4 ms·

In defense of the TSA, "security theater" is a legitimate form of security. They may never catch any would-be hijackers, but how many didn't make an attempt be

In defense of the TSA, "security theater" is a legitimate form of security. They may never catch any would-be hijackers, but how many didn't make an attempt because they knew that they wouldn't be able to reliably sneak a gun past security? Look into news reports from the 60s and 70s, before serious security at airports. Hijackings were almost normal. Today, hijackings are thankfully almost non-existent. You don't end speed traps just because nobody got caught speeding last year. I also appreciate the security theater because it makes airports a generally drug-free environment. I bet few here have ever spent much time on a bus. Not a short hop on a city bus, an overnight inter-state trip on a greyhound. I have a couple times and each time I would have PAID for a TSA-style check before boarding. It would weed out 99% of crazy/high people who make such journeys so miserable for everyone around them. A typical long trip by bus, without the TSA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mwOYroU7bk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mwOYroU7bk

arcticbull 5y ago
Anyone whose goal is to sneak a weapon through TSA would do a quick google and learn that they fail to catch weapons and contraband snuck through their checkpoints in their own tests about 95% of the time [1]. [1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-fin...
- sandworm101 5y ago
  Everyone has seen those results, but have you looked into the nature of the devices they were using? These weren't handguns or swords. These were devices designed to mimic bombs, bombs built to best sneak past security checks.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > These were devices designed to mimic bombs, bombs built to best sneak past security checks. If I was a terrorist looking to bring a bomb onto a plane, I would probably also build it to sneak past security checks. Isn't that the point?
    - sandworm101 5y ago
      That depends. TSA stops thousands of people from bringing firearms onto aircraft each year. Those are certainly not all terrorists, but it does indicate that, no matter the test results, the screening is necessary and at least somewhat effective. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/10/13/tsa-firearm-catches-checkpoints-sets-20-year-record-first-nine https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/10/13/tsa-firea... >> By October 3rd of this year, TSA officers had stopped 4,495 airline passengers from carrying firearms onto their flights, surpassing the previous record of 4,432 firearms caught at checkpoints in the full calendar year 2019
      - jtsiskin 5y ago
        I don’t think anyone is arguing for totally 0 checks. People just want to not need to unpack their bags, empty their pockets, take off their shoes/belt, and to be able to carry a water bottle.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        To be honest, there's not a single check when you take Amtrak and things actually work just fine there. Something about being up in the sky makes people scared enough to go through a metal detector, I suppose.
        gruturo 5y ago
        Trains are intrinsically resistant to hijacking - it's really difficult to get them to divert to Cuba, or to crash them into a high rise building, unless one was somehow built on their path. I'd really like to understand the TSA's scenario, it looks like another massive and pointless waste of money added to what that the organization already does in airports.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        I agree trains are hard to redirect but planes are too, after they reinforced cockpit doors post-9/11. In my opinion that’s literally the only useful thing that came out of 9/11 from an air security perspective.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  Or they would try to board in states where having a license to carry gives you an "oh, I forgot" defense to trying to carry a firearm through security at the airport.
darkerside 5y ago
Those people are human beings that need to get somewhere, too, and the bus is the cheapest way for them to do it. That's why they're there, and weeding them out with TSA isn't really the best solution IMO. I think hijackings are over because everyone now knows that if you pull a knife or a gun on an airport, you will immediately get taken down by literally everyone on the flight. People before 9/11 didn't realize the downside risk of a hijacking was a suicide crash. It was just unthinkable. Now that we know, it will never happen again. TSA is not a factor.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  You don't weed out the people, you weed out their drugs. The threat of being caught with drugs by a security guard means they don't bring their drugs with them onto the plane. Net result: fewer people currently on drugs sitting beside me while I try to sleep. I don't mind sleeping amongst a bunch of stranger on a plane or at an airport because I know they have at least been screened for basic weapons. Sleeping on an interstate bus or at a bus station is very different. See below. The knife in that killing would have been detected at any airport by even the laziest of TSA screeners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean
  - gaadd33 5y ago
    So by preventing people from taking drugs on planes you are preventing terrorism? You do realize some airports have explicit policies on not looking or caring about drugs? Eg https://www.flylax.com/lax-marijuana-policy https://www.flylax.com/lax-marijuana-policy Also your example is from Canada where there is no TSA yet people don't do similar things on planes, it's not an ideal example.
    - Gibbon1 5y ago
      Yeah problem with tasking the TSA with busting people for carrying small amounts of drugs is because drugs are common and weapons are rare, and terrorists even rarer all they'll do then is look for drugs.
    - 5y ago
Bilal_io 5y ago
"crazy" people wouldn't be prevented from boarding, I'd argue that even high people shouldn't be stopped as we cannot predict the behavior of a high person, and we cannot let TSA evaluate craziness.
woodruffw 5y ago
The entire point of the phrase "security theater" is to emphasize that there is no observable difference in outcomes. Ordinary people understand this, and criminals (especially the kinds that seize airplanes) are usually at least as smart as laypeople. Evaluating the success of the TSA based on perceived deterrents is at best an unknown unknown, but the fact that we know those deterrents to be ineffective makes the null hypothesis (it's just not that common to hijack planes anymore, potentially for other reasons) much more likely. > Look into news reports from the 60s and 70s, before serious security at airports. Hijackings were almost normal. Today they are almost non-existent. I would wager that this has more to do with the FAA requiring the reinforced and locked cockpit doors, and almost nothing to do with the TSA. The hijackings of the 1960s and 1970s were not done as acts of terror -- they were frequently "statement" actions, done with the goal of making the plane land somewhere troublesome for the US (like Cuba). > I also appreciate the security theater because it makes airports a generally drug-free environment. Do we go to the same airports? I regularly see daydrinking, mixing alcohol with sleep medications, and all kinds of behavior that adults generally do when they're in a space where they know their actions don't have real consequences for them. I'll go as far as to say that I've seen more open drug use (and consequent poor behavior) in airports than I've ever seen in the Port Authority in NYC. And I rode interstate buses for years.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> the reinforced and locked cockpit doors Nope. Hijackings disappeared long before 9/11, when they started x-raying carry-ons in the 80s. No longer could just anyone bring an AK-47 on in a guitar case. https://airport.nridigital.com/air_mar20/timeline_the_history_of_airport_body_scanners https://airport.nridigital.com/air_mar20/timeline_the_histor... "As time went by, a series of skyjacking attempts – which in 1969 alone amounted to 40 in the US [ie one every week] – eventually led to the introduction of the first x-ray scanning machines for baggage in the 1970s. However, passengers themselves were only checked with an electronic magnetometer and later through metal detectors."
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    So that we're on the same page: the TSA was founded in 2001, as a response to 9/11. Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be any security at airports. When people talk about the TSA's security theater, they typically mean: 1. Non-evidence-backed methodologies and screening requirements, such as the 3oz liquid limit and requiring passengers to remove their shoes (but only some of the time?) 2. Arbitrary "secondary screening" procedures and rampant pretextual justifications for screening selection (read: "looking too much like a terrorist") 3. Overdependence on questionably useful scanning technologies[1][2]. I chose millimeter wave scanners arbitrarily, but "backscatter" scanners have similar problems. If x-raying luggage keeps people from bringing AK-47s onto airplanes, then we should continue to do that. But we can skip the rest of the theater and save some time and money in the process. [1]: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/tsa-agent-slips-through-dfw-body-scanner-with-a-gun/1911599/ https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/tsa-agent-slips-through-df... [2]: https://www.propublica.org/article/sweating-bullets-body-scanners-can-see-perspiration-as-a-potential-weapon https://www.propublica.org/article/sweating-bullets-body-sca...
pavel_lishin 5y ago
> I bet few here have ever spent much time on a bus. Not a short hop on a city bus, an overnight inter-state trip on a greyhound. I have a couple times and each time I would have PAID for a TSA-style check before boarding. It would weed out 99% of crazy/high people who make such journeys so miserable for everyone around them. The high price of the flight is what weeds those folks out. People don't take an overnight Greyhound because they love sleeping with their neck at a 45 degree angle, or because they love watching the worst parts of New Jersey roll by in pitch darkness.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  Some quick googling: a flight from LA to Chicago costs about 150$ one-way. A greyhound bust ticket for the same trip is 130$, plus paying for meals on a much longer journey.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    You're not including opportunity cost: booking a flight means having a credit or debit card, having a method for getting to the airport, having documentation that gets you past security, and so forth. I suspect that these are disqualifying conditions for most people considering a $130 cross-country bus trip.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - technothrasher 5y ago
    I just did a quick check on a few random dates, and I'm getting an average flight cost of about $500 one-way LAX to ORD, and $200 on a Greyhound. Not sure where you're getting your killer deal fares.
beamatronic 5y ago
I would also pay more if the entire flight contained only pre-screened, experienced, thoughtful, courteous travelers.
- devilbunny 5y ago
  That is more or less what paying for business/first class gets you.
  - beamatronic 5y ago
    It is nullified if there is a coach class anywhere on the plane.
    - devilbunny 5y ago
      I can assure you, it's far more pleasant. Even if there is coach on the plane. They are waiting in a terminal, which sucks. I'm waiting until boarding begins in a real lounge with free booze and snacks. It is not even close to the same. First class is expensive. No argument there. It isn't just a little better. It's an entirely different experience.
jonp888 5y ago
I travel regularly on long distance in Europe and have never encountered any problematic behaviour. What you have there is an "America" problem, not a "Bus" problem.
hoseja 5y ago
Now show "A typical long trip by bus" in a country where public transport isn't culturally undermined.
cafard 5y ago
I took a lot of Greyhound trips in the later 1970s. The police did patrol Greyhound stations--I had a memorable wait in Detroit of three hours or so, during which I saw someone hauled out in handcuffs about every half hour. I met quite a few people on the bus that I would not care to associate with, some who didn't really seem sane, but none I can think of who made life miserable. There was a baby on one bus who cried all the daylight hours and at least third of the dark hours for about 1200 miles, and he or she did make it hard to sleep. But I don't think a TSA-style check would have screened out the baby. [edit: duration of stop in Detroit]

arcticbull 5y ago

Anyone whose goal is to sneak a weapon through TSA would do a quick google and learn that they fail to catch weapons and contraband snuck through their checkpoints in their own tests about 95% of the time [1]. [1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-fin...

sandworm101 5y ago
Everyone has seen those results, but have you looked into the nature of the devices they were using? These weren't handguns or swords. These were devices designed to mimic bombs, bombs built to best sneak past security checks.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > These were devices designed to mimic bombs, bombs built to best sneak past security checks. If I was a terrorist looking to bring a bomb onto a plane, I would probably also build it to sneak past security checks. Isn't that the point?
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    That depends. TSA stops thousands of people from bringing firearms onto aircraft each year. Those are certainly not all terrorists, but it does indicate that, no matter the test results, the screening is necessary and at least somewhat effective. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/10/13/tsa-firearm-catches-checkpoints-sets-20-year-record-first-nine https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/10/13/tsa-firea... >> By October 3rd of this year, TSA officers had stopped 4,495 airline passengers from carrying firearms onto their flights, surpassing the previous record of 4,432 firearms caught at checkpoints in the full calendar year 2019
    - jtsiskin 5y ago
      I don’t think anyone is arguing for totally 0 checks. People just want to not need to unpack their bags, empty their pockets, take off their shoes/belt, and to be able to carry a water bottle.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        To be honest, there's not a single check when you take Amtrak and things actually work just fine there. Something about being up in the sky makes people scared enough to go through a metal detector, I suppose.
        gruturo 5y ago
        Trains are intrinsically resistant to hijacking - it's really difficult to get them to divert to Cuba, or to crash them into a high rise building, unless one was somehow built on their path. I'd really like to understand the TSA's scenario, it looks like another massive and pointless waste of money added to what that the organization already does in airports.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        I agree trains are hard to redirect but planes are too, after they reinforced cockpit doors post-9/11. In my opinion that’s literally the only useful thing that came out of 9/11 from an air security perspective.
cryptonector 5y ago
Or they would try to board in states where having a license to carry gives you an "oh, I forgot" defense to trying to carry a firearm through security at the airport.

darkerside 5y ago

Those people are human beings that need to get somewhere, too, and the bus is the cheapest way for them to do it. That's why they're there, and weeding them out with TSA isn't really the best solution IMO. I think hijackings are over because everyone now knows that if you pull a knife or a gun on an airport, you will immediately get taken down by literally everyone on the flight. People before 9/11 didn't realize the downside risk of a hijacking was a suicide crash. It was just unthinkable. Now that we know, it will never happen again. TSA is not a factor.

sandworm101 5y ago
You don't weed out the people, you weed out their drugs. The threat of being caught with drugs by a security guard means they don't bring their drugs with them onto the plane. Net result: fewer people currently on drugs sitting beside me while I try to sleep. I don't mind sleeping amongst a bunch of stranger on a plane or at an airport because I know they have at least been screened for basic weapons. Sleeping on an interstate bus or at a bus station is very different. See below. The knife in that killing would have been detected at any airport by even the laziest of TSA screeners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean
- gaadd33 5y ago
  So by preventing people from taking drugs on planes you are preventing terrorism? You do realize some airports have explicit policies on not looking or caring about drugs? Eg https://www.flylax.com/lax-marijuana-policy https://www.flylax.com/lax-marijuana-policy Also your example is from Canada where there is no TSA yet people don't do similar things on planes, it's not an ideal example.
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    Yeah problem with tasking the TSA with busting people for carrying small amounts of drugs is because drugs are common and weapons are rare, and terrorists even rarer all they'll do then is look for drugs.
  - 5y ago

Bilal_io 5y ago

"crazy" people wouldn't be prevented from boarding, I'd argue that even high people shouldn't be stopped as we cannot predict the behavior of a high person, and we cannot let TSA evaluate craziness.

woodruffw 5y ago

The entire point of the phrase "security theater" is to emphasize that there is no observable difference in outcomes. Ordinary people understand this, and criminals (especially the kinds that seize airplanes) are usually at least as smart as laypeople. Evaluating the success of the TSA based on perceived deterrents is at best an unknown unknown, but the fact that we know those deterrents to be ineffective makes the null hypothesis (it's just not that common to hijack planes anymore, potentially for other reasons) much more likely. > Look into news reports from the 60s and 70s, before serious security at airports. Hijackings were almost normal. Today they are almost non-existent. I would wager that this has more to do with the FAA requiring the reinforced and locked cockpit doors, and almost nothing to do with the TSA. The hijackings of the 1960s and 1970s were not done as acts of terror -- they were frequently "statement" actions, done with the goal of making the plane land somewhere troublesome for the US (like Cuba). > I also appreciate the security theater because it makes airports a generally drug-free environment. Do we go to the same airports? I regularly see daydrinking, mixing alcohol with sleep medications, and all kinds of behavior that adults generally do when they're in a space where they know their actions don't have real consequences for them. I'll go as far as to say that I've seen more open drug use (and consequent poor behavior) in airports than I've ever seen in the Port Authority in NYC. And I rode interstate buses for years.

sandworm101 5y ago
>> the reinforced and locked cockpit doors Nope. Hijackings disappeared long before 9/11, when they started x-raying carry-ons in the 80s. No longer could just anyone bring an AK-47 on in a guitar case. https://airport.nridigital.com/air_mar20/timeline_the_history_of_airport_body_scanners https://airport.nridigital.com/air_mar20/timeline_the_histor... "As time went by, a series of skyjacking attempts – which in 1969 alone amounted to 40 in the US [ie one every week] – eventually led to the introduction of the first x-ray scanning machines for baggage in the 1970s. However, passengers themselves were only checked with an electronic magnetometer and later through metal detectors."
- woodruffw 5y ago
  So that we're on the same page: the TSA was founded in 2001, as a response to 9/11. Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be any security at airports. When people talk about the TSA's security theater, they typically mean: 1. Non-evidence-backed methodologies and screening requirements, such as the 3oz liquid limit and requiring passengers to remove their shoes (but only some of the time?) 2. Arbitrary "secondary screening" procedures and rampant pretextual justifications for screening selection (read: "looking too much like a terrorist") 3. Overdependence on questionably useful scanning technologies[1][2]. I chose millimeter wave scanners arbitrarily, but "backscatter" scanners have similar problems. If x-raying luggage keeps people from bringing AK-47s onto airplanes, then we should continue to do that. But we can skip the rest of the theater and save some time and money in the process. [1]: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/tsa-agent-slips-through-dfw-body-scanner-with-a-gun/1911599/ https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/tsa-agent-slips-through-df... [2]: https://www.propublica.org/article/sweating-bullets-body-scanners-can-see-perspiration-as-a-potential-weapon https://www.propublica.org/article/sweating-bullets-body-sca...

pavel_lishin 5y ago

> I bet few here have ever spent much time on a bus. Not a short hop on a city bus, an overnight inter-state trip on a greyhound. I have a couple times and each time I would have PAID for a TSA-style check before boarding. It would weed out 99% of crazy/high people who make such journeys so miserable for everyone around them. The high price of the flight is what weeds those folks out. People don't take an overnight Greyhound because they love sleeping with their neck at a 45 degree angle, or because they love watching the worst parts of New Jersey roll by in pitch darkness.

sandworm101 5y ago
Some quick googling: a flight from LA to Chicago costs about 150$ one-way. A greyhound bust ticket for the same trip is 130$, plus paying for meals on a much longer journey.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  You're not including opportunity cost: booking a flight means having a credit or debit card, having a method for getting to the airport, having documentation that gets you past security, and so forth. I suspect that these are disqualifying conditions for most people considering a $130 cross-country bus trip.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- technothrasher 5y ago
  I just did a quick check on a few random dates, and I'm getting an average flight cost of about $500 one-way LAX to ORD, and $200 on a Greyhound. Not sure where you're getting your killer deal fares.

beamatronic 5y ago

I would also pay more if the entire flight contained only pre-screened, experienced, thoughtful, courteous travelers.

devilbunny 5y ago
That is more or less what paying for business/first class gets you.
- beamatronic 5y ago
  It is nullified if there is a coach class anywhere on the plane.
  - devilbunny 5y ago
    I can assure you, it's far more pleasant. Even if there is coach on the plane. They are waiting in a terminal, which sucks. I'm waiting until boarding begins in a real lounge with free booze and snacks. It is not even close to the same. First class is expensive. No argument there. It isn't just a little better. It's an entirely different experience.

jonp888 5y ago

I travel regularly on long distance in Europe and have never encountered any problematic behaviour. What you have there is an "America" problem, not a "Bus" problem.

hoseja 5y ago

Now show "A typical long trip by bus" in a country where public transport isn't culturally undermined.

cafard 5y ago

I took a lot of Greyhound trips in the later 1970s. The police did patrol Greyhound stations--I had a memorable wait in Detroit of three hours or so, during which I saw someone hauled out in handcuffs about every half hour. I met quite a few people on the bus that I would not care to associate with, some who didn't really seem sane, but none I can think of who made life miserable. There was a baby on one bus who cried all the daylight hours and at least third of the dark hours for about 1200 miles, and he or she did make it hard to sleep. But I don't think a TSA-style check would have screened out the baby. [edit: duration of stop in Detroit]