4 ms·
I don't think that statement, by itself, tells us much about the TSA's efficacy. Because their mere presence could be an effective deterrent.
by DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
I don't think that statement, by itself, tells us much about the TSA's efficacy. Because their mere presence could be an effective deterrent.
- lostcolony 8y agoWe know at least two made it through. Underwear bomber, shoe bomber. We also know pre-9/11 how common it was (non-existent). We also know that they consistently fail audits. Though they've gotten better! Most recently they only failed ~75% of the time at detecting things auditors were trying to smuggle in, instead of the prior 95%! So, yeah, by itself it doesn't. But we have enough data to make a pretty solid eval.
- mikeyouse 8y agoBoth the underwear bomber and shoe bomber boarded flights overseas (Amsterdam and Paris respectively) -- so no TSA involvement.
- acct1771 8y agoUnderwear bomber was Saudi intelligence/CIA, for the reader's info.
- goobynight 8y agoThe TSA has operated overseas before, but probably not in these countries. If they see a country isn't up to their standard, I think they either show up to implement it for flights headed to the US or at least consult with the nation.
- shawnz 8y agoBut the parent comment wasn't regarding the efficacy of the TSA, it was regarding the dangers of being a TSA agent
- DoofusOfDeath 8y agoAll the parent wrote was: > The TSA has never found a bomb. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand how that supports your statement.
- shawnz 8y agoThey were replying to a comment which implied that the main risk of working for the TSA is dealing with bombs. But the TSA has never dealt with any bombs, so clearly that's not actually a risk of working there.