5 ms·

This is naive. Why would you assume the same number of successful attacks on air travel would occur without the security? You can't argue that the current sys

by marze 10y ago

This is naive. Why would you assume the same number of successful attacks on air travel would occur without the security? You can't argue that the current system hasn't done well, it has performed fantastically, based on the number of successful attacks within the US. That said, they need a lot more screeners, and to be much more polite. And get rid of incompetent management.

chickenbane 10y ago
I think it's a safe assumption, because if the TSA actually found a terrorist through its screening process they would parade this achievement in front of every news organization it could. On the other hand, there have been numerous documented cases where people have deliberately snuck banned items through the TSA security checks. Of course, you had to qualify statement that the TSA "has performed fantastically" with the number of _successful_ attacks. There have been terrorists that have attempted attacks, such as the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber, but those were all stopped by the passengers. To me, this should have warranted a congratulations to our fellow citizens for being vigilant - and maybe even a relaxation of some of the rules. As you know, the opposite occurred, and now we have to take our shoes off and can only take small amounts of liquid. Who's being naive?
laxatives 10y ago
By that logic, I've done a fantastic job getting the sun to rise every morning. Where is my taxpayer money?
basseq 10y ago
How many attacks were stopped by the TSA? Directly: 0. Hell, they're 0/2 on known attempts (the Shoe Bomber in 2001 and Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in 2009), both thwarted instead by passengers and crew. Indirectly? (E.g., how many attacks weren't planned because of the TSA that would have been planned and executed otherwise?) Very hard to say. Have law enforcement officials seen an uptick in other terror channels that would indicate terrorist plots are avoiding air travel? Are any would-be terrorists abandoning their terror plans altogether because of the TSA? Surely not. So all the TSA is doing is shifting attacks from air travel to other channels. That's a net zero. And finally, at what cost?
- drdeca 10y ago
  Shifting attacks from one method to another is not necessarily useless. If what would have been the most effective method is reduced in its effectiveness, and as a result, another less effective method becomes the most effective one, and the used one, that reduces the effectiveness of attacks. That wording was convoluted. What I mean is, if they would have done plane attacks because of plane attacks working best for them, then making plane attacks not work as well, and therefore making them shift to something else, means that whatever they are doing for attacks wouldn't work as well for attacks as the plane attacks would have, which is a benefit. That's not to say that the TSA is beneficial, or that it does really reduce the effectiveness of adversaries. I'm just saying that, assuming that it is true that adversaries shift their attacks from air travel to other methods as a result of the TSA , that would suggest that adversaries are restricted by the TSA , and made somewhat less effective (assuming that adversaries weren't overestimating the effectiveness of air travel attacks originally).
  - basseq 10y ago
    Fair point. I think we're both struggling with how to quantify the value of deterrence, and how to model (mentally or otherwise) things like "effectiveness shifting". It's hard! But I think we're notoriously bad as human being and a populace at having real conversations about cost-benefit analysis.
- marze 10y ago
  Zero successful attacks. Bottom line. No one here is familiar with the concept of "deterrence", apparently.
thisargisARGH23 10y ago
How many attacks were there pre-9/11 (and thus TSA)? We went quite a good long while without it and things were fine. This is fear-mongering bullshit, used to line pockets of politicians and lobbyists, pure and simple. I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise when the guy in charge of "Homeland Security" (a name that sounds a bit too much like things you'd read about in fascist countries like the former USSR or one of the Axis powers, but I'm getting off script) at the time starts installing x-ray scanners and... OH LOOK AT THAT he has a huge ownership stake in the company that makes them. And really the best way to "get rid of incompetent management" would be to shut it down. Otherwise it'll just be a revolving door of incompetent managers.
coldpie 10y ago
I've got this tiger repelling rock to sell you. Only $2B per year!

by marze 10y ago

chickenbane 10y ago

I think it's a safe assumption, because if the TSA actually found a terrorist through its screening process they would parade this achievement in front of every news organization it could. On the other hand, there have been numerous documented cases where people have deliberately snuck banned items through the TSA security checks. Of course, you had to qualify statement that the TSA "has performed fantastically" with the number of _successful_ attacks. There have been terrorists that have attempted attacks, such as the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber, but those were all stopped by the passengers. To me, this should have warranted a congratulations to our fellow citizens for being vigilant - and maybe even a relaxation of some of the rules. As you know, the opposite occurred, and now we have to take our shoes off and can only take small amounts of liquid. Who's being naive?

laxatives 10y ago

By that logic, I've done a fantastic job getting the sun to rise every morning. Where is my taxpayer money?

basseq 10y ago

How many attacks were stopped by the TSA? Directly: 0. Hell, they're 0/2 on known attempts (the Shoe Bomber in 2001 and Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in 2009), both thwarted instead by passengers and crew. Indirectly? (E.g., how many attacks weren't planned because of the TSA that would have been planned and executed otherwise?) Very hard to say. Have law enforcement officials seen an uptick in other terror channels that would indicate terrorist plots are avoiding air travel? Are any would-be terrorists abandoning their terror plans altogether because of the TSA? Surely not. So all the TSA is doing is shifting attacks from air travel to other channels. That's a net zero. And finally, at what cost?

drdeca 10y ago
Shifting attacks from one method to another is not necessarily useless. If what would have been the most effective method is reduced in its effectiveness, and as a result, another less effective method becomes the most effective one, and the used one, that reduces the effectiveness of attacks. That wording was convoluted. What I mean is, if they would have done plane attacks because of plane attacks working best for them, then making plane attacks not work as well, and therefore making them shift to something else, means that whatever they are doing for attacks wouldn't work as well for attacks as the plane attacks would have, which is a benefit. That's not to say that the TSA is beneficial, or that it does really reduce the effectiveness of adversaries. I'm just saying that, assuming that it is true that adversaries shift their attacks from air travel to other methods as a result of the TSA , that would suggest that adversaries are restricted by the TSA , and made somewhat less effective (assuming that adversaries weren't overestimating the effectiveness of air travel attacks originally).
- basseq 10y ago
  Fair point. I think we're both struggling with how to quantify the value of deterrence, and how to model (mentally or otherwise) things like "effectiveness shifting". It's hard! But I think we're notoriously bad as human being and a populace at having real conversations about cost-benefit analysis.
marze 10y ago
Zero successful attacks. Bottom line. No one here is familiar with the concept of "deterrence", apparently.

thisargisARGH23 10y ago

How many attacks were there pre-9/11 (and thus TSA)? We went quite a good long while without it and things were fine. This is fear-mongering bullshit, used to line pockets of politicians and lobbyists, pure and simple. I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise when the guy in charge of "Homeland Security" (a name that sounds a bit too much like things you'd read about in fascist countries like the former USSR or one of the Axis powers, but I'm getting off script) at the time starts installing x-ray scanners and... OH LOOK AT THAT he has a huge ownership stake in the company that makes them. And really the best way to "get rid of incompetent management" would be to shut it down. Otherwise it'll just be a revolving door of incompetent managers.

coldpie 10y ago

I've got this tiger repelling rock to sell you. Only $2B per year!