4 ms·

> say you want to check for guns and explosives before people get on an airplane. > How do you do it? The way we did it before the one-off event that made ai

> say you want to check for guns and explosives before people get on an airplane. > How do you do it? The way we did it before the one-off event that made airports unbearable and sane people behaving like headless chicken.

jrockway 13y ago
Things have changed since 9/11. Explosives have gotten smaller and more stable. And nobody checks bags anymore, because it's cheaper to carry them on. So now you have to do the same screening you did before, but in "real time" and looking for something smaller. 9/11 did cause a lot of hysteria, but the risk profile has also changed since then. (Also, if you get TSA Pre, the security standards become essentially what they were pre-9/11.)
- darklajid 13y ago
  First of all: We can agree to disagree and stop this, I guess? At least for me, this will be my last post here. You're a name that comes up a lot here, and frankly I don't want to start a "That's insane" discussion with one of the top HN contributors. I've got no idea what's going on in you to defend that process, I'm certainly surprised to see your "It is necessary" comments in this thread, but .. I guess I leave the discussion again after this post. I really, really don't want to offend you, but I guess this might be taken personal anyway: I'm confused, surprised and - to some degree - disgusted that this pro-terrorism scheme could be supported here, by a hacker. Regarding your arguments: I'm no expert on explosives (hello NSA?) and wouldn't know about that. Actually I don't believe that claim (think citation needed), I haven't heard about major breakthroughs in explosive materials. You might be right. I'm always checking in my bag. It's more comfortable for me and allows me to put stuff in that thing that I cannot take on board (yeah, but it can be on board below deck of course..). Real time is crap. Before and after you needed to pass security. It was always 'one check, at one point, every passenger'. Now they just go nuts and try mentally insane procedures on top. I doubt that 9/11 changed the risk profile. I think some people, a group of interested parties, changed the risk profile instead. TSA Pre: Wouldn't know about that. I'm not from the US, never been there, will never travel there. The whole country has so much to offer (culture, country, vast and large) and it was my teenage geek dream to move there one day. Today? I laugh about that. The requirements to enter the country are just not worth it and there's plenty of stuff elsewhere that I need to see.
  - tomp 13y ago
    > this pro-terrorism scheme Care to elaborate?
    - darklajid 13y ago
      A tiny, miniscule group of braindead idiots does something awful, once. The majority of people suffer everyday from thereon because they might potentially be bad guys by bringing more than 100ml of toothpaste. Mission accomplished.
  - gyardley 13y ago
    The political opinions of Hacker News commenters aren't that different from the general public's in their respective nations. There's plenty of people around America, at least, who think the TSA is just fine. You're surprised by this guy because it's hard to voice certain opinions on certain topics (like the incessant and almost always redundant TSA / NSA / Manning / Snowden coverage) without having someone condescend to you, which gets tiresome quickly. So all the people who agree with him usually don't bother to comment, and often avoid these threads entirely. In other words, we've just the illusion of conformity around here, and the surprising thing isn't that someone disagrees, it's that they were masochistic enough to start arguing in the first place.
- greedo 13y ago
  Everytime I travel, I notice a huge number of people checking bags. See how that anecdata works? And if explosives have magically gotten smaller and more stable in the last 12 years (somehow defying chemistry and physics), why aren't we seeing more successful attacks? Or arrests of terrorists who underestimate how good the TSA is? Could it be that we're protecting ourselves against a miniscule threat? I bet if we invoked some type of placebo security where the guards just watched a rerun of South Park instead of the xray screen, we'd be just as "effective."
  - tripzilch 13y ago
    > I bet if we invoked some type of placebo security where the guards just watched a rerun of South Park instead of the xray screen, we'd be just as "effective." I think they already do, except they're only showing that one early episode where Cartman goes all RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAYH
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

jrockway 13y ago

Things have changed since 9/11. Explosives have gotten smaller and more stable. And nobody checks bags anymore, because it's cheaper to carry them on. So now you have to do the same screening you did before, but in "real time" and looking for something smaller. 9/11 did cause a lot of hysteria, but the risk profile has also changed since then. (Also, if you get TSA Pre, the security standards become essentially what they were pre-9/11.)

darklajid 13y ago
First of all: We can agree to disagree and stop this, I guess? At least for me, this will be my last post here. You're a name that comes up a lot here, and frankly I don't want to start a "That's insane" discussion with one of the top HN contributors. I've got no idea what's going on in you to defend that process, I'm certainly surprised to see your "It is necessary" comments in this thread, but .. I guess I leave the discussion again after this post. I really, really don't want to offend you, but I guess this might be taken personal anyway: I'm confused, surprised and - to some degree - disgusted that this pro-terrorism scheme could be supported here, by a hacker. Regarding your arguments: I'm no expert on explosives (hello NSA?) and wouldn't know about that. Actually I don't believe that claim (think citation needed), I haven't heard about major breakthroughs in explosive materials. You might be right. I'm always checking in my bag. It's more comfortable for me and allows me to put stuff in that thing that I cannot take on board (yeah, but it can be on board below deck of course..). Real time is crap. Before and after you needed to pass security. It was always 'one check, at one point, every passenger'. Now they just go nuts and try mentally insane procedures on top. I doubt that 9/11 changed the risk profile. I think some people, a group of interested parties, changed the risk profile instead. TSA Pre: Wouldn't know about that. I'm not from the US, never been there, will never travel there. The whole country has so much to offer (culture, country, vast and large) and it was my teenage geek dream to move there one day. Today? I laugh about that. The requirements to enter the country are just not worth it and there's plenty of stuff elsewhere that I need to see.
- tomp 13y ago
  > this pro-terrorism scheme Care to elaborate?
  - darklajid 13y ago
    A tiny, miniscule group of braindead idiots does something awful, once. The majority of people suffer everyday from thereon because they might potentially be bad guys by bringing more than 100ml of toothpaste. Mission accomplished.
- gyardley 13y ago
  The political opinions of Hacker News commenters aren't that different from the general public's in their respective nations. There's plenty of people around America, at least, who think the TSA is just fine. You're surprised by this guy because it's hard to voice certain opinions on certain topics (like the incessant and almost always redundant TSA / NSA / Manning / Snowden coverage) without having someone condescend to you, which gets tiresome quickly. So all the people who agree with him usually don't bother to comment, and often avoid these threads entirely. In other words, we've just the illusion of conformity around here, and the surprising thing isn't that someone disagrees, it's that they were masochistic enough to start arguing in the first place.
greedo 13y ago
Everytime I travel, I notice a huge number of people checking bags. See how that anecdata works? And if explosives have magically gotten smaller and more stable in the last 12 years (somehow defying chemistry and physics), why aren't we seeing more successful attacks? Or arrests of terrorists who underestimate how good the TSA is? Could it be that we're protecting ourselves against a miniscule threat? I bet if we invoked some type of placebo security where the guards just watched a rerun of South Park instead of the xray screen, we'd be just as "effective."
- tripzilch 13y ago
  > I bet if we invoked some type of placebo security where the guards just watched a rerun of South Park instead of the xray screen, we'd be just as "effective." I think they already do, except they're only showing that one early episode where Cartman goes all RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAYH
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]