Another step of the ratchet
The majority of 'new' security measures are intended to create the impression of security through the imposition of very visible and inconvenient measures rather than the reaility of security. The inconvenience makes the measures extremely noticeable and people feel they are participating in security by tolerating the inconevenienece. The fact the measures are unplatable makes them more effective as a means of reassurance and demonstrates that all possible measures are being taken.
The issue is that they do not make any sense and do not increase security in any meaningful way. What is special about the last hour of flight? The restrictions are risible.
The realility is that all activities have a risk associated with them. The risk can be reduced by taking measures which have other costs in terms of cost, efficency, inconvenience etc.The sensible approach is to balance the risk against the costs associated with reducing the risk.
In place of a realistic debate about the risks of terrorims versus the costs of control measures we have fatuous statemnets about taking all possible measures. The same is true of all public discussions of risk for example car accidents or child abuse. The absoilute nature of ' all possible measures' andthe generally wide acceptance of such an absolute statement means it can be used to justify anything at all.
The terrorist threat we face now is far less than when I was a boy facing the terrorist campaigns of the IRA, yet we take far more draconian steps now than we did then. There an is no discussion of the origins of the threat in foreign policy. That does not mean we should change policy but if we discussed the risks and costs of policies then we would at least make conscious decisions rather than drifting into totalatarianism.