4 ms·

> Can you think of a way of changing the process that would result in a net benefit for everyone? That one's easy: Getting rid of the TSA alltogether.

by yoo1I 10y ago

nmeofthestate 10y ago
No screening at all? That'd certainly be interesting.
- yoo1I 10y ago
  For starters it wouldn't lower overall security by all that much[0] [0] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...
  - blowski 10y ago
    So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? I sure as hell wouldn't. I don't know what I don't know about international security. I don't have access to the NSA and CIA files about international terrorism. Sure, some of it is overplayed for certain people's agendas, but it's very clearly an actual risk that needs actual solutions. The TSA may not be the best one, but if it was removed, it would need to be replaced by something that would probably end up looking very similar.
    - gonzo 10y ago
      > So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? Yes.
      - blowski 10y ago
        Do you think people aren't trying to attack planes, or that the TSA has zero effectiveness in stopping those people?
        ascagnel_ 10y ago
        The latter. The TSA screening process (a recent report had them pegged at 5% effectiveness[0]) is next to worthless and itself creates a security hazard/potential attack vector. The TSA screening process is also entirely reactionary -- shoe removal only became a thing after an attacker tried to hide explosives in their shoes. If the TSA was pro-active and had a reasonable degree of effectiveness, then I'd be more willing to put up with it. As it stands, the $85 pre-check fee is more of a "pay us money and we won't actively put you at risk for no benefit" fee. [0] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...
        blowski 10y ago
        How would you make it more effective?
        scholia 10y ago
        You could remove the TSA and let airlines do their own security checks at the gate. Airlines really don't want their planes hi-jacked.
        blowski 10y ago
        Surely that would just defer the problem? Plus, the airlines now have to buy all their own equipment, train their own staff. At the moment, they are 'outsourcing' their airport security to the TSA. I suppose they could each choose which security checks they are going to carry out, but how would they choose? Based on recommendations from something that looks like the TSA? It's not clear to me that the airlines would want this responsibility, or would do a better job at it than the TSA.
        MaulingMonkey 10y ago
        > Surely that would just defer the problem? Plus, the airlines now have to buy all their own equipment, train their own staff. At the moment, they are 'outsourcing' their airport security to the TSA. An obvious solution: outsource to not-the-TSA. Say, local security contractors at the airports they operate at, possibly pooling resources with other airlines if there's economies of scale to be had there. Or perhaps a security company employing former security personnel from Israel's airports? I hear they've done pretty well by focusing on the human element. > I suppose they could each choose which security checks they are going to carry out, but how would they choose? I'm sure private security companies have plenty of suggestions for things they can upsell you on. There's all kinds of profit motives that simply aren't there in the public sector. This allows some diversification as well: Those interested in flying 'safely' can be swayed by airline X's advertisements about their thorough security procedures, and those not interested in security theater can be swayed by airline Y's advertisements about their no-hassle boarding. > Based on recommendations from something that looks like the TSA? Goodness no. At a 5% effectiveness rate, I suspect you'd have better odds winging it. > It's not clear to me that the airlines would want this responsibility, or would do a better job at it than the TSA. I'm sure they don't want the responsibility. Responsibility sucks. This article can be read as the TSA avoiding any of that nasty stuff! But the more relevant question is if foisting responsibility for security upon airlines would be effective. As for doing better than the TSA: That's a low bar, so why not try such a scheme? Best case scenario, it works, clearing the whole issue right up. Worst case scenario: Nothing of value was lost, and we can try something else.
    - orph4nus 10y ago
      Why? What about busses, trains, boats and so many others busy places. I don't see any TSA there, and I don't see anything happening there. I'm also pretty convinced that the liquid restrictions are purely for commercial reasons, as you can still bring enough liquid, separated over small bottles and multiple people if needed. Afterwards you can simply buy a bigger container in the airport itself...
    - imtringued 10y ago
      >So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? I sure as hell wouldn't. I would argue that more people would take short flights.
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      > So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? Yes. Many smaller airports and regional carriers don't have TSA now. I've flown dozens of times between Harrison, AR and Memphis, TN without going through so security. Many of those times I declared a firearm... and they handed it back to me to take to the plane.

> Can you think of a way of changing the process that would result in a net benefit for everyone? That one's easy: Getting rid of the TSA alltogether.

by yoo1I 10y ago

> Can you think of a way of changing the process that would result in a net benefit for everyone? That one's easy: Getting rid of the TSA alltogether.

nmeofthestate 10y ago

No screening at all? That'd certainly be interesting.

yoo1I 10y ago
For starters it wouldn't lower overall security by all that much[0] [0] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...
- blowski 10y ago
  So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? I sure as hell wouldn't. I don't know what I don't know about international security. I don't have access to the NSA and CIA files about international terrorism. Sure, some of it is overplayed for certain people's agendas, but it's very clearly an actual risk that needs actual solutions. The TSA may not be the best one, but if it was removed, it would need to be replaced by something that would probably end up looking very similar.
  - gonzo 10y ago
    > So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? Yes.
    - blowski 10y ago
      Do you think people aren't trying to attack planes, or that the TSA has zero effectiveness in stopping those people?
      - ascagnel_ 10y ago
        The latter. The TSA screening process (a recent report had them pegged at 5% effectiveness[0]) is next to worthless and itself creates a security hazard/potential attack vector. The TSA screening process is also entirely reactionary -- shoe removal only became a thing after an attacker tried to hide explosives in their shoes. If the TSA was pro-active and had a reasonable degree of effectiveness, then I'd be more willing to put up with it. As it stands, the $85 pre-check fee is more of a "pay us money and we won't actively put you at risk for no benefit" fee. [0] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...
        blowski 10y ago
        How would you make it more effective?
        scholia 10y ago
        You could remove the TSA and let airlines do their own security checks at the gate. Airlines really don't want their planes hi-jacked.
        blowski 10y ago
        Surely that would just defer the problem? Plus, the airlines now have to buy all their own equipment, train their own staff. At the moment, they are 'outsourcing' their airport security to the TSA. I suppose they could each choose which security checks they are going to carry out, but how would they choose? Based on recommendations from something that looks like the TSA? It's not clear to me that the airlines would want this responsibility, or would do a better job at it than the TSA.
        MaulingMonkey 10y ago
        > Surely that would just defer the problem? Plus, the airlines now have to buy all their own equipment, train their own staff. At the moment, they are 'outsourcing' their airport security to the TSA. An obvious solution: outsource to not-the-TSA. Say, local security contractors at the airports they operate at, possibly pooling resources with other airlines if there's economies of scale to be had there. Or perhaps a security company employing former security personnel from Israel's airports? I hear they've done pretty well by focusing on the human element. > I suppose they could each choose which security checks they are going to carry out, but how would they choose? I'm sure private security companies have plenty of suggestions for things they can upsell you on. There's all kinds of profit motives that simply aren't there in the public sector. This allows some diversification as well: Those interested in flying 'safely' can be swayed by airline X's advertisements about their thorough security procedures, and those not interested in security theater can be swayed by airline Y's advertisements about their no-hassle boarding. > Based on recommendations from something that looks like the TSA? Goodness no. At a 5% effectiveness rate, I suspect you'd have better odds winging it. > It's not clear to me that the airlines would want this responsibility, or would do a better job at it than the TSA. I'm sure they don't want the responsibility. Responsibility sucks. This article can be read as the TSA avoiding any of that nasty stuff! But the more relevant question is if foisting responsibility for security upon airlines would be effective. As for doing better than the TSA: That's a low bar, so why not try such a scheme? Best case scenario, it works, clearing the whole issue right up. Worst case scenario: Nothing of value was lost, and we can try something else.
  - orph4nus 10y ago
    Why? What about busses, trains, boats and so many others busy places. I don't see any TSA there, and I don't see anything happening there. I'm also pretty convinced that the liquid restrictions are purely for commercial reasons, as you can still bring enough liquid, separated over small bottles and multiple people if needed. Afterwards you can simply buy a bigger container in the airport itself...
  - imtringued 10y ago
    >So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? I sure as hell wouldn't. I would argue that more people would take short flights.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    > So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? Yes. Many smaller airports and regional carriers don't have TSA now. I've flown dozens of times between Harrison, AR and Memphis, TN without going through so security. Many of those times I declared a firearm... and they handed it back to me to take to the plane.