45 ms·

> TSA screenings DON'T WORK, PERIOD Let me make sure I understand. Are you saying that, 100% of the time, packing a gun in your carry-on won't get caught by a

> TSA screenings DON'T WORK, PERIOD Let me make sure I understand. Are you saying that, 100% of the time, packing a gun in your carry-on won't get caught by a TSA screening? If not, what do you mean exactly by "don't work, period."

kevingadd 14y ago
TSA screenings weren't introduced to prevent guns from being packed in suitcases; we had luggage screenings and customs beforehand. TSA screenings were introduced to stop terrorists from hijacking airplanes. EDIT: On the assumption that you will continue to display top-notch reading comprehension: "The TSA was created as a response to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Its first administrator, John Magaw, was nominated by President Bush on December 10, 2001, and confirmed by the Senate the following January. The agency's proponents, including Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, argued that only a single federal agency would better protect air travel than the private companies who operated under contract to single airlines or groups of airlines that used a given terminal facility. The organization was charged with developing policies to protect U.S. transportation, especially in airport security and the prevention of aircraft hijacking." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Adminis... EDIT 2: I should also point out that we had sky marshals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  Really, preboarding screenings were nationalized under the TSA to reduce the scope of potential future liability faced by airlines, who (through contractors) were previously responsible. It's not like the screenings didn't exist before 9/11, it's just different people were signing the screener's paychecks.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  > To stop terrorists from hijacking airplanes . . . . . . by preventing them from carrying weapons onto those planes. Yes? So, going back to my original questions, if the screenings are security theater, according to your definition, they should be 100% ineffective at that job without any attempt at circumvention. Or have I read you incorrectly somewhere along the lines? All that stuff about the purpose of the TSA organization in your edit is useless, because I'm specifically talking about the screening procedures.
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    > . . . by preventing them from carrying weapons onto those planes. Yes? So, going back to my original questions, if the screenings are security theater, according to your definition, they should be 100% ineffective at that job without any attempt at circumvention. This is wrong on several levels: first, it ignores the fact that security screenings existed prior to the establishment of the TSA. So the TSA screenings could have no value for actual security without being 100% ineffective, if they were no more effective than the preexisting screenings. And second, because something can be security theater and still have some positive effect on security, if that positive effect is both not its primary motivation and not remotely warranted by the cost. Security theater doesn't mean that there is no gain in security, it means that the security function is pretextual and any security effect is incidental.

kevingadd 14y ago

TSA screenings weren't introduced to prevent guns from being packed in suitcases; we had luggage screenings and customs beforehand. TSA screenings were introduced to stop terrorists from hijacking airplanes. EDIT: On the assumption that you will continue to display top-notch reading comprehension: "The TSA was created as a response to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Its first administrator, John Magaw, was nominated by President Bush on December 10, 2001, and confirmed by the Senate the following January. The agency's proponents, including Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, argued that only a single federal agency would better protect air travel than the private companies who operated under contract to single airlines or groups of airlines that used a given terminal facility. The organization was charged with developing policies to protect U.S. transportation, especially in airport security and the prevention of aircraft hijacking." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Adminis... EDIT 2: I should also point out that we had sky marshals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service

dragonwriter 14y ago
Really, preboarding screenings were nationalized under the TSA to reduce the scope of potential future liability faced by airlines, who (through contractors) were previously responsible. It's not like the screenings didn't exist before 9/11, it's just different people were signing the screener's paychecks.
jamesaguilar 14y ago
> To stop terrorists from hijacking airplanes . . . . . . by preventing them from carrying weapons onto those planes. Yes? So, going back to my original questions, if the screenings are security theater, according to your definition, they should be 100% ineffective at that job without any attempt at circumvention. Or have I read you incorrectly somewhere along the lines? All that stuff about the purpose of the TSA organization in your edit is useless, because I'm specifically talking about the screening procedures.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > . . . by preventing them from carrying weapons onto those planes. Yes? So, going back to my original questions, if the screenings are security theater, according to your definition, they should be 100% ineffective at that job without any attempt at circumvention. This is wrong on several levels: first, it ignores the fact that security screenings existed prior to the establishment of the TSA. So the TSA screenings could have no value for actual security without being 100% ineffective, if they were no more effective than the preexisting screenings. And second, because something can be security theater and still have some positive effect on security, if that positive effect is both not its primary motivation and not remotely warranted by the cost. Security theater doesn't mean that there is no gain in security, it means that the security function is pretextual and any security effect is incidental.