>1. My mind is blown that this oddly specific behaviour was apparently so common that the government mandated all cellphone cameras must play shutter sounds that cannot be muted. What the hell?
You're missing the other possibility: incompetent politicians writing bad polices to respond to the latest moral panic. Plane hijackings are pretty rare, yet we have TSA screening and no liquids over 100ml on flights.
This is from the same country that prohibited blood in video games in the 90s. I had a copy of Duke Nukem that I picked up from some street vendor in Seoul that was identical to the American one, but all of the blood was colored white. I'm not sure that seeing a monster's head explode in a shower of what I will generously refer to as "milk" did anything positive for my moral alignment.
Reminds me of when I watched Fist of the North Star several years ago. All of the blood spurts were censored to be bright white, but there was one episode where two dead guys were drenched in blood and that wasn't censored for some reason
.
The most hilarious though is in part 3 of Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. The main character is a minor so they censor his face any time he smokes. But in one episode there's a bad guy who can imitate people's faces, and he imitates the main character and smokes (without any censorship).
I would guess one outcome of that was a significant increase in bad words used on non live TV. Since they'll be beeped out it's not really big deal anymore.
Or inventing new bad words like Farscape. Don't even need to look most of them up, you'll learn at least frell, dren, tralk, and mivonks just by context and frequency of use.
I have a couple of Nintendo Wii games where there's a setting for the blood to be red or green. Not sure if that was a requirement by Nintendo or just was something publishers at the time did but it did stick out in my mind back then as being silly.
The rarity of plane hijackings is balanced by the decades of harm they can do, even beyond the obvious death and destruction. 9-11 for example led to 20 years of ruinous war, trillions wasted, and many lives lost, not to mention geopolitical realities which led to even more death and loss of money. Taking extreme caution to prevent a recurrence of that, not to mention protecting lives and a whole industry, probably doesn't compare to upskirt shots.
> 9-11 for example led to 20 years of ruinous war, trillions wasted, and many lives lost, not to mention geopolitical realities which led to even more death and loss of money.
9-11 led to cockpits being secured. The rest was politically motivated, and does nothing to prevent a recurrence of 9-11.
The water ban came later for a different reason, namely the "Liquid bomb" plot, which involved bringing liquid bombs onto planes and detonating them mid-flight. I'm not saying the ban was an especially good reaction, but cockpit doors wouldn't have helped. You don't need to be in the cockpit to bring a plane down with a bomb.
Right but the original context was "another 9-11" that would lead to "decades of war". We have clear examples, right or wrong, where bringing down a single plane would not result in that response by a nation state.
One of the reasons we have not seen another airplane based terror event, is not because of security, but because it simply would not invoke the response the terrorist desire. They want a nation to over react, to bomb things, to over all make the lives of the people they purport to be fighting for "freedom" on behalf of worse... This keeps them in power, and aids in recruitment.
Taking down a single plane does not do that, using that plane as a missile did, which door locks prevents.
You're missing the other possibility: incompetent politicians writing bad polices to respond to the latest moral panic. Plane hijackings are pretty rare, yet we have TSA screening and no liquids over 100ml on flights.