you'd wasted such a blatant setup :-)

Profile

lederhosen: (Default)
lederhosen

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
2324252627 2829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 17th, 2026 08:04 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios