4 ms·

It was created in response to 9/11, which is not what I would consider being "fine". Regardless, that doesn't answer the question. Please answer the question.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
While the loss of life of ~3k people, once, is regrettable, it is by no means an event worth the response that has occurred. Sometimes, you are just unlucky, and we aren't going to reconfigure entire systems at enormous cost when it is unlikely the event will happen again. It is very hard for people to internalize this. "Do something!" and what not. Armoring flight deck doors would've been sufficient to prevent a recurrence. Instead, the TSA spends ~$8B/year and employs ~60k federal workers. For 3k people who died once. Conversely, there are ~40k-50k gun deaths annually in the US, and we do nothing, despite that being a much greater risk than an air transport terror attack. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-... https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
- throwaway345353 3y ago
  Armoring flight deck doors has also killed at least ~400 people so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Again, sometimes you are unlucky, wrong place at the wrong time. If we replaced pilots with full autonomy, and people died from edge cases/tail risk events, would we bring back pilots? There is no way to get to zero risk. Derisk when you can, accept the remaining risk.
    - throwaway345353 3y ago
      I agree. I think it speaks to the trend to attempt to find technological or bureaucratic solutions to what are fundamentally social problems. More of these problems will crop up as society shifts from high trust to low trust.
- dumbo-octopus 3y ago
  60,000 decently paying jobs? And we might have some marginally better security? And every other country has more or less the same process in place? These sound like good things to me.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    I'd rather the money spent on the TSA were spent on other programs that produce value for society, like funding the child tax credit, or school lunches, or more teachers to reduce class sizes, or repairs to roads, or public health care, or public education so more people can get degrees, or programs for the homeless, or treatment programs for addiction or mental health crises, or anti-domestic-violence programs... Not all 'jobs' are of equal value to society
thaumasiotes 3y ago
You've already gotten a very clear answer: The TSA: 1. Expends a lot of money, and a lot of passenger time; 2. Without producing any benefits. Thus, eliminating the TSA is pure upside. Your question is irrelevant to the topic, because the TSA does not oversee what people bring on airplanes.
AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
The ONLY response to 9/11 that has done anything is the change in cockpit door construction and procedure. Everything else is completely worthless. I know this sounds nuts but I really do not care if someone sneaks a tiny hooker pistol or a swiss army knife onto a plane, they're not going to be able to do anything other than piss everyone off and get beaten to a pulp by a bunch of people who had their travel plans interrupted, should they decide to do a terrorism. Also, fun fact, the TSA doesn't actually care about any of this. They're mostly concerned with large bombs and have lobbied to not have to chase after every pair of nail clippers but the flight attendants union has successfully counter lobbied to prevent this. They don't want to be stuck in giant metal tube trying to convince 200 irate people to pay $5 for a can of Fanta and to sign up for the latest credit card if anyone is armed with so much as a spork.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

While the loss of life of ~3k people, once, is regrettable, it is by no means an event worth the response that has occurred. Sometimes, you are just unlucky, and we aren't going to reconfigure entire systems at enormous cost when it is unlikely the event will happen again. It is very hard for people to internalize this. "Do something!" and what not. Armoring flight deck doors would've been sufficient to prevent a recurrence. Instead, the TSA spends ~$8B/year and employs ~60k federal workers. For 3k people who died once. Conversely, there are ~40k-50k gun deaths annually in the US, and we do nothing, despite that being a much greater risk than an air transport terror attack. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-... https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

throwaway345353 3y ago
Armoring flight deck doors has also killed at least ~400 people so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Again, sometimes you are unlucky, wrong place at the wrong time. If we replaced pilots with full autonomy, and people died from edge cases/tail risk events, would we bring back pilots? There is no way to get to zero risk. Derisk when you can, accept the remaining risk.
  - throwaway345353 3y ago
    I agree. I think it speaks to the trend to attempt to find technological or bureaucratic solutions to what are fundamentally social problems. More of these problems will crop up as society shifts from high trust to low trust.
dumbo-octopus 3y ago
60,000 decently paying jobs? And we might have some marginally better security? And every other country has more or less the same process in place? These sound like good things to me.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kevingadd 3y ago
  I'd rather the money spent on the TSA were spent on other programs that produce value for society, like funding the child tax credit, or school lunches, or more teachers to reduce class sizes, or repairs to roads, or public health care, or public education so more people can get degrees, or programs for the homeless, or treatment programs for addiction or mental health crises, or anti-domestic-violence programs... Not all 'jobs' are of equal value to society

thaumasiotes 3y ago

You've already gotten a very clear answer: The TSA: 1. Expends a lot of money, and a lot of passenger time; 2. Without producing any benefits. Thus, eliminating the TSA is pure upside. Your question is irrelevant to the topic, because the TSA does not oversee what people bring on airplanes.

AnarchismIsCool 3y ago

The ONLY response to 9/11 that has done anything is the change in cockpit door construction and procedure. Everything else is completely worthless. I know this sounds nuts but I really do not care if someone sneaks a tiny hooker pistol or a swiss army knife onto a plane, they're not going to be able to do anything other than piss everyone off and get beaten to a pulp by a bunch of people who had their travel plans interrupted, should they decide to do a terrorism. Also, fun fact, the TSA doesn't actually care about any of this. They're mostly concerned with large bombs and have lobbied to not have to chase after every pair of nail clippers but the flight attendants union has successfully counter lobbied to prevent this. They don't want to be stuck in giant metal tube trying to convince 200 irate people to pay $5 for a can of Fanta and to sign up for the latest credit card if anyone is armed with so much as a spork.