4 ms·

The TSA has an absolutely abysmal record for catching weapons and explosives during security audits. The most embarrassing bit of security theater is that, eve

by roc 15y ago

The TSA has an absolutely abysmal record for catching weapons and explosives during security audits. The most embarrassing bit of security theater is that, even if these new devices were safe, even if they were necessary, even if they were effective at presenting the relevant data to their operators, that those operators simply do not catch actual weapons ~80% of the time. [1] And that number has been that bad year after year after year. Truly, a given flight's chance of getting blown up depends on little more than the chance that someone capable is trying to blow it up. The only comfort to be found is in the relative difficulty in assembling a suitable explosive and the low co-incidence of that skill alongside murderous intent. [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-scre...

dvdhsu 15y ago
> The TSA has an absolutely abysmal record for catching weapons and explosives during security audits. I know I'm expressing a view that's probably been expressed. Nevertheless, I hope you can explain how/why this statement is wrong: "The scanners are deterring people from carrying weapons right now. If the scanners were removed, there would be more people carrying weapons." I suppose you could argue that the people who really want to carry weapons wouldn't be stopped by a scanner. Then again, there are definitely "impulse crimes", where people are driven to commit crimes based on nothing but impulse/pent up anger. Those people would have been stopped by scanners, but are let through, if there were no/less effective scanners.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  Regarding "impulse" crimes--I don't see why such crimes are that much more of an issue on a plane than anywhere else. My understanding of psychology is naturally imperfect, but I don't think that a hijacking would be an impulse crime. I could see why explosives would be more dangerous on a plane than elsewhere. However, people don't generally carry large amounts of explosives with them for no good reason, so explosives also don't lend themselves to impulse crime. Other dangers, like getting shot or stabbed--something that is actually likely to be an impulse crime--are not much more dangerous on a plane than on the ground. Since we're perfectly content running the risk of being shot walking around outside, I don't see why airports would need special security just to prevent impulse crimes. Of course, this is not an argument against all airport security. While I am personally against it, I would have to spend more time and do some research before being confident of making a compelling case against it. I'm just explaining why I think preventing impulse crimes would not be a good reason for tight security at airports.
- luser001 15y ago
  Ok, I'll bite. Because you need to weigh benefits against costs? A certain number of people die from vaccines (side effects, negligence etc) every year. That's a fact. Do we stop vaccinating? No, we don't, because the number of lives saved is probably >10000X the cost.
- roc 15y ago
  > "The scanners are deterring people from carrying weapons right now." The scanners aren't deterring anyone who wasn't already deterred by simple metal detectors. Has there ever been a single case of an "impulse crime" committed with a weapon on a plane, prior to the installation of body scanners?
brc 15y ago
I went through security screening in LAX with a large pocket knife in my onboard luggage. IT was a mistake on my part - I'm glad they didn't find it because the knife has sentimental value to me. I also went through a full-body scanner at MCO for the first time recently. It's not faster - in fact it is a giant bottleneck. Instead of just walking through, as per a metal detector, you have to stand there like an idiot with your arms above your head, for what seems like an eternity. If you move, the TSA resident rottweiler barks at you and the whole process is repeated. In the meantime, you have 400 or so people jammed up in an unsecured area wiating to be processeed, which is a far-worse security risk than being on the plane. But the worrying thing is - is this a ratchet? Will it be politically untenable to ever relax the security screening? I shudder to think at the GDP lost by people standing in airport screening queues. It's like a giant 24 hour stop-work protest that never ends. Even if only 1% of the time wasted would otherwise be productive work, well....

by roc 15y ago

dvdhsu 15y ago

> The TSA has an absolutely abysmal record for catching weapons and explosives during security audits. I know I'm expressing a view that's probably been expressed. Nevertheless, I hope you can explain how/why this statement is wrong: "The scanners are deterring people from carrying weapons right now. If the scanners were removed, there would be more people carrying weapons." I suppose you could argue that the people who really want to carry weapons wouldn't be stopped by a scanner. Then again, there are definitely "impulse crimes", where people are driven to commit crimes based on nothing but impulse/pent up anger. Those people would have been stopped by scanners, but are let through, if there were no/less effective scanners.

tikhonj 15y ago
Regarding "impulse" crimes--I don't see why such crimes are that much more of an issue on a plane than anywhere else. My understanding of psychology is naturally imperfect, but I don't think that a hijacking would be an impulse crime. I could see why explosives would be more dangerous on a plane than elsewhere. However, people don't generally carry large amounts of explosives with them for no good reason, so explosives also don't lend themselves to impulse crime. Other dangers, like getting shot or stabbed--something that is actually likely to be an impulse crime--are not much more dangerous on a plane than on the ground. Since we're perfectly content running the risk of being shot walking around outside, I don't see why airports would need special security just to prevent impulse crimes. Of course, this is not an argument against all airport security. While I am personally against it, I would have to spend more time and do some research before being confident of making a compelling case against it. I'm just explaining why I think preventing impulse crimes would not be a good reason for tight security at airports.
luser001 15y ago
Ok, I'll bite. Because you need to weigh benefits against costs? A certain number of people die from vaccines (side effects, negligence etc) every year. That's a fact. Do we stop vaccinating? No, we don't, because the number of lives saved is probably >10000X the cost.
roc 15y ago
> "The scanners are deterring people from carrying weapons right now." The scanners aren't deterring anyone who wasn't already deterred by simple metal detectors. Has there ever been a single case of an "impulse crime" committed with a weapon on a plane, prior to the installation of body scanners?

brc 15y ago

I went through security screening in LAX with a large pocket knife in my onboard luggage. IT was a mistake on my part - I'm glad they didn't find it because the knife has sentimental value to me. I also went through a full-body scanner at MCO for the first time recently. It's not faster - in fact it is a giant bottleneck. Instead of just walking through, as per a metal detector, you have to stand there like an idiot with your arms above your head, for what seems like an eternity. If you move, the TSA resident rottweiler barks at you and the whole process is repeated. In the meantime, you have 400 or so people jammed up in an unsecured area wiating to be processeed, which is a far-worse security risk than being on the plane. But the worrying thing is - is this a ratchet? Will it be politically untenable to ever relax the security screening? I shudder to think at the GDP lost by people standing in airport screening queues. It's like a giant 24 hour stop-work protest that never ends. Even if only 1% of the time wasted would otherwise be productive work, well....