5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- greyfade 14y ago
  I find it more likely that terrorists don't think it's worth doing in the first place, security or no. Killing a few dozen people in mid-air might startle a bunch of people on the ground and ground a few flights for a while, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything. The only people that would actually do that are mentally-unbalanced, suicidal people who are just trying to kill themselves in the most spectacular way they can; i.e., not a terrorist. I think "terrorists" of the "trying to kill us all" variety are trying to bring forward some kind of message or dispense some kind of "justice" under their belief system. To achieve any of that with violence requires there to be an intense, sustained effect on the public and a way to link it back to their concept of justice. The 9/11 attacks accomplished that, but the shoe bomber and underwear bombers wouldn't have if they had succeeded. Their explosive charges were too small and too incompetently assembled to cause the kind of mass panic that "terrorists" are after. Instead, we have a different breed of terrorists: the "keeping you scared because it benefits them directly" terrorists. The TSA and Homeland Security. The true terrorists in this plot. Keeping people afraid of some vague, non-specific threat because it profits them and those they support.
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.

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.
greyfade 14y ago
I find it more likely that terrorists don't think it's worth doing in the first place, security or no. Killing a few dozen people in mid-air might startle a bunch of people on the ground and ground a few flights for a while, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything. The only people that would actually do that are mentally-unbalanced, suicidal people who are just trying to kill themselves in the most spectacular way they can; i.e., not a terrorist. I think "terrorists" of the "trying to kill us all" variety are trying to bring forward some kind of message or dispense some kind of "justice" under their belief system. To achieve any of that with violence requires there to be an intense, sustained effect on the public and a way to link it back to their concept of justice. The 9/11 attacks accomplished that, but the shoe bomber and underwear bombers wouldn't have if they had succeeded. Their explosive charges were too small and too incompetently assembled to cause the kind of mass panic that "terrorists" are after. Instead, we have a different breed of terrorists: the "keeping you scared because it benefits them directly" terrorists. The TSA and Homeland Security. The true terrorists in this plot. Keeping people afraid of some vague, non-specific threat because it profits them and those they support.

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.