The only problem I have is that you are then asking the Government to
provide on-site security at a private business. I know here in Fort Worth,
the DFW International Airport is a privately owned business. I am sure that
Dallas Love Field is the same way.
I think it would be a great idea if the businesses specifically asked for a
government security team to be installed, but for the government to mandate
such actions sets a dangerous precedent that I am not sure I would like to
see.
Barrett Blackburn
___________________________________
YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DOING.
___________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Airport security (was: The idiocy continues!)
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Phillips, Glen wrote:
> I've noticed that in amongst all the criticism of poor security at
> Boston airport, no-one has suggested paying the people who operate the
> metal detector screens and x-ray machines a bit more than what they
> currently get (which is reported as on a par with someone who flips
> burgers in a diner).
I have seen mentioned several times that the people supposedly guarding
air-travel security are minimum wage workers who have not been trained.
Many are calling for the government to take over airport security.
Myself, I think that makes sense. One of the functions of government is
to protect the people, i.e., to establish and maintain a police force. The
government already patrols roads, trains, and general property. To me, it
makes sense to extend that same protection to air travel.
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not
|
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or
|
| organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind.
|
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
