7 ms·

It's easy to say that TSA sucks (it does), but it's hard to propose a workable alternative. Well alternative 1, stop making us take off our shoes and taking out

It's easy to say that TSA sucks (it does), but it's hard to propose a workable alternative. Well alternative 1, stop making us take off our shoes and taking out our laptops, its clear from pre-check that it's not really necessary. You need some security. That was clear before 9-11. Airports had security and it was pretty similar to how TSA does it right now. You put your bags on an Xray machine, show your ID, and walk through a metal detector. I'd suggest keeping the government in charge of what procedures to use, but then using private contracts to actually manage the airport security. The real problem with TSA isn't that it is intrusive. It's that is terrible mismanaged and has no incentive to improve the experience. Although apparently airports can opt out of the TSA.

Retric 10y ago
I am not convinced you need more security for aircraft than a bus. As long as there is a solid wall between pilots and passengers, the worst a passenger could do would be to take down an aircraft which is much harder than you might assume.
- cm3 10y ago
  Please don't give them ideas. I like relaxed train rides and would hate having to go through the intrusive time waste and annoyance anytime I step foot on a train station. I don't like flying because there are so many annoyances these days. The money grab is another problem. I cannot bring fluids through security but I can buy as many bottles of liquor and alcoholised fluids as I want before boarding. I'm surprised nobody sued to change that.
  - a_c_s 10y ago
    You can bring a water bottle: most airports now have water bottle filling stations alongside their drinking fountains.
    - cm3 10y ago
      Haven't seen those in Europe yet. There's enough stuff sold after the security check which can be used for mixtures one could cause problems with. There's food, liquor, batteries, electronics, smokes, lighters, watches, power outlets, and many other things after the security check. You can even buy clothes there. If I didn't know the outcome would be more restrictions, I'd love for an investigative journalist to go through there with an expert and have them build a chaos device of some sort just with elements bought after the security check. If somebody did this on media, it wouldn't help fix the theater, we would only get more restrictions, although I hope that wouldn't be the case.
- rhino369 10y ago
  >As long as there is a solid wall between pilots and passengers, the worst a passenger could do would be to take down an aircraft which is much harder than you might assume. This is a pretty bad worst case scenario! That really only prevents a kamikaze scenario. Most terrorism against airplanes has been either blowing it up or hijacking for hostages. Blowing up an airplane is a solved problem. It's been done many times.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
lisper 10y ago
> it's hard to propose a workable alternative No, actually, it's really easy. > You need some security. That was clear before 9-11. No, it was not clear then, and it is not clear now. There are two salient facts: 1. When tested, the TSA misses 90% or so of the weapons people try to smuggle past them 2. Notwithstanding #1, there have been zero successful terrorist attack on aircraft in the U.S. since 9-11. So it is far from clear that there is actually a problem that needs to be solved (other than people freaking out about an insignificant risk, which is a real problem).
- bluetidepro 10y ago
  The problem with the "there have been zero successful terrorist attack on aircraft in the U.S. since 9-11." statement is they use that for their advantage. They say that because of them this is a fact. Ugh.
  - Zelphyr 10y ago
    Except, as Bruce Schneier notes, there were zero 9-11 level attacks on the US prior to 9-11 as well. 9-11 was a statistical fluke.
    - lisper 10y ago
      Not quite a statistical fluke. The 9-11 hijackers took advantage of the fact that they could count on the passengers and crew to cooperate because they would assume that this hijacking was like all the others before and cooperation provided the best odds of survival. But the 9-11 hijackers defected (in the sense of the prisoner's dilemma). As a result, no one will ever cooperate with a hijacker again, and as a result of that, no remotely sane person will ever attempt to hijack an airplane again.
      - bluetidepro 10y ago
        > "no remotely sane person". Sane probably isn't the right word. I'd argue the hijackers were indeed sane by definition. They were more so misguided than insane.
capote 10y ago
> it's hard to propose a workable alternative. No, it's not. The article proposed it, airports are already considering it, and even you proposed it (see next quote). > I'd suggest keeping the government in charge of what procedures to use, but then using private contracts to actually manage the airport security.
setpatchaddress 10y ago
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/reassessing_air.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/reassessing_a...
avn2109 10y ago
All those problems you mention are real, but they're not the main problem. The real problem with the TSA is that it's explicitly unconstitutional, since the 4th amendment explicitly prohibits search and seizure without a warrant. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This does not at all describe the operation of the TSA's search and seizure. Notably, the statute's language makes no allowance for implicit consent based on location or attempting to use some private transportation system. A sensible compromise is to privatize airline security, since the constitution does not prohibit Delta employees from searching and seizing without a warrant.
- goodcanadian 10y ago
  Airport security was tested in the Supreme Court back in the 70s when it was new. Due largely to the fact that it reduced hijackings to almost nil, the court ruled that it was a reasonable exception. That said, my personal opinion leans closer to your position.
- rhino369 10y ago
  It's reasonable to get searched walking onto someone's airplane.
  - avn2109 10y ago
    Yes, by employees of the organization operating that airplane. Notably, the constitution does not prohibit search and seizure performed by airline employees who are unaffiliated with the government.
- ecopoesis 10y ago
  Buying a plane ticket implies a consent to search.
- Dayshine 10y ago
  Huh? Surely an organisation (i.e. an airline, an airport) can enforce searches as part of the conditions of travel.
sowbug 10y ago
> it's hard to propose a workable alternative How about recognizing that 9/11 was a troll, and we fell for it? The attackers hated the U.S.'s idea of freedom, but they were too powerless to take away our freedom. So they figured out a clever way to make us take away our own freedom ourselves. And yep, we did exactly that. We honor U.S. military who defend our freedom with their lives. They value freedom more than personal safety, and we respect them for doing that. So why does the rest of our society pick the opposite and humiliate ourselves daily by choosing personal safety over freedom? Why have millions of us agreed to walk around in socks at airports just because some jerk tried to scare us 15 years ago? A "workable alternative" would be what the Flight 93 people did: beat the living daylights out of people who act up. That approach has worked for tens of thousands of years. Yeah, sometimes you'll get killed, but most of the time you won't, just like our honored military. But most important you'll stop being trolled.
- navait 10y ago
  > How about recognizing that 9/11 was a troll, and we fell for it? The attackers hated the U.S.'s idea of freedom, but they were too powerless to take away our freedom. So they figured out a clever way to make us take away our own freedom ourselves. And yep, we did exactly that. They didn't attack us because they "hate our freedom". Sure, they don't like western lifestyles or values, but that's not the primary reason we're enemies. Al-queda intends to establish a caliphate in the Muslim world, and part of that involves attacking allies of the countries that get in the way of that. Please stop repeating this falsehood. The TSA is horrible for our freedom and completely ineffective at protecting our safety, but we can't evaluate how to deal with these issues if we subscribe to a flawed model of why terrorism is.
  - sowbug 10y ago
    That's good feedback. I don't understand the dynamics of the Middle East well enough, and as a fallback, it's easier to think in us-vs.-them dichotomies.
    - navait 10y ago
0xfeba 10y ago
The shoe bomb attempt, the liquid attempt, underwear attempt, all happened AFTER the TSA checkpoint, in the aircraft. All the new measures were applied as a reaction--after the fact. The TSA didn't prevent those terrorist attacks--the people on the plain, luck/ineptitude did.
chrismcb 10y ago
Workable alternative: Get rid of TSA, remove the screening process. Done. We will be as safe in the air as we are today. Just as many "terrorists" will get on the plane as get on today. The real problem with TSA is it doesn't actually solve the problem, and it costs money and time. There is no point to it, so get rid of it. The nation will save more money and time, and in the long run more lives.

Retric 10y ago

I am not convinced you need more security for aircraft than a bus. As long as there is a solid wall between pilots and passengers, the worst a passenger could do would be to take down an aircraft which is much harder than you might assume.

cm3 10y ago
Please don't give them ideas. I like relaxed train rides and would hate having to go through the intrusive time waste and annoyance anytime I step foot on a train station. I don't like flying because there are so many annoyances these days. The money grab is another problem. I cannot bring fluids through security but I can buy as many bottles of liquor and alcoholised fluids as I want before boarding. I'm surprised nobody sued to change that.
- a_c_s 10y ago
  You can bring a water bottle: most airports now have water bottle filling stations alongside their drinking fountains.
  - cm3 10y ago
    Haven't seen those in Europe yet. There's enough stuff sold after the security check which can be used for mixtures one could cause problems with. There's food, liquor, batteries, electronics, smokes, lighters, watches, power outlets, and many other things after the security check. You can even buy clothes there. If I didn't know the outcome would be more restrictions, I'd love for an investigative journalist to go through there with an expert and have them build a chaos device of some sort just with elements bought after the security check. If somebody did this on media, it wouldn't help fix the theater, we would only get more restrictions, although I hope that wouldn't be the case.
rhino369 10y ago
>As long as there is a solid wall between pilots and passengers, the worst a passenger could do would be to take down an aircraft which is much harder than you might assume. This is a pretty bad worst case scenario! That really only prevents a kamikaze scenario. Most terrorism against airplanes has been either blowing it up or hijacking for hostages. Blowing up an airplane is a solved problem. It's been done many times.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

lisper 10y ago

> it's hard to propose a workable alternative No, actually, it's really easy. > You need some security. That was clear before 9-11. No, it was not clear then, and it is not clear now. There are two salient facts: 1. When tested, the TSA misses 90% or so of the weapons people try to smuggle past them 2. Notwithstanding #1, there have been zero successful terrorist attack on aircraft in the U.S. since 9-11. So it is far from clear that there is actually a problem that needs to be solved (other than people freaking out about an insignificant risk, which is a real problem).

bluetidepro 10y ago
The problem with the "there have been zero successful terrorist attack on aircraft in the U.S. since 9-11." statement is they use that for their advantage. They say that because of them this is a fact. Ugh.
- Zelphyr 10y ago
  Except, as Bruce Schneier notes, there were zero 9-11 level attacks on the US prior to 9-11 as well. 9-11 was a statistical fluke.
  - lisper 10y ago
    Not quite a statistical fluke. The 9-11 hijackers took advantage of the fact that they could count on the passengers and crew to cooperate because they would assume that this hijacking was like all the others before and cooperation provided the best odds of survival. But the 9-11 hijackers defected (in the sense of the prisoner's dilemma). As a result, no one will ever cooperate with a hijacker again, and as a result of that, no remotely sane person will ever attempt to hijack an airplane again.
    - bluetidepro 10y ago
      > "no remotely sane person". Sane probably isn't the right word. I'd argue the hijackers were indeed sane by definition. They were more so misguided than insane.

capote 10y ago

> it's hard to propose a workable alternative. No, it's not. The article proposed it, airports are already considering it, and even you proposed it (see next quote). > I'd suggest keeping the government in charge of what procedures to use, but then using private contracts to actually manage the airport security.

setpatchaddress 10y ago

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/reassessing_air.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/reassessing_a...

avn2109 10y ago

All those problems you mention are real, but they're not the main problem. The real problem with the TSA is that it's explicitly unconstitutional, since the 4th amendment explicitly prohibits search and seizure without a warrant. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This does not at all describe the operation of the TSA's search and seizure. Notably, the statute's language makes no allowance for implicit consent based on location or attempting to use some private transportation system. A sensible compromise is to privatize airline security, since the constitution does not prohibit Delta employees from searching and seizing without a warrant.

goodcanadian 10y ago
Airport security was tested in the Supreme Court back in the 70s when it was new. Due largely to the fact that it reduced hijackings to almost nil, the court ruled that it was a reasonable exception. That said, my personal opinion leans closer to your position.
rhino369 10y ago
It's reasonable to get searched walking onto someone's airplane.
- avn2109 10y ago
  Yes, by employees of the organization operating that airplane. Notably, the constitution does not prohibit search and seizure performed by airline employees who are unaffiliated with the government.
ecopoesis 10y ago
Buying a plane ticket implies a consent to search.
Dayshine 10y ago
Huh? Surely an organisation (i.e. an airline, an airport) can enforce searches as part of the conditions of travel.

sowbug 10y ago

> it's hard to propose a workable alternative How about recognizing that 9/11 was a troll, and we fell for it? The attackers hated the U.S.'s idea of freedom, but they were too powerless to take away our freedom. So they figured out a clever way to make us take away our own freedom ourselves. And yep, we did exactly that. We honor U.S. military who defend our freedom with their lives. They value freedom more than personal safety, and we respect them for doing that. So why does the rest of our society pick the opposite and humiliate ourselves daily by choosing personal safety over freedom? Why have millions of us agreed to walk around in socks at airports just because some jerk tried to scare us 15 years ago? A "workable alternative" would be what the Flight 93 people did: beat the living daylights out of people who act up. That approach has worked for tens of thousands of years. Yeah, sometimes you'll get killed, but most of the time you won't, just like our honored military. But most important you'll stop being trolled.

navait 10y ago
> How about recognizing that 9/11 was a troll, and we fell for it? The attackers hated the U.S.'s idea of freedom, but they were too powerless to take away our freedom. So they figured out a clever way to make us take away our own freedom ourselves. And yep, we did exactly that. They didn't attack us because they "hate our freedom". Sure, they don't like western lifestyles or values, but that's not the primary reason we're enemies. Al-queda intends to establish a caliphate in the Muslim world, and part of that involves attacking allies of the countries that get in the way of that. Please stop repeating this falsehood. The TSA is horrible for our freedom and completely ineffective at protecting our safety, but we can't evaluate how to deal with these issues if we subscribe to a flawed model of why terrorism is.
- sowbug 10y ago
  That's good feedback. I don't understand the dynamics of the Middle East well enough, and as a fallback, it's easier to think in us-vs.-them dichotomies.
  - navait 10y ago

0xfeba 10y ago

The shoe bomb attempt, the liquid attempt, underwear attempt, all happened AFTER the TSA checkpoint, in the aircraft. All the new measures were applied as a reaction--after the fact. The TSA didn't prevent those terrorist attacks--the people on the plain, luck/ineptitude did.

chrismcb 10y ago

Workable alternative: Get rid of TSA, remove the screening process. Done. We will be as safe in the air as we are today. Just as many "terrorists" will get on the plane as get on today. The real problem with TSA is it doesn't actually solve the problem, and it costs money and time. There is no point to it, so get rid of it. The nation will save more money and time, and in the long run more lives.