7 ms·

This is such a common refrain ("it's security theater"), but I never hear any alternatives that I think would be slightly viable. To be clear, not really makin

This is such a common refrain ("it's security theater"), but I never hear any alternatives that I think would be slightly viable. To be clear, not really making an argument on TSA vs private security screeners that were in use before 9/11. But I am making the argument that those who like to shout "security theater" - what do you think is a better alternative? Do you honestly think it would ever work to just let flyers board planes with no screening of them or their luggage? When the inevitable jet loads of people are taken down by a terrorist bomb, the populous at large would be scrambling for more security, basically like they were after 9/11. Basically I'd like to know what your alternative proposal is.

Hermitian909 3y ago
My proposal: More or less what we had pre 9/11. We solved the the vulnerability that 9/11 exposed in under a year - the inability to lock down the cabin to protect it from hostiles. Every commercial plane has newer doors installed now. This means the only really viable attack on aircraft is to blow them up mid-air which: 1. Is much less impactful 2. Still achievable by a determined actor today
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Just want to say I very much agree with this, and pretty much most of the other responses here. A lot of the times when I hear people talk about TSA "security theater" I hear them arguing that we really shouldn't have any screening at all, but it seems like the responses here are arguing specifically against: 1. Taking off your shoes 2. The liquids rule 3. Taking out your laptop. To which I totally agree (and since as a TSA Precheck member I never hit those issues anyway I don't notice them as much).
saagarjha 3y ago
Well, the thing is that they’re currently not being taken down by terrorism. So maybe we don’t actually need to do all that much?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Zak 3y ago
The pre-9/11 security screening itself was less invasive and faster than it is now. Luggage, bulky clothing, and anything that set off the metal detector still had to go through the X-ray. A better alternative would be to let people keep their shoes on, stop worrying about liquids, and not scrutinize small objects in luggage that can't be identified, but obviously aren't guns or bombs large enough to crash a plane. Yes, people have tried to bomb aircraft using shoes and liquids, but those plots were not only ineffective but likely ineffectual.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  FWIW I agree with you, but that's why I just use TSA Precheck - I keep my shoes on, don't take out my laptop, and don't take out my liquids.
  - batshibstein 3y ago
    IMO one nice (un?)intended consequence of the liquids restriction is limiting liquid spills on the floor of the plane i.e. somebody can't spill a 2-liter bottle of Mountain Dew or IDK, a gallon of laundry detergent on the plane (Sure there's the beverages on the plane or whatever you can buy post-security but they're usually not that large either) -- there's enough mess without having to deal with people porting around whatever amount of liquid they please.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Do you honestly think it would ever work to just let flyers board planes with no screening of them or their luggage? One, Pre-Check rules for everyone. Shoes and jacket on, metal detector only. ID check or biometrics. Random subset of bags get X-rayed. Arming cockpit doors went 90% of the way to preventing another 9/11.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> what do you think is a better alternative? We already made the sensible changes. X-raying bags, armored cockpit doors, and passengers who know to fight hijackers - the Flight 93 folks knew immediately the “be quiet, land, and everyone gets out alive” era was over. We don’t need the shoe, laptop, and liquid rules that take most of the time.
kortilla 3y ago
How many terrorist “bombs” do you think it stops? If they had easy access to bombs why would they waste it on planes when they could just go into hospitals, trains, and buses and cause just as much havoc? There were very few plane bombings even when bombing was popular (Oklahoma city, wtc, etc). Planes are only interesting to terrorists as a weapon, not a target. Pre-9/11 the assumption was most nut job with guns on a plane wanted to hijack it as part of some heist, etc. 9/11 changed that assumption, locks went on cockpit doors, a few protocols were tweaked, and that actually solved the problem. The naked scanners on the ground were for theater of “being secure”.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  There are loads of examples that terrorists love blowing up planes. There are plenty of terrorist bombs that screening stopped (search the famous El Al case), or alternatively that terrorists were able to successfully bypass which led to stronger rules in the first place (e.g. the shoe bomber), or which they planned (e.g. the Bojinka Plot). I can easily buy the argument that a lot of other commenters are making that a lot of the specific rules can be improved, or that there are other targeted approaches that could work better. What I absolutely don't buy, because there are plenty of examples to the contrary, is that screening itself is unnecessary.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Based on the timeline here they've mostly stopped. [1] The last one with any meaningful injuries was almost a decade ago, and the one before that a decade earlier. Compare that to the 70s and 80s. We don't do any screening at FBOs/private terminals so long as the plane has less than some number of passengers. Every flight out of Oakland on JSX has zero screening whatsoever, you just walk on and those are 30-seat Embraers. Larger than some of the stuff going out of the regional gates at the main concourse. It's even in their marketing material under "bye bye hassle." [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_a... [2] https://www.jsx.com/flying-with-us https://www.jsx.com/flying-with-us
arcticbull 3y ago
> Basically I'd like to know what your alternative proposal is. We already did it. The only thing we did to materially improve security in air travel since 9/11 is fortifying the cockpit doors. It's super effective.

Hermitian909 3y ago

My proposal: More or less what we had pre 9/11. We solved the the vulnerability that 9/11 exposed in under a year - the inability to lock down the cabin to protect it from hostiles. Every commercial plane has newer doors installed now. This means the only really viable attack on aircraft is to blow them up mid-air which: 1. Is much less impactful 2. Still achievable by a determined actor today

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Just want to say I very much agree with this, and pretty much most of the other responses here. A lot of the times when I hear people talk about TSA "security theater" I hear them arguing that we really shouldn't have any screening at all, but it seems like the responses here are arguing specifically against: 1. Taking off your shoes 2. The liquids rule 3. Taking out your laptop. To which I totally agree (and since as a TSA Precheck member I never hit those issues anyway I don't notice them as much).

saagarjha 3y ago

Well, the thing is that they’re currently not being taken down by terrorism. So maybe we don’t actually need to do all that much?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Zak 3y ago

The pre-9/11 security screening itself was less invasive and faster than it is now. Luggage, bulky clothing, and anything that set off the metal detector still had to go through the X-ray. A better alternative would be to let people keep their shoes on, stop worrying about liquids, and not scrutinize small objects in luggage that can't be identified, but obviously aren't guns or bombs large enough to crash a plane. Yes, people have tried to bomb aircraft using shoes and liquids, but those plots were not only ineffective but likely ineffectual.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
FWIW I agree with you, but that's why I just use TSA Precheck - I keep my shoes on, don't take out my laptop, and don't take out my liquids.
- batshibstein 3y ago
  IMO one nice (un?)intended consequence of the liquids restriction is limiting liquid spills on the floor of the plane i.e. somebody can't spill a 2-liter bottle of Mountain Dew or IDK, a gallon of laundry detergent on the plane (Sure there's the beverages on the plane or whatever you can buy post-security but they're usually not that large either) -- there's enough mess without having to deal with people porting around whatever amount of liquid they please.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Do you honestly think it would ever work to just let flyers board planes with no screening of them or their luggage? One, Pre-Check rules for everyone. Shoes and jacket on, metal detector only. ID check or biometrics. Random subset of bags get X-rayed. Arming cockpit doors went 90% of the way to preventing another 9/11.

ceejayoz 3y ago

> what do you think is a better alternative? We already made the sensible changes. X-raying bags, armored cockpit doors, and passengers who know to fight hijackers - the Flight 93 folks knew immediately the “be quiet, land, and everyone gets out alive” era was over. We don’t need the shoe, laptop, and liquid rules that take most of the time.

kortilla 3y ago

How many terrorist “bombs” do you think it stops? If they had easy access to bombs why would they waste it on planes when they could just go into hospitals, trains, and buses and cause just as much havoc? There were very few plane bombings even when bombing was popular (Oklahoma city, wtc, etc). Planes are only interesting to terrorists as a weapon, not a target. Pre-9/11 the assumption was most nut job with guns on a plane wanted to hijack it as part of some heist, etc. 9/11 changed that assumption, locks went on cockpit doors, a few protocols were tweaked, and that actually solved the problem. The naked scanners on the ground were for theater of “being secure”.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
There are loads of examples that terrorists love blowing up planes. There are plenty of terrorist bombs that screening stopped (search the famous El Al case), or alternatively that terrorists were able to successfully bypass which led to stronger rules in the first place (e.g. the shoe bomber), or which they planned (e.g. the Bojinka Plot). I can easily buy the argument that a lot of other commenters are making that a lot of the specific rules can be improved, or that there are other targeted approaches that could work better. What I absolutely don't buy, because there are plenty of examples to the contrary, is that screening itself is unnecessary.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Based on the timeline here they've mostly stopped. [1] The last one with any meaningful injuries was almost a decade ago, and the one before that a decade earlier. Compare that to the 70s and 80s. We don't do any screening at FBOs/private terminals so long as the plane has less than some number of passengers. Every flight out of Oakland on JSX has zero screening whatsoever, you just walk on and those are 30-seat Embraers. Larger than some of the stuff going out of the regional gates at the main concourse. It's even in their marketing material under "bye bye hassle." [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_a... [2] https://www.jsx.com/flying-with-us https://www.jsx.com/flying-with-us

arcticbull 3y ago

> Basically I'd like to know what your alternative proposal is. We already did it. The only thing we did to materially improve security in air travel since 9/11 is fortifying the cockpit doors. It's super effective.