3 ms·

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 mat

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
Agreed, then the consumer could choose between SafetyFirst airline and SitDownShutupAndHoldon airline.

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

Agreed, then the consumer could choose between SafetyFirst airline and SitDownShutupAndHoldon airline.