5 ms·

> "Compared to what existed before? The evidence is...scant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_

> "Compared to what existed before? The evidence is...scant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings look at the number in the U.S. before TSA. Look at the number after. > It increases the risk of getting caught to a nonzero factor. The risk of getting caught with box cutters at that time was actually zero. > There were no passenger aircraft hijackings in the US for about 18 years prior to 9/11/2001. So, its really not all that convincing that the TSA has done anything better than what went before by keeping the number to 0 in the less than 15 since it was established. It's interesting that you had to qualify it with "passenger aircraft hijackings" to avoid mentioning the 1994 hijacking from Memphis. Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, airport security improved at many airports in the 1990s. TSA was implemented with the intention to standardize this. The public was incensed (rightly or wrongly) at the failure of the airport security to stop the 9/11 hijackers. > Compared to no security, its not useless. But is it meaningful better than what it replaced (which was not "no security")? Did I dispute this? Please don't attempt to inject meaning in my position that isn't there.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings look at the number in the U.S. before TSA. The last passenger aircraft hijacking one on that list before 9/11 was in 1987 (there are others in that period with US, along with other, flags on that webpage, because the plane was either flown to the US or was a plane of a US carrier -- I actually missed the 1987 one in the earlier report, which makes it only 14 years before 9/11 without an attack.) > It's interesting that you had to qualify it with "passenger aircraft hijackings" to avoid mentioning the 1994 hijacking from Memphis. Given that the main focus of discussion has generally been on the TSA security implementation and its application to passenger flights, I think that its an appropriate limitation. But even if you add that one in, the rate is still so low that the confidence that there is an reduction in the rate of hijackings since the TSA was introduced attributable to anything other than chance (much less one attributable specifically to the TSA) is not particularly high. > The risk of getting caught with box cutters at that time was actually zero. The reports from the planes were that the hijackers had a variety of weapons, which included box cutters, but also firearms. > Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, airport security improved at many airports in the 1990s. The federal government set standards for a long time before that, and the federal standards were enhanced in response to the 1990 gulf crisis, true. > TSA was implemented with the intention to standardize this. No, it wasn't. It was implemented specifically to negate future liability from the airlines for security failures, because the airlines (many of which were reportedly near bankruptcy) felt that with the need to provide coverage for potential liability for future security failures made evident by the 9/11 events (for which they also sought specific, after the fact immunity from Congress) they would no longer be able to operate profitably.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings look at the number in the U.S. before TSA. The last passenger aircraft hijacking one on that list before 9/11 was in 1987 (there are others in that period with US, along with other, flags on that webpage, because the plane was either flown to the US or was a plane of a US carrier -- I actually missed the 1987 one in the earlier report, which makes it only 14 years before 9/11 without an attack.) > It's interesting that you had to qualify it with "passenger aircraft hijackings" to avoid mentioning the 1994 hijacking from Memphis. Given that the main focus of discussion has generally been on the TSA security implementation and its application to passenger flights, I think that its an appropriate limitation. But even if you add that one in, the rate is still so low that the confidence that there is an reduction in the rate of hijackings since the TSA was introduced attributable to anything other than chance (much less one attributable specifically to the TSA) is not particularly high. > The risk of getting caught with box cutters at that time was actually zero. The reports from the planes were that the hijackers had a variety of weapons, which included box cutters, but also firearms. > Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, airport security improved at many airports in the 1990s. The federal government set standards for a long time before that, and the federal standards were enhanced in response to the 1990 gulf crisis, true. > TSA was implemented with the intention to standardize this. No, it wasn't. It was implemented specifically to negate future liability from the airlines for security failures, because the airlines (many of which were reportedly near bankruptcy) felt that with the need to provide coverage for potential liability for future security failures made evident by the 9/11 events (for which they also sought specific, after the fact immunity from Congress) they would no longer be able to operate profitably.