10 ms·

It's fascinating how the security theatre has gotten so big that now it basically just rolls forward under its own momentum. It's been around long enough that p

It's fascinating how the security theatre has gotten so big that now it basically just rolls forward under its own momentum. It's been around long enough that people accept it as normal, it serves no other purpose than to employ the unemployable and fill contractors' coffers, and it seems that no entity is able to stop or dismantle it.

bitreality 8y ago
I'd say the last 15+ years of air travel has been pretty safe in the US. To say the security has accomplished nothing is a stretch.
- poizan42 8y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
- umanwizard 8y ago
  It was quite safe in the 15 years before 2001 too. As for the major incident that happened in 2001 -- it wouldn't have been stopped by any amount of scanning of people's laptops.
- orblivion 8y ago
  Cockpits are locked. Passengers are more vigilant. Bruce Schneier argues that this made all the difference. I don't know if it's right but it seems like not a stretch.
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    If anything, the most (or only) effective aspect of TSA checks are that they remind people to be vigilant. That may be the single best reason to continue using security theater, and a very strong argument in favor of keeping it.
valleyjo 8y ago
This is a pretty cynical viewpoint but I agree. It’s clear that TSA doesn’t do much. Someone I know has acidentially brought a pocketknife through security multiple times without it being found. They keep it in my backpack as a regular item and just forgot to take it out.
- monocasa 8y ago
  I've literally brought a pickaxe by accident. But one time I was trying to bring a fish, and had a next to impossible time trying to get them to agree that water was a "life sustaining liquid" as defined by their exemptions on the 3oz rule wrt to fish.
  - AlexCoventry 8y ago
    What exactly are they trying to prevent with the liquid prohibition, anyway?
    - javagram 8y ago
      Trying to prevent people carrying through chemicals that could be combined in the airplane bathroom to make explosives I believe. There was a terrorist plot to do this, which was caught by the security services, and then despite the terrorists being caught the liquids ban was put into place forever more to stop future attacks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_...
      - Godel_unicode 8y ago
        First, a slight clarification: while the main charge and the detonator were separated during transit and intended to be assembled on the plane, the explosive liquid itself was not a binary compound; it was live in the soft drink bottles. It sounds like you're arguing that this regulation is not necessary any more because that particular plot was foiled. I find that line of reasoning odd, given that the 2006 attack was the last in a string of plots using liquid explosives to target airliners. The type of group which carried out attacks like this still exists, with similar goals. Given that it's reasonably effective at deterring a technique which has actually been used (the Japan test run in the 90s) and which has been attempted multiple times, I think it's possibly the least objectionable regulation. It doesn't address all modes of attack (obviously), and it's very debatable whether the likelihood of attack makes the invasiveness of the countermeasure acceptable, but unlike body scanners it's at least effective at deterring the specific modality it's aimed at.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It's been around long enough that people accept it as normal, it serves no other purpose than to employ the unemployable and fill contractors' coffers It serves the purpose of removing liability for security from airlines, which is the major reason why it was created. It also serves the purpose of getting people used to progressively more intrusive government inspection during routine situations. > and it seems that no entity is able to stop or dismantle it. There are entities that are able to, but they don't want to, because they like what it does.
- xvf22 8y ago
  And yet if someone pockets a grenade in their rectum, the system fails.
  - sieabahlpark 8y ago
    Pretty sure that'll show up in the X-ray.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      Are they X-raying people now?
      - isostatic 8y ago
        No. It would show up on a good old fashioned metal detector that we had in the 80s and 90s though
        Sir_Substance 8y ago
        Hrm, that's interesting. I went through Schipol a few days ago and don't recall having to go through a metal detector. Nude body scanner yes, metal detector no. Maybe I just wasn't looking?
        jacobush 8y ago
robertAngst 8y ago
The moment we experience government, we see the inefficiencies, yet some people want to see government get larger. I just cannot understand the logic.
- issa 8y ago
  Government is great at some things. Unfortunately one of those things isn't dealing with fears rationally.
  - chii 8y ago
    > dealing with fears rationally. people as an individual also don't deal with fears rationally. This is exploited by those in power (or whoever that can) to further their own agenda - whether it's greed or control or whatever.
    - Godel_unicode 8y ago
      I think that Hanlons razor, combined with the need to Do Something™, suffices to explain this.
  - robertAngst 8y ago
    Which things?
- pm90 8y ago
  It’s quite unfair to characterize the entirety of a huge organization based simply on certain functions at which it’s ineffective. Probably the most important thing it does is to keep the world from descending into a flaming fireball of constant wars between countries. There are literally thousands of other things at which it exce.
  - provolone 8y ago
    "Probably the most important thing it does is to keep the world from descending into a flaming fireball of constant wars between countries" How many millions were killed by government in the 20th century? WW1, WWII, concentration camps, gulags, Mao's great leap forward, Vietnam, and the list goes on. War has been a constant for most of the 21st century. There is a strong argument that much of the above would not have been feasible without large centralized states.
adictator 8y ago
Nobody, I repeat NOBODY ever gets fired for adding more security, no matter how asinine or counterproductive it is. That is the unfortunate fact & it is not limited to Airport security.
mseidl 8y ago
I was flying form Twin Falls to L.A. and when I went through the metal detector I set it off. So, what to the TSA people do? They don't use the metal detector wand, they take some paper and rub it on my hands and put it in a machine to detect for explosive residue/powder...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- 1000units 8y ago
  I got pat down by an older gentleman. I jokingly said "I wish my girlfriend touched me like this" and then I was threatened with assault.
  - caseysoftware 8y ago
    My favorite lines to use: "Whoa.. whatever you just did, do it again." or "Can I have her give me the pat down instead?" And you can really irritate them if you say the little spiel along with them. It rattles them.
    - labster 8y ago
      Please don't irritate the TSA agents. If they don't get you for it, they will take it out on everyone behind you. Instead, write your congresscritters. Nearly all of them fly every week, so they feel your pain.
      - 1000units 8y ago
        It would have been nice if that guy had actually hit me. We could've replaced him with someone with manners.
        caseysoftware 8y ago
        That's what you think but the TSA has left me bloody on two occasions and despite reports supported with pictures and other passenger statements, they were still on the job days and weeks later. They're unaccountable, ineffective, and completely useless. It's a modern day Work Project.
jonas21 8y ago
It's also interesting to compare the prevailing opinion here on the TSA with that of the FAA, given that they serve the same industry. It appears that most people on HN feel that TSA regulations are pointless theater and should be weakened or eliminated, while the FAA is to be blamed for not exercising their regulatory power strongly enough (especially in light of the 737 MAX). Both agencies seem to follow a similar methodology: when there's an incident, analyze the cause and enact regulations that would have prevented it, building up a system leads to fewer incidents over time. And they seem to have led to similar results -- over the past decade, there has been only one passenger fatality on commercial flights within the US due to accidents, and zero due to hijackings/bombings. Why the difference in opinion? Is it that TSA regulations are personally annoying to travelers while FAA regulations are mostly invisible to passengers?
- WA9ACE 8y ago
  I don't claim to speak for the parent, but my difference in opinion comes from the fact that when tested, the red team managed to get banned weapons and mock explosives through TSA 95% of the time. Source: https://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 https://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/exclusive-undercover-dhs-test...
- gumby 8y ago
  > Both agencies seem to follow a similar methodology: when there's an incident, analyze the cause and enact regulations that would have prevented it, building up a system leads to fewer incidents over time. And they seem to have led to similar results -- over the past decade, there has been only one passenger fatality on commercial flights within the US due to accidents, and zero due to hijackings/bombings. Because that's not actually the case? Only a small part of the FAA's activities is post hoc incident analysis. They do quite a bit of scientific studies, certification, licensing etc. And in fact the most recent outrage against the FAA has been the feeling that they have bene derelict in their duties in regards to the 737-MAX by adopting the problematic self-regulatory approach used by, say, the Department of Agriculture. By contrast, the TSA (which is much smaller than the FAA and has, for all intents and purposes, only one responsibility) on has never demonstrated competency, clearly awards contracts based on cronyism (the millimeter wave system have no science supporting them), engage in absurd scope creep (checking bags on some train or bus stations, pretending to be law enforcement) and reducing security from where it was before the agency was created (e.g. "TSA locks" which have permitted an increase in theft from bags) etc. Not at all the same.
fulafel 8y ago
Maybe increasing friction in air travel is a morally good environmental service, a lesser of two evils.

bitreality 8y ago

I'd say the last 15+ years of air travel has been pretty safe in the US. To say the security has accomplished nothing is a stretch.

poizan42 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
umanwizard 8y ago
It was quite safe in the 15 years before 2001 too. As for the major incident that happened in 2001 -- it wouldn't have been stopped by any amount of scanning of people's laptops.
orblivion 8y ago
Cockpits are locked. Passengers are more vigilant. Bruce Schneier argues that this made all the difference. I don't know if it's right but it seems like not a stretch.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  If anything, the most (or only) effective aspect of TSA checks are that they remind people to be vigilant. That may be the single best reason to continue using security theater, and a very strong argument in favor of keeping it.

valleyjo 8y ago

This is a pretty cynical viewpoint but I agree. It’s clear that TSA doesn’t do much. Someone I know has acidentially brought a pocketknife through security multiple times without it being found. They keep it in my backpack as a regular item and just forgot to take it out.

monocasa 8y ago
I've literally brought a pickaxe by accident. But one time I was trying to bring a fish, and had a next to impossible time trying to get them to agree that water was a "life sustaining liquid" as defined by their exemptions on the 3oz rule wrt to fish.
- AlexCoventry 8y ago
  What exactly are they trying to prevent with the liquid prohibition, anyway?
  - javagram 8y ago
    Trying to prevent people carrying through chemicals that could be combined in the airplane bathroom to make explosives I believe. There was a terrorist plot to do this, which was caught by the security services, and then despite the terrorists being caught the liquids ban was put into place forever more to stop future attacks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_...
    - Godel_unicode 8y ago
      First, a slight clarification: while the main charge and the detonator were separated during transit and intended to be assembled on the plane, the explosive liquid itself was not a binary compound; it was live in the soft drink bottles. It sounds like you're arguing that this regulation is not necessary any more because that particular plot was foiled. I find that line of reasoning odd, given that the 2006 attack was the last in a string of plots using liquid explosives to target airliners. The type of group which carried out attacks like this still exists, with similar goals. Given that it's reasonably effective at deterring a technique which has actually been used (the Japan test run in the 90s) and which has been attempted multiple times, I think it's possibly the least objectionable regulation. It doesn't address all modes of attack (obviously), and it's very debatable whether the likelihood of attack makes the invasiveness of the countermeasure acceptable, but unlike body scanners it's at least effective at deterring the specific modality it's aimed at.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It's been around long enough that people accept it as normal, it serves no other purpose than to employ the unemployable and fill contractors' coffers It serves the purpose of removing liability for security from airlines, which is the major reason why it was created. It also serves the purpose of getting people used to progressively more intrusive government inspection during routine situations. > and it seems that no entity is able to stop or dismantle it. There are entities that are able to, but they don't want to, because they like what it does.

xvf22 8y ago
And yet if someone pockets a grenade in their rectum, the system fails.
- sieabahlpark 8y ago
  Pretty sure that'll show up in the X-ray.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Are they X-raying people now?
    - isostatic 8y ago
      No. It would show up on a good old fashioned metal detector that we had in the 80s and 90s though
      - Sir_Substance 8y ago
        Hrm, that's interesting. I went through Schipol a few days ago and don't recall having to go through a metal detector. Nude body scanner yes, metal detector no. Maybe I just wasn't looking?
        jacobush 8y ago

robertAngst 8y ago

The moment we experience government, we see the inefficiencies, yet some people want to see government get larger. I just cannot understand the logic.

issa 8y ago
Government is great at some things. Unfortunately one of those things isn't dealing with fears rationally.
- chii 8y ago
  > dealing with fears rationally. people as an individual also don't deal with fears rationally. This is exploited by those in power (or whoever that can) to further their own agenda - whether it's greed or control or whatever.
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    I think that Hanlons razor, combined with the need to Do Something™, suffices to explain this.
- robertAngst 8y ago
  Which things?
pm90 8y ago
It’s quite unfair to characterize the entirety of a huge organization based simply on certain functions at which it’s ineffective. Probably the most important thing it does is to keep the world from descending into a flaming fireball of constant wars between countries. There are literally thousands of other things at which it exce.
- provolone 8y ago
  "Probably the most important thing it does is to keep the world from descending into a flaming fireball of constant wars between countries" How many millions were killed by government in the 20th century? WW1, WWII, concentration camps, gulags, Mao's great leap forward, Vietnam, and the list goes on. War has been a constant for most of the 21st century. There is a strong argument that much of the above would not have been feasible without large centralized states.

adictator 8y ago

Nobody, I repeat NOBODY ever gets fired for adding more security, no matter how asinine or counterproductive it is. That is the unfortunate fact & it is not limited to Airport security.

mseidl 8y ago

I was flying form Twin Falls to L.A. and when I went through the metal detector I set it off. So, what to the TSA people do? They don't use the metal detector wand, they take some paper and rub it on my hands and put it in a machine to detect for explosive residue/powder...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
1000units 8y ago
I got pat down by an older gentleman. I jokingly said "I wish my girlfriend touched me like this" and then I was threatened with assault.
- caseysoftware 8y ago
  My favorite lines to use: "Whoa.. whatever you just did, do it again." or "Can I have her give me the pat down instead?" And you can really irritate them if you say the little spiel along with them. It rattles them.
  - labster 8y ago
    Please don't irritate the TSA agents. If they don't get you for it, they will take it out on everyone behind you. Instead, write your congresscritters. Nearly all of them fly every week, so they feel your pain.
    - 1000units 8y ago
      It would have been nice if that guy had actually hit me. We could've replaced him with someone with manners.
      - caseysoftware 8y ago
        That's what you think but the TSA has left me bloody on two occasions and despite reports supported with pictures and other passenger statements, they were still on the job days and weeks later. They're unaccountable, ineffective, and completely useless. It's a modern day Work Project.

jonas21 8y ago

It's also interesting to compare the prevailing opinion here on the TSA with that of the FAA, given that they serve the same industry. It appears that most people on HN feel that TSA regulations are pointless theater and should be weakened or eliminated, while the FAA is to be blamed for not exercising their regulatory power strongly enough (especially in light of the 737 MAX). Both agencies seem to follow a similar methodology: when there's an incident, analyze the cause and enact regulations that would have prevented it, building up a system leads to fewer incidents over time. And they seem to have led to similar results -- over the past decade, there has been only one passenger fatality on commercial flights within the US due to accidents, and zero due to hijackings/bombings. Why the difference in opinion? Is it that TSA regulations are personally annoying to travelers while FAA regulations are mostly invisible to passengers?

WA9ACE 8y ago
I don't claim to speak for the parent, but my difference in opinion comes from the fact that when tested, the red team managed to get banned weapons and mock explosives through TSA 95% of the time. Source: https://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 https://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/exclusive-undercover-dhs-test...
gumby 8y ago
> Both agencies seem to follow a similar methodology: when there's an incident, analyze the cause and enact regulations that would have prevented it, building up a system leads to fewer incidents over time. And they seem to have led to similar results -- over the past decade, there has been only one passenger fatality on commercial flights within the US due to accidents, and zero due to hijackings/bombings. Because that's not actually the case? Only a small part of the FAA's activities is post hoc incident analysis. They do quite a bit of scientific studies, certification, licensing etc. And in fact the most recent outrage against the FAA has been the feeling that they have bene derelict in their duties in regards to the 737-MAX by adopting the problematic self-regulatory approach used by, say, the Department of Agriculture. By contrast, the TSA (which is much smaller than the FAA and has, for all intents and purposes, only one responsibility) on has never demonstrated competency, clearly awards contracts based on cronyism (the millimeter wave system have no science supporting them), engage in absurd scope creep (checking bags on some train or bus stations, pretending to be law enforcement) and reducing security from where it was before the agency was created (e.g. "TSA locks" which have permitted an increase in theft from bags) etc. Not at all the same.

fulafel 8y ago

Maybe increasing friction in air travel is a morally good environmental service, a lesser of two evils.