6 ms·

> The TSA was NEVER about security. It was designed as a jobs program and make it look like we were doing something for security. To a great extent, it is secu

by keeda 9mo ago

> The TSA was NEVER about security. It was designed as a jobs program and make it look like we were doing something for security. To a great extent, it is security, even if it's mostly security theater, in the sense that it is security theater that people want. A large portion, maybe even the majority, of travelers simply won't feel safe without it. I've had and overheard multiple conversations at the airport where somebody felt uncomfortable boarding a plane because they saw the screening agent asleep at the desk. Pro-tip, trying to explain security theater to the concerned passenger is not the right solution at this point ;-) Even Bruce Schneier, who coined the term "security theater" has moderated his stance to acknowledge that it can satisfy a real psychological need, even if it's irrational. We may be more cynical and look upon such things with disdain, but most people want the illusion of safety, even if deep down they know it's just an illusion.

seg_lol 9mo ago
Security Theater Blanket
user3939382 9mo ago
Taxpayers haven’t agreed to fund theater they agreed to fund safer travel. The failed audits of TSA are totally unacceptable
- lazide 9mo ago
  The purpose of the system is what it does. If enough people actually cared about the failed audits, we’d invest in making sure they didn’t fail. As it is, it’s settled in this funky middle ground that seems to maximize cost/incompetence/hassle which is generally the picture of America overall.
- mlrtime 9mo ago
  Taxpayers don't universally agree it's ONLY theater, HN is biased echo chamber just like any other group.
mft_ 9mo ago
> A large portion, maybe even the majority, of travelers simply won't feel safe without it. I've had and overheard multiple conversations at the airport where somebody felt uncomfortable boarding a plane because they saw the screening agent asleep at the desk. I’d hazard that this may be true now, but this feeling was created by the same “security measures” we’re discussing. Anyway, such major population-wide measures shouldn’t be about stopping people being “uncomfortable” - they should be about minimising risk, or not at all. If you start imposing laws or other practices every time a group of people feel “uncomfortable”, the world will quickly grind to a halt.
- scott_w 9mo ago
  > I’d hazard that this may be true now, but this feeling was created by the same “security measures” we’re discussing. Slight tangent but I recall travelling within the Schengen Zone for the first time and just walking off the plane and straight into a taxi. When I explained what I did to someone she asked "but what about security? How do they know you've not got a bomb?" I don't think I had the words to explain that, if I did manage to sneak a bomb onto the plane into Madrid, I was probably not going to save it for the airport after I landed...
  - kelnos 9mo ago
    Er, I don't get it. I do the same thing at every airport in the US: walk off the plane and straight into a taxi.
    - rkomorn 9mo ago
      I think they're talking about international travel and not having to go through border control within the Schengen space even though you're traveling to different countries.
      - mothballed 9mo ago
        I flew once from Iraq to Sweden (in a private capacity). There was zero controls other than stamping the passport, passport control but no customs inspection. No check of bags and no question of what I might have been doing in Iraq or why I would go from there to Sweden. It was shocking. Just welcome to sweden and off to the street. Hopefully they haven't changed. It's nice to see a place still left without the paranoia.
figassis 9mo ago
It is mostly security, but not to residents of the country. Those can enforce their rights. In my country, I can argue with airport security, and win. Foreigners can’t, so they follow whatever rules. A few times when landing in the US, security was extremely rude, I think just looking for an excuse (things like throwing your laptop a few feet away, while staring at you, etc). You take it bc you’re not home, and the cost of ruining your vacation is not worth it. What I’m trying to say is that , while a lot of it is theater, TSA may be more effective security against foreigners but you as a resident don’t notice because you can opt out. Try going to the UK and telling them you can’t raise your arms while being a US citizen.
- chias 9mo ago
  I tried to opt out in the UK last time I was there a few years ago. The agent looked at me, confused, and said "so... you don't want to get on the plane?". She told me the the UK didn't allow opt-outs. This was the only time I've gone through the machine since they were introduced.
  - lazide 9mo ago
    Airport security in India is particularly infuriating on this point. Everything gets scanned and fed through over and over again, and everyone gets wanded and patted down over and over again, with maximum ‘fuck you’ to any passenger that dares to question the sanity of restarting your entire screening - because you left your belt on. Meanwhile, I haven’t even had a western airports metal detector even fire on the same belt in years.
    - alephnerd 9mo ago
      Most western countries also haven't had multiple attempted [0][1][2] and committed [3][4] mass casualty terror attacks nor a direct conventional conflict that for all intents and purposes was a war [5] in the past 2 years. And airport security in Israel makes Indian airport security feel like a breeze and I found Turkish airport security to be similar to India's (I remember landing in IST a couple years ago post-COVID and how the news monitors all blared about the 3-6 Turkish soldiers who died in Turkish controlled Syria the day previously). All three are in very tenuous neighborhoods where the risks of mass casualty terror attacks remains a very real possibility and no on-duty officer wants to be the one who's name comes up in an inquiry into a terror attack should they happen. Also, from what I remember you are either a Chinese national or someone who has travelled significantly to China. It's the equivalent of a Russian national or Russian-origin person traveling to Poland or Estonia post-2022. Anyone with that profile falls under stricter scrutiny in India due to reciprocal treatment of Indian-nationals and Indian-origin people from Arunachal [6][7] and Ladakh [8] as well as the multiple recent India-China standoffs. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Delhi_car_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Delhi_car_explosion [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Nowgam_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Nowgam_explosion [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Bengaluru_cafe_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Bengaluru_cafe_bombing [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Reasi_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Reasi_attack [4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Pahalgam_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Pahalgam_attack [5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_co... [6] - https://indianexpress.com/article/world/who-is-prema-thongdok-indian-woman-shanghai-airport-staff-arunachal-is-part-of-china-10384223/ https://indianexpress.com/article/world/who-is-prema-thongdo... [7] - https://idsa.in/publisher/comments/china-ups-the-ante-in-arunachal-pradesh https://idsa.in/publisher/comments/china-ups-the-ante-in-aru... [8] - https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/why-china-is-eyeing-ladakh-1591640-2019-08-26 https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/why-china-is-e...
lazide 9mo ago
The situation re: psychological safety becomes very apparent when you mention to foreigners how often guns accidentally make it through TSA in peoples bags - and get discovered on screening on the return flight. Saucers for eyes, saucers! Hah The reality is that screening raises the bar enough that most casuals won’t risk it unless they’re crazy, which is worth something, and makes most people feel comfy, which is also worth something. It’s like using a master lock on your shed, or a cheap kwikset on your front door.
- mlrtime 9mo ago
  I think it's human nature to point at something you don't like and if it isn't 100% perfect then point to it and say it's flawed and must be taken down. Repeated examples on HN - TSA effectiveness - AI Writing code free bug - Self driving cars get into accidents
  - freeopinion 9mo ago
    You are missing an important element. You can decide for yourself whether AI-produced code is worth the price. You don't get to decide whether the TSA is effective enough to pay for it. Maybe you are willing to pay 15% for AI that saves you 20%. Even if it isn't very effective, you come out slightly ahead. Or maybe you pay 85% for something you deem to be 90% effective With TSA you pay 300% for something you might judge to be 2% effective and you don't have a choice.
  - caseysoftware 9mo ago
    - TSA fails its own Red Team exercises 95% of the time. - Self driving cars have measurably fewer accidents. If you're confusing the two, I suggest you look into the data. *Not sure on AI code yet.
- YetAnotherNick 9mo ago
  So there are two kind of security, one is preventing innocents who mistakenly brings things like gun or flammable liquid like gasoline. The other is preventing people who actually want to do harm like terrorism. There is no doubt TSA is effective for first group. However the evidence against second group is kind of murky as no country has ever caught anyone in the second group till now.
pjc50 9mo ago
The problem with allowing "feels unsafe" to drive policy is that you get this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46866201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46866201 ; a lot of Americans (and other nationalities) get that "feels unsafe" feeling when they see a visible minority. Or a Muslim. Or someone who isn't a Muslim but (like a Sikh!) is from the same hemisphere as the Middle East. You get one set of people's rights compromised to salve the feelings of another set, and this is not right. The worst thing is that indulging it doesn't lessen the fear either. It just means people reach for something else to be "afraid" of.
- expedition32 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Jotra7 9mo ago
    [dead]
  - Propelloni 9mo ago
    How about a flight coming out of Bolivia with 200 Dutch tourists on board? Is it more or less risky than a flight coming out of the USA with 200 Donald Trumps on board? Is there a list?
  - array_key_first 9mo ago
    You don't have to profile people to police, and that's very poor policing. You need to assess actual risk, not fake proxy risk like the color of people's skin. The problem with profiling is that it sucks both ways. People who are regular degular get fucked for the sake of fake policing, and then real threats are more likely to slip through.
  - roughly 9mo ago
    The moment you encode your biases in policy, you create vulnerabilities. What I’m hearing is that if I want to get something past your security policy, I need to route it through the Netherlands, possibly via a travel agency.
  - 9mo ago
nothrabannosir 9mo ago
We people are extremely poor judges of our own emotions, particularly in hypotheticals. Normalize having two lines; one with tsa, one without. See which airplane people actually board after a while. Let us put our time and money on the line and we’ll see what we really think. It’s the only way to tell. I’m sure in a world with tsa for buses and trains some people would say the same things they do now about our tsa.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- vladms 9mo ago
  Let's not mix "emotions" with "think". If I am afraid (emotion) about something happening, I will be afraid where the maximum damage can be done - in the queue before the security check (think). Most airports optimized that to reduce the queues, but there are still at least tens of people in a very narrow space. But I personally do not care that much, because I think most terrorists are dumb or crazy, and you can't fix all dumb or crazy. Some of the dumb and crazy become terrorists, some become CEO-s, some do maintenance of something critical. If something really bad happens I would not feel much better if it was a "dumb CEO" that caused it or it was a "dumb terrorist".
aleph_minus_one 9mo ago
> Even Bruce Schneier, who coined the term "security theater" has moderated his stance to acknowledge that it can satisfy a real psychological need, even if it's irrational. What about the real psychological need of not wanting to be surveilled that also quite a lot of people have?
- keeda 9mo ago
  Personally I agree with that sentiment. But unfortunately, as the success of Facebook and Google have shown, most people really don't care about their privacy.
  - aleph_minus_one 9mo ago
    > But unfortunately, as the success of Facebook and Google have shown, most people really don't care about their privacy. In particular concerning Facebook: The very radical stances that people have concerning Facebooks (i.e. both the success of Facebook, and the existence of people who are radically opposed to social media sites) rather shows that both stances are very present in society and the trenches between these stances run deep.
mapt 9mo ago
A growing part of me doesn't care, and doesn't want to coddle fascist mental illness. If it was "Glass Iraq or make people take off their shoes", then I'll take the shoes... But honestly? Fuck these people. We have extended them unlimited credit to make social change, and they always want more and worse changes. Their insecurities are inexhaustible. We need to declare them bankrupt of political capital. We need to bully them and make it clear their views aren't welcome, frankly. We are 25 years deep into "Letting the terrorists win", and I'm fucking sick of it.
freeopinion 9mo ago
If you offer the public FDA-inspected cinnamon for a 20% premium over not-inspected-and-may-contain-dangerous-levels-of-lead cinnamon, a lot of people will pay the premium. But a large percentage of people will opt for the cheaper cinnamon. If you let it be known that the FDA inspection amounts to a high school dropout trying to read a manifest on a shipping container full of imported cinnamon, a lot more people will opt for the cheaper cinnamon. But a significant percentage will still pay the premium. There is very little about that inspection that protects people, and just because something is not inspected doesn't mean it has lead in it. If you really want to be safe, you should run your cinnamon through your own detection lab. What we need is an iPhone app that can detect guns, explosives, anthrax, covid, Canadians, and any other airplane hazard. Then let people carry that personal TSA sniffer onto the plane. They can feel safe and secure and the rest of us can save a fortune in taxes.
- mothballed 9mo ago
  I would just let the airlines pick if they want TSA screening or not. Customers could buy flights with whatever security level they want. If you fly intrastate in Alaska there is no screening on commercial flights (it seems TSA must not be required on non-interstate flights). Technically it's still illegal to bring a gun but no one would know one way or the other. It really didn't bother me that there was no security, in fact, it felt great, and at least I could be sure if a bear met us on the tarmac someone would probably be ready. I know of one other story I heard secondhand from someone experiencing it, of a small regional airline in the South, where if you checked a gun, the pilot just gives it back to the passenger...
  - uncletscollie 9mo ago
    >small regional airline in the South, where if you checked a gun, the pilot just gives it back to the passenger... If the passenger is white. They would call the cops on anyone else. The state dept of terrorism would get involved if they were 1/1000 middle eastern.
    - blargthorwars 9mo ago
stephen_g 9mo ago
> A large portion, maybe even the majority, of travelers simply won't feel safe without it. Nonsense. Most of that is just because it’s been normalised - because it exists and the people manning it make such a song and dance about it. Going from that to nothing would freak some people out, but if it were just gradually pared back bit by bit people wouldn’t need it anymore. Here in Australia there’s no security for a lot of regional routes (think like turboprop (dash-8) kind of routes) starting from small airports, because it’s very expensive to have the equipment and personnel at all these small airports, and on a risk-benefit analysis the risk isn’t high enough. Some people are surprised boarding with no security, but then they’re like, “Oh, well must be OK then I guess or they wouldn’t let us do it”… We also don’t have any liquid limits at all for domestic flights, and don’t have e to take our shoes off to go through security domestically or internationally, and funnily enough we aren’t all nervous wrecks travelling.
alphawhisky 9mo ago
I've been applying this principle of behavior to... ahem... current events. I feel like this helps contextualize the behavior of the majority during the current economic and political turmoil. People can't help but pretend this wasn't coming for years, and they certainly can't admit to having a part in it.
torginus 9mo ago
Yeah security people (computer or otherwise), are mostly crypto fascists with hardons for humiliating people and telling them what to do. It's been proven from time to time that the strength of a security system is mostly determined by its strongest element, and defense in depth, and making people jump through hoops contributes comparatively little. That's why you can go reasonably anywhere on the web, and have your computer publically reachable from any point in the world, yet be reasonably safe, provided you don't do anything particularly dumb, like installing something from an unsafe source. That's why these weird security mitigation strategies like password rotation every two weeks with super complex passwords, and scary click-through screens about how youll go straight to jail if you misuse the company computer are laughable.
int_19h 9mo ago
If it's about satisfying a psychological need, then it should be compared as such to satisfying other psychological needs. Like, say, not getting groped by strangers.
Anvoker 9mo ago
One issue is that security theater creates demand for itself. Do things that induce worry and a tendency towards paranoia in the more susceptible parts of the population and then you will gradually raise the general alertness of the population. This then manufactures a desire for these measures. It largely rides off of people's general unwillingness to entertain just how many of the measures are ineffective or nonsensical. "It can't all be pointless. Surely some of it must make us safer." It's not an unreasonable belief in itself, but everyone having that attitude lets security theater grow cancerously.

by keeda 9mo ago

seg_lol 9mo ago

Security Theater Blanket

user3939382 9mo ago

Taxpayers haven’t agreed to fund theater they agreed to fund safer travel. The failed audits of TSA are totally unacceptable

lazide 9mo ago
The purpose of the system is what it does. If enough people actually cared about the failed audits, we’d invest in making sure they didn’t fail. As it is, it’s settled in this funky middle ground that seems to maximize cost/incompetence/hassle which is generally the picture of America overall.
mlrtime 9mo ago
Taxpayers don't universally agree it's ONLY theater, HN is biased echo chamber just like any other group.

mft_ 9mo ago

> A large portion, maybe even the majority, of travelers simply won't feel safe without it. I've had and overheard multiple conversations at the airport where somebody felt uncomfortable boarding a plane because they saw the screening agent asleep at the desk. I’d hazard that this may be true now, but this feeling was created by the same “security measures” we’re discussing. Anyway, such major population-wide measures shouldn’t be about stopping people being “uncomfortable” - they should be about minimising risk, or not at all. If you start imposing laws or other practices every time a group of people feel “uncomfortable”, the world will quickly grind to a halt.

scott_w 9mo ago
> I’d hazard that this may be true now, but this feeling was created by the same “security measures” we’re discussing. Slight tangent but I recall travelling within the Schengen Zone for the first time and just walking off the plane and straight into a taxi. When I explained what I did to someone she asked "but what about security? How do they know you've not got a bomb?" I don't think I had the words to explain that, if I did manage to sneak a bomb onto the plane into Madrid, I was probably not going to save it for the airport after I landed...
- kelnos 9mo ago
  Er, I don't get it. I do the same thing at every airport in the US: walk off the plane and straight into a taxi.
  - rkomorn 9mo ago
    I think they're talking about international travel and not having to go through border control within the Schengen space even though you're traveling to different countries.
    - mothballed 9mo ago
      I flew once from Iraq to Sweden (in a private capacity). There was zero controls other than stamping the passport, passport control but no customs inspection. No check of bags and no question of what I might have been doing in Iraq or why I would go from there to Sweden. It was shocking. Just welcome to sweden and off to the street. Hopefully they haven't changed. It's nice to see a place still left without the paranoia.

figassis 9mo ago

It is mostly security, but not to residents of the country. Those can enforce their rights. In my country, I can argue with airport security, and win. Foreigners can’t, so they follow whatever rules. A few times when landing in the US, security was extremely rude, I think just looking for an excuse (things like throwing your laptop a few feet away, while staring at you, etc). You take it bc you’re not home, and the cost of ruining your vacation is not worth it. What I’m trying to say is that , while a lot of it is theater, TSA may be more effective security against foreigners but you as a resident don’t notice because you can opt out. Try going to the UK and telling them you can’t raise your arms while being a US citizen.

chias 9mo ago
I tried to opt out in the UK last time I was there a few years ago. The agent looked at me, confused, and said "so... you don't want to get on the plane?". She told me the the UK didn't allow opt-outs. This was the only time I've gone through the machine since they were introduced.
- lazide 9mo ago
  Airport security in India is particularly infuriating on this point. Everything gets scanned and fed through over and over again, and everyone gets wanded and patted down over and over again, with maximum ‘fuck you’ to any passenger that dares to question the sanity of restarting your entire screening - because you left your belt on. Meanwhile, I haven’t even had a western airports metal detector even fire on the same belt in years.
  - alephnerd 9mo ago
    Most western countries also haven't had multiple attempted [0][1][2] and committed [3][4] mass casualty terror attacks nor a direct conventional conflict that for all intents and purposes was a war [5] in the past 2 years. And airport security in Israel makes Indian airport security feel like a breeze and I found Turkish airport security to be similar to India's (I remember landing in IST a couple years ago post-COVID and how the news monitors all blared about the 3-6 Turkish soldiers who died in Turkish controlled Syria the day previously). All three are in very tenuous neighborhoods where the risks of mass casualty terror attacks remains a very real possibility and no on-duty officer wants to be the one who's name comes up in an inquiry into a terror attack should they happen. Also, from what I remember you are either a Chinese national or someone who has travelled significantly to China. It's the equivalent of a Russian national or Russian-origin person traveling to Poland or Estonia post-2022. Anyone with that profile falls under stricter scrutiny in India due to reciprocal treatment of Indian-nationals and Indian-origin people from Arunachal [6][7] and Ladakh [8] as well as the multiple recent India-China standoffs. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Delhi_car_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Delhi_car_explosion [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Nowgam_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Nowgam_explosion [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Bengaluru_cafe_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Bengaluru_cafe_bombing [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Reasi_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Reasi_attack [4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Pahalgam_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Pahalgam_attack [5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_co... [6] - https://indianexpress.com/article/world/who-is-prema-thongdok-indian-woman-shanghai-airport-staff-arunachal-is-part-of-china-10384223/ https://indianexpress.com/article/world/who-is-prema-thongdo... [7] - https://idsa.in/publisher/comments/china-ups-the-ante-in-arunachal-pradesh https://idsa.in/publisher/comments/china-ups-the-ante-in-aru... [8] - https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/why-china-is-eyeing-ladakh-1591640-2019-08-26 https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/why-china-is-e...

lazide 9mo ago

The situation re: psychological safety becomes very apparent when you mention to foreigners how often guns accidentally make it through TSA in peoples bags - and get discovered on screening on the return flight. Saucers for eyes, saucers! Hah The reality is that screening raises the bar enough that most casuals won’t risk it unless they’re crazy, which is worth something, and makes most people feel comfy, which is also worth something. It’s like using a master lock on your shed, or a cheap kwikset on your front door.

mlrtime 9mo ago
I think it's human nature to point at something you don't like and if it isn't 100% perfect then point to it and say it's flawed and must be taken down. Repeated examples on HN - TSA effectiveness - AI Writing code free bug - Self driving cars get into accidents
- freeopinion 9mo ago
  You are missing an important element. You can decide for yourself whether AI-produced code is worth the price. You don't get to decide whether the TSA is effective enough to pay for it. Maybe you are willing to pay 15% for AI that saves you 20%. Even if it isn't very effective, you come out slightly ahead. Or maybe you pay 85% for something you deem to be 90% effective With TSA you pay 300% for something you might judge to be 2% effective and you don't have a choice.
- caseysoftware 9mo ago
  - TSA fails its own Red Team exercises 95% of the time. - Self driving cars have measurably fewer accidents. If you're confusing the two, I suggest you look into the data. *Not sure on AI code yet.
YetAnotherNick 9mo ago
So there are two kind of security, one is preventing innocents who mistakenly brings things like gun or flammable liquid like gasoline. The other is preventing people who actually want to do harm like terrorism. There is no doubt TSA is effective for first group. However the evidence against second group is kind of murky as no country has ever caught anyone in the second group till now.

pjc50 9mo ago

The problem with allowing "feels unsafe" to drive policy is that you get this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46866201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46866201 ; a lot of Americans (and other nationalities) get that "feels unsafe" feeling when they see a visible minority. Or a Muslim. Or someone who isn't a Muslim but (like a Sikh!) is from the same hemisphere as the Middle East. You get one set of people's rights compromised to salve the feelings of another set, and this is not right. The worst thing is that indulging it doesn't lessen the fear either. It just means people reach for something else to be "afraid" of.

expedition32 9mo ago
[flagged]
- Jotra7 9mo ago
  [dead]
- Propelloni 9mo ago
  How about a flight coming out of Bolivia with 200 Dutch tourists on board? Is it more or less risky than a flight coming out of the USA with 200 Donald Trumps on board? Is there a list?
- array_key_first 9mo ago
  You don't have to profile people to police, and that's very poor policing. You need to assess actual risk, not fake proxy risk like the color of people's skin. The problem with profiling is that it sucks both ways. People who are regular degular get fucked for the sake of fake policing, and then real threats are more likely to slip through.
- roughly 9mo ago
  The moment you encode your biases in policy, you create vulnerabilities. What I’m hearing is that if I want to get something past your security policy, I need to route it through the Netherlands, possibly via a travel agency.
- 9mo ago

nothrabannosir 9mo ago

We people are extremely poor judges of our own emotions, particularly in hypotheticals. Normalize having two lines; one with tsa, one without. See which airplane people actually board after a while. Let us put our time and money on the line and we’ll see what we really think. It’s the only way to tell. I’m sure in a world with tsa for buses and trains some people would say the same things they do now about our tsa.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
vladms 9mo ago
Let's not mix "emotions" with "think". If I am afraid (emotion) about something happening, I will be afraid where the maximum damage can be done - in the queue before the security check (think). Most airports optimized that to reduce the queues, but there are still at least tens of people in a very narrow space. But I personally do not care that much, because I think most terrorists are dumb or crazy, and you can't fix all dumb or crazy. Some of the dumb and crazy become terrorists, some become CEO-s, some do maintenance of something critical. If something really bad happens I would not feel much better if it was a "dumb CEO" that caused it or it was a "dumb terrorist".

aleph_minus_one 9mo ago

> Even Bruce Schneier, who coined the term "security theater" has moderated his stance to acknowledge that it can satisfy a real psychological need, even if it's irrational. What about the real psychological need of not wanting to be surveilled that also quite a lot of people have?

keeda 9mo ago
Personally I agree with that sentiment. But unfortunately, as the success of Facebook and Google have shown, most people really don't care about their privacy.
- aleph_minus_one 9mo ago
  > But unfortunately, as the success of Facebook and Google have shown, most people really don't care about their privacy. In particular concerning Facebook: The very radical stances that people have concerning Facebooks (i.e. both the success of Facebook, and the existence of people who are radically opposed to social media sites) rather shows that both stances are very present in society and the trenches between these stances run deep.

mapt 9mo ago

A growing part of me doesn't care, and doesn't want to coddle fascist mental illness. If it was "Glass Iraq or make people take off their shoes", then I'll take the shoes... But honestly? Fuck these people. We have extended them unlimited credit to make social change, and they always want more and worse changes. Their insecurities are inexhaustible. We need to declare them bankrupt of political capital. We need to bully them and make it clear their views aren't welcome, frankly. We are 25 years deep into "Letting the terrorists win", and I'm fucking sick of it.

freeopinion 9mo ago

If you offer the public FDA-inspected cinnamon for a 20% premium over not-inspected-and-may-contain-dangerous-levels-of-lead cinnamon, a lot of people will pay the premium. But a large percentage of people will opt for the cheaper cinnamon. If you let it be known that the FDA inspection amounts to a high school dropout trying to read a manifest on a shipping container full of imported cinnamon, a lot more people will opt for the cheaper cinnamon. But a significant percentage will still pay the premium. There is very little about that inspection that protects people, and just because something is not inspected doesn't mean it has lead in it. If you really want to be safe, you should run your cinnamon through your own detection lab. What we need is an iPhone app that can detect guns, explosives, anthrax, covid, Canadians, and any other airplane hazard. Then let people carry that personal TSA sniffer onto the plane. They can feel safe and secure and the rest of us can save a fortune in taxes.

mothballed 9mo ago
I would just let the airlines pick if they want TSA screening or not. Customers could buy flights with whatever security level they want. If you fly intrastate in Alaska there is no screening on commercial flights (it seems TSA must not be required on non-interstate flights). Technically it's still illegal to bring a gun but no one would know one way or the other. It really didn't bother me that there was no security, in fact, it felt great, and at least I could be sure if a bear met us on the tarmac someone would probably be ready. I know of one other story I heard secondhand from someone experiencing it, of a small regional airline in the South, where if you checked a gun, the pilot just gives it back to the passenger...
- uncletscollie 9mo ago
  >small regional airline in the South, where if you checked a gun, the pilot just gives it back to the passenger... If the passenger is white. They would call the cops on anyone else. The state dept of terrorism would get involved if they were 1/1000 middle eastern.
  - blargthorwars 9mo ago

stephen_g 9mo ago

> A large portion, maybe even the majority, of travelers simply won't feel safe without it. Nonsense. Most of that is just because it’s been normalised - because it exists and the people manning it make such a song and dance about it. Going from that to nothing would freak some people out, but if it were just gradually pared back bit by bit people wouldn’t need it anymore. Here in Australia there’s no security for a lot of regional routes (think like turboprop (dash-8) kind of routes) starting from small airports, because it’s very expensive to have the equipment and personnel at all these small airports, and on a risk-benefit analysis the risk isn’t high enough. Some people are surprised boarding with no security, but then they’re like, “Oh, well must be OK then I guess or they wouldn’t let us do it”… We also don’t have any liquid limits at all for domestic flights, and don’t have e to take our shoes off to go through security domestically or internationally, and funnily enough we aren’t all nervous wrecks travelling.

alphawhisky 9mo ago

I've been applying this principle of behavior to... ahem... current events. I feel like this helps contextualize the behavior of the majority during the current economic and political turmoil. People can't help but pretend this wasn't coming for years, and they certainly can't admit to having a part in it.

torginus 9mo ago

Yeah security people (computer or otherwise), are mostly crypto fascists with hardons for humiliating people and telling them what to do. It's been proven from time to time that the strength of a security system is mostly determined by its strongest element, and defense in depth, and making people jump through hoops contributes comparatively little. That's why you can go reasonably anywhere on the web, and have your computer publically reachable from any point in the world, yet be reasonably safe, provided you don't do anything particularly dumb, like installing something from an unsafe source. That's why these weird security mitigation strategies like password rotation every two weeks with super complex passwords, and scary click-through screens about how youll go straight to jail if you misuse the company computer are laughable.

int_19h 9mo ago

If it's about satisfying a psychological need, then it should be compared as such to satisfying other psychological needs. Like, say, not getting groped by strangers.

Anvoker 9mo ago

One issue is that security theater creates demand for itself. Do things that induce worry and a tendency towards paranoia in the more susceptible parts of the population and then you will gradually raise the general alertness of the population. This then manufactures a desire for these measures. It largely rides off of people's general unwillingness to entertain just how many of the measures are ineffective or nonsensical. "It can't all be pointless. Surely some of it must make us safer." It's not an unreasonable belief in itself, but everyone having that attitude lets security theater grow cancerously.