4 ms·

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'

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.
  - zzzeek 13y ago
    if the TSA were abolished I'm pretty sure the airlines/airports would still have security. I think a majority of US passengers wouldn't be comfortable getting on a plane where there were absolutely no security of any kind up front.
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      Too bad the government makes that choice. I'd assume that if people, or consumers of travelling via airplane, were as you say, cautious about travel, a free market alternative would be better than the TSA. That said, you're right. But lines, inspections, and "lists", are largerly unnecessary. You have guards walking around, and a federal agent on each plane. All that I'm saying, is that I'd rather not have to subsidise security for air travel. Let the market sort it out.
      - zzzeek 13y ago
        well that sounds more like a standard libertarian vs. socialized angle which is IMO a different issue. I don't see how guards walking around could have much of an impact. if they aren't looking in my bag, I can have anything in there, and once in the confined environment of a plane, I can do a lot before any air marshal shuts it down. Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror. Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.
        tokenizer 13y ago
        > Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror. The difference being? I'm sorry. Wasn't the Boston terrorist attack not on a plane? Didn't that kill people. In my opinion terror is an emotion, and people can feel that in a variety of situations depending on who they are. Killing a bunch of people, as an event, rarely happens. So why do you want to force and coerce me? This isn't a libertarian v. socialist argument. It's a libertarian v. authoritarian argument. Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way? No offense, but that's no way to live IMO. I'd much rather take the risk. I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us. But for now there's only one solution: That of political theatre. Please don't get offended as I'm not attacking you, just bad policy. If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here. You can definitely make a point in that most people don't care either way, but I'd like to think that a majority of people who are interested in terrorism (lol NSA) from a philosophical see policy like this authoritarian at best, and evil and conspiratorial at worst. > Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues. Source? Again, terror is a vague definition of an emotion which is dependent on internal characteristics and machinations of each individual who knows the word and feels emotion. I'd love to see their parameters for that word. That said, I'm sorry if we disagree that air travel needs to be so tightly regulated. I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective. I can definitely do the same for my end, by directing you to this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/ Regulation can be a little bad for history. While 1970's regs sound pretty scary (I'll have to check that stat out myself), 2000 sounds better than now...

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.
- zzzeek 13y ago
  if the TSA were abolished I'm pretty sure the airlines/airports would still have security. I think a majority of US passengers wouldn't be comfortable getting on a plane where there were absolutely no security of any kind up front.
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    Too bad the government makes that choice. I'd assume that if people, or consumers of travelling via airplane, were as you say, cautious about travel, a free market alternative would be better than the TSA. That said, you're right. But lines, inspections, and "lists", are largerly unnecessary. You have guards walking around, and a federal agent on each plane. All that I'm saying, is that I'd rather not have to subsidise security for air travel. Let the market sort it out.
    - zzzeek 13y ago
      well that sounds more like a standard libertarian vs. socialized angle which is IMO a different issue. I don't see how guards walking around could have much of an impact. if they aren't looking in my bag, I can have anything in there, and once in the confined environment of a plane, I can do a lot before any air marshal shuts it down. Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror. Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.
      - tokenizer 13y ago
        > Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror. The difference being? I'm sorry. Wasn't the Boston terrorist attack not on a plane? Didn't that kill people. In my opinion terror is an emotion, and people can feel that in a variety of situations depending on who they are. Killing a bunch of people, as an event, rarely happens. So why do you want to force and coerce me? This isn't a libertarian v. socialist argument. It's a libertarian v. authoritarian argument. Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way? No offense, but that's no way to live IMO. I'd much rather take the risk. I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us. But for now there's only one solution: That of political theatre. Please don't get offended as I'm not attacking you, just bad policy. If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here. You can definitely make a point in that most people don't care either way, but I'd like to think that a majority of people who are interested in terrorism (lol NSA) from a philosophical see policy like this authoritarian at best, and evil and conspiratorial at worst. > Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues. Source? Again, terror is a vague definition of an emotion which is dependent on internal characteristics and machinations of each individual who knows the word and feels emotion. I'd love to see their parameters for that word. That said, I'm sorry if we disagree that air travel needs to be so tightly regulated. I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective. I can definitely do the same for my end, by directing you to this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/ Regulation can be a little bad for history. While 1970's regs sound pretty scary (I'll have to check that stat out myself), 2000 sounds better than now...