7 ms·

If the TSA Were Running New York

89 points by MaysonL 17y ago

ryanjmo 17y ago
This is a great article. In my personal opinion they should decrease security/airplane safety inspections until flying becomes as dangerous as driving in a bus. I really don't see any mathematical or logical reason why flying in a plane should be safer than driving in a car (but if you do I am interested in what they are). The benefit of doing this would be huge savings in the cost of flying and the cost of the TSA. Additionally there would be a huge increase in the connivence of flying.
Silhouette 17y ago
It is sad that this article is so true. For me, the terrorists have now won: I won't fly to most places any more. I won't fly because the security theatre now makes it so unpleasant, time-consuming and indirectly expensive that I would rather forego my holiday to those destinations I can't reach by other modes of transport that actually make me feel comfortable on the journey and welcome when I arrive. That's a shame, because I would have really liked to visit places like the US and Japan some time in my life (I live in the UK). But how am I supposed to enjoy a holiday when my journey starts with my other half and me being virtual-strip-searched by sometimes dubious characters we can't even see and ends with having biometric scans taken to go into a database as if I were a criminal?
- jrockway 17y ago
  OTOH, I paid the one-time cost of some 3oz bottles and quart-sized plastic bags, and don't find traveling to be much of a hassle at all. The biggest hassle when traveling in the US is that there is almost never any public transportation when you arrive.
  - DougWebb 17y ago
    In most airports we call the public transportation "Taxis" or "Car Service". Lame, I know. If you're ever flying to NYC our best airport is Newark International. You can get from the airport to Penn Station quickly, cheaply, and relatively easily by train. From there you've got the whole NYC subway system at your disposal.
    - tome 17y ago
      For what it's worth, JFK is very easy to get to and from on the subway.
      - DougWebb 17y ago
        True, but if you're going into Manhattan it's a long subway ride. Newark is a lot closer and faster.
- viraptor 17y ago
  > indirectly expensive Just curious - what do you mean by that? Taxes that sponsor the theatre in the long run? Or... ?
  - Silhouette 17y ago
    One obvious example: the rules about liquids require me to throw away perfectly good drinks just to go through security, only to buy identical perfectly good drinks at inflated prices on the other side. A slightly different example: IME it takes several hours to get through security and passport control and all that jazz at both ends of a journey, even flying to another country in Europe from here in the UK or back again. I am a contractor and I bill by the hour for some contracts. If I needed to go on a business trip to a client's office elsewhere in Europe, it would cost me more in lost income for the time spent going through the checks instead of working than I would pay for all the flights and accommodation for an overnight stay. (Edit: Or, for contracts where travel takes place during service hours, it costs my clients more. But someone is paying more for the downtime for checks than they are paying for the legitimate expenses for the trip.) Final example: Yes, I very much do object to spending large quantities of taxpayers' money on measures that make those same poeple's lives less pleasant, when there is little if any evidence to show that they actually make us any safer. Indeed, things like the liquids restrictions or the virtual strip search machines are textbook examples of introducing measures under a climate of fear that would not have been viable otherwise due to popular opposition, where the benefits of those measures are doubtful at best.
    - dkersten 17y ago
      there is little if any evidence to show that they actually make us any safer I'd argue that they don't. A friend of mine was writing a paper titled How to hijack a plane with items you bought in the duty free, though he never released it. In the book Emergency, Neil Strauss mentions conceiled blades in credit cards, ceramic hair clips and other items that various people he talked to bring on to planes as "emergency weapons". I heard from a friend about someone who brought drugs through security by having them in a bag of peanuts or something, which he was eating on his way through (you probably can't always get away with conceiling items like this, but maybe..). If you really want, you can bring all kinds of prohibited items on to planes. So, no, the security does not make us any safer.
- foldr 17y ago
  >But how am I supposed to enjoy a holiday when my journey starts with my other half and me being virtual-strip-searched by sometimes dubious characters we can't even see and ends with having biometric scans taken to go into a database as if I were a criminal? Just enjoy the bit in the middle.
  - Silhouette 17y ago
    Is that the part where I have to take off half my clothes for real so they can put the belt and jacket outside the metal detector and the shoes through whatever that other machines does, the bit where they throw away the bottle of soda I was enjoying and make me buy a new one, the bit where someone glares at me over the top of my passport while heavily armed guards look on, the bit where the staff on the way onto the plane mess several passengers around because they don't like their tone and have a "zero tolerance" policy, the bit at the other end where I queue up for ages only to again have someone glare at me over the top of my passport in the presence of armed guards, or something else?
    - foldr 17y ago
      Really, don't be such a drama queen. Airport security isn't fun, but you're being silly about it. (And no, by "the bit in the middle", I meant the holiday.)
      - Silhouette 17y ago
        In the past year alone, several of my friends have been literally strip searched (not just the virtual one) for no apparent reason. Sure, some people don't care about being seen naked, but a lot of people do and this is a deeply embarrassing and unpleasant experience that will stay with them for a long time. Members of my family have been left stranded in a foreign country when an airline refused to carry them because one of them asked why he was required to show the same documents for the third time in rapid succession. (The airline's excuse for this absurdly disproportionate response changed so many times afterwards it was hard to keep track, and I won't say any more because as far as I'm aware legal action for compensation is still pending.) Hundreds of people from my country have recently been held in hotels under armed guard because after a diversion to a different country's airport due to the ash problems, they obviously didn't have visas, so they couldn't even get a train home. I'm not sure why anyone in a country these people never wanted or expected to visit would consider them such a security threat that they couldn't leave and had to be held at gunpoint, but there you go. These things are not trivial, and I don't think a single one of those people would consider objecting to this sort of security theatre "being silly". And you fail on the "bit in the middle", because all the unpleasantness that I described in those earlier posts happens on a single flight.
- ggchappell 17y ago
  > I won't fly to most places any more. ... I would have really liked to visit places like the US and Japan some time in my life (I live in the UK). I wonder about this. Do many people outside the U.S. think the way you do? It appears to me that many do. And yet, we don't hear the U.S. tourism industry screaming about people staying away. Why not? I can only conclude that people are, by and large, not staying away. And again, why not? Possibly the decline in the U.S. dollar vs (say) the Euro in recent years has offset the above problem somewhat, so that, while tourism is less than what it would be, it is about what the industry is used to (?).
  - Silhouette 17y ago
    Perhaps those of us who object to the security theatre do shout louder than most. So far, the visitor stats for the US show a dramatic reduction in US tourism post-9/11, but over time the level has returned to what it was before or a little higher. It's impossible to say from those figures alone whether it would have been higher still except for the people deterred by the kinds of measures we've been talking about. Then again, a recent survey that hit a lot of the tabloids over here in the UK predicted that about 90% of our people would still fly despite airport body scanners. We're still in the fear stage with that one, and of course most people haven't experienced it yet and there haven't been too many high profile stories of abuse so far. Also, some people prefer the virtual strip search to the alternative of a physical search, so given the choice they would rather take the scanner. The wording of that survey was interesting, though, as it did seem to imply that around 10% of our population would simply refuse a body scan or avoid making arrangements where they might be required to have one. It was also interesting that in other countries, a much higher proportion of the population objected, in some cases a heavy majority. Of course, for now there are still alternative flights from the UK to many destinations that don't involve using airports like Heathrow where the scanners are, so those who object can mostly just avoid the scanners and go from elsewhere. It remains to be seen what the effect would be if the scanners became compulsory at all airports.
  - tome 17y ago
    I think the answer is either that Silhouette has had a number of unusual experiences or he's overstating the case. In the last six months I have flown from the following airports: Heathrow Stansted Ben Gurion Cologne Vienna Edinburgh I have had to take my belt off at all of them, and my shoes off once. The "worst" experience was in Israel where I had to go through my bag with the very polite security guards, and it took about half an hour. They were very nice about the whole situation though. Basically it was inconvenient, but I don't feel it was a big deal and I don't feel like my humanity has been debased. I've also travelled once on Eurostar and the security process was exactly the same.
loiuygthyujik 17y ago
Presumably they will ban bicycles http://www.thisisfyf.com/2010/04/happy-fucking-earth-day-hundreds-of-bikes-trashed-for-obama-visit-.html http://www.thisisfyf.com/2010/04/happy-fucking-earth-day-hun...
- pavel_lishin 17y ago
  No. They'll just search every one they see by cutting it in half, and finding nothing, returning it to you so you can continue on your way.
  - logic 17y ago
    So you've traveled across the border by car then, I take it? :)
keltecp11 17y ago
Best. Article. Ever... amen.
bshep 17y ago
Love the last line: "Next step in the thought experiment: after wondering what NY would look like this weekend if run by the TSA, imagining what the TSA might be like if run in the spirit of this weekend's NY."
kgermino 17y ago
I have to agree, the TSA has become nothing more than a political tool that does little to prevent future terrorist attacks. I believe they serve a purpose, but that purpose is not to prevent organized terrorist attacks, it is to keep a single crazy guy from bringing a gun or knife on board and attacking people, or hijacking the plane and holding the passengers for ransom. (Keep in mind that this is what hijackings were before 9-11, which is why they were able to crash three planes) Nowadays they have become more of a "feel-good" terrorist defense. Passengers and pilots are screened for everything and have their bottles of water and toenail clippers taken in the "search for bombs" while cleaning crew and other employees are not screened at all. The TSA does not, and cannot effectively, defend against terrorist attacks. That falls to the FBI and CIA, if an individual intending to attack America makes it to the airport than we have already failed and if the TSA stops them it is nothing but dumb luck. Yet Americans accept all of these intrusions and expenses for a false sense of safety. The T-Shirt vendor had it right "See Something, Say Something" is the single most effective last line of defense.
- psyklic 17y ago
  It's a tricky issue. The TSA does seem overdone. However, if terrorists are allowed to pull off the same stunts over and over, then the US will look very foolish and ineffective at protecting its people. So, I don't blame the US for being cautious. It is the terrorist's goal to make people afraid of flying and distrustful of the US government -- so in a way, making the TSA visible (their visibility being a "feel-good" defense) is in fact counter-terrorism. People do seem to trust them (and hence the US government) with their security.
- zefhous 17y ago
  "The TSA does not, and cannot effectively, defend against terrorist attacks." Very true. I know someone who has carried a box cutter on every flight he's been on since 9/11 - over 100 flights, just because he can.
- zackattack 17y ago
  Solutions perpetuate the problems they are set up to solve.

89 points by MaysonL 17y ago

This is a great article. In my personal opinion they should decrease security/airplane safety inspections until flying becomes as dangerous as driving in a bus. I really don't see any mathematical or logical reason why flying in a plane should be safer than driving in a car (but if you do I am interested in what they are). The benefit of doing this would be huge savings in the cost of flying and the cost of the TSA. Additionally there would be a huge increase in the connivence of flying.

Silhouette 17y ago

It is sad that this article is so true. For me, the terrorists have now won: I won't fly to most places any more. I won't fly because the security theatre now makes it so unpleasant, time-consuming and indirectly expensive that I would rather forego my holiday to those destinations I can't reach by other modes of transport that actually make me feel comfortable on the journey and welcome when I arrive. That's a shame, because I would have really liked to visit places like the US and Japan some time in my life (I live in the UK). But how am I supposed to enjoy a holiday when my journey starts with my other half and me being virtual-strip-searched by sometimes dubious characters we can't even see and ends with having biometric scans taken to go into a database as if I were a criminal?

jrockway 17y ago
OTOH, I paid the one-time cost of some 3oz bottles and quart-sized plastic bags, and don't find traveling to be much of a hassle at all. The biggest hassle when traveling in the US is that there is almost never any public transportation when you arrive.
- DougWebb 17y ago
  In most airports we call the public transportation "Taxis" or "Car Service". Lame, I know. If you're ever flying to NYC our best airport is Newark International. You can get from the airport to Penn Station quickly, cheaply, and relatively easily by train. From there you've got the whole NYC subway system at your disposal.
  - tome 17y ago
    For what it's worth, JFK is very easy to get to and from on the subway.
    - DougWebb 17y ago
      True, but if you're going into Manhattan it's a long subway ride. Newark is a lot closer and faster.
viraptor 17y ago
> indirectly expensive Just curious - what do you mean by that? Taxes that sponsor the theatre in the long run? Or... ?
- Silhouette 17y ago
  One obvious example: the rules about liquids require me to throw away perfectly good drinks just to go through security, only to buy identical perfectly good drinks at inflated prices on the other side. A slightly different example: IME it takes several hours to get through security and passport control and all that jazz at both ends of a journey, even flying to another country in Europe from here in the UK or back again. I am a contractor and I bill by the hour for some contracts. If I needed to go on a business trip to a client's office elsewhere in Europe, it would cost me more in lost income for the time spent going through the checks instead of working than I would pay for all the flights and accommodation for an overnight stay. (Edit: Or, for contracts where travel takes place during service hours, it costs my clients more. But someone is paying more for the downtime for checks than they are paying for the legitimate expenses for the trip.) Final example: Yes, I very much do object to spending large quantities of taxpayers' money on measures that make those same poeple's lives less pleasant, when there is little if any evidence to show that they actually make us any safer. Indeed, things like the liquids restrictions or the virtual strip search machines are textbook examples of introducing measures under a climate of fear that would not have been viable otherwise due to popular opposition, where the benefits of those measures are doubtful at best.
  - dkersten 17y ago
    there is little if any evidence to show that they actually make us any safer I'd argue that they don't. A friend of mine was writing a paper titled How to hijack a plane with items you bought in the duty free, though he never released it. In the book Emergency, Neil Strauss mentions conceiled blades in credit cards, ceramic hair clips and other items that various people he talked to bring on to planes as "emergency weapons". I heard from a friend about someone who brought drugs through security by having them in a bag of peanuts or something, which he was eating on his way through (you probably can't always get away with conceiling items like this, but maybe..). If you really want, you can bring all kinds of prohibited items on to planes. So, no, the security does not make us any safer.
foldr 17y ago
>But how am I supposed to enjoy a holiday when my journey starts with my other half and me being virtual-strip-searched by sometimes dubious characters we can't even see and ends with having biometric scans taken to go into a database as if I were a criminal? Just enjoy the bit in the middle.
- Silhouette 17y ago
  Is that the part where I have to take off half my clothes for real so they can put the belt and jacket outside the metal detector and the shoes through whatever that other machines does, the bit where they throw away the bottle of soda I was enjoying and make me buy a new one, the bit where someone glares at me over the top of my passport while heavily armed guards look on, the bit where the staff on the way onto the plane mess several passengers around because they don't like their tone and have a "zero tolerance" policy, the bit at the other end where I queue up for ages only to again have someone glare at me over the top of my passport in the presence of armed guards, or something else?
  - foldr 17y ago
    Really, don't be such a drama queen. Airport security isn't fun, but you're being silly about it. (And no, by "the bit in the middle", I meant the holiday.)
    - Silhouette 17y ago
      In the past year alone, several of my friends have been literally strip searched (not just the virtual one) for no apparent reason. Sure, some people don't care about being seen naked, but a lot of people do and this is a deeply embarrassing and unpleasant experience that will stay with them for a long time. Members of my family have been left stranded in a foreign country when an airline refused to carry them because one of them asked why he was required to show the same documents for the third time in rapid succession. (The airline's excuse for this absurdly disproportionate response changed so many times afterwards it was hard to keep track, and I won't say any more because as far as I'm aware legal action for compensation is still pending.) Hundreds of people from my country have recently been held in hotels under armed guard because after a diversion to a different country's airport due to the ash problems, they obviously didn't have visas, so they couldn't even get a train home. I'm not sure why anyone in a country these people never wanted or expected to visit would consider them such a security threat that they couldn't leave and had to be held at gunpoint, but there you go. These things are not trivial, and I don't think a single one of those people would consider objecting to this sort of security theatre "being silly". And you fail on the "bit in the middle", because all the unpleasantness that I described in those earlier posts happens on a single flight.
ggchappell 17y ago
> I won't fly to most places any more. ... I would have really liked to visit places like the US and Japan some time in my life (I live in the UK). I wonder about this. Do many people outside the U.S. think the way you do? It appears to me that many do. And yet, we don't hear the U.S. tourism industry screaming about people staying away. Why not? I can only conclude that people are, by and large, not staying away. And again, why not? Possibly the decline in the U.S. dollar vs (say) the Euro in recent years has offset the above problem somewhat, so that, while tourism is less than what it would be, it is about what the industry is used to (?).
- Silhouette 17y ago
  Perhaps those of us who object to the security theatre do shout louder than most. So far, the visitor stats for the US show a dramatic reduction in US tourism post-9/11, but over time the level has returned to what it was before or a little higher. It's impossible to say from those figures alone whether it would have been higher still except for the people deterred by the kinds of measures we've been talking about. Then again, a recent survey that hit a lot of the tabloids over here in the UK predicted that about 90% of our people would still fly despite airport body scanners. We're still in the fear stage with that one, and of course most people haven't experienced it yet and there haven't been too many high profile stories of abuse so far. Also, some people prefer the virtual strip search to the alternative of a physical search, so given the choice they would rather take the scanner. The wording of that survey was interesting, though, as it did seem to imply that around 10% of our population would simply refuse a body scan or avoid making arrangements where they might be required to have one. It was also interesting that in other countries, a much higher proportion of the population objected, in some cases a heavy majority. Of course, for now there are still alternative flights from the UK to many destinations that don't involve using airports like Heathrow where the scanners are, so those who object can mostly just avoid the scanners and go from elsewhere. It remains to be seen what the effect would be if the scanners became compulsory at all airports.
- tome 17y ago
  I think the answer is either that Silhouette has had a number of unusual experiences or he's overstating the case. In the last six months I have flown from the following airports: Heathrow Stansted Ben Gurion Cologne Vienna Edinburgh I have had to take my belt off at all of them, and my shoes off once. The "worst" experience was in Israel where I had to go through my bag with the very polite security guards, and it took about half an hour. They were very nice about the whole situation though. Basically it was inconvenient, but I don't feel it was a big deal and I don't feel like my humanity has been debased. I've also travelled once on Eurostar and the security process was exactly the same.

loiuygthyujik 17y ago

Presumably they will ban bicycles http://www.thisisfyf.com/2010/04/happy-fucking-earth-day-hundreds-of-bikes-trashed-for-obama-visit-.html http://www.thisisfyf.com/2010/04/happy-fucking-earth-day-hun...

pavel_lishin 17y ago
No. They'll just search every one they see by cutting it in half, and finding nothing, returning it to you so you can continue on your way.
- logic 17y ago
  So you've traveled across the border by car then, I take it? :)

keltecp11 17y ago

Best. Article. Ever... amen.

bshep 17y ago

Love the last line: "Next step in the thought experiment: after wondering what NY would look like this weekend if run by the TSA, imagining what the TSA might be like if run in the spirit of this weekend's NY."

kgermino 17y ago

I have to agree, the TSA has become nothing more than a political tool that does little to prevent future terrorist attacks. I believe they serve a purpose, but that purpose is not to prevent organized terrorist attacks, it is to keep a single crazy guy from bringing a gun or knife on board and attacking people, or hijacking the plane and holding the passengers for ransom. (Keep in mind that this is what hijackings were before 9-11, which is why they were able to crash three planes) Nowadays they have become more of a "feel-good" terrorist defense. Passengers and pilots are screened for everything and have their bottles of water and toenail clippers taken in the "search for bombs" while cleaning crew and other employees are not screened at all. The TSA does not, and cannot effectively, defend against terrorist attacks. That falls to the FBI and CIA, if an individual intending to attack America makes it to the airport than we have already failed and if the TSA stops them it is nothing but dumb luck. Yet Americans accept all of these intrusions and expenses for a false sense of safety. The T-Shirt vendor had it right "See Something, Say Something" is the single most effective last line of defense.

psyklic 17y ago
It's a tricky issue. The TSA does seem overdone. However, if terrorists are allowed to pull off the same stunts over and over, then the US will look very foolish and ineffective at protecting its people. So, I don't blame the US for being cautious. It is the terrorist's goal to make people afraid of flying and distrustful of the US government -- so in a way, making the TSA visible (their visibility being a "feel-good" defense) is in fact counter-terrorism. People do seem to trust them (and hence the US government) with their security.
zefhous 17y ago
"The TSA does not, and cannot effectively, defend against terrorist attacks." Very true. I know someone who has carried a box cutter on every flight he's been on since 9/11 - over 100 flights, just because he can.
zackattack 17y ago
Solutions perpetuate the problems they are set up to solve.