7 ms·

It's hard to put into words how insane these are. Is the TSA merely a jobs program? Are the devices just corporate welfare? Is there an actual concerted effo

It's hard to put into words how insane these are. Is the TSA merely a jobs program? Are the devices just corporate welfare? Is there an actual concerted effort by the inner party (who ride in carriages--private jets) to psychologically subjugate the middle class? Are policy makers actually under the impression that these are good rather than evil/ridiculous/unAmerican/insane? (???) Really? I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. No physical threats possible = no terrorism. Problem solved. But of course, terrorism isn't actually a problem and never was.

tptacek 16y ago
Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes. Agreed.
krschultz 16y ago
Not exactly. Recall prior to the hijacking being done by brute force on the pilots, most airline terrorism was bombs on planes. If we don't have any security what-so-ever, people could just bring hand grenades onto airplanes and I am 100% certain you could crash them that way. There is a safe middle ground here, and metal detectors were definitely in it. Full body scans? Not so much.
hugh3 16y ago
I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. Well you've still got the bomb-on-plane problem, which is what the latest three rounds of security increases have been in response to -- there was the shoe bomber, and then the liquid-mixture plot, and then the underpants bomber. You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were increasingly shitty bombs. Why were they increasingly shitty bombs? Because they've been progressively closing loopholes. The underpants bomber might have been successful if he were shoe bomber number two, but he wasn't, because the bomb-in-shoe loophole has been closed. People like to use the words "security theater" a lot because it makes them feel clever, and yes, the TSA like any government department has its own particular forms of insanity. But there's actual security accomplished there too. In the 1980s it was possible to sneak a 747-destroying bomb into a plane in a suitcase... now they're reduced to sticking dynamite up their butts. Also, communications shutoff between the cockpit and outside is crazy. What happens when there's a medical emergency onboard? Let 'em die because the pilots aren't allowed to know about anything that happens in the passenger cabin?
- StavrosK 16y ago
  Out of curiosity, how many bombs in suitcases did we get back when people could do that?
  - confuzatron 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_bombings I suppose the time when people could do that is at earliest, the most recent of those incidents.
- jcromartie 16y ago
  > the latest three rounds of security increases But there haven't been security increases! They are just targeting one of an infinite number of threats, making their coverage with each of these specific measures effectively zero. Remember: the 9/11 hijackers didn't need bombs.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    They are just targeting one of an infinite number of threats That's silly, there's a finite number of threats to airliners. Excluding external threats like missiles (which are themselves defended against by other agencies) you've got two basic avenues: bombs and hijackings. Hijackings require weapons. The first hijackers used guns, so the TSA (and other similar agencies around the world but I'll use the TSA as an example) made it hard to get guns on board. So the next round used knives. So the TSA made it hard to get knives on board. With the damn near impossibility of getting knives on board plus the fact that passengers in a hijacking are now much more inclined to fight back, hijacking is pretty much fully defended against. Bombings require bombs. The earliest bombers used suitcase bombs, which is ideal from their point of view because they can be very large. But security screening got better and suitcase bombs are too difficult nowadays. So they switched to shoe bombs. But now they're impossible. So they switched to underpants bombs. And with the latest (overly invasive) techniques that's more or less impossible too. The size of the largest bomb you can smuggle on board keeps decreasing, and the danger keeps getting smaller and smaller -- whatever you can stick up your butt it's never gonna blow a sizeable hole in the side of an airliner. It's a finite space of threats, and they're actually doing a pretty good job at defending against them. That's why since 9/11 there have been N foiled attempts to attack airliners, and zero successful ones (I think there was a Russian exception).
marclove 16y ago
It has nothing to do with jobs programs/corporate welfare. Remember there were security people before the TSA (just not as many) and the TSA was created in the post-9/11 panic. This, like most aviation security, is just security-theater. The American people were scared and so elected officials, realizing they couldn't realistically secure aviation, come up with a bunch of "procedures" that's supposed to make the general public feel more comfortable. In the end, it's about votes.
matwood 16y ago
I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. Another 9/11 scenario is going to be near impossible to pull off. Pre-9/11 hijackings often left the passengers with some hope of living through the situation so they would be docile and controllable. Post-9/11 passengers will not be docile and the hijackers will have to effectively control the entire plane with force. There is still run of the mill blow up the airplane style terrorism to watch out for, but that was around before 9/11 and will be around for long time after.

tptacek 16y ago

Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes. Agreed.

krschultz 16y ago

Not exactly. Recall prior to the hijacking being done by brute force on the pilots, most airline terrorism was bombs on planes. If we don't have any security what-so-ever, people could just bring hand grenades onto airplanes and I am 100% certain you could crash them that way. There is a safe middle ground here, and metal detectors were definitely in it. Full body scans? Not so much.

hugh3 16y ago

I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. Well you've still got the bomb-on-plane problem, which is what the latest three rounds of security increases have been in response to -- there was the shoe bomber, and then the liquid-mixture plot, and then the underpants bomber. You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were increasingly shitty bombs. Why were they increasingly shitty bombs? Because they've been progressively closing loopholes. The underpants bomber might have been successful if he were shoe bomber number two, but he wasn't, because the bomb-in-shoe loophole has been closed. People like to use the words "security theater" a lot because it makes them feel clever, and yes, the TSA like any government department has its own particular forms of insanity. But there's actual security accomplished there too. In the 1980s it was possible to sneak a 747-destroying bomb into a plane in a suitcase... now they're reduced to sticking dynamite up their butts. Also, communications shutoff between the cockpit and outside is crazy. What happens when there's a medical emergency onboard? Let 'em die because the pilots aren't allowed to know about anything that happens in the passenger cabin?

StavrosK 16y ago
Out of curiosity, how many bombs in suitcases did we get back when people could do that?
- confuzatron 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_bombings I suppose the time when people could do that is at earliest, the most recent of those incidents.
jcromartie 16y ago
> the latest three rounds of security increases But there haven't been security increases! They are just targeting one of an infinite number of threats, making their coverage with each of these specific measures effectively zero. Remember: the 9/11 hijackers didn't need bombs.
- hugh3 16y ago
  They are just targeting one of an infinite number of threats That's silly, there's a finite number of threats to airliners. Excluding external threats like missiles (which are themselves defended against by other agencies) you've got two basic avenues: bombs and hijackings. Hijackings require weapons. The first hijackers used guns, so the TSA (and other similar agencies around the world but I'll use the TSA as an example) made it hard to get guns on board. So the next round used knives. So the TSA made it hard to get knives on board. With the damn near impossibility of getting knives on board plus the fact that passengers in a hijacking are now much more inclined to fight back, hijacking is pretty much fully defended against. Bombings require bombs. The earliest bombers used suitcase bombs, which is ideal from their point of view because they can be very large. But security screening got better and suitcase bombs are too difficult nowadays. So they switched to shoe bombs. But now they're impossible. So they switched to underpants bombs. And with the latest (overly invasive) techniques that's more or less impossible too. The size of the largest bomb you can smuggle on board keeps decreasing, and the danger keeps getting smaller and smaller -- whatever you can stick up your butt it's never gonna blow a sizeable hole in the side of an airliner. It's a finite space of threats, and they're actually doing a pretty good job at defending against them. That's why since 9/11 there have been N foiled attempts to attack airliners, and zero successful ones (I think there was a Russian exception).

marclove 16y ago

It has nothing to do with jobs programs/corporate welfare. Remember there were security people before the TSA (just not as many) and the TSA was created in the post-9/11 panic. This, like most aviation security, is just security-theater. The American people were scared and so elected officials, realizing they couldn't realistically secure aviation, come up with a bunch of "procedures" that's supposed to make the general public feel more comfortable. In the end, it's about votes.

matwood 16y ago

I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. Another 9/11 scenario is going to be near impossible to pull off. Pre-9/11 hijackings often left the passengers with some hope of living through the situation so they would be docile and controllable. Post-9/11 passengers will not be docile and the hijackers will have to effectively control the entire plane with force. There is still run of the mill blow up the airplane style terrorism to watch out for, but that was around before 9/11 and will be around for long time after.