5 ms·

I don't think this TSA screener understands that the TSA does not need perfection to be effective. The purpose of the TSA is not to catch every piece of contra

by codex 14y ago

I don't think this TSA screener understands that the TSA does not need perfection to be effective. The purpose of the TSA is not to catch every piece of contraband; it is to reduce "aircraft attacks" [EDIT: by aircraft attacks, I maan "attacks against the airplane itself," that is, bombings capable of bringing down the plane. Hijackings are not really feasible anymore]. For that purpose, it does not have to be 100% effective, or even 95% effective, or even 90% effective; it just has to raise the apparent level of difficulty high enough such that: a) An attack looks like it will take so much effort that the terrorist is no longer interested (terrorists are lazy, too) or capable. Attack frequency is inversely proportional to effort involved. If all a terrorist had to do to down a plane is click on a link in a web-browser, we would see catastrophes daily; if the sophistication of the attack is such that it takes months of training, the frequency drops by orders and orders of magnitude. b) It forces a terrorist to get help from other terrorists; while a solo terrorist is hard to detect in advance, terrorist networks and their communications are routinely infiltrated by law enforcement and intelligence. In this respect, pat-downs and body scanners force terrorists to up their game, which, in turn, discourages attacks from ever taking place. The Israelis also use this method [1] but they apply it more selectively based on the background of the passenger, which saves resources and, while politically difficult, is a much better approach. [1] "At Ben-Gurion, some passengers have been searched so thoroughly that they have had to walk through the terminals, the gates and up to the doors of their planes with no handbags, wallets or even shoes." http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/11/tsa_alternatives_israeli_airpo.html http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/11/tsa_alterna...

betterunix 14y ago
"The purpose of the TSA is not to catch every piece of contraband; it is to reduce aircraft attacks." Here I was, thinking that the security checkpoint was a measure to make everyone feel safer. Thanks for clearing that one up! "An attack looks like it will take so much effort that the terrorist is no longer interested (terrorists are lazy, too) or capable" Except that you can buy or obtain all the things needed to kill people on an airplane on the other side of the security check. You can buy glass, you can get knives from restaurants, etc. The fact that you get a security check long before you are anywhere near an airplane leaves a lot of room for an attacker, even a solo terrorist who is not particularly creative. Note that the Israeli approach involves walking up to the door of an airplane without any carry-ons or shoes. Profiling is needed to determine who is even worth the attention (if they did that to everyone, there would be riots). Meanwhile, the TSA will let you bring a pocket knife onto a plane, which is more than enough to kill people. The real difference today is not that terrorists have a harder time bringing weapons onto planes, but that passengers and crew do not believe they will survive a hijacking. People will now fight back. The locked cockpit doors -- locked from the inside -- help a lot too. Any security beyond explosives detection is pointless, and you could have that sort of security right at the departure gates. I personally doubt that the TSA checkpoints were ever meant to keep us secure. The Bush administration just needed to reassure people that we would have better security than we did beforehand, in a visible and easy-to-understand way. Now the agency is huge and no politician can afford to void against checkpoints, just in case a clever terrorist manages to hijack a plane (or perhaps shoot it down with a surface-to-air missile; people would probably blame lax airport security in that case too). It also helps that so many contracts are awarded for building the TSA's equipment, and that the TSA has substantially weakened Americans' ideas about civil rights (and what mainstream politician will complain about such things?).
- codex 14y ago
  I should clarify that I think the TSA wants to prevent airline bombings (that is, loss of a plane) above all else. Hijackings are much more difficult than they were before 9/11, even if the terrorists were in a group and allowed some weapons. I don't think the TSA is, or should be, focusing on hijackings. AFAIK, since 9/11 there have been no more hijacking attempts, but several bombing attempts.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    "I should clarify that I think the TSA wants to prevent airline bombings (that is, loss of a plane) above all else." I have my doubts about that as well. I would think that the lack of K-9 teams near departure gates is a good sign that bombings are not the concern of the TSA when it comes to airport security. Bombings are probably a concern somewhere, but the security checkpoints do not seem to do much when it comes to stopping a bomb plot. Keep in mind that private planes are exempt from the security checks. If a terrorist wanted to blow up a commercial plane, what would stop them from chartering a private jet, bringing bombs on board, and then ramming their explosive-laden plane into an airliner mid-flight? Why even bother doing it in flight? A terrorist might just roll their chartered jet into a fully-loaded passenger plane on the runway, and blow up a plane in front of a crowd of people. Perhaps there is some other procedure in place to ensure that no bombs can make it past the numerous ways that people and vehicles can enter an airport without going through a security checkpoint. If that is the case, what is the purpose of the checkpoint? Why not just apply whatever techniques prevent terrorists from ramming private jets into airliners to the rest of the airport, and let us keep our rights intact? It is also worth pointing out that there are lots of other bombing targets that are not being bombed, despite a complete lack of security. Anyone can bring large packages onto the NYC subways without any harassment or scanning, yet those trains (which are packed with hundreds of people during the rush hour) have not been blown up. A truck full of explosives could easily drive onto a major bridge. Yet despite these clear vulnerabilities, and despite the fact that other countries see such attacks and more, we rarely have them here. Are airlines really more special targets for bombers than urban transit systems?
    - 14y ago
jdreaver 14y ago
So we waste billions of dollars per year to "force terrorists to up their game." My main issue with the TSA, besides the fact they violate my rights, is they are a non-solution to a non-issue. The fact is, TSA screening is a joke, and TSA screeners are largely incompetent. Furthermore, if a terrorist wanted to kill hundreds of Americans, they need only set off a bomb in the main terminal entrance, before screening takes place. Locking the cockpit doors and having more aware passengers are what keeps us safer from hijackers than before 9/11. I wish airlines had a choice to use the TSA or not, because then we could vote with our wallets. But no, we are being forced to be groped by imbeciles who think that patting down frightened five year olds is worth it. While the finer points of your analysis are correct, the most compelling argument against the TSA lies outside the scope of your analysis. The idea that you can have absolute safety is a farce. Whenever we want more safety, we have to ask ourselves at what cost it's worth that safety. The TSA is a political response to an anomaly, and somewhere along the line we forgot that we are giving up our freedom by chasing ghosts.
- taligent 14y ago
  So we waste billions of dollars per year to "force terrorists to up their game." So you would rather make it easier for them ? TSA screeners are largely incompetent. Evidence please. they need only set off a bomb in the main terminal entrance They could set off a bomb anywhere. A plane is unique in that you could fly into a large skyscraper and kill tens of thousands of people. groped by imbeciles who think that patting down frightened five year olds Equating someone doing their job with a paedophile is a much, no ?
  - smsm42 14y ago
    >>>> So you would rather make it easier for them ? False dichotomy. You can make it harder for them, or say it is already hard enough, without TSA. TSA is not the only way ever not to make it easy for terrorists. >>>> Equating someone doing their job with a paedophile is a much, no ? "Someone doing their job" should know better than that, or don't get this job. "Just doing my job" is not an excuse of bad behavior, that thing was settled in a little town called Nuremberg. I wouldn't go as far as saying TSA workers derive sexual pleasure from groping children, but they should know a lot of what they are doing is wrong, and if they do it, they bear moral responsibilities for the abuse. Each time TSA worker does something repulsive and justifies himself with "I'm just following instructions" - he's committing a moral crime, even if not a legal one. And this should be told over and over so everybody would know what is being done - so that when TSA worker has a beer with his neighbor, the neighbor would say "TSA? The guys that pat down five-year olds? How that's working out for you?"
smsm42 14y ago
The shoes part I find hard to believe. I.e. it is true that if the security suspects you you may be asked to remove your shoes and have them scanned, but walking through terminals barefoot into the plane? Sounds very un-plausible. I have flown through Ben-Gurion many times and have many acquaintances that did too. There are all kinds of horror stories, but I never heard anybody having to walk barefoot through the terminals, and of course never seen anything like that. Despite what media people say, profiling is a large (but not only!) part of what happens there. It may not be PC, but it is true, and there are very few Israelis who have serious problem with that. I'm not sure if it is possible to borrow the system wholesale for the US - both threats and targets to protect are very different - but I can say definitely that Israel system seems to be effective and not hugely annoying to most (not all - as I said, there are horror stories) of the people, and TSA seems to be the reverse - not very effective, but hugely annoying. I think TSA should bring in some common sense. I know this may create vulnerabilities, but come on, taking toys from 5-year-olds is not necessary. What is necessary is to create a system that would detect behavior that would suggest this particular 5-year-old may be used for illicit purposes and only then check this particular toy. I believe this is possible and Israel experience could help.

by codex 14y ago

betterunix 14y ago

"The purpose of the TSA is not to catch every piece of contraband; it is to reduce aircraft attacks." Here I was, thinking that the security checkpoint was a measure to make everyone feel safer. Thanks for clearing that one up! "An attack looks like it will take so much effort that the terrorist is no longer interested (terrorists are lazy, too) or capable" Except that you can buy or obtain all the things needed to kill people on an airplane on the other side of the security check. You can buy glass, you can get knives from restaurants, etc. The fact that you get a security check long before you are anywhere near an airplane leaves a lot of room for an attacker, even a solo terrorist who is not particularly creative. Note that the Israeli approach involves walking up to the door of an airplane without any carry-ons or shoes. Profiling is needed to determine who is even worth the attention (if they did that to everyone, there would be riots). Meanwhile, the TSA will let you bring a pocket knife onto a plane, which is more than enough to kill people. The real difference today is not that terrorists have a harder time bringing weapons onto planes, but that passengers and crew do not believe they will survive a hijacking. People will now fight back. The locked cockpit doors -- locked from the inside -- help a lot too. Any security beyond explosives detection is pointless, and you could have that sort of security right at the departure gates. I personally doubt that the TSA checkpoints were ever meant to keep us secure. The Bush administration just needed to reassure people that we would have better security than we did beforehand, in a visible and easy-to-understand way. Now the agency is huge and no politician can afford to void against checkpoints, just in case a clever terrorist manages to hijack a plane (or perhaps shoot it down with a surface-to-air missile; people would probably blame lax airport security in that case too). It also helps that so many contracts are awarded for building the TSA's equipment, and that the TSA has substantially weakened Americans' ideas about civil rights (and what mainstream politician will complain about such things?).

codex 14y ago
I should clarify that I think the TSA wants to prevent airline bombings (that is, loss of a plane) above all else. Hijackings are much more difficult than they were before 9/11, even if the terrorists were in a group and allowed some weapons. I don't think the TSA is, or should be, focusing on hijackings. AFAIK, since 9/11 there have been no more hijacking attempts, but several bombing attempts.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "I should clarify that I think the TSA wants to prevent airline bombings (that is, loss of a plane) above all else." I have my doubts about that as well. I would think that the lack of K-9 teams near departure gates is a good sign that bombings are not the concern of the TSA when it comes to airport security. Bombings are probably a concern somewhere, but the security checkpoints do not seem to do much when it comes to stopping a bomb plot. Keep in mind that private planes are exempt from the security checks. If a terrorist wanted to blow up a commercial plane, what would stop them from chartering a private jet, bringing bombs on board, and then ramming their explosive-laden plane into an airliner mid-flight? Why even bother doing it in flight? A terrorist might just roll their chartered jet into a fully-loaded passenger plane on the runway, and blow up a plane in front of a crowd of people. Perhaps there is some other procedure in place to ensure that no bombs can make it past the numerous ways that people and vehicles can enter an airport without going through a security checkpoint. If that is the case, what is the purpose of the checkpoint? Why not just apply whatever techniques prevent terrorists from ramming private jets into airliners to the rest of the airport, and let us keep our rights intact? It is also worth pointing out that there are lots of other bombing targets that are not being bombed, despite a complete lack of security. Anyone can bring large packages onto the NYC subways without any harassment or scanning, yet those trains (which are packed with hundreds of people during the rush hour) have not been blown up. A truck full of explosives could easily drive onto a major bridge. Yet despite these clear vulnerabilities, and despite the fact that other countries see such attacks and more, we rarely have them here. Are airlines really more special targets for bombers than urban transit systems?
  - 14y ago

jdreaver 14y ago

So we waste billions of dollars per year to "force terrorists to up their game." My main issue with the TSA, besides the fact they violate my rights, is they are a non-solution to a non-issue. The fact is, TSA screening is a joke, and TSA screeners are largely incompetent. Furthermore, if a terrorist wanted to kill hundreds of Americans, they need only set off a bomb in the main terminal entrance, before screening takes place. Locking the cockpit doors and having more aware passengers are what keeps us safer from hijackers than before 9/11. I wish airlines had a choice to use the TSA or not, because then we could vote with our wallets. But no, we are being forced to be groped by imbeciles who think that patting down frightened five year olds is worth it. While the finer points of your analysis are correct, the most compelling argument against the TSA lies outside the scope of your analysis. The idea that you can have absolute safety is a farce. Whenever we want more safety, we have to ask ourselves at what cost it's worth that safety. The TSA is a political response to an anomaly, and somewhere along the line we forgot that we are giving up our freedom by chasing ghosts.

taligent 14y ago
So we waste billions of dollars per year to "force terrorists to up their game." So you would rather make it easier for them ? TSA screeners are largely incompetent. Evidence please. they need only set off a bomb in the main terminal entrance They could set off a bomb anywhere. A plane is unique in that you could fly into a large skyscraper and kill tens of thousands of people. groped by imbeciles who think that patting down frightened five year olds Equating someone doing their job with a paedophile is a much, no ?
- smsm42 14y ago
  >>>> So you would rather make it easier for them ? False dichotomy. You can make it harder for them, or say it is already hard enough, without TSA. TSA is not the only way ever not to make it easy for terrorists. >>>> Equating someone doing their job with a paedophile is a much, no ? "Someone doing their job" should know better than that, or don't get this job. "Just doing my job" is not an excuse of bad behavior, that thing was settled in a little town called Nuremberg. I wouldn't go as far as saying TSA workers derive sexual pleasure from groping children, but they should know a lot of what they are doing is wrong, and if they do it, they bear moral responsibilities for the abuse. Each time TSA worker does something repulsive and justifies himself with "I'm just following instructions" - he's committing a moral crime, even if not a legal one. And this should be told over and over so everybody would know what is being done - so that when TSA worker has a beer with his neighbor, the neighbor would say "TSA? The guys that pat down five-year olds? How that's working out for you?"

smsm42 14y ago

The shoes part I find hard to believe. I.e. it is true that if the security suspects you you may be asked to remove your shoes and have them scanned, but walking through terminals barefoot into the plane? Sounds very un-plausible. I have flown through Ben-Gurion many times and have many acquaintances that did too. There are all kinds of horror stories, but I never heard anybody having to walk barefoot through the terminals, and of course never seen anything like that. Despite what media people say, profiling is a large (but not only!) part of what happens there. It may not be PC, but it is true, and there are very few Israelis who have serious problem with that. I'm not sure if it is possible to borrow the system wholesale for the US - both threats and targets to protect are very different - but I can say definitely that Israel system seems to be effective and not hugely annoying to most (not all - as I said, there are horror stories) of the people, and TSA seems to be the reverse - not very effective, but hugely annoying. I think TSA should bring in some common sense. I know this may create vulnerabilities, but come on, taking toys from 5-year-olds is not necessary. What is necessary is to create a system that would detect behavior that would suggest this particular 5-year-old may be used for illicit purposes and only then check this particular toy. I believe this is possible and Israel experience could help.