3 ms·

This is something we handle really, really badly. One bad thing happens one time (like a failed shoe bomb), and so everybody forever-more has to be permanently

by noja 8y ago

This is something we handle really, really badly. One bad thing happens one time (like a failed shoe bomb), and so everybody forever-more has to be permanently inconvenienced every day. Whatever the response to this incident is, I hope (and doubt) that it will also balance the CHANCE of this happening against the huge cost and inconvenience of making it "impossible" to ever happen again. We all know that 100% and "impossible" is not going to work, and we all know that lame "for show" security measures are a huge waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere. The question that needs to be asked and will not is: what would be the most best positive impact for that same amount of money? It won't be asked because it's a hard question and people are scared of hard questions. Better make a Space Corps instead.

speedplane 8y ago
I've always wondered about the true value of "for show" security measures. Requiring millions of passengers to spend 5 minutes more going through security to undergo procedures that wouldn't stop a determined terrorist definitely seems like a huge waste. However, if the government didn't do "something", it's pretty likely that trust in the US air transportation system would shrink. Wouldn't crush it, but maybe 3 of 100 passengers would forgo air travel because they didn't feel comfortable or that their government isn't on top of it. And maybe that 3% decrease corresponds in $XXX Million in lost revenue for airlines. So I'd believe that "for show" security measures don't actually increase security, but I'd also bet that they increase airline ridership. The moral of the story is that it's an economic response, not a security one.
- noja 8y ago
  Sure, but it's also dishonest. It only happens and works because there is no honest conversation between the money spender (the government) and the voters. Wasting money and theater is a tax on the 97% who still would have flown.
- thunfischbrot 8y ago
  The opposite effect happens as well: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automobi.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automo... > The inconvenience of extra passenger screening and added costs at airports after 9/11 cause many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination instead, and, since airline travel is far safer than car travel, this has led to an increase of 500 U.S. traffic fatalities per year. Using DHS-mandated value of statistical life at $6.5 million, this equates to a loss of $3.2 billion per year, or $32 billion over the period 2002 to 2011 (Blalock et al. 2007).
  - mindslight 8y ago
    Don't forget the direct time waste of people getting to the scareport early and waiting in line to get molested. The average lifespan is 79. 700M passengers * 1hr / 79yrs --> every year, over 1000 babies are killed by the TSA.
pjc50 8y ago
Comparatively, if someone wants to murder-suicide with a car or a gun, the response is basically nothing.
- speedplane 8y ago
  With guns there is a response... buying more guns.
guessthejuice 8y ago
> This is something we handle really, really badly. We handle it bad because the news scaremongers with hyperbolic exaggerations. The people get overly anxious and of course politicians rush to the worst possible "solutions". I remember a while back there was hysteria over pilots not being screened. Then people found out that a pilot doesn't need weapons to take down a plane and screening pilots doesn't make sense. Common sense. If everyone would just calm down and think things through, we'd come to more sensible solutions. And much of the time, the sensible solution is to do nothing. Bad things happen. Just the way life is. So we should weigh the options calmly and sensibly, not hysterically.

by noja 8y ago

speedplane 8y ago

I've always wondered about the true value of "for show" security measures. Requiring millions of passengers to spend 5 minutes more going through security to undergo procedures that wouldn't stop a determined terrorist definitely seems like a huge waste. However, if the government didn't do "something", it's pretty likely that trust in the US air transportation system would shrink. Wouldn't crush it, but maybe 3 of 100 passengers would forgo air travel because they didn't feel comfortable or that their government isn't on top of it. And maybe that 3% decrease corresponds in $XXX Million in lost revenue for airlines. So I'd believe that "for show" security measures don't actually increase security, but I'd also bet that they increase airline ridership. The moral of the story is that it's an economic response, not a security one.

noja 8y ago
Sure, but it's also dishonest. It only happens and works because there is no honest conversation between the money spender (the government) and the voters. Wasting money and theater is a tax on the 97% who still would have flown.
thunfischbrot 8y ago
The opposite effect happens as well: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automobi.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automo... > The inconvenience of extra passenger screening and added costs at airports after 9/11 cause many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination instead, and, since airline travel is far safer than car travel, this has led to an increase of 500 U.S. traffic fatalities per year. Using DHS-mandated value of statistical life at $6.5 million, this equates to a loss of $3.2 billion per year, or $32 billion over the period 2002 to 2011 (Blalock et al. 2007).
- mindslight 8y ago
  Don't forget the direct time waste of people getting to the scareport early and waiting in line to get molested. The average lifespan is 79. 700M passengers * 1hr / 79yrs --> every year, over 1000 babies are killed by the TSA.

pjc50 8y ago

Comparatively, if someone wants to murder-suicide with a car or a gun, the response is basically nothing.

speedplane 8y ago
With guns there is a response... buying more guns.

guessthejuice 8y ago

> This is something we handle really, really badly. We handle it bad because the news scaremongers with hyperbolic exaggerations. The people get overly anxious and of course politicians rush to the worst possible "solutions". I remember a while back there was hysteria over pilots not being screened. Then people found out that a pilot doesn't need weapons to take down a plane and screening pilots doesn't make sense. Common sense. If everyone would just calm down and think things through, we'd come to more sensible solutions. And much of the time, the sensible solution is to do nothing. Bad things happen. Just the way life is. So we should weigh the options calmly and sensibly, not hysterically.