4 ms·

The TSA is also miraculous in it's ability to suck up billions of dollars in hidden fees added to every plane ticket and annoy tens of millions of people while

The TSA is also miraculous in it's ability to suck up billions of dollars in hidden fees added to every plane ticket and annoy tens of millions of people while performing a "service" which has been proven (many times, including by the TSA's own studies) to be completely unnecessary since cockpit doors were hardened and pilot procedures updated in 2002. Even if it was needed, their "service" has also demonstrated itself to be completely ineffective based on the number loaded handguns accidentally included in carry-on luggage and missed by TSA screening every year.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
This seems reductive. For everything TSA misses they've caught plenty of other weapons that have no place in the cabin of an aircraft. No security can be perfect, so tradeoffs are inevitable. We can disagree about the thresholds, but it's not just theater.
- derefr 3y ago
  But it's not the TSA's job to prevent murders in the air. (We already had a service specifically for that — the Air Marshals!) The TSA's only job is to prevent planes from being hijacked or destroyed in a way that results in massive collateral damage. And as the GP says, if you can't get in the cockpit, there become relatively few ways of doing this. (And the ways that do remain — e.g. binary explosives — are addressed by the more-limited carry-on regulations and security checks that every country does, and which the US already did before the TSA.)
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    An air marshall on a flight has one gun. If a determined group could reliably bring multiple guns into the cabin they're much more likely to overpower the marshall. From there they could open exterior doors and throw debris into the engines. Or perhaps their weapons could breach even armored cockpit doors.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > throw debris into the engines Good luck with throwing debris into a 400 mph wind at -30F while passing out from lack of oxygen.
      - notact 3y ago
        Yup, and also not getting sucked out the door if you were able to open it (which you couldn't at cabin pressure anyway).
        WalterBright 3y ago
        Burt Berlin, my mentor at Boeing, got his start working on the B47 (first jet bomber). They discovered that the pilot could not bail out into the wind stream, the force would just push him back in. Hence the development of the ejection seat to force him out.
    - dingnuts 3y ago
      Obviously the solution is just to allow concealed carry on planes and let law abiding citizens defend themselves, and keep the cockpit locked. Yee-haw!
    - kortilla 3y ago
      It’s a plug door, you can’t open it at altitude. Also, throwing debris into the engines would just result in an emergency landing. The TSA is ridiculous and there isn’t a need to try to contrive examples to justify what they could prevent outside of hijacking. If their goal was to prevent killing just a plane load of people, they would have to setup perimeters far around the airport to prevent people with a 50 caliber rifle from shooting up the cockpit during takeoff roll. They would also need to block private air access to the airport because someone could just drive a truck of explosives underneath a plane load of people taxiing. Put differently, it their job was just mass casualty prevention in transit caused by other people, they would need to be near every bus station, controlling road access near buses, guarding all railroad tracks with passenger routes, etc.
- giantg2 3y ago
  This really doesn't say anything about the benefits though. Just because people had "weapons" (some of which are basically harmless, like fishing tackle, or drinks), doesn't mean they prevented a threat. Yes, maybe the theater of it has dissuaded some from even attempting. Many, including myself, feel that many of the rules and the penalties for them are extreme.
- kilroy123 3y ago
  Yes but many other countries do this same service with private companies for much less money.
- gcheong 3y ago
  "For everything TSA misses they've caught plenty of other weapons that have no place in the cabin of an aircraft." How do you know? They seem very tight-lipped about how effective they are at catching things vs things they miss and at least one test done by the TSA itself resulted in a 95% success rate - for the terrorists (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/reassessing_air.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/reassessing_a...). But hey now you at least have the "right" to pay a fee to be labeled not a terrorist and go through security as if it was pre 9/11.
- idontpost 3y ago
  [dead]
ttymck 3y ago
Yet most Americans would vote to maintain the TSA and its mandate.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- unnamed76ri 3y ago
  Most Americans seem poised to vote for either Biden or Trump also. Sometimes the majority is a mob of idiots.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    There's no amount of informed argument that will sway the extremists, so when it comes to politics, people are even bigger idiots. For the rest, it's more that they feel one candidate or the other is a necessary evil to avoid letting the worse candidate be elected. I don't think that's an issue on their part, at least as pertains directly to who they should vote for.
    - ttymck 3y ago
      I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make, as it pertains to the TSA
      - vacuity 3y ago
        I was going off-topic.
  - ttymck 3y ago
    Perhaps that was my point exactly?
nojvek 3y ago
There’s a notion of creating jobs that is seen in many economies. People are much happier if they are paid to do a “job” even though it is sometimes more efficient to not have that person. You could directly give them the money but it would drive people to depression and addiction without a job. It’s interesting how we all have this innate drive to “do something to keep us busy and be appreciated for it”. That’s how I feel going through TSA. Millions of jobs to keep people busy.
- cortesoft 3y ago
  There are so many actual useful things that need to be done, though! Can't we make work for those instead?
  - alexashka 3y ago
    Yes, but that would involve people who make decisions admitting there are people much more capable of doing what they do and stepping aside. Do you foresee that becoming the norm within your lifetime? :)
    - giantg2 3y ago
      If I remember right, there are multiple types of leaders. One type is leader by necessity - basically you don't want to lead but do if you feel you're the best option. I can say from experience that the scenario of these types of people becoming the dominant leadership style isn't possible as it's self-defeating. I filled the role of a tech lead and had great feedback from it. We had a more senior dev join the following year. I told them they should ask for the official title and we could share the responsibilities that I had been performing on my own. 10 years later and im not even a senior dev... sucks for me I guess.
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    No, no one wants to do the useful things that need to be done, such as fixing my sewage pipes. Not even me, even if I was paid SWE salaries.
latchkey 3y ago
I wouldn't say "completely unnecessary" because I believe that preventing another "shoe bomber" [0] is important. But, the way the TSA goes about doing that, doesn't seem to be worth the cost. [0] https://www.fbi.gov/history/artifacts/richard-reids-shoes https://www.fbi.gov/history/artifacts/richard-reids-shoes
montjoy 3y ago
I would argue that the main function of the TSA is to ensure the public feels safe flying. As long as the public perceives that the TSA is making it “safe enough” to fly it has value, regardless of its actual effectiveness.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

paulryanrogers 3y ago

This seems reductive. For everything TSA misses they've caught plenty of other weapons that have no place in the cabin of an aircraft. No security can be perfect, so tradeoffs are inevitable. We can disagree about the thresholds, but it's not just theater.

derefr 3y ago
But it's not the TSA's job to prevent murders in the air. (We already had a service specifically for that — the Air Marshals!) The TSA's only job is to prevent planes from being hijacked or destroyed in a way that results in massive collateral damage. And as the GP says, if you can't get in the cockpit, there become relatively few ways of doing this. (And the ways that do remain — e.g. binary explosives — are addressed by the more-limited carry-on regulations and security checks that every country does, and which the US already did before the TSA.)
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  An air marshall on a flight has one gun. If a determined group could reliably bring multiple guns into the cabin they're much more likely to overpower the marshall. From there they could open exterior doors and throw debris into the engines. Or perhaps their weapons could breach even armored cockpit doors.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > throw debris into the engines Good luck with throwing debris into a 400 mph wind at -30F while passing out from lack of oxygen.
    - notact 3y ago
      Yup, and also not getting sucked out the door if you were able to open it (which you couldn't at cabin pressure anyway).
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        Burt Berlin, my mentor at Boeing, got his start working on the B47 (first jet bomber). They discovered that the pilot could not bail out into the wind stream, the force would just push him back in. Hence the development of the ejection seat to force him out.
  - dingnuts 3y ago
    Obviously the solution is just to allow concealed carry on planes and let law abiding citizens defend themselves, and keep the cockpit locked. Yee-haw!
  - kortilla 3y ago
    It’s a plug door, you can’t open it at altitude. Also, throwing debris into the engines would just result in an emergency landing. The TSA is ridiculous and there isn’t a need to try to contrive examples to justify what they could prevent outside of hijacking. If their goal was to prevent killing just a plane load of people, they would have to setup perimeters far around the airport to prevent people with a 50 caliber rifle from shooting up the cockpit during takeoff roll. They would also need to block private air access to the airport because someone could just drive a truck of explosives underneath a plane load of people taxiing. Put differently, it their job was just mass casualty prevention in transit caused by other people, they would need to be near every bus station, controlling road access near buses, guarding all railroad tracks with passenger routes, etc.
giantg2 3y ago
This really doesn't say anything about the benefits though. Just because people had "weapons" (some of which are basically harmless, like fishing tackle, or drinks), doesn't mean they prevented a threat. Yes, maybe the theater of it has dissuaded some from even attempting. Many, including myself, feel that many of the rules and the penalties for them are extreme.
kilroy123 3y ago
Yes but many other countries do this same service with private companies for much less money.
gcheong 3y ago
"For everything TSA misses they've caught plenty of other weapons that have no place in the cabin of an aircraft." How do you know? They seem very tight-lipped about how effective they are at catching things vs things they miss and at least one test done by the TSA itself resulted in a 95% success rate - for the terrorists (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/reassessing_air.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/reassessing_a...). But hey now you at least have the "right" to pay a fee to be labeled not a terrorist and go through security as if it was pre 9/11.
idontpost 3y ago
[dead]

ttymck 3y ago

Yet most Americans would vote to maintain the TSA and its mandate.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
unnamed76ri 3y ago
Most Americans seem poised to vote for either Biden or Trump also. Sometimes the majority is a mob of idiots.
- vacuity 3y ago
  There's no amount of informed argument that will sway the extremists, so when it comes to politics, people are even bigger idiots. For the rest, it's more that they feel one candidate or the other is a necessary evil to avoid letting the worse candidate be elected. I don't think that's an issue on their part, at least as pertains directly to who they should vote for.
  - ttymck 3y ago
    I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make, as it pertains to the TSA
    - vacuity 3y ago
      I was going off-topic.
- ttymck 3y ago
  Perhaps that was my point exactly?

nojvek 3y ago

There’s a notion of creating jobs that is seen in many economies. People are much happier if they are paid to do a “job” even though it is sometimes more efficient to not have that person. You could directly give them the money but it would drive people to depression and addiction without a job. It’s interesting how we all have this innate drive to “do something to keep us busy and be appreciated for it”. That’s how I feel going through TSA. Millions of jobs to keep people busy.

cortesoft 3y ago
There are so many actual useful things that need to be done, though! Can't we make work for those instead?
- alexashka 3y ago
  Yes, but that would involve people who make decisions admitting there are people much more capable of doing what they do and stepping aside. Do you foresee that becoming the norm within your lifetime? :)
  - giantg2 3y ago
    If I remember right, there are multiple types of leaders. One type is leader by necessity - basically you don't want to lead but do if you feel you're the best option. I can say from experience that the scenario of these types of people becoming the dominant leadership style isn't possible as it's self-defeating. I filled the role of a tech lead and had great feedback from it. We had a more senior dev join the following year. I told them they should ask for the official title and we could share the responsibilities that I had been performing on my own. 10 years later and im not even a senior dev... sucks for me I guess.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  No, no one wants to do the useful things that need to be done, such as fixing my sewage pipes. Not even me, even if I was paid SWE salaries.

latchkey 3y ago

I wouldn't say "completely unnecessary" because I believe that preventing another "shoe bomber" [0] is important. But, the way the TSA goes about doing that, doesn't seem to be worth the cost. [0] https://www.fbi.gov/history/artifacts/richard-reids-shoes https://www.fbi.gov/history/artifacts/richard-reids-shoes

montjoy 3y ago

I would argue that the main function of the TSA is to ensure the public feels safe flying. As long as the public perceives that the TSA is making it “safe enough” to fly it has value, regardless of its actual effectiveness.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]