5 ms·

I know I'm throwing my karma down the toilet here but domestic-sourced airline terrorism has happened before. The TSA (edit: OK, whoever it was that scanned o

by zzzeek 13y ago

I know I'm throwing my karma down the toilet here but domestic-sourced airline terrorism has happened before. The TSA (edit: OK, whoever it was that scanned our bags and ran us through the metal detector, if it was not "the TSA") was unaware of 9/11 as well. Argue all you want that we should just tolerate the occasional 9/11-style (edit: or the random pipe bomb blowing out the side of the plane, cockpit doors can't protect against that) event as the price of freedom, but if there were no airline security, you can be sure events will occur.

fein 13y ago
> but if there were no airline security, you can be sure events will occur. Eh, concert ticket queues, malls, the line for the actual TSA. Plenty of opportunities outside of airline related things, and I don't see anything about your local mall foodcourt getting hit. My person wasn't fondled the last time I got some Panda Express.
computer 13y ago
You know what the answer is to 9/11-style events? Locking cockpit doors. And that's what they did after 9/11. Passengers now know what's at stake too. So, while bad things can happen, another 9/11 can't happen again (and as such, the TSA does nothing to prevent it anyway).
- angersock 13y ago
  To further this point...we can either continue to incur the cost and overhead of reacting to every terrible event that happens and changing things to prevent that particular edge case, or we can accept that bad things sometimes happen to good people and simply keep calm and carry on. I think we're ultimately better served by the latter approach.
- sixothree 13y ago
  Also there is one actually proven method to deterring terrorist events like 9/11. Four planes were hi-jacked. Three of those did not know that the outcome was to crash the plane into a building. But one did, and (as far as we know) the people aboard prevented that. If the American people would simply have been informed that terrorists didn't want to steal planes, but instead fly them into target then 9/11 would have turned out very differently. And we know this because we have proof.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Exactly. The solution to this threat was dispelling the notion "getting hijacked means a short vacation to Cuba" and replacing it with "getting hijacked means that I get to kick a terrorist's face in". This solution was implemented and successfully tested on the morning of 9/11/2001.
evan_ 13y ago
> The TSA was unaware of 9/11 as well. Of course not- it wasn't formed until after the attacks.
codegeek 13y ago
This article was not about having no airline security. It was about how ridiculous the TSA body scanners/nude search/patdowns are. There is a difference.
- zzzeek 13y ago
  the article was specifically about actual plots to attack airplanes: "No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US". And that since there's no evidence of any plots, therefore we don't need a TSA. This is a crappy argument because airplane attacks are known to have occurred in the past without warning. Attack the TSA on their corruptness/ineffectiveness/ineptitude fine, but not based on "nobody wants to attack airplanes anyway", the evidence suggests otherwise on that. If "no terrorist plots" truly means "airplanes are inherently safe from attack", then the logical conclusion is that no security whatsoever should be needed.
  - molecule 13y ago
    your argument is a strawman: "no evidence => no TSA / no aircraft-boarding security." that is clearly not a rebuttal of the argument that is presented, which is that the TSA has previously presented the existence of terrorist plots against aviation as a reason for sticking their hands down passengers' pants and performing nude scans of passengers. but the TSA's reasons have turned out to be false, so therefore we should not let the TSA stick their hands down passengers' pants nor perform nude scans of passengers
    - zzzeek 13y ago
      Re-reading of the article, I don't see where the TSA claims that known future terrorist plots are the rationale for their actions, though perhaps this is something that was claimed to which this article is referring. My understanding was that the TSA's rationale was based on actual events that have occurred, e.g. 9/11, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo...) which was the impetus for banning liquids through checkpoints, e.g. these are actual plots that were executed or discovered prior to execution. Using the facts of actual plots is a more compelling argument than claiming "we know of more plots" which turn out to not exist - I'm not seeing that claim being made here.
MrZongle2 13y ago
The TSA did not exist prior to 9/11/2001. Elements of various intelligence community agencies were aware of a 9/11-style plot and were aware of the hijackers' existence within the United States. If these existing agencies had worked together and done their job, 9/11 might never have happened. All without anyone removing their belts, frisking grandma, or having to stand like a perp in a county lock-up.
- zzzeek 13y ago
  that is very interesting. were the people scanning the luggage and such beforehand just hired by individual airports? I've no issue with restructuring TSA or whatnot, I just think that if people could get on airplanes the way they do buses, there'd be events. Not so much 9/11 style hijackings, more like the occasional pipe bomb or shooting.
  - MrZongle2 13y ago
    Yes, prior to 9/11 airports would hire private companies to do their security checks. This was often why different airports would have different degrees of thoroughness; I recall a trip through Kansas City in the mid-90s where I was amazed (and annoyed) that I had to turn on my laptop, despite never having to do that for dozens of trips elsewhere.
    - HN_Account 13y ago
      Today they call that, "By design". Good way to cover up the fact that there's no consistency in the organization.
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    What about the lines? People don't get felt up or forced through machines to wait in the lines to get felt up or forced through machines. I fail to see how someone couldn't just bomb the lines with the exact same effect you're describing above. I'd much rather prefer volunteering to use a private company's services freely without force or coercion, and risk dying randomly, then be harassed and embarrassed and risk dying randomly.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
Have you ever been in line in a long TSA queue at a major airport? See anybody get scanned before getting in that line? With a coordinated attack across multiple airports, you could kill far more people just while they're standing in line to get their TSA gaterape procedure performed than you could by attacking while onboard an aircraft. The aircraft attack vector has already been played out. Lets keep sane regulations in place (metal detectors, armored/locked cockpit doors), and move on to better problems to solve.
- tsaoutourpants 13y ago
  Terrorists have indeed already done this at Domodedevo airport in Moscow, Russia. By creating giant lines of people at security checkpoint (along with a scattering of federal employees), the TSA has created the perfect target.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    Does it matter if you consider employing several vans running into the airport during holiday rush hours? If dangerous is present at any moment in time, what do we do? How can we reduce searchable threats? Can we do a scan on entrance to and exit from airport lobby?
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      We live our lives. Danger will always be present. I could be hit by a car crossing the street from my office to the parking lot. I could be shot in the grocery store near my house. Sometimes, there is nothing more that you can do. Accept the risk and move on.
      - yeukhon 13y ago
        Sure anyone could be hit by a car tomorrow. But why do we even bother to have education and laws? Why police officers and firefighters? Why EMT and doctors? Why don't we just let everyone die if there is nothing more that we could do? If there is only a 40% of a chance that a driver given a ticket will drive safer, then there is a 40% more likely for any individual to survive while crossing the street so we continue to issue traffic ticket. If kids are 40% more likely to avoid smoking by educating them, we will do it. If there is a 40% chance you will be saved from a gun shot tomorrow because of more effective, stricter gun control, you probably would support it. If there is a 10% chance a solider will live after a brain injury, the EMT and doctors will attempt to save his life. If we all say "well let's fuck it because we will all die", why do we even bother to save life? Why EMT? Just fuck the injuries and let them die. That's your logic. That's the logic we get: survival of fitness. So, let's accept out ultimate risk that we will all die and let's move on and forget about safety. Just because we can't have a 100% success rate. While the TSA cargo and individual inspection is not very effective, it makes an attack with bomb a few percents harder. It might open up other avenues (e.g. massive shooting at the waiting line) but we can't lose a few percents because tomorrow when shit happens, and when your loved one is dead, you'd be joining the army and shoot those mother fucker out. And then you will come out and say "I wish I had those stupid TSA did their job".
chrismcb 13y ago
Events WILL occur, with or without security. And they will also occur at malls, schools, places of work, and sports stadiums. but the solution isn't to treat every customer as a criminal. Especially when it doesn't solve any problems.

by zzzeek 13y ago

fein 13y ago

> but if there were no airline security, you can be sure events will occur. Eh, concert ticket queues, malls, the line for the actual TSA. Plenty of opportunities outside of airline related things, and I don't see anything about your local mall foodcourt getting hit. My person wasn't fondled the last time I got some Panda Express.

computer 13y ago

You know what the answer is to 9/11-style events? Locking cockpit doors. And that's what they did after 9/11. Passengers now know what's at stake too. So, while bad things can happen, another 9/11 can't happen again (and as such, the TSA does nothing to prevent it anyway).

angersock 13y ago
To further this point...we can either continue to incur the cost and overhead of reacting to every terrible event that happens and changing things to prevent that particular edge case, or we can accept that bad things sometimes happen to good people and simply keep calm and carry on. I think we're ultimately better served by the latter approach.
sixothree 13y ago
Also there is one actually proven method to deterring terrorist events like 9/11. Four planes were hi-jacked. Three of those did not know that the outcome was to crash the plane into a building. But one did, and (as far as we know) the people aboard prevented that. If the American people would simply have been informed that terrorists didn't want to steal planes, but instead fly them into target then 9/11 would have turned out very differently. And we know this because we have proof.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Exactly. The solution to this threat was dispelling the notion "getting hijacked means a short vacation to Cuba" and replacing it with "getting hijacked means that I get to kick a terrorist's face in". This solution was implemented and successfully tested on the morning of 9/11/2001.

evan_ 13y ago

> The TSA was unaware of 9/11 as well. Of course not- it wasn't formed until after the attacks.

codegeek 13y ago

This article was not about having no airline security. It was about how ridiculous the TSA body scanners/nude search/patdowns are. There is a difference.

zzzeek 13y ago
the article was specifically about actual plots to attack airplanes: "No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US". And that since there's no evidence of any plots, therefore we don't need a TSA. This is a crappy argument because airplane attacks are known to have occurred in the past without warning. Attack the TSA on their corruptness/ineffectiveness/ineptitude fine, but not based on "nobody wants to attack airplanes anyway", the evidence suggests otherwise on that. If "no terrorist plots" truly means "airplanes are inherently safe from attack", then the logical conclusion is that no security whatsoever should be needed.
- molecule 13y ago
  your argument is a strawman: "no evidence => no TSA / no aircraft-boarding security." that is clearly not a rebuttal of the argument that is presented, which is that the TSA has previously presented the existence of terrorist plots against aviation as a reason for sticking their hands down passengers' pants and performing nude scans of passengers. but the TSA's reasons have turned out to be false, so therefore we should not let the TSA stick their hands down passengers' pants nor perform nude scans of passengers
  - zzzeek 13y ago
    Re-reading of the article, I don't see where the TSA claims that known future terrorist plots are the rationale for their actions, though perhaps this is something that was claimed to which this article is referring. My understanding was that the TSA's rationale was based on actual events that have occurred, e.g. 9/11, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo...) which was the impetus for banning liquids through checkpoints, e.g. these are actual plots that were executed or discovered prior to execution. Using the facts of actual plots is a more compelling argument than claiming "we know of more plots" which turn out to not exist - I'm not seeing that claim being made here.

MrZongle2 13y ago

The TSA did not exist prior to 9/11/2001. Elements of various intelligence community agencies were aware of a 9/11-style plot and were aware of the hijackers' existence within the United States. If these existing agencies had worked together and done their job, 9/11 might never have happened. All without anyone removing their belts, frisking grandma, or having to stand like a perp in a county lock-up.

zzzeek 13y ago
that is very interesting. were the people scanning the luggage and such beforehand just hired by individual airports? I've no issue with restructuring TSA or whatnot, I just think that if people could get on airplanes the way they do buses, there'd be events. Not so much 9/11 style hijackings, more like the occasional pipe bomb or shooting.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  Yes, prior to 9/11 airports would hire private companies to do their security checks. This was often why different airports would have different degrees of thoroughness; I recall a trip through Kansas City in the mid-90s where I was amazed (and annoyed) that I had to turn on my laptop, despite never having to do that for dozens of trips elsewhere.
  - HN_Account 13y ago
    Today they call that, "By design". Good way to cover up the fact that there's no consistency in the organization.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  What about the lines? People don't get felt up or forced through machines to wait in the lines to get felt up or forced through machines. I fail to see how someone couldn't just bomb the lines with the exact same effect you're describing above. I'd much rather prefer volunteering to use a private company's services freely without force or coercion, and risk dying randomly, then be harassed and embarrassed and risk dying randomly.

toomuchtodo 13y ago

Have you ever been in line in a long TSA queue at a major airport? See anybody get scanned before getting in that line? With a coordinated attack across multiple airports, you could kill far more people just while they're standing in line to get their TSA gaterape procedure performed than you could by attacking while onboard an aircraft. The aircraft attack vector has already been played out. Lets keep sane regulations in place (metal detectors, armored/locked cockpit doors), and move on to better problems to solve.

tsaoutourpants 13y ago
Terrorists have indeed already done this at Domodedevo airport in Moscow, Russia. By creating giant lines of people at security checkpoint (along with a scattering of federal employees), the TSA has created the perfect target.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- yeukhon 13y ago
  Does it matter if you consider employing several vans running into the airport during holiday rush hours? If dangerous is present at any moment in time, what do we do? How can we reduce searchable threats? Can we do a scan on entrance to and exit from airport lobby?
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    We live our lives. Danger will always be present. I could be hit by a car crossing the street from my office to the parking lot. I could be shot in the grocery store near my house. Sometimes, there is nothing more that you can do. Accept the risk and move on.
    - yeukhon 13y ago
      Sure anyone could be hit by a car tomorrow. But why do we even bother to have education and laws? Why police officers and firefighters? Why EMT and doctors? Why don't we just let everyone die if there is nothing more that we could do? If there is only a 40% of a chance that a driver given a ticket will drive safer, then there is a 40% more likely for any individual to survive while crossing the street so we continue to issue traffic ticket. If kids are 40% more likely to avoid smoking by educating them, we will do it. If there is a 40% chance you will be saved from a gun shot tomorrow because of more effective, stricter gun control, you probably would support it. If there is a 10% chance a solider will live after a brain injury, the EMT and doctors will attempt to save his life. If we all say "well let's fuck it because we will all die", why do we even bother to save life? Why EMT? Just fuck the injuries and let them die. That's your logic. That's the logic we get: survival of fitness. So, let's accept out ultimate risk that we will all die and let's move on and forget about safety. Just because we can't have a 100% success rate. While the TSA cargo and individual inspection is not very effective, it makes an attack with bomb a few percents harder. It might open up other avenues (e.g. massive shooting at the waiting line) but we can't lose a few percents because tomorrow when shit happens, and when your loved one is dead, you'd be joining the army and shoot those mother fucker out. And then you will come out and say "I wish I had those stupid TSA did their job".

chrismcb 13y ago

Events WILL occur, with or without security. And they will also occur at malls, schools, places of work, and sports stadiums. but the solution isn't to treat every customer as a criminal. Especially when it doesn't solve any problems.