6 ms·

>so the worst thing someone could do is blow up a plane, and if all you want to do is blow up a hundred people or so, you don't need to be on a plane to do it.

>so the worst thing someone could do is blow up a plane, and if all you want to do is blow up a hundred people or so, you don't need to be on a plane to do it. There is a reason we had security on airplanes before 9/11. We aren't willing to accept this risk. Plus airplanes are a carnage and terror multiplier. A bomb that could take down a plane would do less damage on the ground. And people are irrationally fearful of flying. One 737 blown up every 3 months would still make flying less risky than driving, but it would send the airline industry into a tailspin and TSA would come back stronger than ever.

ghaff 10y ago
And for that matter, there are at least cursory security inspections at all sorts of government facilities, among other places. One doesn't need to be a fan of current TSA procedures--I'm certainly not--to believe that it probably makes sense to have a modicum of airport security in place.
rayiner 10y ago
Also, hijackings and airplane bombings were common before modern security protocols (in the late 1960's and 1970's): http://listverse.com/2012/10/27/top-10-us-airline-hijackings-of-the-sixties; http://listverse.com/2012/10/27/top-10-us-airline-hijackings... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/middleeast/airline-hijacking-history.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/middleeast/airline-h... ("By the mid-1970s, at least 150 planes had been “skyjacked” in the United States alone[.]"); http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2014/06/Successful-Hijackings-Graph-from-Electro-Security-Paper.jpg http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2014/06/Successful... (FAA chart showing dramatic reduction in hijackings after introduction of airport screening in 1973).
- rhino369 10y ago
  And even if you totally secure a cockpit, they hijackers could always take hostages from among the passengers.
  - Johnny555 10y ago
    Sure, but the pilot isn't going to hand over control of the plane or fly it into a building no matter how many hostages are taken or what the hijackers do to them.
- educar 10y ago
  Sure, they were common but the media wasn't as prevalent. For example, I know of none of those before 2000s. But post-2000 I know of every single hijack and plane crashed because the internet and media shoved it on my face because it's always on every website. I bet that if there is a hijacking tomorrow, it will in HN front page (even though it's a tech website). That's how much these things multiply. Whereas, a bus crash or some other bombing will never make it to HN web page.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Doesn't your point cut the other way? I.e. if we got rid of all airline security and went back to the days of a dozen airline hijackings a year, wouldn't the pervasiveness of the media make the impact much worse than it was in the 1970s?
dionidium 10y ago
So, I was definitely once one of those people arguing for lax airline security on the basis that fear of terrorism is irrational and resources would be better spent on actual, mundane, every-day threats (like automobile safety). But I think you're actually right about this; my original argument ignored human psychology to an extent that makes it nonsensical. Actual threats are important, but so are perceived threats. It's not entirely irrational to protect against the things we fear the most, even if those aren't actually the most likely things to kill us. This also comes up a lot in arguments about city living. I know a lot of people for whom urban living is frightening to an extent that is not supportable by crime statistics. But so what? If they were to move to the city, they'd be constantly afraid. That matters. Rational or not, their perception greatly impacts their quality of life. And if you want those people to move back from the suburbs, then you need to address their concerns. There is a reason, after all, that airplanes are such an attractive target for those who'd like to cause terror.
- Retric 10y ago
  There are vastly more efficient methods for dealing with stupidity than playing along. The cheapest would probably just be propaganda talking up real safety features. For the 0.01% who still will not fly... let them stay on the ground.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    There are vastly more efficient methods for dealing with human psychology than labelling it "stupidity."
    - wnoise 10y ago
      A good thing that labeling it stupidity is not the method for dealing with it, just a part of describing methods for dealing with it.
- noobiemcfoob 10y ago
  It's this type of realization that I think many people lack. Someone's perceived reality is reality to them. Take a lot of those Someones with a perception of rampant terrorists and security failures, you get a substantial group of people reacting to a false reality. And though false it may be, these Someones still vote, pay taxes and fly (or not) on those planes. We don't really have the option to ignore them.
cgriswald 10y ago
Right, but the reason for the TSA's existence isn't blowing planes out of the skies, but using them to attack buildings. Hence it became a national security matter. However, the solution to that particular problem was the reinforced cockpit doors. As for the exploding aircraft, as you seem to imply, airports and airlines have a vested interest in preventing that from happening. But unlike the TSA, they also have an interest in efficiency and happy travelers. And they're spending customer money rather than federal tax dollars. So I'm for no government security, if that's not what the GP meant. But I doubt the airlines really want that, since it opens them up for liability if something were to happen.
- rhino369 10y ago
  Right, but the reason for the TSA's existence isn't blowing planes out of the skies, but using them to attack buildings. I don't think that is true. Maybe the threat of kamikaze hijackings was behind some of the push, but it is far from the only reason. Plus TSA isn't all that different from the old private security guard system we used have have pre-911. The extra screenings are entirely related to specific bomb--not hijacking--threats. Shoes off? because of the shoe bomber. No liquids because of the liquid bomb plot.
  - cgriswald 10y ago
    I'm not sure your position is consistent, since, if the TSA is filling the role that private security used to fill, there must be some explanation for the change, and the TSA was created in direct response to the 9/11 attacks. (I'm not even sure sentiment would have been in a place to create something like the TSA without 9/11 either.) However, my point wasn't whether the TSA was created specifically for one type of attack, but that it was created for a problem that 90% solved to begin with and the remaining 10% could have been filled with government serving as intelligence and advisor (e.g. requiring airlines to reinforce cockpit doors, or informing them of specific plots or new techniques to defend against); which, of course, it was failing to do pre-9/11, but that's a separate problem also not solved by the TSA.
- new_hackers 10y ago
aerovistae 10y ago
I never liked the line of reasoning that driving is more dangerous than flying, and therefore people shouldn't be afraid of flying. It's flawed reasoning. It doesn't take into account the actual reasons people are afraid of flying and not of driving. Sure, statistically more people die in car accidents. True. But each one of us has some measure of control over that. We all believe (even if erroneously) that we can avoid this because we control the wheel, and we can choose to pay close attention to the road and make good decisions and we trust in our own ability to avoid an accident. In a plane, there is nothing we can do but pray. The outcome is in the hands of pilot and we can do nothing. And that's what's terrifying: not statistics, but helplessness. Indeed, when I get in the car as a passenger with a young driver who I haven't driven with before, my misgivings are definitely greater than those I have getting on a plane. Same principle.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- eridius 10y ago
  Don't forget too that pretty much everybody thinks they're a better-than-average driver, which implies that pretty much everybody thinks that their risk of dying in a car accident is lower than the statistical risk.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    "..everybody thinks they're a better-than-average driver..." Of course, it is possible that most of them are correct. I would love to see data on the distribution of driving skill; perhaps most people are reasonably good or great drivers, but the presence of a small percentage of catastrophically bad drivers skews the average. I know that when I think "drivers are horrible around here" I tend to be thinking of the ones that did something inconsiderate/dangerous/bafflingly stupid, not the vast majority who seem to get by just fine. And of the people with whom I've ridden, almost all of them drive fine, but I've got a couple of friends who I hesitate to get in the car with.
    - 10y ago

ghaff 10y ago

And for that matter, there are at least cursory security inspections at all sorts of government facilities, among other places. One doesn't need to be a fan of current TSA procedures--I'm certainly not--to believe that it probably makes sense to have a modicum of airport security in place.

rayiner 10y ago

Also, hijackings and airplane bombings were common before modern security protocols (in the late 1960's and 1970's): http://listverse.com/2012/10/27/top-10-us-airline-hijackings-of-the-sixties; http://listverse.com/2012/10/27/top-10-us-airline-hijackings... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/middleeast/airline-hijacking-history.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/middleeast/airline-h... ("By the mid-1970s, at least 150 planes had been “skyjacked” in the United States alone[.]"); http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2014/06/Successful-Hijackings-Graph-from-Electro-Security-Paper.jpg http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2014/06/Successful... (FAA chart showing dramatic reduction in hijackings after introduction of airport screening in 1973).

rhino369 10y ago
And even if you totally secure a cockpit, they hijackers could always take hostages from among the passengers.
- Johnny555 10y ago
  Sure, but the pilot isn't going to hand over control of the plane or fly it into a building no matter how many hostages are taken or what the hijackers do to them.
educar 10y ago
Sure, they were common but the media wasn't as prevalent. For example, I know of none of those before 2000s. But post-2000 I know of every single hijack and plane crashed because the internet and media shoved it on my face because it's always on every website. I bet that if there is a hijacking tomorrow, it will in HN front page (even though it's a tech website). That's how much these things multiply. Whereas, a bus crash or some other bombing will never make it to HN web page.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Doesn't your point cut the other way? I.e. if we got rid of all airline security and went back to the days of a dozen airline hijackings a year, wouldn't the pervasiveness of the media make the impact much worse than it was in the 1970s?

dionidium 10y ago

So, I was definitely once one of those people arguing for lax airline security on the basis that fear of terrorism is irrational and resources would be better spent on actual, mundane, every-day threats (like automobile safety). But I think you're actually right about this; my original argument ignored human psychology to an extent that makes it nonsensical. Actual threats are important, but so are perceived threats. It's not entirely irrational to protect against the things we fear the most, even if those aren't actually the most likely things to kill us. This also comes up a lot in arguments about city living. I know a lot of people for whom urban living is frightening to an extent that is not supportable by crime statistics. But so what? If they were to move to the city, they'd be constantly afraid. That matters. Rational or not, their perception greatly impacts their quality of life. And if you want those people to move back from the suburbs, then you need to address their concerns. There is a reason, after all, that airplanes are such an attractive target for those who'd like to cause terror.

Retric 10y ago
There are vastly more efficient methods for dealing with stupidity than playing along. The cheapest would probably just be propaganda talking up real safety features. For the 0.01% who still will not fly... let them stay on the ground.
- dionidium 10y ago
  There are vastly more efficient methods for dealing with human psychology than labelling it "stupidity."
  - wnoise 10y ago
    A good thing that labeling it stupidity is not the method for dealing with it, just a part of describing methods for dealing with it.
noobiemcfoob 10y ago
It's this type of realization that I think many people lack. Someone's perceived reality is reality to them. Take a lot of those Someones with a perception of rampant terrorists and security failures, you get a substantial group of people reacting to a false reality. And though false it may be, these Someones still vote, pay taxes and fly (or not) on those planes. We don't really have the option to ignore them.

cgriswald 10y ago

Right, but the reason for the TSA's existence isn't blowing planes out of the skies, but using them to attack buildings. Hence it became a national security matter. However, the solution to that particular problem was the reinforced cockpit doors. As for the exploding aircraft, as you seem to imply, airports and airlines have a vested interest in preventing that from happening. But unlike the TSA, they also have an interest in efficiency and happy travelers. And they're spending customer money rather than federal tax dollars. So I'm for no government security, if that's not what the GP meant. But I doubt the airlines really want that, since it opens them up for liability if something were to happen.

rhino369 10y ago
Right, but the reason for the TSA's existence isn't blowing planes out of the skies, but using them to attack buildings. I don't think that is true. Maybe the threat of kamikaze hijackings was behind some of the push, but it is far from the only reason. Plus TSA isn't all that different from the old private security guard system we used have have pre-911. The extra screenings are entirely related to specific bomb--not hijacking--threats. Shoes off? because of the shoe bomber. No liquids because of the liquid bomb plot.
- cgriswald 10y ago
  I'm not sure your position is consistent, since, if the TSA is filling the role that private security used to fill, there must be some explanation for the change, and the TSA was created in direct response to the 9/11 attacks. (I'm not even sure sentiment would have been in a place to create something like the TSA without 9/11 either.) However, my point wasn't whether the TSA was created specifically for one type of attack, but that it was created for a problem that 90% solved to begin with and the remaining 10% could have been filled with government serving as intelligence and advisor (e.g. requiring airlines to reinforce cockpit doors, or informing them of specific plots or new techniques to defend against); which, of course, it was failing to do pre-9/11, but that's a separate problem also not solved by the TSA.
new_hackers 10y ago

aerovistae 10y ago

I never liked the line of reasoning that driving is more dangerous than flying, and therefore people shouldn't be afraid of flying. It's flawed reasoning. It doesn't take into account the actual reasons people are afraid of flying and not of driving. Sure, statistically more people die in car accidents. True. But each one of us has some measure of control over that. We all believe (even if erroneously) that we can avoid this because we control the wheel, and we can choose to pay close attention to the road and make good decisions and we trust in our own ability to avoid an accident. In a plane, there is nothing we can do but pray. The outcome is in the hands of pilot and we can do nothing. And that's what's terrifying: not statistics, but helplessness. Indeed, when I get in the car as a passenger with a young driver who I haven't driven with before, my misgivings are definitely greater than those I have getting on a plane. Same principle.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
eridius 10y ago
Don't forget too that pretty much everybody thinks they're a better-than-average driver, which implies that pretty much everybody thinks that their risk of dying in a car accident is lower than the statistical risk.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  "..everybody thinks they're a better-than-average driver..." Of course, it is possible that most of them are correct. I would love to see data on the distribution of driving skill; perhaps most people are reasonably good or great drivers, but the presence of a small percentage of catastrophically bad drivers skews the average. I know that when I think "drivers are horrible around here" I tend to be thinking of the ones that did something inconsiderate/dangerous/bafflingly stupid, not the vast majority who seem to get by just fine. And of the people with whom I've ridden, almost all of them drive fine, but I've got a couple of friends who I hesitate to get in the car with.
  - 10y ago