3 ms·

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, "Surpr

by 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.
    - ScottBurson 14y ago
      > Hi-jacking a plane has gotten orders of magnitude more difficult after 9/11. Yes. It's important to remember that pre-9/11, the standard expectation was that in a hijacking, passengers would be hostages, not victims. As such, people were specifically instructed not to intervene. That's clearly out the window now.
- pdonis 14y ago
  Neither the shoe bomber flight nor the underwear bomber flight originated in the US, so TSA did not screen passengers for either one.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    Security on flights to the US is to the same standard, if not carried out by the same organisation, as flights in the US.
    - pdonis 14y ago
      For airports in Europe (which is where the two flights in question originated), this is basically true. For airports in other parts of the world, not so much. In any case, that doesn't change the fact that it's incorrect to blame TSA for incidents on flights that TSA wasn't responsible for screening. The relevant factoid for the point the person upthread was trying to make would be how many such incidents have occurred on flights originating from a US airport.
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?

by codex 14y ago

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.
  - ScottBurson 14y ago
    > Hi-jacking a plane has gotten orders of magnitude more difficult after 9/11. Yes. It's important to remember that pre-9/11, the standard expectation was that in a hijacking, passengers would be hostages, not victims. As such, people were specifically instructed not to intervene. That's clearly out the window now.
pdonis 14y ago
Neither the shoe bomber flight nor the underwear bomber flight originated in the US, so TSA did not screen passengers for either one.
- mseebach 14y ago
  Security on flights to the US is to the same standard, if not carried out by the same organisation, as flights in the US.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    For airports in Europe (which is where the two flights in question originated), this is basically true. For airports in other parts of the world, not so much. In any case, that doesn't change the fact that it's incorrect to blame TSA for incidents on flights that TSA wasn't responsible for screening. The relevant factoid for the point the person upthread was trying to make would be how many such incidents have occurred on flights originating from a US airport.

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?