10 ms·
There's a simple explanation - the authorities' main priority is to prevent copycat attacks. The most embarassing thisg possible for TSA would be an exact repe
by finnw 15y ago
There's a simple explanation - the authorities' main priority is to prevent copycat attacks.
The most embarassing thisg possible for TSA would be an exact repeat of 9/11 - same weapons (wasn't it box cutters?) etc. So that's what they target first.
A new kind of attack is harder to predict and easier for the authorities to explain by saying "nothing like this has ever happened before, there was no way we could have prepared for it." And there's no way they could cover all possibilities anyway.
And to be fair, copycat attacks do happen (e.g. July 21, 2005 in London) so it is not a total waste.
- newman314 15y agoYou say preventing copycat attacks, I say it's a purely reactive approach towards security, which does not work.
- bo1024 15y agoIt's not supposed to work, it's supposed to provide job security.
- jrockway 15y agoWhy can't the TSA rent-a-thugs be cops or something? At least they'd be deterring crimes that actually happen.
- arohner 15y agoYou want those imbeciles to have guns? And what crimes happen in the vicinity of their screening area that could be prevented?
- lloeki 15y ago> You want those imbeciles to have guns? No, he wants real cops. In France, in public places like railway stations, the "plan Vigipirate" makes use of the military (including gendarmerie)
- 46Bit 15y agoThe main crime in screening areas, beyond violation of people's rights, is probably TSA employees stealing things.
- mahmud 15y agoNo one is hiring cops. Listen to this week's This American Life; small-government fetishists are firing public workers, and for very good reasons.
- uxp 15y agoThe TSA _are_ deterring crimes. Drug related crimes (possession) has gone up substantially at airports, and there are known cases of credit card fraud, animal smuggling and child porn being found while searching belongings of travelers. Whether or not you think that the TSA should be involved in anything past securing the ability for persons to travel is the question.
- DanBC 15y agoerm, isn't "catching people committing a crime" proof that the crimes are not being deterred?
- vacri 15y agoCops have generalist training that can be used across a wide variety of situations where you have to think on your feet. It would be a waste of that training to just chain it to a scanner week-in, week-out.
- vidarh 15y agoHe meant the other way around. Train the TSA agents to be cops instead and have them do actual police duty instead of hanging around airports being annoying obstacles for travelers.
- ktizo 15y agoThousands Standing Around.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- antonej 15y agoSomehow it seems to have worked OK judging by results. See my separate comment about 106 million flights since 9/11/01 without any successful terrorist attacks.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- damncabbage 15y agoLet me tell you about my rock that keeps away tigers...
- CamperBob 15y agoWould you like to buy my rock?
- MrMan 15y agoNice try but the TSA would confiscate this rock you are selling. The real deterrent against tigers is their fear of flying.
- freehunter 15y agoAnd how many terrorist hijackings/crashes in the US were there before 9/11?
- DanBC 15y agoIndeed, there are weird side-effects. A man tries to set fire to plastic explosive in his shoes, so long queues form (in airports) for people to remove their shoes. Intelligence comes in about liquid / gel / paste explosives, so now those long queues have to abandon any liquids / gels / pastes in bins, near those long queues, inside an airport. Those "potential explosives" are not allowed on a plane, but are allowed to be left for hours (days?) near lots of people in an airport.
- IanDrake 15y agoGreat. I can't wait until the next guy hides a bomb in his rectum. What kind of device will search for that?
- teeray 15y agoTSA Gerbil Agents
- abraxasz 15y agoI think that everybody agree on that. The question is: are those very very expensive scanners the only way to achieve that goal. If it is, then fine (I'm not american, so it's not my taxes that are blown), but if there is another way, then you should be worrying about your taxpayer's dollars. Just as an aside, Ben Gurion airport relies much less on pseudo high tech, and has had incredibly good result. (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199--the-israelification-of-airports-high-security-little-bother http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199--the-israel...)
- pyre 15y agoThe usual response is that the volume is different from an airport like LAX.
- roel_v 15y agoI'm far from an expert but from what I know about the way Ben Gurion handles security, I don't see why any of their security measures wouldn't scaled.
- dagw 15y agoAccording to[1] Israel spends almost 10 times as much pr passenger on Security than the US does. Also Israel handles 1.3 million passengers a year, compared with over 700 million in the US. So the amount of scaling that needs to be done is far from trivial both in terms of money and manpower, and might not even be possible. [1] http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/07/would_you_pay_25_for_71_seconds_of_scrutiny_in_an_airport http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/07/would_you_pay...
- dagw 15y agoAs someone pointed out in another thread, the 1.3 million number is wrong. The correct number is 13 million. Sorry.
- nickik 15y ago
- rogerbinns 15y ago> There's a simple explanation - the authorities' main priority is to prevent copycat attacks The weapons used on 9/11 were surprise and that standard operating procedure in a hijacking situation was to do as hijackers said. Both weapons were ineffective by the time the 4th plane found out. The authorities main priority has been to be seen to be doing something.
- Iv 15y agoIsn't this video a proof that a copycat of the 9/11 would be obvious to do ?
- sp332 15y agoAt the time, SOP when a hijacker took over a plane was to do whatever they said. They nearly always held the plane for ransom, and it really was best to let authorities on the ground handle things. After 9/11, the entire plane's population would attack you, becuase being smashed into a skyscraper is not in anyone's best interests.
- rmc 15y agoEven on 9/11 this happened. That's why the 4th plane crashed in a field. Passengers found out about the first 3, realised all bets were off, and took back the plane/