TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US(tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com)
tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com
TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US
http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-in-leaked-doc-no-evidence-of-terrorist-plots-against-aviation-in-us/
12 comments
I read years ago (and can't now find the article) that the TSA screeners didn't really care about catching these guns. The TSA tested them by slipping one (or a few) fake guns into luggage. If I recall, a screener said something along the lines of "we don't have to catch all guns. We only have to catch those guns."
Sigh.
Sigh.
He's right.
When there is no real threat, it doesn't matter how incompetent they are. As long as nothing bad happens you can't tell the difference between effective security and incompetence. You can tell on the micro-scale like those test weapons, but not on the macro scale where budgeting and oversight decisions are made.
When there is no real threat, it doesn't matter how incompetent they are. As long as nothing bad happens you can't tell the difference between effective security and incompetence. You can tell on the micro-scale like those test weapons, but not on the macro scale where budgeting and oversight decisions are made.
I'm sorry, there's no real threat? Lack of intelligence supporting a specific threat is very different from a general threat. Is the supposition here that because we don't know if anyone is currently targeting aviation that we shouldn't defend against those threats? Even if those threats existed in the near past?
I guess I'm not tracking the conclusion that there is no real threat. So there's no current intelligence showing any specific plots exist. That's good. Have there been plots in the past? Yes. Why did they stop? Does this mean there won't be any in the future?
Perhaps because airliners are a pITa to target? Is the threat actor really gone? Are they targeting something else?
I guess I find it hard to believe that the kind of wackjob so we've seen out there are suddenly kicking back and have retired from the terrorist scene. If the threat actor is still there, and previously target aviation, why did they stop?
I guess I'm not tracking the conclusion that there is no real threat. So there's no current intelligence showing any specific plots exist. That's good. Have there been plots in the past? Yes. Why did they stop? Does this mean there won't be any in the future?
Perhaps because airliners are a pITa to target? Is the threat actor really gone? Are they targeting something else?
I guess I find it hard to believe that the kind of wackjob so we've seen out there are suddenly kicking back and have retired from the terrorist scene. If the threat actor is still there, and previously target aviation, why did they stop?
We have no evidence to suggest invisible dragons are about to attack. But, that's no reason to avoid my multi-billion dollar anto dragon defense system now is there?
9/11 was a mild success but there is little reason to think it would work again simply because of reinforced cockpit doors.
9/11 was a mild success but there is little reason to think it would work again simply because of reinforced cockpit doors.
Reinforced cockpit doors, and certain knowledge by passengers that they will die if they don't fight back against hijackers. Those are huge security improvements as a result of 9/11, and arguably the only security improvements. Everything else is a smokescreen and a giant waste of money, but those are effective, would stop another shot at a 9/11-style attack, and have stopped several attacks already.
> 9/11 was a mild success
9/11 caused billions of dollars of economic damage, and we are still suffering the (stupid, self-imposed) effects - shuffling through airport security without our shoes, mass fingerprint surveillance, longer travel times, etc.
9/11 caused two wars, killing many thousands of soldiers, and maiming very many more, and those people now need expensive medical treatment and rehabilitation and benefits and etc.
9/11 caused billions of dollars of economic damage, and we are still suffering the (stupid, self-imposed) effects - shuffling through airport security without our shoes, mass fingerprint surveillance, longer travel times, etc.
9/11 caused two wars, killing many thousands of soldiers, and maiming very many more, and those people now need expensive medical treatment and rehabilitation and benefits and etc.
The only reason 9/11 caused these is because we (nationally) overreacted.
> we are still suffering the (stupid, self-imposed) effects
> we are still suffering the (stupid, self-imposed) effects
The real damage wasn't self-imposed. It was imposed on us by poor leaders.
The solution lies within. The events of 9/11 were vivid, but in terms of GDP just a blip. It was the poor leadership that caused so much economic and human damage - spending hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives for basically no return at all.
We'll never have 100% control over foreign actors, but our government is an entirely different case. It exists by our whim alone. If instead we had spent just 1/100th of that money on better government accountability we'd be miles ahead of where we are today.
The real damage wasn't self-imposed. It was imposed on us by poor leaders.
The solution lies within. The events of 9/11 were vivid, but in terms of GDP just a blip. It was the poor leadership that caused so much economic and human damage - spending hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives for basically no return at all.
We'll never have 100% control over foreign actors, but our government is an entirely different case. It exists by our whim alone. If instead we had spent just 1/100th of that money on better government accountability we'd be miles ahead of where we are today.
This is all deplorable, but the solution to incompetence isn't to stop doing something altogether if it could be better. The solution is to get better people, methods and equipment. There's a big difference between what may work but isn't being done well, and what can't possibly work.
You are assuming that something needs to be done, that something "needs to work." In reality we would be just as safer (actually safer) if we did away with TSA, than we are now.
...But as you can see, Senator, there is also no evidence of the guaranteed absence of terrorist plots either. They are obviously even better hidden than we feared. Increased resources will be required to bring them to light. Our department has drafted a new budget proposal that takes this changed situation into account.
Let's be honest -- if they really wanted more funding, it'd be much easier just to fake some threats to warrant more public support, Operation Northwoods style --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Thanks for the link. People somehow don't realize that no one was punished by losing job/savings/reputation/credibility for even proposing such a sabotage. Kennedy merely "rejected" proposal which gives his office zero credibility on how he handled possible similar proposals. In the governments incentives are all inverted: bad stuff is not risky to attempt and it gives great rewards.
"Following presentation of the Northwoods plan, Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963"
Such a brutal punishment, indeed. A guy makes a plan to kill citizens and he's just moved to another office to continue earn money extracted from these citizens.
You argued no-one was punished by losing their job. That's exactly what happened. Whether that is an appropriate punishment is a different discussion.
It was not a punishment. The guy was getting free goodies from his powerful position somewhere in the government. He proposed to kill people. He got another position with free goodies somewhere in the government.
Especially since, Senator, the new facility to be built and staffed for the purpose of identifying these better-hidden terrorists, will be built in your district!
And, Senator, if you don't support this program and, heaven forbid, another terror attack occurs that could have been prevented by the program, then your career will be over.
"...though somewhere between 30 and 45% of the contract cost will go to cover the administration and management of this contract, by employees in the greater Washington DC area..."
Ah you see, no terrorist plots actually means that our tiger^Wterrorist repellent rock is working!
Exactly. Why can't we just pull their meta-data profiles from online, and just assess potential threat levels and weight it against the national threat level.
Threat level orange? Internet Anarchists and Armchair Libertarians don't fly.
Threat level blue? Just people who look like they have some desert heritage.
Threat level red? "I'm sorry sir. It says here you we're really, really mad at how a cop stopped you last weekend for going through a red light."
Threat level orange? Internet Anarchists and Armchair Libertarians don't fly.
Threat level blue? Just people who look like they have some desert heritage.
Threat level red? "I'm sorry sir. It says here you we're really, really mad at how a cop stopped you last weekend for going through a red light."
You know they are already doing this right? American intels are collecting individuals profile here and outside of US. This is the whole PRISM project.
And this is what people oppose too. Now we are suggesting abandon TSA and instead favor massive profiling? You will return to karma 0 if that's the route you take. Hahaha
And this is what people oppose too. Now we are suggesting abandon TSA and instead favor massive profiling? You will return to karma 0 if that's the route you take. Hahaha
I'm a huge critic of the TSA and would be thrilled to see it dismantled, but I always find these kinds of arguments a little intellectually dishonest. It could be that “terrorist threat groups present in the Homeland are not known to be actively plotting against civil aviation targets or airports” because we have scanners in place that deter that kind of threat.
Now, I don't believe this is the case, as plenty of research has shown that the scanners don't increase security, but the "no active threat" argument by itself doesn't get us very far. By that logic, we should remove security at Fort Knox because it never gets robbed.
Now, I don't believe this is the case, as plenty of research has shown that the scanners don't increase security, but the "no active threat" argument by itself doesn't get us very far. By that logic, we should remove security at Fort Knox because it never gets robbed.
> By that logic, we should remove security at Fort Knox because it never gets robbed.
Airports should have security. Every country has security in their airports. Where it crosses the line are when you have the security preemptively treat you like a criminal, and violate your personhood without justification other than a blanket statement of "terrorists".
Security ! always have to = Neo-Fascism. But many people feel it does in American airports.
Airports should have security. Every country has security in their airports. Where it crosses the line are when you have the security preemptively treat you like a criminal, and violate your personhood without justification other than a blanket statement of "terrorists".
Security ! always have to = Neo-Fascism. But many people feel it does in American airports.
Why should airports have security? Just because other countries have security, doesn't mean the airport needs security. I don't know of any other transportation that requires airport like security, why are airports so special? I've seen bomb sniffing dogs at train stations, and cops patrolling, but no patdowns, or forced searches.
> Airports should have security. Every country has security in their airports
but wait, in your response to me you said that the line people wait on for security checks is just as big a terrorist hazard as the plane itself. How are you not contradicting yourself here? Which is it, we wait on lines for metal detectors or not ?
but wait, in your response to me you said that the line people wait on for security checks is just as big a terrorist hazard as the plane itself. How are you not contradicting yourself here? Which is it, we wait on lines for metal detectors or not ?
Security doesn't have to mean inspection lines or profiling.
It could mean guards walking around, like in an apartment complex or mall. It could mean people watching CCTV.
This could all be done by the airline. They don't want bombings just as much as you or I. The only difference is they don't have an incentive to create a regulation that forces people to subject themselves to embarrassment or harassment.
Where is the TSA's incentive? Justifying their existence. In one hand, you have an anti terrorist, governmental agency, which will always try to justify itself, and on the other you have a necessary expense for the airlines mandated by their public relations and to reduce bad press/events from happening.
It could mean guards walking around, like in an apartment complex or mall. It could mean people watching CCTV.
This could all be done by the airline. They don't want bombings just as much as you or I. The only difference is they don't have an incentive to create a regulation that forces people to subject themselves to embarrassment or harassment.
Where is the TSA's incentive? Justifying their existence. In one hand, you have an anti terrorist, governmental agency, which will always try to justify itself, and on the other you have a necessary expense for the airlines mandated by their public relations and to reduce bad press/events from happening.
But airlines provided the security before 9/11 and failed at that job miserably.
Airports (not airlines) provided security against known threats. The 9/11 hijackers circumvented that bringing in box cutters, not the expected guns and bombs, and by using the planes themselves as weapons, instead of just hijacking the plane and using the hostages as leverage.
TSA is in precisely the same reactive mode: make people take their shoes off after some nut tries to blow up his shoes, etc.
Bruce Schneier: "Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."
TSA is in precisely the same reactive mode: make people take their shoes off after some nut tries to blow up his shoes, etc.
Bruce Schneier: "Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."
Wrong. Items used on that day were items that were permitted through security. They weren't "missed".
the "no active threat" argument by itself doesn't get us very far. By that logic, we should remove security at Fort Knox because it never gets robbed.
Security needs to be proportional to the risk. We know there are plenty of people who would make off with the gold in Fort Knox if they could because hold-ups and bank-robberies happen all the time.
We do know the level of risk that the TSA is defending against is minuscule because of these basic facts:
(1) The TSA is not catching terrorists: No TSA action has ever resulted in a conviction on terrorism related charges. To the best of my knowledge, the only actual arrest on terrorism charges turned out to be completely bogus.[1] Meanwhile they crow about stupid little things like the guy with a funny looking water bottle.[2]
(2) The TSA is not deterring terrorists: Someone bent on spreading terror doesn't just give up because good security scared them off - they find another target. There are all kinds of high-profile soft targets: Shopping malls, the line at the airport, bridges, tunnels, movie theaters, derailing passenger trains, etc. It does not require much imagination to come up with a very long list of easy targets.
But so far we've seen just one effective attack like that - the Boston marathon and it was super easy for those guys to pull off. It is so easy, yet it is a once-in-a-decade event. That is unequivocal evidence that for all intents and purposes nobody with the ability to carry out attacks is actually attacking us.
Given those two facts, we can have very high confidence that the TSA is not providing useful security.
[1] http://www.clickorlando.com/news/TSA-exaggerates-claims-abou...
[2] http://boingboing.net/2008/07/30/tsa-proud-of-confisc.html
Security needs to be proportional to the risk. We know there are plenty of people who would make off with the gold in Fort Knox if they could because hold-ups and bank-robberies happen all the time.
We do know the level of risk that the TSA is defending against is minuscule because of these basic facts:
(1) The TSA is not catching terrorists: No TSA action has ever resulted in a conviction on terrorism related charges. To the best of my knowledge, the only actual arrest on terrorism charges turned out to be completely bogus.[1] Meanwhile they crow about stupid little things like the guy with a funny looking water bottle.[2]
(2) The TSA is not deterring terrorists: Someone bent on spreading terror doesn't just give up because good security scared them off - they find another target. There are all kinds of high-profile soft targets: Shopping malls, the line at the airport, bridges, tunnels, movie theaters, derailing passenger trains, etc. It does not require much imagination to come up with a very long list of easy targets.
But so far we've seen just one effective attack like that - the Boston marathon and it was super easy for those guys to pull off. It is so easy, yet it is a once-in-a-decade event. That is unequivocal evidence that for all intents and purposes nobody with the ability to carry out attacks is actually attacking us.
Given those two facts, we can have very high confidence that the TSA is not providing useful security.
[1] http://www.clickorlando.com/news/TSA-exaggerates-claims-abou...
[2] http://boingboing.net/2008/07/30/tsa-proud-of-confisc.html
That doesn't follow. The TSA may be deterring terrorists for airlines, or they may not.
But the fact that they don't protect other things, like malls, doesn't change that possibility. You are right terrorists can target softer targets, and have recently done just that. And it may be because because of heightened security at other places that they are starting to choose softer targets. If you want to kill a lot of people and get a lot of attention, go where lots of people are that will have a big media reaction and where the security sucks.
But the fact that they don't protect other things, like malls, doesn't change that possibility. You are right terrorists can target softer targets, and have recently done just that. And it may be because because of heightened security at other places that they are starting to choose softer targets. If you want to kill a lot of people and get a lot of attention, go where lots of people are that will have a big media reaction and where the security sucks.
The issue (beyond the fact that the scanners don't work, which you've addressed and I publicly schooled back in March 2012) is that in public (especially on the floor of Congress) the TSA talks up all of these threats against us in order to garner support. Essentially, we've been lied to, which, at this point, is not a surprise coming from any federal agency.
The problem is: The TSA and its equivalents around the world have made air travel less secure. Those agencies are mere security theatre designed to serve the political agendas of conservative agitators.
Nude scanners convey messages such as 'We're doing something.' and 'The state is looking out for you.' while they're much more prone to errors and missing actual threats than 'good old-fashioned' airport security.
Defunding and dismantling out-of-control agencies such as the TSA and - while we're at it - the NSA would not only make the world a better but also a safer place.
Moreover, while the US - like most other industrialized countries - struggle with their budget at the same time they have no qualms about spending enormous amounts of money on government agencies that clearly provide no value other than furthering an utterly sinister political agenda.
Nude scanners convey messages such as 'We're doing something.' and 'The state is looking out for you.' while they're much more prone to errors and missing actual threats than 'good old-fashioned' airport security.
Defunding and dismantling out-of-control agencies such as the TSA and - while we're at it - the NSA would not only make the world a better but also a safer place.
Moreover, while the US - like most other industrialized countries - struggle with their budget at the same time they have no qualms about spending enormous amounts of money on government agencies that clearly provide no value other than furthering an utterly sinister political agenda.
"By that logic, we should remove security at Fort Knox because it never gets robbed."
There are, however, active threats against Fort Knox -- we know people want to rob it and that they would given the chance. On the other hand, it is not clear that there are people who would attack airplanes were we to scale back the TSA's operations (particularly airport checkpoints).
There are, however, active threats against Fort Knox -- we know people want to rob it and that they would given the chance. On the other hand, it is not clear that there are people who would attack airplanes were we to scale back the TSA's operations (particularly airport checkpoints).
> There are, however, active threats against Fort Knox -- we know people want to rob it
Fort Knox seems like a bad example of necessary security. How far would you get with a convoy of trucks, each carrying some tons of gold? Does that gold need more security than a nuclear weapon?
Fort Knox seems more like an example of security theater, designed to impress people with the idea that a pile of gold matters a whit compared to large modern nation's budget.
Fort Knox seems like a bad example of necessary security. How far would you get with a convoy of trucks, each carrying some tons of gold? Does that gold need more security than a nuclear weapon?
Fort Knox seems more like an example of security theater, designed to impress people with the idea that a pile of gold matters a whit compared to large modern nation's budget.
It could be that my mother isn't dead because I avoided stepping on a crack yesterday. I'd appreciate some evidence, though.
This seems like a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty k2enemy was talking about. Those two examples are not comparable.
There is no demonstrable, rational connection in your example. It is entirely rational and possible that extra airport security is a deterrent to airbourne terrorism.
There is no demonstrable, rational connection in your example. It is entirely rational and possible that extra airport security is a deterrent to airbourne terrorism.
"It is entirely rational and possible that extra airport security is a deterrent to airbourne terrorism."
Possible, but easily disproved. You can buy the material you need to make various weapons at duty-free shops, restaurants, and so forth on the other side of airport security. You can walk through security with a laptop, which has loads of sharp metal pieces, several lithium ion cells (containing dangerous chemicals that can be used in various ways), etc.
The 9/11 hijackers were not heavily armed. What I described above would have been sufficient for that attack, and the "extra" security at airports does nothing to stop that sort of thing.
Possible, but easily disproved. You can buy the material you need to make various weapons at duty-free shops, restaurants, and so forth on the other side of airport security. You can walk through security with a laptop, which has loads of sharp metal pieces, several lithium ion cells (containing dangerous chemicals that can be used in various ways), etc.
The 9/11 hijackers were not heavily armed. What I described above would have been sufficient for that attack, and the "extra" security at airports does nothing to stop that sort of thing.
Right. Your example sounds ridiculous because there is no logical connection between not stepping on a crack and your mother's life. To most people, there is a connection between airport scanners and airline safety. My point is that we should be stressing the fact that the scanners do not actually increase safety.
How's the saying go? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Except when it is.
Yeah, really absence of evidence is evidence (though not proof) of absence, unless the absence of evidence can be explained as "well we haven't bothered trying to find evidence."
(In other words, if I don't look in a box, then I don't have evidence that anything is in the box, but that's not evidence that the box is empty. If however I do look in the box and fail to find evidence of anything in it, that is evidence that the box is in fact empty.)
They have presumably been looking for terrorists rather intensely.
(In other words, if I don't look in a box, then I don't have evidence that anything is in the box, but that's not evidence that the box is empty. If however I do look in the box and fail to find evidence of anything in it, that is evidence that the box is in fact empty.)
They have presumably been looking for terrorists rather intensely.
as plenty of research has shown that the scanners don't increase security
We can infer from this statement of yours that "the scanners" (such as they are) are not a component of security, so the analogy to Fort Knox security is inapt.
We can infer from this statement of yours that "the scanners" (such as they are) are not a component of security, so the analogy to Fort Knox security is inapt.
But couldn't it be argued that the use of body-scanners functions as a form of strong deterrent for potential plots? If a potential terrorist understands that they will eventually be caught or that the stakes to beat the system are too high, they will look at alternative forms of terrorism simply because the investment to beat airport security is too high.
But couldn't it be argued that the use of body-scanners functions as a form of strong deterrent for potential plots?
No, because there have been attempts that the scanners have not caught, and were thwarted not by the TSA, nor any government agency, but by other passengers. Know thy history, I'm not even accounting for the white-hat tests that the TSA has soundly failed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/8/tsa-fails-und...
http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/12/70-detection-failure-rate-being....
http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-scanners-repeatedly-fail-to-...
No, because there have been attempts that the scanners have not caught, and were thwarted not by the TSA, nor any government agency, but by other passengers. Know thy history, I'm not even accounting for the white-hat tests that the TSA has soundly failed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/8/tsa-fails-und...
http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/12/70-detection-failure-rate-being....
http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-scanners-repeatedly-fail-to-...
And to sort of extend my point. We always laugh at CEOs/CTOs when they fail to provision money/resources for security software and security measures in organizations. That, instead of paying for security up-front, they wait until after a disaster to respond with security measures.
In this case, by criticizing the spending of scanners as a deterrent to potential plots, are we not playing the part of CEO who complains about a small security expense as opposed to waiting until after a disaster to respond?
In this case, by criticizing the spending of scanners as a deterrent to potential plots, are we not playing the part of CEO who complains about a small security expense as opposed to waiting until after a disaster to respond?
The crux is what constitutes "small security expense". Locked hardened cockpit doors are cheap. Arming pilots is cheap. $1B for a fleet of marginally effective scanners isn't cheap.
When the cost of security exceeds the cost of what's being protected, the solution need be reconsidered.
When the cost of security exceeds the cost of what's being protected, the solution need be reconsidered.
Keep in mind that we are equally critical of CEOs and CTOs who spend money on the wrong things e.g. the classic "We have antivirus software installed, therefore we are secure from hackers!" AV software does nothing to protect your network from a vulnerability in sendmail.
Similarly, the nude scanners would have done very little to stop the 9/11 hijackers, whose weapons were simple and equivalent weapons could be improvised from items that anyone can find on the other side of a checkpoint. Whatever we were doing in August 2001 to stop less-determined attacks was working back then and would work equally well today. The simplest conclusion is that whatever else is being done to stop a 9/11-style attack is working, and that the checkpoints are just a distraction.
Not that we should be surprised by that. The TSA was going to allow people to carry small knives through the checkpoints, and noted that you are already allowed to carry far more dangerous items through -- except for box cutters, because of their appearance. Then there was an outcry from people who are terrified of knives being on airplanes, and so the policy change never happened. With that kind of logic, it is a stretch to say that the checkpoints are keeping us safe.
Similarly, the nude scanners would have done very little to stop the 9/11 hijackers, whose weapons were simple and equivalent weapons could be improvised from items that anyone can find on the other side of a checkpoint. Whatever we were doing in August 2001 to stop less-determined attacks was working back then and would work equally well today. The simplest conclusion is that whatever else is being done to stop a 9/11-style attack is working, and that the checkpoints are just a distraction.
Not that we should be surprised by that. The TSA was going to allow people to carry small knives through the checkpoints, and noted that you are already allowed to carry far more dangerous items through -- except for box cutters, because of their appearance. Then there was an outcry from people who are terrified of knives being on airplanes, and so the policy change never happened. With that kind of logic, it is a stretch to say that the checkpoints are keeping us safe.
You're assuming a number of seemingly questionable propositions about "potential terrorists". Do they really care more about personal outcomes than mission outcomes? (I might not mind that I'm caught, if my colleagues succeed before they are caught.) Do they really care so much about "high stakes"? (If I'm comfortable with martyrdom I may be comfortable with a number of other outcomes.) Are they actually so willing to substitute "alternative forms of terrorism" for the sorts of acts that have been successful before? Do they care about returns on "investments"? (Those who fund operations may be civilians in some sense, and not the same people who take decisions regarding the use of those funds or of other resources.)
Besides, the point about alternatives is problematic in other ways. If vast public resources are expended moving problems from one location to another location, were those resources well spent?
Besides, the point about alternatives is problematic in other ways. If vast public resources are expended moving problems from one location to another location, were those resources well spent?
True. In the 1970's back when boarding a plane was as casual as boarding a metro bus, commercial flights were routinely hijacked by amateurs so often it became a joke. Passenger screening was started in response to that, and it was real. Whether every screening practice today is effective is debatable but no screening at all would be open mike night for any crank with a grievance.
"couldn't it be argued that the use of body-scanners functions as a form of strong deterrent for potential plots?"
Not when all the materials one needs to construct a dangerous weapon are available on the other side of the checkpoint. Go to the duty-free shop and buy a glass bottle, and now you are ready to make a shiv.
For that matter, you have lots of sharp metal things and dangerous chemicals in your laptop, and you can walk through security with that.
I doubt the 9/11 hijackers would be deterred by the nude scanners. Sure, you would stop them from bringing a box cutter through (maybe), but there are a dozen other weapons they could have carried through or procured past the checkpoint. The nude scanners might catch someone who is trying to sneak a gun through security, but so do metal detectors -- and metal detectors might even do a better job.
Not when all the materials one needs to construct a dangerous weapon are available on the other side of the checkpoint. Go to the duty-free shop and buy a glass bottle, and now you are ready to make a shiv.
For that matter, you have lots of sharp metal things and dangerous chemicals in your laptop, and you can walk through security with that.
I doubt the 9/11 hijackers would be deterred by the nude scanners. Sure, you would stop them from bringing a box cutter through (maybe), but there are a dozen other weapons they could have carried through or procured past the checkpoint. The nude scanners might catch someone who is trying to sneak a gun through security, but so do metal detectors -- and metal detectors might even do a better job.
you don't even need to improvise - first class passengers get metal steak knives for their meals...
Exactly. This is why I continue to pay for cloud insurance as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tgp5VZD1Ak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tgp5VZD1Ak
The problem is there are too many entry points into an airport. If you wanted to get a device into an airport and on a plane, you can. It might not be quite as simple as walking it through the security gates, but it can be done. The body scanners will only deter the "monday morning" terrorist. But anyone putting any amount of thought and planning into it won't be deterred.
No, because the first time they try and are successful they expect to die so they don't care what will happen if they 'eventually' get caught there will be no second try for them.
Then again, take a look at the rest of the world: are they using body scanners? We're not the only country where terrorists have attacked.
> "couldn't it be argued..."
About as effectively as arguing a tiger-repellant rock is strong deterrent.
About as effectively as arguing a tiger-repellant rock is strong deterrent.
"Lisa, I want to buy your rock."
If I were trying to champion a legitimate cause, I would steer way clear of acknowledging Infowars by name or calling them "journalists."
You could just say that a third party discovered it or something, but you definitely don't want to imply that they're fighting the good fight alongside you.
You could just say that a third party discovered it or something, but you definitely don't want to imply that they're fighting the good fight alongside you.
I respect that they found and published the documents. I don't buy most of what they are selling, but in this instance, their journalism brought an important issue to light.
The problem is in the perception it gives to those reading your post.
Infowars is not a legitimate journalistic effort. It is SEO optimized linkbait garbage created with the intent of selling videos, speaking engagements, and other assorted junk to gullible people.
There is a whole network of crazy headed by the likes of Alex Jones that cross-link each other sharing ridiculous claims masquerading as real causes and small injustices blown totally out of proportion to support insanely tangential ideas.
Some of these people also believe the government is run by lizard Jews from outer space.
Infowars is not a legitimate journalistic effort. It is SEO optimized linkbait garbage created with the intent of selling videos, speaking engagements, and other assorted junk to gullible people.
There is a whole network of crazy headed by the likes of Alex Jones that cross-link each other sharing ridiculous claims masquerading as real causes and small injustices blown totally out of proportion to support insanely tangential ideas.
Some of these people also believe the government is run by lizard Jews from outer space.
> Some of these people also believe the government is run by lizard Jews from outer space.
Oh man, see? that's something I could get behind.
Oh man, see? that's something I could get behind.
Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Why not say "Not a bear in sight. Bears must not exist."?
"Not a bear in sight. Clearly they're hiding more effectively than we thought; we must put on additional bear patrols immediately!" ?
It's a reference to the simpsons, the episode "Much Apu about nothing".
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F20.html
Search for "not a bear in sight"
Search for "not a bear in sight"
They're in the Himalayas looking for the bear hybrid.
Link owner here. I love it when my posts get submitted to HN so fast that I don't even have a chance to share it. ;) Happy to answer any questions.
This post has been moderated down for some reason. Generally, posts on HN appear on the front page based on a calculation of upvotes per unit time. This post has a better ratio than all of the posts above it, yet about 20 minutes ago got bumped down from #1 to #14.
Lame.
Lame.
From my horizon the entire security debacle have never been about actually keeping the populations safe - it's there to keep them worried about "the enemy" and keep them compliant with both funding requests and authorities in general.
As of today neither USA or countries in western Europe can be considered police states.
But if we keep on travelling in the same direction we are going now, that's where we'll end up.
As of today neither USA or countries in western Europe can be considered police states.
But if we keep on travelling in the same direction we are going now, that's where we'll end up.
Exactly! After "Communists!" went away in the early 90s, the US Government and the associated "defence contractors" found the money a lot tighter. Although I'm pretty sure they didn't create 9/11, or just let it happen, the US Government and the defence contractors have sure jumped on the "Terrorists!" wagon.
The War on Terror is just the boogie man that Containing Communism used to be.
The War on Terror is just the boogie man that Containing Communism used to be.
I know I'm throwing my karma down the toilet here but domestic-sourced airline terrorism has happened before. The TSA (edit: OK, whoever it was that scanned our bags and ran us through the metal detector, if it was not "the TSA") was unaware of 9/11 as well. Argue all you want that we should just tolerate the occasional 9/11-style (edit: or the random pipe bomb blowing out the side of the plane, cockpit doors can't protect against that) event as the price of freedom, but if there were no airline security, you can be sure events will occur.
Have you ever been in line in a long TSA queue at a major airport? See anybody get scanned before getting in that line? With a coordinated attack across multiple airports, you could kill far more people just while they're standing in line to get their TSA gaterape procedure performed than you could by attacking while onboard an aircraft.
The aircraft attack vector has already been played out. Lets keep sane regulations in place (metal detectors, armored/locked cockpit doors), and move on to better problems to solve.
The aircraft attack vector has already been played out. Lets keep sane regulations in place (metal detectors, armored/locked cockpit doors), and move on to better problems to solve.
Terrorists have indeed already done this at Domodedevo airport in Moscow, Russia. By creating giant lines of people at security checkpoint (along with a scattering of federal employees), the TSA has created the perfect target.
[deleted]
Does it matter if you consider employing several vans running into the airport during holiday rush hours?
If dangerous is present at any moment in time, what do we do? How can we reduce searchable threats? Can we do a scan on entrance to and exit from airport lobby?
If dangerous is present at any moment in time, what do we do? How can we reduce searchable threats? Can we do a scan on entrance to and exit from airport lobby?
We live our lives. Danger will always be present. I could be hit by a car crossing the street from my office to the parking lot. I could be shot in the grocery store near my house.
Sometimes, there is nothing more that you can do. Accept the risk and move on.
Sometimes, there is nothing more that you can do. Accept the risk and move on.
Sure anyone could be hit by a car tomorrow. But why do we even bother to have education and laws? Why police officers and firefighters? Why EMT and doctors? Why don't we just let everyone die if there is nothing more that we could do?
If there is only a 40% of a chance that a driver given a ticket will drive safer, then there is a 40% more likely for any individual to survive while crossing the street so we continue to issue traffic ticket.
If kids are 40% more likely to avoid smoking by educating them, we will do it.
If there is a 40% chance you will be saved from a gun shot tomorrow because of more effective, stricter gun control, you probably would support it.
If there is a 10% chance a solider will live after a brain injury, the EMT and doctors will attempt to save his life.
If we all say "well let's fuck it because we will all die", why do we even bother to save life? Why EMT? Just fuck the injuries and let them die. That's your logic. That's the logic we get: survival of fitness.
So, let's accept out ultimate risk that we will all die and let's move on and forget about safety. Just because we can't have a 100% success rate.
While the TSA cargo and individual inspection is not very effective, it makes an attack with bomb a few percents harder. It might open up other avenues (e.g. massive shooting at the waiting line) but we can't lose a few percents because tomorrow when shit happens, and when your loved one is dead, you'd be joining the army and shoot those mother fucker out. And then you will come out and say "I wish I had those stupid TSA did their job".
If there is only a 40% of a chance that a driver given a ticket will drive safer, then there is a 40% more likely for any individual to survive while crossing the street so we continue to issue traffic ticket.
If kids are 40% more likely to avoid smoking by educating them, we will do it.
If there is a 40% chance you will be saved from a gun shot tomorrow because of more effective, stricter gun control, you probably would support it.
If there is a 10% chance a solider will live after a brain injury, the EMT and doctors will attempt to save his life.
If we all say "well let's fuck it because we will all die", why do we even bother to save life? Why EMT? Just fuck the injuries and let them die. That's your logic. That's the logic we get: survival of fitness.
So, let's accept out ultimate risk that we will all die and let's move on and forget about safety. Just because we can't have a 100% success rate.
While the TSA cargo and individual inspection is not very effective, it makes an attack with bomb a few percents harder. It might open up other avenues (e.g. massive shooting at the waiting line) but we can't lose a few percents because tomorrow when shit happens, and when your loved one is dead, you'd be joining the army and shoot those mother fucker out. And then you will come out and say "I wish I had those stupid TSA did their job".
If we moved every man, woman, and child on Earth to the Moon, there's at least a 40% chance they would survive a catastrophic meteor strike to the Earth.
That doesn't make it a good idea.
There's always a cost and in this case (TSA or moving to the Moon) it's a ridiculously high one to pay for marginal protection against an unlikely event.
That doesn't make it a good idea.
There's always a cost and in this case (TSA or moving to the Moon) it's a ridiculously high one to pay for marginal protection against an unlikely event.
So, in the case of TSA, convenience outweigh than 1% of safety because of 40% of increase in both convenience and pleasant experience.
The conclusion that an attack is unlikely to happen is based on what? Can we do a fair experiment to show what would the probability be like if we never implemented this TSA inspection vs after implementing this TSA inspection?
Should we conduct such experiment and watch an alert (or wait until another plan gets hijacked)?
Okay. I need a new solution. What is the solution? I don't need a "we will die let's move on solution" because this is not a solution. If this is were a solution, we don't need law enforcement.
The conclusion that an attack is unlikely to happen is based on what? Can we do a fair experiment to show what would the probability be like if we never implemented this TSA inspection vs after implementing this TSA inspection?
Should we conduct such experiment and watch an alert (or wait until another plan gets hijacked)?
Okay. I need a new solution. What is the solution? I don't need a "we will die let's move on solution" because this is not a solution. If this is were a solution, we don't need law enforcement.
Bingo. The fact that there isn't a viable threat is demonstrated (ok, not proven) by the fact that a large number of completely undefended obvious attack vectors pursuant to terrorist goals have not been abused over a very long time.
At some point the damage by TSA surpassed the expected damage from the alleged threat.
At some point the damage by TSA surpassed the expected damage from the alleged threat.
It's a less effective tactic, though. More people are terrified by the thought of being blown out of the sky than they are of being blown out of a long, boring line.
Airline terrorism plays against people's innate fears, and is therefore more effective.
Airline terrorism plays against people's innate fears, and is therefore more effective.
you could kill the most just by mass shooting in a shopping mall, who needs an airport line.
yet we caught at least two people trying to blow up airplanes in the last ten years (shoe bomber and underwear bomber), why is that? why don't they just shoot up a grade school or a supermarket? (I'm asking honestly here. why airplanes?)
yet we caught at least two people trying to blow up airplanes in the last ten years (shoe bomber and underwear bomber), why is that? why don't they just shoot up a grade school or a supermarket? (I'm asking honestly here. why airplanes?)
Because airplanes are so highly leverageable from a single act into overreactionary freedom-stifling societal damage. One shoe bomber and now billions of traveler-hours are wasted shoeless at the checkpoints. Airplanes have so many eyes on them and every involved entity must overreact to prove We Are Doing Something.
Grade schools wouldn't have the same impact because the control is more localized. There's no federal Education Security Administration imposing gropefests everywhere in response to Newtown. Some schools and places will overreact, but a small proportion.
Grade schools wouldn't have the same impact because the control is more localized. There's no federal Education Security Administration imposing gropefests everywhere in response to Newtown. Some schools and places will overreact, but a small proportion.
This is something I've wondered at: shopping malls/big box retailers on Black Friday are perfect targets for terrorists. The economic damage you could do to the US for comparatively little investment is pretty high if properly timed. And you'd inculcate significant fear of public spaces for years to come.
It's not as cinematic as 9/11, but if you're looking to hurt the US, it's a pretty good choice.
It's not as cinematic as 9/11, but if you're looking to hurt the US, it's a pretty good choice.
One thing I find terrorists pretty stupid is that they can literally do anything any average individual could do to harm hundreds of people but they choose to organize in the hardest fashion. I just don't understand their stupid mind!
Glad I don't - otherwise I would be a terrorist :( HOLY SHIT
Glad I don't - otherwise I would be a terrorist :( HOLY SHIT
Or drive several vans with just gas and rush into the airport during holiday. You don't even need a bomb. Just leak the gas and light a match and boom.
I think you have made a good point that others are ignoring. Surely TSA scan is not very effective, but what the heck else do we do?
* intel is too powerful, stupid PRISM is hurting everyone's privacy
* TSA is destroying privacy
* I don't know what else to do
What else do we do? I am constantly afraid of someone hijacking my flight.
I think you have made a good point that others are ignoring. Surely TSA scan is not very effective, but what the heck else do we do?
* intel is too powerful, stupid PRISM is hurting everyone's privacy
* TSA is destroying privacy
* I don't know what else to do
What else do we do? I am constantly afraid of someone hijacking my flight.
"Have you ever been in line in a long TSA queue at a major airport? See anybody get scanned before getting in that line?"
Let's not give them any ideas...
Let's not give them any ideas...
I think we're well passed giving them ideas; there's a FPS mission designed around the concept of the attack:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call_...
Too late. The Boston Marathon bombings should have made large crowds at airport security checks a critical priority to get rid of. But noooo.
You know what the answer is to 9/11-style events? Locking cockpit doors. And that's what they did after 9/11. Passengers now know what's at stake too. So, while bad things can happen, another 9/11 can't happen again (and as such, the TSA does nothing to prevent it anyway).
To further this point...we can either continue to incur the cost and overhead of reacting to every terrible event that happens and changing things to prevent that particular edge case, or we can accept that bad things sometimes happen to good people and simply keep calm and carry on.
I think we're ultimately better served by the latter approach.
I think we're ultimately better served by the latter approach.
Also there is one actually proven method to deterring terrorist events like 9/11.
Four planes were hi-jacked. Three of those did not know that the outcome was to crash the plane into a building. But one did, and (as far as we know) the people aboard prevented that.
If the American people would simply have been informed that terrorists didn't want to steal planes, but instead fly them into target then 9/11 would have turned out very differently. And we know this because we have proof.
Four planes were hi-jacked. Three of those did not know that the outcome was to crash the plane into a building. But one did, and (as far as we know) the people aboard prevented that.
If the American people would simply have been informed that terrorists didn't want to steal planes, but instead fly them into target then 9/11 would have turned out very differently. And we know this because we have proof.
Exactly.
The solution to this threat was dispelling the notion "getting hijacked means a short vacation to Cuba" and replacing it with "getting hijacked means that I get to kick a terrorist's face in".
This solution was implemented and successfully tested on the morning of 9/11/2001.
The solution to this threat was dispelling the notion "getting hijacked means a short vacation to Cuba" and replacing it with "getting hijacked means that I get to kick a terrorist's face in".
This solution was implemented and successfully tested on the morning of 9/11/2001.
The TSA did not exist prior to 9/11/2001.
Elements of various intelligence community agencies were aware of a 9/11-style plot and were aware of the hijackers' existence within the United States. If these existing agencies had worked together and done their job, 9/11 might never have happened.
All without anyone removing their belts, frisking grandma, or having to stand like a perp in a county lock-up.
Elements of various intelligence community agencies were aware of a 9/11-style plot and were aware of the hijackers' existence within the United States. If these existing agencies had worked together and done their job, 9/11 might never have happened.
All without anyone removing their belts, frisking grandma, or having to stand like a perp in a county lock-up.
that is very interesting. were the people scanning the luggage and such beforehand just hired by individual airports?
I've no issue with restructuring TSA or whatnot, I just think that if people could get on airplanes the way they do buses, there'd be events. Not so much 9/11 style hijackings, more like the occasional pipe bomb or shooting.
I've no issue with restructuring TSA or whatnot, I just think that if people could get on airplanes the way they do buses, there'd be events. Not so much 9/11 style hijackings, more like the occasional pipe bomb or shooting.
Yes, prior to 9/11 airports would hire private companies to do their security checks. This was often why different airports would have different degrees of thoroughness; I recall a trip through Kansas City in the mid-90s where I was amazed (and annoyed) that I had to turn on my laptop, despite never having to do that for dozens of trips elsewhere.
Today they call that, "By design".
Good way to cover up the fact that there's no consistency in the organization.
Good way to cover up the fact that there's no consistency in the organization.
What about the lines? People don't get felt up or forced through machines to wait in the lines to get felt up or forced through machines.
I fail to see how someone couldn't just bomb the lines with the exact same effect you're describing above.
I'd much rather prefer volunteering to use a private company's services freely without force or coercion, and risk dying randomly, then be harassed and embarrassed and risk dying randomly.
I fail to see how someone couldn't just bomb the lines with the exact same effect you're describing above.
I'd much rather prefer volunteering to use a private company's services freely without force or coercion, and risk dying randomly, then be harassed and embarrassed and risk dying randomly.
You raise a good (and horrifying) point.
If your goal, as a terrorist organization, was to economically wound an industry while killing as many individuals as possible... you really couldn't ask for a better target than dozens (if not hundreds) of people standing around waiting to get through airport security.
Clearly, the solution is to have some pre-security security checks. /s
If your goal, as a terrorist organization, was to economically wound an industry while killing as many individuals as possible... you really couldn't ask for a better target than dozens (if not hundreds) of people standing around waiting to get through airport security.
Clearly, the solution is to have some pre-security security checks. /s
Sadly, you're suggestion will be mentioned if this happens I'm sure. But instead of a physical step before the gates, it will be a mental one. What place could you check people prior to them being physically checked before boarding?
When they think about using an airplane. When someone thinks about travelling, the TSA will locate and travel to them, and direct the citizen through their thought crime machine. If you refuse, then the TSA strip search you and inspect your orifices in public, which will also be the next step from private rooms. /s
Security is a feeling. Also, there are events and odds. The events and odds don't make me feel like policy is needed for me to feel safe travelling IMO. What happens happens. If someone tries to logically attempt to cast blame upon a party for something like a bombing for not preemptively stopping it, then I'll just point to the math surrounding the TSA. IT MAKES NO SENSE.
When they think about using an airplane. When someone thinks about travelling, the TSA will locate and travel to them, and direct the citizen through their thought crime machine. If you refuse, then the TSA strip search you and inspect your orifices in public, which will also be the next step from private rooms. /s
Security is a feeling. Also, there are events and odds. The events and odds don't make me feel like policy is needed for me to feel safe travelling IMO. What happens happens. If someone tries to logically attempt to cast blame upon a party for something like a bombing for not preemptively stopping it, then I'll just point to the math surrounding the TSA. IT MAKES NO SENSE.
if the TSA were abolished I'm pretty sure the airlines/airports would still have security. I think a majority of US passengers wouldn't be comfortable getting on a plane where there were absolutely no security of any kind up front.
Too bad the government makes that choice. I'd assume that if people, or consumers of travelling via airplane, were as you say, cautious about travel, a free market alternative would be better than the TSA.
That said, you're right. But lines, inspections, and "lists", are largerly unnecessary. You have guards walking around, and a federal agent on each plane.
All that I'm saying, is that I'd rather not have to subsidise security for air travel. Let the market sort it out.
That said, you're right. But lines, inspections, and "lists", are largerly unnecessary. You have guards walking around, and a federal agent on each plane.
All that I'm saying, is that I'd rather not have to subsidise security for air travel. Let the market sort it out.
well that sounds more like a standard libertarian vs. socialized angle which is IMO a different issue.
I don't see how guards walking around could have much of an impact. if they aren't looking in my bag, I can have anything in there, and once in the confined environment of a plane, I can do a lot before any air marshal shuts it down.
Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror. Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.
I don't see how guards walking around could have much of an impact. if they aren't looking in my bag, I can have anything in there, and once in the confined environment of a plane, I can do a lot before any air marshal shuts it down.
Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror. Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.
> Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror.
The difference being? I'm sorry. Wasn't the Boston terrorist attack not on a plane? Didn't that kill people. In my opinion terror is an emotion, and people can feel that in a variety of situations depending on who they are. Killing a bunch of people, as an event, rarely happens.
So why do you want to force and coerce me? This isn't a libertarian v. socialist argument. It's a libertarian v. authoritarian argument. Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way?
No offense, but that's no way to live IMO. I'd much rather take the risk. I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us. But for now there's only one solution: That of political theatre.
Please don't get offended as I'm not attacking you, just bad policy. If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here. You can definitely make a point in that most people don't care either way, but I'd like to think that a majority of people who are interested in terrorism (lol NSA) from a philosophical see policy like this authoritarian at best, and evil and conspiratorial at worst.
> Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.
Source? Again, terror is a vague definition of an emotion which is dependent on internal characteristics and machinations of each individual who knows the word and feels emotion. I'd love to see their parameters for that word.
That said, I'm sorry if we disagree that air travel needs to be so tightly regulated. I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective. I can definitely do the same for my end, by directing you to this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/
Regulation can be a little bad for history. While 1970's regs sound pretty scary (I'll have to check that stat out myself), 2000 sounds better than now...
The difference being? I'm sorry. Wasn't the Boston terrorist attack not on a plane? Didn't that kill people. In my opinion terror is an emotion, and people can feel that in a variety of situations depending on who they are. Killing a bunch of people, as an event, rarely happens.
So why do you want to force and coerce me? This isn't a libertarian v. socialist argument. It's a libertarian v. authoritarian argument. Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way?
No offense, but that's no way to live IMO. I'd much rather take the risk. I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us. But for now there's only one solution: That of political theatre.
Please don't get offended as I'm not attacking you, just bad policy. If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here. You can definitely make a point in that most people don't care either way, but I'd like to think that a majority of people who are interested in terrorism (lol NSA) from a philosophical see policy like this authoritarian at best, and evil and conspiratorial at worst.
> Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.
Source? Again, terror is a vague definition of an emotion which is dependent on internal characteristics and machinations of each individual who knows the word and feels emotion. I'd love to see their parameters for that word.
That said, I'm sorry if we disagree that air travel needs to be so tightly regulated. I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective. I can definitely do the same for my end, by directing you to this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/
Regulation can be a little bad for history. While 1970's regs sound pretty scary (I'll have to check that stat out myself), 2000 sounds better than now...
> Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way?
not really, no, this seems like you're responding to something else here.
> I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us.
how exactly, I'd pick one airport and you'd pick another ? I'm not sure that's very practical in many situations.
> If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here.
I know how they feel, the TSA is an offensive, incompetent and heavy handed group, combating a so called "issue" that in reality is not an issue at all. The HN community looks at issues in a statistical fashion - terrorist attacks kill extremely few people, so there's really no reason anyone should care about them, slipping in the shower is a much greater hazard. If only the rest of the world could think like they do, nobody would care about terrorism and it would just go away. I look forward to when that comes to fruition.
> I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective.
Well I'm not speaking from any authoritative background here but I'd guess that the average US traveler would prefer there be some level of airport screening (probably not at the crazy levels we have at the moment with the TSA) not for any sociological or philosophical viewpoint but probably more like a "hey can't someone sneak a bomb onto the plane here?" kind of standpoint - which sure is informed by the media and all that, and statistically is an insignificant threat, but there you go. (so perhaps the psychological perspective is the primary mechanism at play here).
not really, no, this seems like you're responding to something else here.
> I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us.
how exactly, I'd pick one airport and you'd pick another ? I'm not sure that's very practical in many situations.
> If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here.
I know how they feel, the TSA is an offensive, incompetent and heavy handed group, combating a so called "issue" that in reality is not an issue at all. The HN community looks at issues in a statistical fashion - terrorist attacks kill extremely few people, so there's really no reason anyone should care about them, slipping in the shower is a much greater hazard. If only the rest of the world could think like they do, nobody would care about terrorism and it would just go away. I look forward to when that comes to fruition.
> I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective.
Well I'm not speaking from any authoritative background here but I'd guess that the average US traveler would prefer there be some level of airport screening (probably not at the crazy levels we have at the moment with the TSA) not for any sociological or philosophical viewpoint but probably more like a "hey can't someone sneak a bomb onto the plane here?" kind of standpoint - which sure is informed by the media and all that, and statistically is an insignificant threat, but there you go. (so perhaps the psychological perspective is the primary mechanism at play here).
You're right. It would be best if they just eased back on the implementation. I don't care if it's the TSA or the airports doing it really. If things get better that be good, if things get worse that would be bad in terms of my perspective on travelling to the US.
As things stand now, the only way I'm going into the US is from Montreal down into Vermont. Any other way seems to sketchy to me.
In my country of Canada, flying from place to place within the country only requires walking past guards that don't do anything to you at the gate, and metal detectors. I haven't flown to different countries, so I'm sure I'm being too idealistic and naive on this subject, especially in terms of actual policy.
As things stand now, the only way I'm going into the US is from Montreal down into Vermont. Any other way seems to sketchy to me.
In my country of Canada, flying from place to place within the country only requires walking past guards that don't do anything to you at the gate, and metal detectors. I haven't flown to different countries, so I'm sure I'm being too idealistic and naive on this subject, especially in terms of actual policy.
> but if there were no airline security, you can be sure events will occur.
Eh, concert ticket queues, malls, the line for the actual TSA.
Plenty of opportunities outside of airline related things, and I don't see anything about your local mall foodcourt getting hit. My person wasn't fondled the last time I got some Panda Express.
Eh, concert ticket queues, malls, the line for the actual TSA.
Plenty of opportunities outside of airline related things, and I don't see anything about your local mall foodcourt getting hit. My person wasn't fondled the last time I got some Panda Express.
> The TSA was unaware of 9/11 as well.
Of course not- it wasn't formed until after the attacks.
Of course not- it wasn't formed until after the attacks.
This article was not about having no airline security. It was about how ridiculous the TSA body scanners/nude search/patdowns are. There is a difference.
the article was specifically about actual plots to attack airplanes: "No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US". And that since there's no evidence of any plots, therefore we don't need a TSA. This is a crappy argument because airplane attacks are known to have occurred in the past without warning. Attack the TSA on their corruptness/ineffectiveness/ineptitude fine, but not based on "nobody wants to attack airplanes anyway", the evidence suggests otherwise on that. If "no terrorist plots" truly means "airplanes are inherently safe from attack", then the logical conclusion is that no security whatsoever should be needed.
your argument is a strawman: "no evidence => no TSA / no aircraft-boarding security." that is clearly not a rebuttal of the argument that is presented, which is that the TSA has previously presented the existence of terrorist plots against aviation as a reason for sticking their hands down passengers' pants and performing nude scans of passengers. but the TSA's reasons have turned out to be false, so therefore we should not let the TSA stick their hands down passengers' pants nor perform nude scans of passengers
Re-reading of the article, I don't see where the TSA claims that known future terrorist plots are the rationale for their actions, though perhaps this is something that was claimed to which this article is referring. My understanding was that the TSA's rationale was based on actual events that have occurred, e.g. 9/11, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo...) which was the impetus for banning liquids through checkpoints, e.g. these are actual plots that were executed or discovered prior to execution. Using the facts of actual plots is a more compelling argument than claiming "we know of more plots" which turn out to not exist - I'm not seeing that claim being made here.
Events WILL occur, with or without security. And they will also occur at malls, schools, places of work, and sports stadiums. but the solution isn't to treat every customer as a criminal. Especially when it doesn't solve any problems.
Free cavity searches for all. Taxpayer dollars at work right there.
I prefer the term "Freedom Fondle".
in fact your probably paying ~$2.50 per flight to get fondled and berated at the airport - ever noticed that "September 11th Security Fee" when you buy a ticket...
Perhaps what the actually conclusion one should take from this memo is not that terrorists don't exist, clearly they do, but rather that those terrorists are now focusing on softer targets, because aviation is seen as too difficult. I realize this may be an unpopular opinion, because let's face it the TSA searches are demeaning and some might argue an invasion of privacy. But it seems like a non sequitur to say that because terrorists aren't focusing on aviation that they don't exist. Maybe aviation is hard to hit, and they want to focus on easier targets like shooting up malls.
Perhaps what's happenng here is that terrorists would like to target aviation, but TSA is doing just a good enough job to dissuade them. I know, blasphemy. The government can't do anything right.
Perhaps what's happenng here is that terrorists would like to target aviation, but TSA is doing just a good enough job to dissuade them. I know, blasphemy. The government can't do anything right.
Take about 60 seconds to think about how, if you were a terrorist tasked with blowing up an airplane, you would do it. Do you really think the TSA would stop you? And if they did, would you really get fewer virgins if you had to use your Plan B of blowing up the security checkpoint with maybe 100 people and a couple dozen federal employees, instead of your intended target?
Or, attack some softer target. And I just love how my post was modded down, no rebuttal because everyone hates the TSA. My assertion still stands, it's far more reasonable to conclude that terrorists have moved on to other targets, as we saw in Kenya, because they have no security and rarely have any armed capability even near by to respond.
No doubt attacking the security line at the airport is a soft target, but no mo where near as soft as a mall. An airport may detect the attacker on the way to the line, you still have to buy a ticket. A mall, no chance. Are the lines a security risk? You bet, it's why I'm glad my GOES account keeps me out of them and thru the quick TSA-Pre line.
But hey, this is all blasphemy anyway, the TSA sucks, Al Qaeda was defeated, and the government desperately wants to keep lying to you so they can look at the outline of someone's body.
No doubt attacking the security line at the airport is a soft target, but no mo where near as soft as a mall. An airport may detect the attacker on the way to the line, you still have to buy a ticket. A mall, no chance. Are the lines a security risk? You bet, it's why I'm glad my GOES account keeps me out of them and thru the quick TSA-Pre line.
But hey, this is all blasphemy anyway, the TSA sucks, Al Qaeda was defeated, and the government desperately wants to keep lying to you so they can look at the outline of someone's body.
But that's the point, the only significant 'hardening' of airliners as potential targets has been by armoring the cockpit doors and the awareness of the passengers, the porno-scanners are meaningless in that regard.
And the justifications previously offered for said porno-scanners have turned out to be bogus. The plots mentioned that were disrupted were disrupted by other means such as sigint and humint. So why not continue to invest in the means and methods that work, and cut from the budget the ones that never did?
And the justifications previously offered for said porno-scanners have turned out to be bogus. The plots mentioned that were disrupted were disrupted by other means such as sigint and humint. So why not continue to invest in the means and methods that work, and cut from the budget the ones that never did?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-scre...