5 ms·

> So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? Yes.

by gonzo 10y ago

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.
        blowski 10y ago
        > Goodness no. At a 5% effectiveness rate, I suspect you'd have better odds winging it. This is bad statistics. The TSA 'failed to detect 95% of airport breach tests' does not mean it fails to prevent 95% of would-be attacks. Just by being there, it prevents some attacks - those people who consider it too difficult to get round the TSA, or those who end up coming up on the NSA's radar as they research ways to do so. Saying we could just "throw it all away because what's the worst that can happen" is much like a developer saying "let's do a complete rebuild" and we all know how that usually turns out.
      - grkvlt 10y ago
        I don't think anyone would be happy with 'British Airways Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Services, plc.' and friends running surveillance, SIGINT and other spy operations to gather threat intelligence. And, unfortunately, it seems like intelligence-led prevention is the only real way to stop terrorism, detection and attempts at interdiction close to the target are going to fail the same way the TSA fails, due to the vanishingly small number of actual terrorists.
        scholia 10y ago
        > And, unfortunately, it seems like intelligence-led prevention is the only real way to stop terrorism I wouldn't expect British Airways to do its own SIGINT but there's no reason why it can't source that info from the current supplier. (And BA already collects the passenger info on the US government's behalf.) Either way, no one is proposing to tear up the Do Not Fly list, risibly inaccurate as it might be.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- imtringued 10y ago
  People are also attacking security check lines with very high effectivity-
  - blowski 10y ago
    "Very high" is stretching it a bit. There have been around 130 fatalities in terrorist attacks in airport terminals since 2000 - LA (2002), Madrid (2006), Pakistan (2014), Turkey (2014), Moscow (2015) and Belgium (2016).

> So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? Yes.

by 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.
        blowski 10y ago
        > Goodness no. At a 5% effectiveness rate, I suspect you'd have better odds winging it. This is bad statistics. The TSA 'failed to detect 95% of airport breach tests' does not mean it fails to prevent 95% of would-be attacks. Just by being there, it prevents some attacks - those people who consider it too difficult to get round the TSA, or those who end up coming up on the NSA's radar as they research ways to do so. Saying we could just "throw it all away because what's the worst that can happen" is much like a developer saying "let's do a complete rebuild" and we all know how that usually turns out.
    - grkvlt 10y ago
      I don't think anyone would be happy with 'British Airways Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Services, plc.' and friends running surveillance, SIGINT and other spy operations to gather threat intelligence. And, unfortunately, it seems like intelligence-led prevention is the only real way to stop terrorism, detection and attempts at interdiction close to the target are going to fail the same way the TSA fails, due to the vanishingly small number of actual terrorists.
      - scholia 10y ago
        > And, unfortunately, it seems like intelligence-led prevention is the only real way to stop terrorism I wouldn't expect British Airways to do its own SIGINT but there's no reason why it can't source that info from the current supplier. (And BA already collects the passenger info on the US government's behalf.) Either way, no one is proposing to tear up the Do Not Fly list, risibly inaccurate as it might be.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
imtringued 10y ago
People are also attacking security check lines with very high effectivity-
- blowski 10y ago
  "Very high" is stretching it a bit. There have been around 130 fatalities in terrorist attacks in airport terminals since 2000 - LA (2002), Madrid (2006), Pakistan (2014), Turkey (2014), Moscow (2015) and Belgium (2016).