5 ms·

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 evi

by 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.
aqme28 14y ago
That is 100% not evidence of benefit at all. After a single bear wandering into town has drawn an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!” Lisa sees through his reasoning: “That’s specious reasoning, dad.” Homer, misunderstanding the word “specious”, thanks her for the compliment. Optimistically, she tries to explain the error in his argument: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer is confused: “Hmm; how does it work?” Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!” Homer: “Uh-huh.” Lisa: “… but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?” Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock…”
- codex 14y ago
  Did you read the second paragraph, where I make this same point?

by codex 14y ago

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.

aqme28 14y ago

That is 100% not evidence of benefit at all. After a single bear wandering into town has drawn an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!” Lisa sees through his reasoning: “That’s specious reasoning, dad.” Homer, misunderstanding the word “specious”, thanks her for the compliment. Optimistically, she tries to explain the error in his argument: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer is confused: “Hmm; how does it work?” Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!” Homer: “Uh-huh.” Lisa: “… but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?” Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock…”

codex 14y ago
Did you read the second paragraph, where I make this same point?