4 ms·

HN has quite an anti-TSA bias. The TSA has problems, but so does every large organization. I suspect HN'ers glare at the TSA because they travel frequently, a

by codex 14y ago

HN has quite an anti-TSA bias. The TSA has problems, but so does every large organization. I suspect HN'ers glare at the TSA because they travel frequently, and it would benefit them disproportionately to cut down on travel time and inconvenience. This is like the trucking lobby arguing for fewer restrictions on driver safety--the perspective is not exactly objective.

cwp 14y ago
That. Or, perhaps, the TSA is objectively awful. Tell you what. Post an article that sings the praises of the TSA and I'll upvote it. Then we can have a discussion about bias.
- codex 14y ago
  A fair point. I spent only about 30 seconds on this, but found: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4943959 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4943959, "Surprise Gallup Poll: People Think TSA Does A Good Job". This is a poor article: it's merely reporting on a public poll of the TSA. I didn't expect the public to be so approving; I expected views of TSA to be like views on taxes: they're necessary, but everybody still hates them. But perhaps the public is so scared of terrorists on planes that the TSA is comforting to them. It's not a report on TSA efficacy, but I didn't look for one; such a report is would not be worth much due to the difficulty of proving a negative: the TSA's objective is not to find 100% of contraband, but to prevent terrorist attacks. There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does that prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say. EDIT: I submitted two more articles: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944165 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944165 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944163 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944163 Still no upvotes, though.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    > There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does that prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say. No, really, it's not. Of prevented terror attacks since 9/11, TSA has prevented exactly 0% of them. The shoe bomber was on the plane with the bomb when he was subdued by fellow passengers. The underwear bomber also made it onto the flight. Only for 2011, but you can bet the TSA wouldn't let you forget if they actually caught a terrorist: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/the_tsa_proves.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/the_tsa_proves...
    - codex 14y ago
      One could make the counter argument that some terrorists are discouraged by the difficulty and no longer try. For example, how many plane bombings have their been since Lockerbie? None. Does that mean that we should stop inspecting luggage? Probably not.
      - mseebach 14y ago
        > One could make the counter argument that some terrorists are discouraged by the difficulty and no longer try. Well, let me know if you actually get around to making the argument. In the meantime, consider the basic economics of an attack as laid out by someone else: If the other passengers on the flight realise that you're up to something, every single one of them has a clear motive to take you on in the fight to the death. Hi-jacking a plane has gotten orders of magnitude more difficult after 9/11. > For example, how many plane bombings have their been since Lockerbie? None. Does that mean that we should stop inspecting luggage? Probably not. Good thing, then, that the suggestion on the table is a return to pre-9/11 security, not abolishing it. EDIT: pre-9/11 security, plus the few things we've realised actually makes sense - such as reinforced, locking cockpit doors.
        codex 14y ago
        Blowing up a plane by embedding a bomb in a body cavity is still plenty easy post 9/11. The terrorist need only head into the restroom and detonate the bomb under the cover of privacy. Bomb making technology and the willingness to be martyred in a plane attack have increased since 9/11. This is the type of attack that full body scanners attempt to prevent. EDIT: Witness new body cavity scanners on the horizon: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-finds-explosives-inside-body-cavities/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-fi...
        mseebach 14y ago
        No, millimeter-wave scanners do not penetrate the skin, so they're ineffective against that type of attack.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    This is a false equivalence argument. Taxes may be necessary, but that does not mean each particular tax, in every particular form is necessary or right. Security may be necessary, but TSA in its current form is a waste of time, money and effort. >>> There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does that prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say. It's not hard to say. The answer is "no, it does not prove that". Just as the fact that you weren't eaten by a magic dragon does not prove I have protected you from it all these years. Proofs don't work this way - if something didn't happen, you can not just tell "it's because at the same time something else was happening".
  - cwp 14y ago
    Ok, I've upvoted two articles. This link (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944163 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944163) gives me a blank page. Also, I'll note that the second article is also pretty faint praise. It's the travel agency industry association praising a TSA pilot program to allow pre-screened frequent fliers to go through security more quickly. In other words, to make the experience of flying less awful for their best customers. They don't say the TSA is doing a good job, only that this program will be an improvement. Now, on to bias. Having an opinion is not bias. An honest examination of the facts can lead to a conclusion that isn't neutral with respect to a given issue. Do you think the HN community is disregarding important facts in coming to it's anti-TSA position? Also, yes, it's self-serving to want less waste of government money, and less hassle in flying, but only insofar as HN members are also members of the public. I don't think anyone here holds the position that we should reduce security for their personal convenience, on the theory that a successful terrorist attack would probably kill someone else. So, by all means, post information that might challenge the opinion of the community. We might learn something. But also, let's keep forming opinions and defending them. That's the point of all this discussion, right?
tokenizer 14y ago
But you're missing the point. The TSA does literally nothing. It adds 'no' value. It's only an expense. To who? Everyone. For who? No one...
uses 14y ago
The HN audience, and the hacker community in general, also has a libertarian bent, a question-everything bent, and an interest in secure systems. This all makes the TSA pretty uncool, even for people like myself, who barely ever take the opportunity to fly.
betterunix 14y ago
The difference is that there is no objective evidence that the TSA's airport security checkpoints benefit anyone; there is more evidence that the checkpoints actually put us in danger. There is also the matter of having my tax dollars poured into such a dubious program while simultaneously being siphoned away from non-secretive programs that benefit everyone.
- codex 14y ago
  Actually, there is some evidence of benefit: there has not been a successful terrorist attack on a US commercial aircraft since the TSA was formed. Is that evidence good enough to say that the TSA is effective? Not really; terrorist attacks could have declined for other reasons. The only way to be sure of the effectiveness of the TSA would be to keep relaxing TSA restrictions until a terrorist successfully attacks a plane, and then ratchet them back up to the minimum point necessary to prevent it again. Will they do that? No. So, the only alternative is to over-protect to some degree. For example, should we still screen checked baggage for bombs? There have been no luggage bombings since Lockerbie, so maybe they're not necessary anymore. These checks are certainly expensive. I think the answer is obviously yes, because such an attack is "too damn easy." However, it's terribly difficult to draw the line when things get less obvious, because the odds of an attack increase as the difficulty of such an attack decreases. How many plane bombings would there be if all you had to do was click on a link in a web browser? A hundred thousand (or the population of Gaza). Now what if it required an hour of work to be successful? Tens of thousands. A week? Hundreds. A month? Tens. When will it drop to zero? Hard to say.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    I would be more worried about someone bombing the security line at a major airport than about bombing a plane. I would also worry about the access to glass in an airport -- ask any prisoner if you are wondering why. "the only alternative is to over-protect to some degree" You are still assuming that the TSA's airport checkpoint program is protecting us at all, which I would say is a dubious claim at best. Locking the cockpit doors on an airplane is a good measure. Putting an armed guard on certain high-value target flights is a reasonable measure, although I would be a bit concerned about a clever terrorist's ability to identify the guard and take his weapon. Screening luggage for bombs is reasonable, although I think an airport is just as good of a target for bombing as an airplane would be, so I am not sure how much good it does. The checkpoints, however, are next to useless for security. There is an endless supply of things that can be turned into weapons on the other side of a security checkpoint, and you don't have to be an evil mastermind to find them. They even let you bring dangerous items through the checkpoint, like the 9-cell lithium-ion battery in my laptop (would you want to be on an airplane where someone punctured or ignited such a battery?) -- for that matter, the laptop itself, which has lots of sharp aluminum inside and which could be disassembled fair easily. What the checkpoints do is to remind people that they are not in charge and that their rights mean nothing at the airport. I had this experience myself, twice. First, I was told that I could had to wait over 10 minutes to receive a pat-down after refusing to walk into a scanner, and that I would not be allowed to use the metal detector that just opened -- all the while, my luggage was left on the other side for anyone to steal. The second time, my teammate who traveled with me tried to take a video recording of the pat-down procedure, and the guard stopped (but did not allow me to put my arms down), claiming that it was necessary for security to not let a video be taken (but when I pointed out that there were literally dozens of people watching from the waiting area ten feet away, his eyes glazed over -- he was just reciting the line some superior had told him to recite). These are not measures that enhance security, but they certainly are a psychological attack; I doubt they are carefully planned attacks, but rather they are an intended consequence of giving people who have absolutely no training in security or threat mitigation the power to make decisions at a security checkpoint.
fleitz 14y ago
Yeah we do, but there's a reason we're biased against the TSA. It's because we believe they fundamentally undermine the 4th amendment, and they are a market distortion forced upon us that results in a subpar consumer experience. There's nothing wrong with being biased towards our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
mseebach 14y ago
So if those who see the problem can't bring it up, who can? Martin Luther King didn't exactly have an objective perspective either when he campaigned for civil rights reform? Extreme example, yes, but change is brought about by passion, not waiting for some grey blob of objectivity to decide you're right, and passion is rarely objective.
illuminate 14y ago
I'd say that the Cato/Reason brand of Libertarian bias against Federal institutions is pretty irrelevant to how terrible the TSA is in practice. The problem isn't so much the criticism of the organization but the solutions put forth (break the unions, privatization = more secure inherently, etc.)
supercanuck 14y ago
The Economist had a debate about the TSA and it was overwhelming opposed to the TSA. http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/225 http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/225 I'm not sure if this is bias as simply, for those educated on the matter, the evidence is pretty decisive.
- mseebach 14y ago
  Well, readers of the Economist are likely better aquatinted with the TSA than the average person. They are also significantly better educated, and better equipped for rejecting the essentially emotional arguments in favour of, and accepting the logical arguments against.
city41 14y ago
The problem with your argument is the TSA has been proven beyond a doubt to be highly ineffective.

by codex 14y ago

cwp 14y ago

That. Or, perhaps, the TSA is objectively awful. Tell you what. Post an article that sings the praises of the TSA and I'll upvote it. Then we can have a discussion about bias.

codex 14y ago
A fair point. I spent only about 30 seconds on this, but found: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4943959 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4943959, "Surprise Gallup Poll: People Think TSA Does A Good Job". This is a poor article: it's merely reporting on a public poll of the TSA. I didn't expect the public to be so approving; I expected views of TSA to be like views on taxes: they're necessary, but everybody still hates them. But perhaps the public is so scared of terrorists on planes that the TSA is comforting to them. It's not a report on TSA efficacy, but I didn't look for one; such a report is would not be worth much due to the difficulty of proving a negative: the TSA's objective is not to find 100% of contraband, but to prevent terrorist attacks. There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does that prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say. EDIT: I submitted two more articles: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944165 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944165 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944163 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944163 Still no upvotes, though.
- mseebach 14y ago
  > There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does that prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say. No, really, it's not. Of prevented terror attacks since 9/11, TSA has prevented exactly 0% of them. The shoe bomber was on the plane with the bomb when he was subdued by fellow passengers. The underwear bomber also made it onto the flight. Only for 2011, but you can bet the TSA wouldn't let you forget if they actually caught a terrorist: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/the_tsa_proves.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/the_tsa_proves...
  - codex 14y ago
    One could make the counter argument that some terrorists are discouraged by the difficulty and no longer try. For example, how many plane bombings have their been since Lockerbie? None. Does that mean that we should stop inspecting luggage? Probably not.
    - mseebach 14y ago
      > One could make the counter argument that some terrorists are discouraged by the difficulty and no longer try. Well, let me know if you actually get around to making the argument. In the meantime, consider the basic economics of an attack as laid out by someone else: If the other passengers on the flight realise that you're up to something, every single one of them has a clear motive to take you on in the fight to the death. Hi-jacking a plane has gotten orders of magnitude more difficult after 9/11. > For example, how many plane bombings have their been since Lockerbie? None. Does that mean that we should stop inspecting luggage? Probably not. Good thing, then, that the suggestion on the table is a return to pre-9/11 security, not abolishing it. EDIT: pre-9/11 security, plus the few things we've realised actually makes sense - such as reinforced, locking cockpit doors.
      - codex 14y ago
        Blowing up a plane by embedding a bomb in a body cavity is still plenty easy post 9/11. The terrorist need only head into the restroom and detonate the bomb under the cover of privacy. Bomb making technology and the willingness to be martyred in a plane attack have increased since 9/11. This is the type of attack that full body scanners attempt to prevent. EDIT: Witness new body cavity scanners on the horizon: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-finds-explosives-inside-body-cavities/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-fi...
        mseebach 14y ago
        No, millimeter-wave scanners do not penetrate the skin, so they're ineffective against that type of attack.
- smsm42 14y ago
  This is a false equivalence argument. Taxes may be necessary, but that does not mean each particular tax, in every particular form is necessary or right. Security may be necessary, but TSA in its current form is a waste of time, money and effort. >>> There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does that prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say. It's not hard to say. The answer is "no, it does not prove that". Just as the fact that you weren't eaten by a magic dragon does not prove I have protected you from it all these years. Proofs don't work this way - if something didn't happen, you can not just tell "it's because at the same time something else was happening".
- cwp 14y ago
  Ok, I've upvoted two articles. This link (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944163 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944163) gives me a blank page. Also, I'll note that the second article is also pretty faint praise. It's the travel agency industry association praising a TSA pilot program to allow pre-screened frequent fliers to go through security more quickly. In other words, to make the experience of flying less awful for their best customers. They don't say the TSA is doing a good job, only that this program will be an improvement. Now, on to bias. Having an opinion is not bias. An honest examination of the facts can lead to a conclusion that isn't neutral with respect to a given issue. Do you think the HN community is disregarding important facts in coming to it's anti-TSA position? Also, yes, it's self-serving to want less waste of government money, and less hassle in flying, but only insofar as HN members are also members of the public. I don't think anyone here holds the position that we should reduce security for their personal convenience, on the theory that a successful terrorist attack would probably kill someone else. So, by all means, post information that might challenge the opinion of the community. We might learn something. But also, let's keep forming opinions and defending them. That's the point of all this discussion, right?

tokenizer 14y ago

But you're missing the point. The TSA does literally nothing. It adds 'no' value. It's only an expense. To who? Everyone. For who? No one...

uses 14y ago

The HN audience, and the hacker community in general, also has a libertarian bent, a question-everything bent, and an interest in secure systems. This all makes the TSA pretty uncool, even for people like myself, who barely ever take the opportunity to fly.

betterunix 14y ago

The difference is that there is no objective evidence that the TSA's airport security checkpoints benefit anyone; there is more evidence that the checkpoints actually put us in danger. There is also the matter of having my tax dollars poured into such a dubious program while simultaneously being siphoned away from non-secretive programs that benefit everyone.

codex 14y ago
Actually, there is some evidence of benefit: there has not been a successful terrorist attack on a US commercial aircraft since the TSA was formed. Is that evidence good enough to say that the TSA is effective? Not really; terrorist attacks could have declined for other reasons. The only way to be sure of the effectiveness of the TSA would be to keep relaxing TSA restrictions until a terrorist successfully attacks a plane, and then ratchet them back up to the minimum point necessary to prevent it again. Will they do that? No. So, the only alternative is to over-protect to some degree. For example, should we still screen checked baggage for bombs? There have been no luggage bombings since Lockerbie, so maybe they're not necessary anymore. These checks are certainly expensive. I think the answer is obviously yes, because such an attack is "too damn easy." However, it's terribly difficult to draw the line when things get less obvious, because the odds of an attack increase as the difficulty of such an attack decreases. How many plane bombings would there be if all you had to do was click on a link in a web browser? A hundred thousand (or the population of Gaza). Now what if it required an hour of work to be successful? Tens of thousands. A week? Hundreds. A month? Tens. When will it drop to zero? Hard to say.
- betterunix 14y ago
  I would be more worried about someone bombing the security line at a major airport than about bombing a plane. I would also worry about the access to glass in an airport -- ask any prisoner if you are wondering why. "the only alternative is to over-protect to some degree" You are still assuming that the TSA's airport checkpoint program is protecting us at all, which I would say is a dubious claim at best. Locking the cockpit doors on an airplane is a good measure. Putting an armed guard on certain high-value target flights is a reasonable measure, although I would be a bit concerned about a clever terrorist's ability to identify the guard and take his weapon. Screening luggage for bombs is reasonable, although I think an airport is just as good of a target for bombing as an airplane would be, so I am not sure how much good it does. The checkpoints, however, are next to useless for security. There is an endless supply of things that can be turned into weapons on the other side of a security checkpoint, and you don't have to be an evil mastermind to find them. They even let you bring dangerous items through the checkpoint, like the 9-cell lithium-ion battery in my laptop (would you want to be on an airplane where someone punctured or ignited such a battery?) -- for that matter, the laptop itself, which has lots of sharp aluminum inside and which could be disassembled fair easily. What the checkpoints do is to remind people that they are not in charge and that their rights mean nothing at the airport. I had this experience myself, twice. First, I was told that I could had to wait over 10 minutes to receive a pat-down after refusing to walk into a scanner, and that I would not be allowed to use the metal detector that just opened -- all the while, my luggage was left on the other side for anyone to steal. The second time, my teammate who traveled with me tried to take a video recording of the pat-down procedure, and the guard stopped (but did not allow me to put my arms down), claiming that it was necessary for security to not let a video be taken (but when I pointed out that there were literally dozens of people watching from the waiting area ten feet away, his eyes glazed over -- he was just reciting the line some superior had told him to recite). These are not measures that enhance security, but they certainly are a psychological attack; I doubt they are carefully planned attacks, but rather they are an intended consequence of giving people who have absolutely no training in security or threat mitigation the power to make decisions at a security checkpoint.

fleitz 14y ago

Yeah we do, but there's a reason we're biased against the TSA. It's because we believe they fundamentally undermine the 4th amendment, and they are a market distortion forced upon us that results in a subpar consumer experience. There's nothing wrong with being biased towards our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

mseebach 14y ago

So if those who see the problem can't bring it up, who can? Martin Luther King didn't exactly have an objective perspective either when he campaigned for civil rights reform? Extreme example, yes, but change is brought about by passion, not waiting for some grey blob of objectivity to decide you're right, and passion is rarely objective.

illuminate 14y ago

I'd say that the Cato/Reason brand of Libertarian bias against Federal institutions is pretty irrelevant to how terrible the TSA is in practice. The problem isn't so much the criticism of the organization but the solutions put forth (break the unions, privatization = more secure inherently, etc.)

supercanuck 14y ago

The Economist had a debate about the TSA and it was overwhelming opposed to the TSA. http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/225 http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/225 I'm not sure if this is bias as simply, for those educated on the matter, the evidence is pretty decisive.

mseebach 14y ago
Well, readers of the Economist are likely better aquatinted with the TSA than the average person. They are also significantly better educated, and better equipped for rejecting the essentially emotional arguments in favour of, and accepting the logical arguments against.

city41 14y ago

The problem with your argument is the TSA has been proven beyond a doubt to be highly ineffective.