5 ms·

Airport security is a stupid idea, it's a waste of money, and it's there for only one reason: to make white people feel safe! That's all it's for. To provide a

Airport security is a stupid idea, it's a waste of money, and it's there for only one reason: to make white people feel safe! That's all it's for. To provide a feeling, an illusion, of safety in order to placate the middle class. Because the authorities know they can't make airplanes safe; too many people have access. You'll notice the drug smugglers don't seem to have a lot of trouble getting their little packages on board, do they?...... —George Carlin, “Airport Security"

mc32 15y ago
Isn't the psychology half the battle? You need to convince people there exists a reasonable effort to provide some sort of security --even if it's more psychological security than not. In addition, as others have pointed out it's also to filter against known (easily replicated) attacks.
- _delirium 15y ago
  That fails once somebody has demonstrated an easily replicated attack that works on the current system, though...
- rogerbinns 15y ago
  > Isn't the psychology half the battle? That is why it is known as "security theatre". The wikipedia page is comprehensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
  - mc32 15y ago
    I mean, that psychologically, it's like a placebo. While it may or may not actually prevent anything that people believe it does is what's important. Somewhat similar to crosswalk buttons which don't actually provide jumping the change of traffic light phase queue. The term Security Theater sounds dismissive and implies there is no actual benefit. It seems in the least debatable to me.
    - chii 15y ago
      "The term Security Theater sounds dismissive and implies there is no actual benefit. It seems in the least debatable to me." it, in fact, does not provide any benefit. Making people "feel" safer, will only worsen the problem when they finally find out that they aren't actually safe (due to an attack happening).
      - mc32 15y ago
        I would argue making people feel safer (or comfortable) to fly is a benefit they are willing to trade in for whatever might happen. They have nothing to lose. If they don't do the "theatrics" people might choose to fly less due to a perceived lack of security effort. So, in the meantime, while the theatrics maintain a semblance of security, the airline industry gets the benefit of doubt. Once the bubble is burst, that'd be another issue. Still, I think people will rationalize it as "well, we got X years use out of the system." Out of curiosity, what _do_ you think has accounted for the safety record? Obviously you don't believe the theater has helped. At the same time I don't believe that people (AQ) have not been plotting against transportation assets. I would ask, why would they abandon that path, if they thought the theater was just theater? Are there other mechanisms keeping them at bay? Additionally, even if the theater contributed nothing to security and all the heavy lifting was accomplished by other means -intel, profiling, whathaveyou, the theater would act as a signal to travelers that something was being done. It would be the customer-facing expression of the work being done behind the scenes --a kind of proxy so that what's actually being done --methods and so forth could remain opaque.
        snom360 15y ago
        I think the main reason for the safety record is that there just aren't that many terrorists out there. Of course, increased security raises the bar, so it would be more appropriate to say that there aren't that many terrorists out there with the resources and skills to pull off an attack. But if airport security actually hindered many real attempts, why don't we hear about them? Right up until 9/11 you could ask the same question, what accounts for the safety record? After all, many years had passed without any hijackings or bombings. Then the bubble burst, and the only possible response was to increase security measures. Any politician not supporting such measures would have been torn apart by the media if a new attack had occured. I think that airport security _does_ provide a deterrence to unskilled terrorists, and it provides real security against some random mentally unstable guy trying to wreak havoc. I think everyone agrees that security theatre helps people feeling safe. It's the amount of money being spent on it that is at issue. We'd all be safer if the money spent on ineffective body scanners were being spent on making roads safer, or perhaps by building more schools and hospitals in areas of political conflict.
- DanBC 15y ago
  > it's also to filter against known (easily replicated) attacks. By kludging in a filter for every known attack that's been tried you force the people doing the screening to concentrate on improbable situations. How many people have tried to use exploding shoes? Better would be to give screeners a lot of training (and pay them appropriately) to look for "other stuff", other signs that a person might be a terrorist. Preferably that other stuff would have good research to support it.
mirkules 15y ago
I remember this stand up, which was actually before 9/11. He goes on in that standup to say here are lethal items you can take on board: "a knife, an icepick, a chainsaw... and the only thing they'll tell you is that you have to fit it under the chair in front of you". Things have changed in that respect, I guess. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQdC-e82gmk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQdC-e82gmk (language NSFW, obviously)
- gergles 15y ago
  Want a deadly weapon you can bring on a plane? http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1252.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1...
- raganwald 15y ago
  NSFW George Carlin was the embodiment of NSFW, he was the one who went to the Supreme Court for the right to swear on the airwaves... And lost. The “Seven Words You Can’t Say on TV” was one of his legendary routines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
  - mirkules 15y ago
    Huh, I didn't know he went all the way to the Supreme Court. I figured everyone should know George Carlin, but I added the NSFW, just in case people had their speakers up in the office (like I almost did - even though I'm a huge fan, it just slipped my mind). The "obviously" was a reference to him being the epitome of NSFW.
roguecoder 15y ago
Air travel is insanely safe. Ridiculously so. At some point we hit diminishing returns, and I think we're far past that point now. I'd pay extra for less-safe and more-convenient air travel personally. Then again, I ride a motorcycle, so my risk profile may well be abnormal.

mc32 15y ago

Isn't the psychology half the battle? You need to convince people there exists a reasonable effort to provide some sort of security --even if it's more psychological security than not. In addition, as others have pointed out it's also to filter against known (easily replicated) attacks.

_delirium 15y ago
That fails once somebody has demonstrated an easily replicated attack that works on the current system, though...
rogerbinns 15y ago
> Isn't the psychology half the battle? That is why it is known as "security theatre". The wikipedia page is comprehensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
- mc32 15y ago
  I mean, that psychologically, it's like a placebo. While it may or may not actually prevent anything that people believe it does is what's important. Somewhat similar to crosswalk buttons which don't actually provide jumping the change of traffic light phase queue. The term Security Theater sounds dismissive and implies there is no actual benefit. It seems in the least debatable to me.
  - chii 15y ago
    "The term Security Theater sounds dismissive and implies there is no actual benefit. It seems in the least debatable to me." it, in fact, does not provide any benefit. Making people "feel" safer, will only worsen the problem when they finally find out that they aren't actually safe (due to an attack happening).
    - mc32 15y ago
      I would argue making people feel safer (or comfortable) to fly is a benefit they are willing to trade in for whatever might happen. They have nothing to lose. If they don't do the "theatrics" people might choose to fly less due to a perceived lack of security effort. So, in the meantime, while the theatrics maintain a semblance of security, the airline industry gets the benefit of doubt. Once the bubble is burst, that'd be another issue. Still, I think people will rationalize it as "well, we got X years use out of the system." Out of curiosity, what _do_ you think has accounted for the safety record? Obviously you don't believe the theater has helped. At the same time I don't believe that people (AQ) have not been plotting against transportation assets. I would ask, why would they abandon that path, if they thought the theater was just theater? Are there other mechanisms keeping them at bay? Additionally, even if the theater contributed nothing to security and all the heavy lifting was accomplished by other means -intel, profiling, whathaveyou, the theater would act as a signal to travelers that something was being done. It would be the customer-facing expression of the work being done behind the scenes --a kind of proxy so that what's actually being done --methods and so forth could remain opaque.
      - snom360 15y ago
        I think the main reason for the safety record is that there just aren't that many terrorists out there. Of course, increased security raises the bar, so it would be more appropriate to say that there aren't that many terrorists out there with the resources and skills to pull off an attack. But if airport security actually hindered many real attempts, why don't we hear about them? Right up until 9/11 you could ask the same question, what accounts for the safety record? After all, many years had passed without any hijackings or bombings. Then the bubble burst, and the only possible response was to increase security measures. Any politician not supporting such measures would have been torn apart by the media if a new attack had occured. I think that airport security _does_ provide a deterrence to unskilled terrorists, and it provides real security against some random mentally unstable guy trying to wreak havoc. I think everyone agrees that security theatre helps people feeling safe. It's the amount of money being spent on it that is at issue. We'd all be safer if the money spent on ineffective body scanners were being spent on making roads safer, or perhaps by building more schools and hospitals in areas of political conflict.
DanBC 15y ago
> it's also to filter against known (easily replicated) attacks. By kludging in a filter for every known attack that's been tried you force the people doing the screening to concentrate on improbable situations. How many people have tried to use exploding shoes? Better would be to give screeners a lot of training (and pay them appropriately) to look for "other stuff", other signs that a person might be a terrorist. Preferably that other stuff would have good research to support it.

mirkules 15y ago

I remember this stand up, which was actually before 9/11. He goes on in that standup to say here are lethal items you can take on board: "a knife, an icepick, a chainsaw... and the only thing they'll tell you is that you have to fit it under the chair in front of you". Things have changed in that respect, I guess. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQdC-e82gmk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQdC-e82gmk (language NSFW, obviously)

gergles 15y ago
Want a deadly weapon you can bring on a plane? http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1252.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1...
raganwald 15y ago
NSFW George Carlin was the embodiment of NSFW, he was the one who went to the Supreme Court for the right to swear on the airwaves... And lost. The “Seven Words You Can’t Say on TV” was one of his legendary routines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
- mirkules 15y ago
  Huh, I didn't know he went all the way to the Supreme Court. I figured everyone should know George Carlin, but I added the NSFW, just in case people had their speakers up in the office (like I almost did - even though I'm a huge fan, it just slipped my mind). The "obviously" was a reference to him being the epitome of NSFW.

roguecoder 15y ago

Air travel is insanely safe. Ridiculously so. At some point we hit diminishing returns, and I think we're far past that point now. I'd pay extra for less-safe and more-convenient air travel personally. Then again, I ride a motorcycle, so my risk profile may well be abnormal.