5 ms·

>> 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 ju

>> 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...
- sandworm101 5y ago
  The TSA today is a federal agency, bundled into DHS. Before that there were plenty of people doing screenings at airports that, today, we would describe as TSA. The fact that they were employed by local agencies rather than the feds doesn't change the fact that they searched everyone in basically the same manner as today. I had my bags x-rayed and walked through metal detectors every time I flew in the 80s and 90s.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > The fact that they were employed by local agencies rather than the feds doesn't change the fact that they searched everyone in basically the same manner as today. I had my bags x-rayed and walked through metal detectors every time I flew in the 80s and 90s. I don't think I would consider today's screening techniques "basically the same" as those in the 1980s and 1990s. My understanding is that the liquid limit, shoe removal, and use of largely ineffective personal scanning machines are all post-9/11 changes. All of that is a significant departure from having your bags scanned and walking through a single metal detector. (More generally, this raises the question: if things are "basically the same" in your opinion between now and the 1990s, why weren't we able to stop 9/11?)
Handytinge 5y ago
> which in 1969 alone amounted to 40 in the US [ie one every week] The US variant of the Gregorian calendar sounds wild!

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...

sandworm101 5y ago
The TSA today is a federal agency, bundled into DHS. Before that there were plenty of people doing screenings at airports that, today, we would describe as TSA. The fact that they were employed by local agencies rather than the feds doesn't change the fact that they searched everyone in basically the same manner as today. I had my bags x-rayed and walked through metal detectors every time I flew in the 80s and 90s.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > The fact that they were employed by local agencies rather than the feds doesn't change the fact that they searched everyone in basically the same manner as today. I had my bags x-rayed and walked through metal detectors every time I flew in the 80s and 90s. I don't think I would consider today's screening techniques "basically the same" as those in the 1980s and 1990s. My understanding is that the liquid limit, shoe removal, and use of largely ineffective personal scanning machines are all post-9/11 changes. All of that is a significant departure from having your bags scanned and walking through a single metal detector. (More generally, this raises the question: if things are "basically the same" in your opinion between now and the 1990s, why weren't we able to stop 9/11?)

Handytinge 5y ago

> which in 1969 alone amounted to 40 in the US [ie one every week] The US variant of the Gregorian calendar sounds wild!