29 ms·

Multiple checks are not stupid at all. The screening is not 100% reliable and an independent repeat is a reasonable way to improve detections of weapons, which

Multiple checks are not stupid at all. The screening is not 100% reliable and an independent repeat is a reasonable way to improve detections of weapons, which have been shown to get through sometimes in TSA and third-party experiments.

belorn 10y ago
I recall reading that TSA has never actually stopped a real threat to a airplane. The screening is one of the least cost-effective security mechanism in use, so are we suggestion that doubling it and the costs is a reasonable way to improve detections? A reasonable way to detect threats would be to hire more investigators and bomb dogs patrols. Both has shown to be cost-effective and to produce results, in direct contrast to the TSA screening method.
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  I'm not a fan of security theatre. But the TSA does not have to catch anyone to be very effective. In fact it its intended deterrence effect was effective it would never catch anyone at all.
  - belorn 10y ago
    So does the deterrence effect increase by the number of screenings? The physiological effect is not measurable in this case, and if we compare it to the placebo effect which is measurable, there is little proof that eating two fake pills has any benefit over eating one. How big portion of terrorists is likely to completely ignore the fact of one screening but be deterred by the existence of a second one?
    - robotresearcher 10y ago
      Rationally, the deterrence should increase monotonically with the chance of being caught. With two serial 90% effective checks, you have a 99% effective system. Such a low chance of success means attackers should try something else instead. Now, with probably not even close to 99% screening, along with cockpit doors and fight-motivated passengers, the deterrence seems powerful enough that we are seeing other kinds of attacks.
      - belorn 10y ago
        Where did you pull that 90% effectiveness from? People don't believe 90% in a fake pill, and by eating two get to 99% belief. Either you believe the fake pill will work or you don't. The number of pills don't multiply the placebo effect. Why believe that security theater, ie fake security, increase the physiological effect in multiplicate way based on the number of identical copies? If the placebo effect could be multiplied in such a way, every sickness could be cured by just eating more and more sugar. If a fake pill had 1% placebo effect, eating ~500 fake pills would reach 99% effectiveness. That is obviously not how the placebo effect works.
        robotresearcher 10y ago
        X-ray machine screenings are not placebo. They aren't perfect, but if you put a handgun in your carry on, there's a pretty good chance they'll find it. And yes I know there are failures. But it's not reasonable to say that the current security check is placebo only. Ask yourself: would you put a gun or knife in your carry on to prove the point? The 90% figure I made up as an example. I don't know the real figure. But I don't fancy my chances getting a weapon through security.
        belorn 10y ago
        Even yourself called it security theater because people have looked at TSA security and never found a single case where it prevented a threat to a airplane. To quote: "Security theater is the practice of investing in countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually achieve it" Security theater do not cause 90% prevention. And to be clear, I know several personal cases where a knife has gone through the security check because the person carrying it had forgotten that it was even there. Its not effective, no research say its effective, and all benefits that security checks provide against threat to airplanes are the placebo effect. Strong doors, investigators, and bomb sniffing dogs. Those are some real security measures found to be effective on airports, airplanes, as well as other places where dangerous people need to be stopped. They are used by both police and the military, and shown to be cost effective. The methods used by airport screening is used by airports, not by the police or the military, and the results are clear.
pavel_lishin 10y ago
Vacuuming the living room rug with a broken vacuum twice isn't going to make it significantly cleaner.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

belorn 10y ago

I recall reading that TSA has never actually stopped a real threat to a airplane. The screening is one of the least cost-effective security mechanism in use, so are we suggestion that doubling it and the costs is a reasonable way to improve detections? A reasonable way to detect threats would be to hire more investigators and bomb dogs patrols. Both has shown to be cost-effective and to produce results, in direct contrast to the TSA screening method.

robotresearcher 10y ago
I'm not a fan of security theatre. But the TSA does not have to catch anyone to be very effective. In fact it its intended deterrence effect was effective it would never catch anyone at all.
- belorn 10y ago
  So does the deterrence effect increase by the number of screenings? The physiological effect is not measurable in this case, and if we compare it to the placebo effect which is measurable, there is little proof that eating two fake pills has any benefit over eating one. How big portion of terrorists is likely to completely ignore the fact of one screening but be deterred by the existence of a second one?
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    Rationally, the deterrence should increase monotonically with the chance of being caught. With two serial 90% effective checks, you have a 99% effective system. Such a low chance of success means attackers should try something else instead. Now, with probably not even close to 99% screening, along with cockpit doors and fight-motivated passengers, the deterrence seems powerful enough that we are seeing other kinds of attacks.
    - belorn 10y ago
      Where did you pull that 90% effectiveness from? People don't believe 90% in a fake pill, and by eating two get to 99% belief. Either you believe the fake pill will work or you don't. The number of pills don't multiply the placebo effect. Why believe that security theater, ie fake security, increase the physiological effect in multiplicate way based on the number of identical copies? If the placebo effect could be multiplied in such a way, every sickness could be cured by just eating more and more sugar. If a fake pill had 1% placebo effect, eating ~500 fake pills would reach 99% effectiveness. That is obviously not how the placebo effect works.
      - robotresearcher 10y ago
        X-ray machine screenings are not placebo. They aren't perfect, but if you put a handgun in your carry on, there's a pretty good chance they'll find it. And yes I know there are failures. But it's not reasonable to say that the current security check is placebo only. Ask yourself: would you put a gun or knife in your carry on to prove the point? The 90% figure I made up as an example. I don't know the real figure. But I don't fancy my chances getting a weapon through security.
        belorn 10y ago
        Even yourself called it security theater because people have looked at TSA security and never found a single case where it prevented a threat to a airplane. To quote: "Security theater is the practice of investing in countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually achieve it" Security theater do not cause 90% prevention. And to be clear, I know several personal cases where a knife has gone through the security check because the person carrying it had forgotten that it was even there. Its not effective, no research say its effective, and all benefits that security checks provide against threat to airplanes are the placebo effect. Strong doors, investigators, and bomb sniffing dogs. Those are some real security measures found to be effective on airports, airplanes, as well as other places where dangerous people need to be stopped. They are used by both police and the military, and shown to be cost effective. The methods used by airport screening is used by airports, not by the police or the military, and the results are clear.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

Vacuuming the living room rug with a broken vacuum twice isn't going to make it significantly cleaner.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]