25 ms·

I flew on a plane without going through security. It was amazing and no one died

235 points by MattRogish 13y ago

linuxhansl 13y ago
Personally I would prefer flying without any security checks. I am going to die one day; statistical chances are high that will not be due to a terrorist attack. In fact I flew from South Africa to Europe 4 or 5 years back (in a large Airbus). No metal detector, no scanners, no taking-shoes-or-belt-of, just the quick scan of the carry on. Took 2 minutes, and I did not feel unsafe in any way. 911 cannot be repeated (as pointed out many times before). The TSA checks are a theater and everybody knows it.
ck2 13y ago
Isn't it pathetically sad what we've grown to accept? Frog in a slowly heating pot indeed. Now that we've accepted the horrors of the TSA, they are working on getting us to accept the horrors of the NSA, slowly but surely, until we reach the point that the average person defends every smartphone being hacked and tracked.
- dangerlibrary 13y ago
  In general, frogs will jump out of slowly heating pots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
  - talmand 13y ago
    Bigger pot, less water as to bigger budget, less freedom.
  - HCIdivision17 13y ago
    The page is actually fairly interesting. It seems to have started with a test where the frog failed to jump out because when it's brain was removed (reminding me of how frogs go deaf when their legs are cut off). But it does seem that it's a matter of degrees (literally). If sufficiently slow - very slow - the frog may in fact not notice. But it is certainly very slow. It also seems a normal frog will also apparently get bored or restless, and will jump out, not from heat, but because frogs just jump around. Overall, it seems like a hard thing to test for properly without inflicting some constraint on the frog to encourage it to stay and die.
  - DumySSone 13y ago
    What if the pot contains wine? What then?
    - regularfry 13y ago
      Mulled frog, obviously.
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  I wish the airlines would make it clearer to passengers the fees they are paying. If every passenger was reminded just after going through the TSA that $5 of their ticket actually went to the TSA for the procedure, I suspect there would be a lot more pressure for change.
  - jmspring 13y ago
    My last trip to London from SFO, according to the ticket fare breakdown, fees were more than 1/2 the ticket. Probably closer to 60%. I would love to see every line item. Just over Christmas break, we flew from the Vancouver commuter terminal to Tofino. Aside from the delays due to weather, no TSA, super friendly staff, quick mostly comfy flight.
    - objclxt 13y ago
      > My last trip to London from SFO, according to the ticket fare breakdown, fees were more than 1/2 the ticket. Probably closer to 60%. I would love to see every line item. If you were flying a UK airline they were probably counting the "fuel surcharge" as a fee, which in many cases can be the majority of the ticket. I just priced up the cheapest SFO-LHR return on Virgin next month, it came in at $1000, with $458 being "carrier imposed surcharges", counted as fees. Except they're not fees at all, it's the 'fuel surcharge'. Actual taxes and fees were $233, or 23%. Your airline should have given you a link to the line by line breakdown of every item ($5 custom fee, $2.50 TSA fee, etc) when you bought the ticket. On a related note, if you're flying from SFO you're not actually interacting with the TSA itself at all, San Francisco is one of the few airports that contracts out security screening to a TSA-approved company (some people think SFO has more 'friendly' security screening because of it, I haven't really noticed).
      - jmspring 13y ago
        It was a company purchased ticket, I can probably dig it up...but by fees, I was lumping in surcharges, as you state. One way my wife and I have helped deal with some of the line hassle -- GOES (for coming back into the country), Clear (had it before PreCheck came about and will reevaluate), and now PreCheck (GOES helped with this). I've heard some mention that as more and more people become PreCheck eligible, that will become the norm rather than the exception. We shall see. With regard to SFO not being TSA, I'm aware of this and generally have found them much more efficient than the TSA. Probably my best TSA experiences have been in Seattle (recently) and Kona, friendly and generally laughing. Worst opt out experience was actually SFO w/ a manager who took exception to anyone opting out and waited 10+ min before calling someone over -- "The delay is to encourage you to go through the machines".
tehwebguy 13y ago
The article misses the most important point! By reinforcing the cockpit doors and locking them from the inside we made it so that a plane can no longer be hijacked. Even if a bomb is brought on board we would never give control of a plan to hijackers since we now know it may be used as a giant missile, not just an escape vehicle.
- codex 13y ago
  Since 9/11 there have been no highjacking attempts, true, but there have been multiple bombing attempts on aircraft by would be suicide bombers, and these bombers were able to evade the limited screening employed at the time. As bomb technology grows more sophisticated and easy to hide, screening has become more rigorous. That's what the TSA is focused on these days.
  - voyou 13y ago
    "here have been multiple bombing attempts on aircraft by would be suicide bombers" Yes, and they've all failed. That means we have at least enough security, and we should start thinking about scaling it back.
    - codex 13y ago
      I think it's pretty weak, both to politicians and to common sense, to use the fact that these bombers failed as an argument to reduce security. They were able to bring bombs on planes. Given enough opportunity, eventually an attempt would have succeeded.
      - tghw 13y ago
        A motivated individual will always be able to find a way. Thinking otherwise is what motivates the security theater we currently have.
        codex 13y ago
        It depends, I think. Human willpower and resources are a finite resource. If a terrorist could bring down a plane by clicking a button on a website, we would see hundreds of planes downed every day. If it takes a day of preparation, we'd see perhaps a dozen per day. If it takes a week, we would see another order of magnitude fewer. If it takes a year of training and preparation by one or more high IQ individuals with several hundred thousand dollars, we'd see almost none. This is why we haven't seen any more 9/11 style attacks even though they were so amazingly effective as a terrorist tool: it's become sufficiently difficult to pull them off after counterterrorism efforts were amped up. In other words: criminals can still break into my car if they really tried, but I still lock my car doors.
codex 13y ago
Russian train stations employ metal detectors and barricades. Just as the TSA has been ridiculed in the United States, these were similarly derided in Russia. And yet this combination was effective in limiting the number of casualties in the recent Volgograd train station bombing. I suspect the amount of Russian editorializing over these security procedures will soon decrease. Fortunately, while civilian memory is short, government institutional memory is long.
- magicalist 13y ago
  > And yet this combination was effective in limiting the number of casualties in the recent Volgograd train station bombing It just shifted the site of the attack to a new bottleneck: where everyone is in line to go through the metal detector (which many people also have pointed out is a ripe target for an attack in the post-TSA US).
  - codex 13y ago
    That's the idea. There were more people waiting for trains inside the station than waiting in line at the metal detector. Russian officials claim that the barricades reduced casualties.
    - magicalist 13y ago
      Well, I don't know the layout of the stations, nor do I have any real knowledge of explosives, so I can't really comment on if they actually helped (more than any normal wall or objects in a room), but if you look at the numbers, 14 and 17 fatalities (with about three times that injured) is near the high end of suicide bombings where the bomb is carried on a person. Suicide bombings in the middle east over the last 10 years, in comparison, have about a 1:3 ratio of bomber to victims. That's a mean, but the outliers tend to barely break 20. So it's difficult to believe that number was reduced by a large amount.
    - gumby 13y ago
      <quote>Russian officials claim that the barricades reduced casualties.</quote> Yes they did, but according to this article they claim all sorts of things, much of which is not true: http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/powerlessness-and-pretense/ http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/powerlessness-a... Such as the identity of the bomber (she later posted on her FB page, "Nope, I'm still alive!"). Not that I'm trying to imply that Russian officials are particularly different in this regard!
EGreg 13y ago
"Could that literature review be wrong? Sure." "Is eliminating airport security politically untenable? Maybe" "Would this increase hijacking? Probably." LOL
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
EGreg 13y ago
Is this much more libertarian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A
C1D 13y ago
I don't want to sound like a nutcase conspiracy theorist but to be quite honestly if the government had always wanted an excuse to violate basic human rights, 9/11 was probably the best thing that happened for them. After 9/11, they were able to convince us that we NEED to be felt up by strangers at the airport and that we NEED to invade a country and that ITS OKAY to just kill thousands and thousands of civilians "by accident" all in the name of National Security and when some civilians try and kick out these strangers that invaded their country and killed their family, they're the nut jobs, they're the bad people, they're the real terrorists. I honestly think the US is a bigger terrorist that Osama ever was. Now, after 9/11 people we're living our normal lives normally; while in Afganistan, families everyday are terrorized, scared, afraid that this might be their last day. Today might be the day their father doesn't come back. Today might be the last day they see each other.
rayiner 13y ago
Interesting point about hijackings. Airplane hijackings are actually much more common than most people think. From 1988-1997, there were about 18 airplane hijackings per year, down from the peak of 82 in 1969: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking. Interesting to read the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#1960s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#196....
- smackfu 13y ago
  And before security checks, they were even more common. Criminals treated them almost like bank robberies for a while in the 60's and 70's. Hijack a plane, trade the passenger for a ransom, fly off to some third-world country and live on the ransom.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    Security checks shouldn't have been the factor causing the change. Ransom payout avoidance and police tactics would have been the deciding factor. In the old days, once didn't actually require a weapon to hijack a plane. Merely the claim of possessing a weapon was sufficient.
    - smackfu 13y ago
      But if you add security checks, now you don't believe they possess a weapon. Like if someone on a plane today claimed they had a gun, they would be arrested, but not believed.
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        They'd claim to have a bomb not a gun. And yes they were believed after security checks were implemented.
- rgrieselhuber 13y ago
  I'd still rather take my chances than put up with the BS that we encounter today.
Segmentation 13y ago
Are flights between European countries, say Denmark and Finland, as easy as the OP's experience? Or has post-911 NSA influenced the majority of modern civilization into encumbrance?
- ravingraven 13y ago
  You get screened normally when flying intra Schengen.
- hatu 13y ago
  It's pretty much the same. The security checks are a little bit more lax than TSA but no noticeable difference really. The airports in Finland and Denmark are generally pretty fast at getting people through security, maybe because of pretty low volume.
- ojilles 13y ago
  Depends on what you mean, but as one example, you don't have to take your shoes off in most EU airports, which is really really nice...
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  The most time consuming screening, my experience, is in the UK. Flight screening on the Continent is perhaps a touch quicker than in the States, but same ballpark.
chimeracoder 13y ago
It's sad that this headline (presumably) is not tautological. First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US[0]. Second, the circumstances under which 9/11 happened would be impossible to repeat. Plane cockpits are all but impenetrable[1] - the only reason that some of the 9/11 hijackers were successful was that the standard protocol for dealing with hijackers assumed that hijackers wanted to take the plane hostage for ransom, not use the plane as a weapon. This protocol was fixed almost immediately. (Note that United Airlines Flight 93 did not face the same fate as the other three planes, because the passengers knew what the hijackers were planning.) Since it's impossible to take control of the cockpit as a hijacker these days, even if someone managed to bring a gun on board a flight, the most damage they could do is kill all the passengers (leaving the pilots unharmed). That is truly a horrible scenario, but that makes flying no more risky than going to the movies or going to school (eg. Newtown, Arapahoe, Boulder). Of course, one "logical" conclusion is therefore to establish TSA-style security at every school, cinema, mall, etc... in which case we have turned the country into a police state, and we should expect the same crime rates as within federal prisons: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194 http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194 [0] http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-in-leaked-doc-no-evidence-of-terrorist-plots-against-aviation-in-us/ http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-... [1] I believe I read another comment on Hacker News a while back in which the pilot had a heart attack after the cockpit had been locked from the inside, but before leaving the gate, and it still took the fire department almost an hour to cut through the door.
- Crito 13y ago
  > "[1] I believe I read another comment on here a while back in which the pilot had a heart attack after the cockpit had been locked from the inside, but before leaving the gate, and it still took the fire department almost an hour to cut through the door." I can't find a report of this ever happening, though I did find an article from December 2001 which pointed out potential danger to pilots behind locked doors. It also notes that the danger of an incident mid-flight can be reduced by having a flight attendant step into the cockpit whenever one of the pilots steps out. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-12-17/news/0112160265_1_cockpit-doors-flight-attendant-pilots http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-12-17/news/0112160265_... (Edit: Lest my nitpicky comment be misunderstood, it also talks a little about how strong the reinforcements are; I think your point about cockpit doors being extremely solid can be reasonably taken as fact.)
snowwrestler 13y ago
Yet another in a long line of "data wonky" articles that misuse statistical data to support a position that is emotionally attractive. > Would this increase hijacking? Probably. But there's no reason to believe it would increase casualties from terrorist attacks overall. That's because increasing airport security just leads terrorists to direct their assaults elsewhere. There are two huge problems with this statement. First, you cannot draw such a causal conclusion from statistical data alone. Second, it's pulling a subtle slight of hand--the goal of airport security is NOT to reduce terrorist casualties overall. It is to reduce violent attacks of any kind on airplanes, specifically. At the base of this argument is an implication that terrorist attacks are zero-sum: reduce them in one place, get an equivalent more in another. But that's not how security works. Look at it in digital terms--it would be like saying that we don't need to bother with strong passwords, because all those did was drive up the number of phishing attacks. Maybe we could just get of passwords, since the total number of intrusions would not go up. And besides, just think of all that wasted effort to create, hash, store, remember, and manage passwords. Does that sound stupid? I hope so, because it is. But that's exactly the type of argument that this article is making.
- swalkergibson 13y ago
  This is a false equivalency. There are numerous, perfectly good reasons why you should store hashed passwords in a database. Frisking Grandma is another story. Air marshals, metal detectors, and reinforced cockpit doors should be sufficient to halt the vast majority of terrorist attacks. As with any system, a determined adversary will absolutely get in. That is what makes the TSA theater.
  - aroman 13y ago
    > This is a false equivalency. There are numerous, perfectly good reasons why you should store hashed passwords in a database. That is precisely his point. The TSA is in place not only to stop terrorist attacks (this is the false equivalency the article's author relied on), but ALSO to defend against a myriad of security risks, one of which happens to be "Terrorism".
coldcode 13y ago
All the TSA has done is ensure that someday a suicide bomber will blow up the security line, and destroy the travel industry at the same time. There is no backup plan once that happens other than picking people up at home in armored vans.
- aroman 13y ago
  That's reductio ad absurdum if I've ever heard it. That's like saying "all the army has done is ensure that someday an enemy will attack with weapons so devastating that the entire country will be destroyed in one foul swoop."
  - coldcode 13y ago
    The Israelis don't stick people in compact security lines for this exact reason. Easy targets.
  - btbuildem 13y ago
    Have you heard of nuclear weapons?
    - aroman 13y ago
      Are you suggesting that we abolish defensive armies because nuclear weapons exist?
  - chrismcb 13y ago
    The army doesn't make people stand in long lines next to a barrel full of suspected explosives. And then make them take their shoes off and walk across a dirty floor, so someone else can stick their hand down the persons pants.
beat 13y ago
In large organizations, the appearance of risk is much more important than the reality of risk. Big organizations (like governments) will do things that actually increase risk, so long as the things look on the surface like they will reduce risk. Saying that TSA security doesn't reduce terrorism risk is a reasonable argument (although I think it's wrong; consider the possibility of gun-toting yahoos wanting to be "safe" with "self-defense" and blowing a hole in the fuselage because they saw a suspicious brown person). But politically, saying to give up TSA security because it doesn't work is basically impossible. Voters will demand that politicians do something about the threat of terrorism.
- gohrt 13y ago
  If leaders wanted to improve security, and they knew how, they could do that, while simultaneously adding theatrics and populist talk to create the appearance of security.
  - beat 13y ago
    They did what seemed obvious. They created a security bureaucracy, and gave it a ton of resources and a free hand. Now, they can't stop it without looking "soft on terror". This is how bureaucracy goes awry (see "War on Drugs" for another example).
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Then let's figure out a way to demand that political scientists do something about the demand to do something problem.
- VLM 13y ago
  If you want theater, you give them theater, not a prison experience. Lets try a Hollywood analogy. The execs tell the director to make a formulaic teen comedy. How long would a film director last if he replied, F those guys I'm making a documentary about the Soviet Gulag system and they're gonna like it because its for their own good. The discussion is being carefully controlled by those in power to make sure that no one steps out of line and considers, maybe just for an instant, that possibly there could exist a form of expensive meaningless security theater that doesn't involve brutalizing the population. No, they're subjecting us to the TSA for a reason that isn't security theater.
kyro 13y ago
What I find particularly evil about the TSA is their Pre program that lets you bypass security lines for $85. Mind you, you'll only be granted that sort of privilege after an approval process that requires you submit the non-refundable fee along with an application. So paying $85 doesn't even guarantee you a spot. It's as if after implementing all this theater, imposing myriads of restrictions, that they realized it was all ineffective, and now they're reframing the entire situation by acting as if they're catering to customers by offering a program that reverts things to how they were a little over a decade ago, but now for a fee.
- hbags 13y ago
  The PreCheck program isn't just a fee; it's a rather thorough background check. And being approved for it doesn't actually guarantee lower scrutiny, as PreCheck'd travelers remain eligible for the random high-security selection.
  - epoxyhockey 13y ago
    Others have also mentioned that many times the PreCheck line is closed, forcing background-checked passengers to go through normal security lines anyway.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    >>the random high-security selection. a.k.a. the "sir we assure you that this is a completely random check" racial/gender/economic profiling
    - EpicEng 13y ago
      Strange then that I, a 30 year old, upper middle class, white male, have been randomly chosen multiple times
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  I travelled around the USA a bit earlier this year. At one point I was at a small regional airport in Florida where I was running late for my flight. The TSA attendant, a Good Ol' Boy, asked "Do y'all have the Pre?" I said I didn't know what it was. He cracked a grin and said "It don't matter, we don' got it anyhow". We then had a friendly chat about life in Australia before he waved me through.
jimsilverman 13y ago
"increasing airport security just leads terrorists to direct their assaults elsewhere" so in other words, heightened airport security has worked.
- liquidise 13y ago
  Either that or armored cockpit doors have rendered the other practices entirely worthless.
minimax 13y ago
He is chalking up a lot of things that existed before 9/11 to the TSA. 15 years ago we all still had to stand in line to go through metal detectors to get into the terminal. Also how can you compare loading time on a 9 passenger Cessna 402 to something like a 737-300 that can hold 120 people? That's silly. It takes more time to board larger planes than smaller ones and that has nothing to do with security. I go through the TSA screening several times a month, and while I don't appreciate the invasion of privacy, it isn't really that big of a pain in the ass to stand in line for a few minutes and put all your bags through the scanner.
- nickonline 13y ago
  Not just a jumbo either, 30-40 at a single airport at one time with ~100people per plane (~4,000 total) vs 9 people on a single Cessna likely 2-3 times a day maximum
erbo 13y ago
The author laments "all the waste that one stupid government policy can generate." But there seems to be little hope that any of it will go away any time soon. Why? Because of a statement I've seen attributed to Karl Denninger[0]: "One man's waste, fraud, abuse, scam, and theft is another man's paycheck." If there were no need for TSA-compliant messenger bags, Timbuk2 would likely see a drop in revenues. If there were no TSA, a whole bunch of people employed as TSA agents would be out of work. I'd expect everyone making money off the current system of security theater to fight tooth and nail to preserve the money they're making. [0] See e.g. http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3149840 http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3149840
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- nickonline 13y ago
  Sorry - I'm not American, could you please elaborate, what makes a bag "TSA-compliant"? I looked at a couple of the products but couldn't quite work it out.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
I grew up in the 70s. Back then, there was an entire generation that was smoking pot, although it was very recently deemed illegal. It was a weird time. Most young people either smoked pot or knew somebody who did. There wasn't much odd about them, although we were told that smoking pot was terrible. On the street, however, it was fairly obvious that this was an overreaction. To hear some folks talk, there was little difference between heroin and pot. That was obviously not true. It took 50 years for common sense to get back into the system, and even now, when the change is starting, it might be another 10 or 20 years to fully reverse pot laws. I'm not a pot user, but I find this slowness-to-adapt to common sense amazing. Unfortunately, the system isn't just glacial in fixing bad laws -- it's fairly quick to add new bad laws as we go along. TSA is the case in point. Just like the pot laws, we're constantly told that there is a terrible danger out there that we need protection from, even though it's blatantly obvious that this is an overreaction and power grab. Nobody seems to be driving the bus. So I guess we'll go through 50 years of increasing TSA "supervision" of travel until we see some kind of sanity? And how many TSAs will we have by then? It's depressing to think about.
ronnier 13y ago
I always feel like the oddball, but I don't mind the current state of our airport security. Given the option of two flights, one with security and the other without, I'm taking the flight with security precautions... Irrational or not.
- joshuapants 13y ago
  It's possible to have security without having what amounts to a sexual assault
- chrismcb 13y ago
  Definitely irrational. The problem is the security precautions make you feel safer. But you aren't. In fact, if I was a terrorist and I had the choice of attacking a "secure" airplane versus and unsecure airplane. I'd attack the secure plane every single time... It would spread more terror.
pinaceae 13y ago
the core issue is that a lot of very young people are now starting to debate this shit that only remember 9/11. we just had the 25 year anniversary of Lockerbie. that bomb not only killed all on board the plane, but a lot of people on the ground. no need to hijack. and we now have a lot of suicide bombers, see just the last two days on Volgograd. have the Israelis scaled down their anti-bomb detection measures? no? then neither should the west. i fly a lot, internationally. i do not mind the checkpoints. i mind dying pre-maturely in a fireball.
- chrismcb 13y ago
  Do you drive? Walk across a street? Before 9/11 what were the odds that you would die pre-maturely in a fireball (an airplane fireball?) I don't know the number but it was so small to be virtually 0. You were much more likely to die in a myriad of other ways. Probably more likely to get shot to death at a movie theater. Yet that probably doesn't stop you from going to the movie theater... And yet you don't mind being treated like criminal at the airport.
nicomoto1 13y ago
I think what most people are forgetting is the reason for such measures on flights. An hijacked flight is very different from other hijaking/terrorist situations. It leaves you with almost no options except maybe to shoot it down. There is absolutely no other tactical moves that can be made. The same cannot be said for similar attacks on theaters/schools etc. A flight is also a moving threat that requires swift response, and it can strike (when used as a weapon) over quite a large area (In terms of targets it may choose). Now, if we as this article suggests remove all security to get on flights. As someone planning such an incident, i.e. pull out a gun or other random acts of terror; It would follow that getting on a flight to do such a thing would be the best move. You literally have access to 200+ people with no where to run in a confined area, with no security. The reason flights are given security vs other places such as theaters etc is not some random act. It is cause of the specific threats that are posed by hijacked flights/weapons on flights that are fundamentally different from other locations. (How fast would the cops get to someone who starts firing at people in any city with such high population density?, now compare that with what happens in a flight, you have no options, and once it starts you practically write off the people who are on the flight because you have no chance of saving them)
- ealexhudson 13y ago
  Of course there are other tactical options. All big jets have fly-by-wire systems that could easily be remotely commanded. There's no reason why hijackers should be given control of the aircraft; indeed at this point the planes themselves could probably be programmed to refuse to point at the ground in urban areas outside of a glide path. That leaves them with the option of blowing up the aircraft at inconvenient places. That's a significantly tough and narrow plan of attack.
  - nicomoto1 13y ago
    Being given control of the aircraft is secondary. You've condemned 200 odd people to death cause of one person on the flight. A small bomb, any thing to disrupt the flight will do that. (This is very easy as opposed to going to a theater or other urban crowded locations and staying alive long enough to take out that many people). The point being your only option is to lose everyone on the plane. Is that a casualty you're willing to accept. Security works by deterrence. If every time someone starts shooting in theaters and schools, the casualty is upwards of 200, its going to be a more viable option. Its a question of the cost of doing something vs the damage it causes. the inherent nature of flights (Since they fly), is that it takes relatively less effort to get one to crash. And it terms of preparation (in this ideal scenario as per this article), one guy just has to walk into a plane with items you get in your local store (propane maybe?). Im not an expert on this, but i just feel the effort required is just ridiculously easy if there is going to be no one to keep a tab on what you carry/have access to on a flight.
vxNsr 13y ago
We could also implement Israeli style security, namely profiling (not racial but terrorist), when you go through Ben Gurion, you go from car to gate in about 30 min, and at no point do yo have to remove your shoes, or even remove your laptop from it's bag, no matter what type of bag it is. Now I'll grant you if you're coming from Ramallah and you're flying to Pakistan through Turkey and Dubai you should probably give yourself and extra hour or two, but as long as have no nefarious motives and tell the truth you will be on your way. But this is true regardless of the color of your skin or religious beliefs. I have a friend who was doing something like that and he's white, very clearly Jewish and religious. (Often those stories you hear of the 3 hour long interrogations are because the dude was/is an active participant on the rock throwing attacks and they have pictures of him that he is unaware of...)
mkent 13y ago
Living on an island in Canada I've taken these small commuter flights a number of times. Being able to hop on near the actual flight time is fantastic. Few points about these smaller flights: - Typically they still want you there 30 mins early to check-in and load the baggage. - The pilot to passenger ratio makes them very expensive. A 20 minute flight for me is costlier than a 5 hour one to a major hub. I rarely pay for these out of my own pocket. - Being a smaller operation your pilot can be very young and inexperienced. - These planes are very small and at times get uncomfortably hot in the summer. - The majority of crashes around here are from similarly sized aircraft. Always an uncomfortable reminder of what can go wrong. - Flying in any kind of adverse weather can honestly be pretty terrifying in a smaller plane. If your lucky they'll delay or cancel it altogether. - Sometimes your pilot will leave the window open and a wasp will fly in prior to take off. Sitting in the co-pilot seat in a cramped plane, it may be up to you to kill it :) Overall I prefer the smaller flights in the summer, but I'll take the slow security for the safety of the bigger plane in winter.
lutorm 13y ago
You, too, can experience flying without security: Get a sport pilot license and a used airplane for $20k or so. Of course, you'll be much more limited by weather than a transport-class aircraft.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  I took a small commuter plane from Seattle to Portland and it was the best time flying I've ever had. Free parking at Boeing field, free coffee in a quaint little terminal, walk right onto the plane, enjoy a short flight, and then walk right to the light rail station. I guess I also need to point out that I didn't die on that trip. Not even once.
squozzer 13y ago
I haven't flown since before 9/11, and I didn't like the airport experience too much then. I'm sure I'd like it less now. But I keep in mind that the airplane + TSA still saves a lot of time compared to trains, boats, buses, and cars for travel over a certain distance. The question I have for people is why they bother traveling so much nowadays. Maybe the experience of le rive gauche cannot be replicated over the internet -- but a lot of travel (especially business) seems to be a bit of showmanship itself. You know, show up and impress the client with a little face-to-face. Or let the striking factory workers know who's boss. Whatever. What makes me laugh even harder than the deaths of old habits such as flying hither and yon are people who distinguish between security and the illusion of security. Isn't security itself a feeling? And what makes jittery fliers feel safer than a bunch of goons rifling through one's possessions? Isn't that the essence of "stepping up security"?
- RandallBrown 13y ago
  People like to travel because the world has a lot more to offer than the very small subset that each of us live in.
loomio 13y ago
As an American living abroad, I still show up hours too early for flights. Old habits are hard to break! But seriously, it's just not like that in many other places round the world. Sure, we have security, but showing up more than an hour before your flight? I've been laughed at many times. Security theatre is a huge, huge waste of time and resources all around.
Aqueous 13y ago
When people complain about the TSA, I'm reminded of this Louis CK bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4
Havoc 13y ago
Airport security is a sieve anyway. Shortly after 9/11 I carried 10 inch knife through security. Forgot I had it on me. Oops.. In their defense: I tend to do well with these kinds of situations. Exuding a combination of "not criminal" and "don't mess with me" does wonders.
cmarschner 13y ago
This reminds me of the story of a former collegue of mine who worked as a consultant out of Oslo, Norway. 15/20 years ago the Oslo airport was still quite close to the city center, and for a while he had a client in Bergen, 400 km west. He was living a 5 minute bike ride from the airport. He would go there, enter the plane, and get to the office in less than an hour. He would be home for dinner every day. Environmental aspects aside I think this was what was deemed the future in the 60s... Then the airport was moved 50 km north of Oslo, then came the terrorists and all the security regulations.
macspoofing 13y ago
Woooo. You flew in a six-engine plane without TSA security checkpoints?! No way. Did you also know that for a few hundred bucks you can get a pilots license and fly it yourself!?!
hisham_hm 13y ago
The first time I felt a real chill with regard to the United States when when I saw padlocks for sale (here in Brazil, no less!) with some inscription to the effect of "TSA-friendly". You buy a lock to keep people away from peeking at your stuff, but you can no longer keep the government away. This felt like having the keys to your front door being forcefully changed into "FBI-friendly" keys.
mh- 13y ago
6.3 fewer airplane hijackings in the years examined (a hijinking-heavy period chronicled [..]) hehe. hijinking-heavy.
ryguytilidie 13y ago
I actually had a pretty weird situation happen last time I traveled. I was in the regular lane and the guy who checked my ticket and id read my ticket wrong and sent me through the TSA precheck line. Once in that line, there seemed to be a further mixup and I literally went through security without my bag or myself being scanned. It was pretty weird, but again, no one died, and it actually gave less of a chance for my stuff to get stolen and took less time. It's almost as though this is a superior system...
hnriot 13y ago
I don't get all the fuss. I fly often and it takes no more than 20 minutes in SFO to get through, even when there are long lines because they add more agents (thread pool!) - same in Boston, even when there's a major storm and the whole state are trying to leave at the same time, it's still really efficient. I don't really care about taking off my shoes and belt, I certainly don't find it humiliating. It's like when I hear people talk of the humiliation getting a physical. American's are the biggest consumers of porn and at the same time, the biggest prudes about ridiculous stuff. If I had to drop my shorts at the airport I might remember not to wear Spongebob ones to the airport, but short of that, it's hardly a big deal or worth blogging about. I'd rather take my shoes off and have 2+ jet engines than get in an 8-seater commuter plane.
- chrismcb 13y ago
  The issue? Time and money, for nothing. It costs you times (even 20 minutes is a long time, especially when you consider it costs EVERY passenger at least 20 minutes) And money. Not only is your airline ticket higher, your taxes are being wasted. For nothing. Supposedly to keep people safer. But that isn't true, in fact there is evidence that more Americans die BECAUSE of TSA.
caycep 13y ago
I remember reading a number of articles from Israeli security that make a mockery of everything the TSA does (which is basically what they, who have to secure airports and other public spaces in Israel against almost daily threats, never do). The TSA basically exists to make Michael Chertoff and Dick Cheney very, very rich. It would be interesting to see how much they raked in from this, compared with, say, Bo Xilai or Wen Jiabiao.
joshfraser 13y ago
I have also flown on a commercial flight w/o going through security. It was an incredible experience and I didn't worry for a moment about the intentions of the other passengers. I hope we come to our senses and say goodbye to the TSA.
gesman 13y ago
Fear is easy sell. And TSA is a big business. 'nuff said.
pantalaimon 13y ago
I can hop on a bus, ship or train without any security checks. Why are planes so radically different?

235 points by MattRogish 13y ago

Personally I would prefer flying without any security checks. I am going to die one day; statistical chances are high that will not be due to a terrorist attack. In fact I flew from South Africa to Europe 4 or 5 years back (in a large Airbus). No metal detector, no scanners, no taking-shoes-or-belt-of, just the quick scan of the carry on. Took 2 minutes, and I did not feel unsafe in any way. 911 cannot be repeated (as pointed out many times before). The TSA checks are a theater and everybody knows it.

ck2 13y ago

Isn't it pathetically sad what we've grown to accept? Frog in a slowly heating pot indeed. Now that we've accepted the horrors of the TSA, they are working on getting us to accept the horrors of the NSA, slowly but surely, until we reach the point that the average person defends every smartphone being hacked and tracked.

dangerlibrary 13y ago
In general, frogs will jump out of slowly heating pots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
- talmand 13y ago
  Bigger pot, less water as to bigger budget, less freedom.
- HCIdivision17 13y ago
  The page is actually fairly interesting. It seems to have started with a test where the frog failed to jump out because when it's brain was removed (reminding me of how frogs go deaf when their legs are cut off). But it does seem that it's a matter of degrees (literally). If sufficiently slow - very slow - the frog may in fact not notice. But it is certainly very slow. It also seems a normal frog will also apparently get bored or restless, and will jump out, not from heat, but because frogs just jump around. Overall, it seems like a hard thing to test for properly without inflicting some constraint on the frog to encourage it to stay and die.
- DumySSone 13y ago
  What if the pot contains wine? What then?
  - regularfry 13y ago
    Mulled frog, obviously.
rogerbinns 13y ago
I wish the airlines would make it clearer to passengers the fees they are paying. If every passenger was reminded just after going through the TSA that $5 of their ticket actually went to the TSA for the procedure, I suspect there would be a lot more pressure for change.
- jmspring 13y ago
  My last trip to London from SFO, according to the ticket fare breakdown, fees were more than 1/2 the ticket. Probably closer to 60%. I would love to see every line item. Just over Christmas break, we flew from the Vancouver commuter terminal to Tofino. Aside from the delays due to weather, no TSA, super friendly staff, quick mostly comfy flight.
  - objclxt 13y ago
    > My last trip to London from SFO, according to the ticket fare breakdown, fees were more than 1/2 the ticket. Probably closer to 60%. I would love to see every line item. If you were flying a UK airline they were probably counting the "fuel surcharge" as a fee, which in many cases can be the majority of the ticket. I just priced up the cheapest SFO-LHR return on Virgin next month, it came in at $1000, with $458 being "carrier imposed surcharges", counted as fees. Except they're not fees at all, it's the 'fuel surcharge'. Actual taxes and fees were $233, or 23%. Your airline should have given you a link to the line by line breakdown of every item ($5 custom fee, $2.50 TSA fee, etc) when you bought the ticket. On a related note, if you're flying from SFO you're not actually interacting with the TSA itself at all, San Francisco is one of the few airports that contracts out security screening to a TSA-approved company (some people think SFO has more 'friendly' security screening because of it, I haven't really noticed).
    - jmspring 13y ago
      It was a company purchased ticket, I can probably dig it up...but by fees, I was lumping in surcharges, as you state. One way my wife and I have helped deal with some of the line hassle -- GOES (for coming back into the country), Clear (had it before PreCheck came about and will reevaluate), and now PreCheck (GOES helped with this). I've heard some mention that as more and more people become PreCheck eligible, that will become the norm rather than the exception. We shall see. With regard to SFO not being TSA, I'm aware of this and generally have found them much more efficient than the TSA. Probably my best TSA experiences have been in Seattle (recently) and Kona, friendly and generally laughing. Worst opt out experience was actually SFO w/ a manager who took exception to anyone opting out and waited 10+ min before calling someone over -- "The delay is to encourage you to go through the machines".

tehwebguy 13y ago

The article misses the most important point! By reinforcing the cockpit doors and locking them from the inside we made it so that a plane can no longer be hijacked. Even if a bomb is brought on board we would never give control of a plan to hijackers since we now know it may be used as a giant missile, not just an escape vehicle.

codex 13y ago
Since 9/11 there have been no highjacking attempts, true, but there have been multiple bombing attempts on aircraft by would be suicide bombers, and these bombers were able to evade the limited screening employed at the time. As bomb technology grows more sophisticated and easy to hide, screening has become more rigorous. That's what the TSA is focused on these days.
- voyou 13y ago
  "here have been multiple bombing attempts on aircraft by would be suicide bombers" Yes, and they've all failed. That means we have at least enough security, and we should start thinking about scaling it back.
  - codex 13y ago
    I think it's pretty weak, both to politicians and to common sense, to use the fact that these bombers failed as an argument to reduce security. They were able to bring bombs on planes. Given enough opportunity, eventually an attempt would have succeeded.
    - tghw 13y ago
      A motivated individual will always be able to find a way. Thinking otherwise is what motivates the security theater we currently have.
      - codex 13y ago
        It depends, I think. Human willpower and resources are a finite resource. If a terrorist could bring down a plane by clicking a button on a website, we would see hundreds of planes downed every day. If it takes a day of preparation, we'd see perhaps a dozen per day. If it takes a week, we would see another order of magnitude fewer. If it takes a year of training and preparation by one or more high IQ individuals with several hundred thousand dollars, we'd see almost none. This is why we haven't seen any more 9/11 style attacks even though they were so amazingly effective as a terrorist tool: it's become sufficiently difficult to pull them off after counterterrorism efforts were amped up. In other words: criminals can still break into my car if they really tried, but I still lock my car doors.

codex 13y ago

Russian train stations employ metal detectors and barricades. Just as the TSA has been ridiculed in the United States, these were similarly derided in Russia. And yet this combination was effective in limiting the number of casualties in the recent Volgograd train station bombing. I suspect the amount of Russian editorializing over these security procedures will soon decrease. Fortunately, while civilian memory is short, government institutional memory is long.

magicalist 13y ago
> And yet this combination was effective in limiting the number of casualties in the recent Volgograd train station bombing It just shifted the site of the attack to a new bottleneck: where everyone is in line to go through the metal detector (which many people also have pointed out is a ripe target for an attack in the post-TSA US).
- codex 13y ago
  That's the idea. There were more people waiting for trains inside the station than waiting in line at the metal detector. Russian officials claim that the barricades reduced casualties.
  - magicalist 13y ago
    Well, I don't know the layout of the stations, nor do I have any real knowledge of explosives, so I can't really comment on if they actually helped (more than any normal wall or objects in a room), but if you look at the numbers, 14 and 17 fatalities (with about three times that injured) is near the high end of suicide bombings where the bomb is carried on a person. Suicide bombings in the middle east over the last 10 years, in comparison, have about a 1:3 ratio of bomber to victims. That's a mean, but the outliers tend to barely break 20. So it's difficult to believe that number was reduced by a large amount.
  - gumby 13y ago
    <quote>Russian officials claim that the barricades reduced casualties.</quote> Yes they did, but according to this article they claim all sorts of things, much of which is not true: http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/powerlessness-and-pretense/ http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/powerlessness-a... Such as the identity of the bomber (she later posted on her FB page, "Nope, I'm still alive!"). Not that I'm trying to imply that Russian officials are particularly different in this regard!

EGreg 13y ago

"Could that literature review be wrong? Sure." "Is eliminating airport security politically untenable? Maybe" "Would this increase hijacking? Probably." LOL

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

EGreg 13y ago

Is this much more libertarian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A

C1D 13y ago

I don't want to sound like a nutcase conspiracy theorist but to be quite honestly if the government had always wanted an excuse to violate basic human rights, 9/11 was probably the best thing that happened for them. After 9/11, they were able to convince us that we NEED to be felt up by strangers at the airport and that we NEED to invade a country and that ITS OKAY to just kill thousands and thousands of civilians "by accident" all in the name of National Security and when some civilians try and kick out these strangers that invaded their country and killed their family, they're the nut jobs, they're the bad people, they're the real terrorists. I honestly think the US is a bigger terrorist that Osama ever was. Now, after 9/11 people we're living our normal lives normally; while in Afganistan, families everyday are terrorized, scared, afraid that this might be their last day. Today might be the day their father doesn't come back. Today might be the last day they see each other.

rayiner 13y ago

Interesting point about hijackings. Airplane hijackings are actually much more common than most people think. From 1988-1997, there were about 18 airplane hijackings per year, down from the peak of 82 in 1969: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking. Interesting to read the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#1960s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#196....

smackfu 13y ago
And before security checks, they were even more common. Criminals treated them almost like bank robberies for a while in the 60's and 70's. Hijack a plane, trade the passenger for a ransom, fly off to some third-world country and live on the ransom.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Security checks shouldn't have been the factor causing the change. Ransom payout avoidance and police tactics would have been the deciding factor. In the old days, once didn't actually require a weapon to hijack a plane. Merely the claim of possessing a weapon was sufficient.
  - smackfu 13y ago
    But if you add security checks, now you don't believe they possess a weapon. Like if someone on a plane today claimed they had a gun, they would be arrested, but not believed.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      They'd claim to have a bomb not a gun. And yes they were believed after security checks were implemented.
rgrieselhuber 13y ago
I'd still rather take my chances than put up with the BS that we encounter today.

Segmentation 13y ago

Are flights between European countries, say Denmark and Finland, as easy as the OP's experience? Or has post-911 NSA influenced the majority of modern civilization into encumbrance?

ravingraven 13y ago
You get screened normally when flying intra Schengen.
hatu 13y ago
It's pretty much the same. The security checks are a little bit more lax than TSA but no noticeable difference really. The airports in Finland and Denmark are generally pretty fast at getting people through security, maybe because of pretty low volume.
ojilles 13y ago
Depends on what you mean, but as one example, you don't have to take your shoes off in most EU airports, which is really really nice...
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
The most time consuming screening, my experience, is in the UK. Flight screening on the Continent is perhaps a touch quicker than in the States, but same ballpark.

chimeracoder 13y ago

It's sad that this headline (presumably) is not tautological. First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US[0]. Second, the circumstances under which 9/11 happened would be impossible to repeat. Plane cockpits are all but impenetrable[1] - the only reason that some of the 9/11 hijackers were successful was that the standard protocol for dealing with hijackers assumed that hijackers wanted to take the plane hostage for ransom, not use the plane as a weapon. This protocol was fixed almost immediately. (Note that United Airlines Flight 93 did not face the same fate as the other three planes, because the passengers knew what the hijackers were planning.) Since it's impossible to take control of the cockpit as a hijacker these days, even if someone managed to bring a gun on board a flight, the most damage they could do is kill all the passengers (leaving the pilots unharmed). That is truly a horrible scenario, but that makes flying no more risky than going to the movies or going to school (eg. Newtown, Arapahoe, Boulder). Of course, one "logical" conclusion is therefore to establish TSA-style security at every school, cinema, mall, etc... in which case we have turned the country into a police state, and we should expect the same crime rates as within federal prisons: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194 http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194 [0] http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-in-leaked-doc-no-evidence-of-terrorist-plots-against-aviation-in-us/ http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-... [1] I believe I read another comment on Hacker News a while back in which the pilot had a heart attack after the cockpit had been locked from the inside, but before leaving the gate, and it still took the fire department almost an hour to cut through the door.

Crito 13y ago
> "[1] I believe I read another comment on here a while back in which the pilot had a heart attack after the cockpit had been locked from the inside, but before leaving the gate, and it still took the fire department almost an hour to cut through the door." I can't find a report of this ever happening, though I did find an article from December 2001 which pointed out potential danger to pilots behind locked doors. It also notes that the danger of an incident mid-flight can be reduced by having a flight attendant step into the cockpit whenever one of the pilots steps out. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-12-17/news/0112160265_1_cockpit-doors-flight-attendant-pilots http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-12-17/news/0112160265_... (Edit: Lest my nitpicky comment be misunderstood, it also talks a little about how strong the reinforcements are; I think your point about cockpit doors being extremely solid can be reasonably taken as fact.)

snowwrestler 13y ago

Yet another in a long line of "data wonky" articles that misuse statistical data to support a position that is emotionally attractive. > Would this increase hijacking? Probably. But there's no reason to believe it would increase casualties from terrorist attacks overall. That's because increasing airport security just leads terrorists to direct their assaults elsewhere. There are two huge problems with this statement. First, you cannot draw such a causal conclusion from statistical data alone. Second, it's pulling a subtle slight of hand--the goal of airport security is NOT to reduce terrorist casualties overall. It is to reduce violent attacks of any kind on airplanes, specifically. At the base of this argument is an implication that terrorist attacks are zero-sum: reduce them in one place, get an equivalent more in another. But that's not how security works. Look at it in digital terms--it would be like saying that we don't need to bother with strong passwords, because all those did was drive up the number of phishing attacks. Maybe we could just get of passwords, since the total number of intrusions would not go up. And besides, just think of all that wasted effort to create, hash, store, remember, and manage passwords. Does that sound stupid? I hope so, because it is. But that's exactly the type of argument that this article is making.

swalkergibson 13y ago
This is a false equivalency. There are numerous, perfectly good reasons why you should store hashed passwords in a database. Frisking Grandma is another story. Air marshals, metal detectors, and reinforced cockpit doors should be sufficient to halt the vast majority of terrorist attacks. As with any system, a determined adversary will absolutely get in. That is what makes the TSA theater.
- aroman 13y ago
  > This is a false equivalency. There are numerous, perfectly good reasons why you should store hashed passwords in a database. That is precisely his point. The TSA is in place not only to stop terrorist attacks (this is the false equivalency the article's author relied on), but ALSO to defend against a myriad of security risks, one of which happens to be "Terrorism".

coldcode 13y ago

All the TSA has done is ensure that someday a suicide bomber will blow up the security line, and destroy the travel industry at the same time. There is no backup plan once that happens other than picking people up at home in armored vans.

aroman 13y ago
That's reductio ad absurdum if I've ever heard it. That's like saying "all the army has done is ensure that someday an enemy will attack with weapons so devastating that the entire country will be destroyed in one foul swoop."
- coldcode 13y ago
  The Israelis don't stick people in compact security lines for this exact reason. Easy targets.
- btbuildem 13y ago
  Have you heard of nuclear weapons?
  - aroman 13y ago
    Are you suggesting that we abolish defensive armies because nuclear weapons exist?
- chrismcb 13y ago
  The army doesn't make people stand in long lines next to a barrel full of suspected explosives. And then make them take their shoes off and walk across a dirty floor, so someone else can stick their hand down the persons pants.

beat 13y ago

In large organizations, the appearance of risk is much more important than the reality of risk. Big organizations (like governments) will do things that actually increase risk, so long as the things look on the surface like they will reduce risk. Saying that TSA security doesn't reduce terrorism risk is a reasonable argument (although I think it's wrong; consider the possibility of gun-toting yahoos wanting to be "safe" with "self-defense" and blowing a hole in the fuselage because they saw a suspicious brown person). But politically, saying to give up TSA security because it doesn't work is basically impossible. Voters will demand that politicians do something about the threat of terrorism.

gohrt 13y ago
If leaders wanted to improve security, and they knew how, they could do that, while simultaneously adding theatrics and populist talk to create the appearance of security.
- beat 13y ago
  They did what seemed obvious. They created a security bureaucracy, and gave it a ton of resources and a free hand. Now, they can't stop it without looking "soft on terror". This is how bureaucracy goes awry (see "War on Drugs" for another example).
nitrogen 13y ago
Then let's figure out a way to demand that political scientists do something about the demand to do something problem.
VLM 13y ago
If you want theater, you give them theater, not a prison experience. Lets try a Hollywood analogy. The execs tell the director to make a formulaic teen comedy. How long would a film director last if he replied, F those guys I'm making a documentary about the Soviet Gulag system and they're gonna like it because its for their own good. The discussion is being carefully controlled by those in power to make sure that no one steps out of line and considers, maybe just for an instant, that possibly there could exist a form of expensive meaningless security theater that doesn't involve brutalizing the population. No, they're subjecting us to the TSA for a reason that isn't security theater.

kyro 13y ago

What I find particularly evil about the TSA is their Pre program that lets you bypass security lines for $85. Mind you, you'll only be granted that sort of privilege after an approval process that requires you submit the non-refundable fee along with an application. So paying $85 doesn't even guarantee you a spot. It's as if after implementing all this theater, imposing myriads of restrictions, that they realized it was all ineffective, and now they're reframing the entire situation by acting as if they're catering to customers by offering a program that reverts things to how they were a little over a decade ago, but now for a fee.

hbags 13y ago
The PreCheck program isn't just a fee; it's a rather thorough background check. And being approved for it doesn't actually guarantee lower scrutiny, as PreCheck'd travelers remain eligible for the random high-security selection.
- epoxyhockey 13y ago
  Others have also mentioned that many times the PreCheck line is closed, forcing background-checked passengers to go through normal security lines anyway.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>the random high-security selection. a.k.a. the "sir we assure you that this is a completely random check" racial/gender/economic profiling
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    Strange then that I, a 30 year old, upper middle class, white male, have been randomly chosen multiple times
jacques_chester 13y ago
I travelled around the USA a bit earlier this year. At one point I was at a small regional airport in Florida where I was running late for my flight. The TSA attendant, a Good Ol' Boy, asked "Do y'all have the Pre?" I said I didn't know what it was. He cracked a grin and said "It don't matter, we don' got it anyhow". We then had a friendly chat about life in Australia before he waved me through.

jimsilverman 13y ago

"increasing airport security just leads terrorists to direct their assaults elsewhere" so in other words, heightened airport security has worked.

liquidise 13y ago
Either that or armored cockpit doors have rendered the other practices entirely worthless.

minimax 13y ago

He is chalking up a lot of things that existed before 9/11 to the TSA. 15 years ago we all still had to stand in line to go through metal detectors to get into the terminal. Also how can you compare loading time on a 9 passenger Cessna 402 to something like a 737-300 that can hold 120 people? That's silly. It takes more time to board larger planes than smaller ones and that has nothing to do with security. I go through the TSA screening several times a month, and while I don't appreciate the invasion of privacy, it isn't really that big of a pain in the ass to stand in line for a few minutes and put all your bags through the scanner.

nickonline 13y ago
Not just a jumbo either, 30-40 at a single airport at one time with ~100people per plane (~4,000 total) vs 9 people on a single Cessna likely 2-3 times a day maximum

erbo 13y ago

The author laments "all the waste that one stupid government policy can generate." But there seems to be little hope that any of it will go away any time soon. Why? Because of a statement I've seen attributed to Karl Denninger[0]: "One man's waste, fraud, abuse, scam, and theft is another man's paycheck." If there were no need for TSA-compliant messenger bags, Timbuk2 would likely see a drop in revenues. If there were no TSA, a whole bunch of people employed as TSA agents would be out of work. I'd expect everyone making money off the current system of security theater to fight tooth and nail to preserve the money they're making. [0] See e.g. http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3149840 http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3149840

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nickonline 13y ago
Sorry - I'm not American, could you please elaborate, what makes a bag "TSA-compliant"? I looked at a couple of the products but couldn't quite work it out.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

I grew up in the 70s. Back then, there was an entire generation that was smoking pot, although it was very recently deemed illegal. It was a weird time. Most young people either smoked pot or knew somebody who did. There wasn't much odd about them, although we were told that smoking pot was terrible. On the street, however, it was fairly obvious that this was an overreaction. To hear some folks talk, there was little difference between heroin and pot. That was obviously not true. It took 50 years for common sense to get back into the system, and even now, when the change is starting, it might be another 10 or 20 years to fully reverse pot laws. I'm not a pot user, but I find this slowness-to-adapt to common sense amazing. Unfortunately, the system isn't just glacial in fixing bad laws -- it's fairly quick to add new bad laws as we go along. TSA is the case in point. Just like the pot laws, we're constantly told that there is a terrible danger out there that we need protection from, even though it's blatantly obvious that this is an overreaction and power grab. Nobody seems to be driving the bus. So I guess we'll go through 50 years of increasing TSA "supervision" of travel until we see some kind of sanity? And how many TSAs will we have by then? It's depressing to think about.

ronnier 13y ago

I always feel like the oddball, but I don't mind the current state of our airport security. Given the option of two flights, one with security and the other without, I'm taking the flight with security precautions... Irrational or not.

joshuapants 13y ago
It's possible to have security without having what amounts to a sexual assault
chrismcb 13y ago
Definitely irrational. The problem is the security precautions make you feel safer. But you aren't. In fact, if I was a terrorist and I had the choice of attacking a "secure" airplane versus and unsecure airplane. I'd attack the secure plane every single time... It would spread more terror.

pinaceae 13y ago

the core issue is that a lot of very young people are now starting to debate this shit that only remember 9/11. we just had the 25 year anniversary of Lockerbie. that bomb not only killed all on board the plane, but a lot of people on the ground. no need to hijack. and we now have a lot of suicide bombers, see just the last two days on Volgograd. have the Israelis scaled down their anti-bomb detection measures? no? then neither should the west. i fly a lot, internationally. i do not mind the checkpoints. i mind dying pre-maturely in a fireball.

chrismcb 13y ago
Do you drive? Walk across a street? Before 9/11 what were the odds that you would die pre-maturely in a fireball (an airplane fireball?) I don't know the number but it was so small to be virtually 0. You were much more likely to die in a myriad of other ways. Probably more likely to get shot to death at a movie theater. Yet that probably doesn't stop you from going to the movie theater... And yet you don't mind being treated like criminal at the airport.

nicomoto1 13y ago

I think what most people are forgetting is the reason for such measures on flights. An hijacked flight is very different from other hijaking/terrorist situations. It leaves you with almost no options except maybe to shoot it down. There is absolutely no other tactical moves that can be made. The same cannot be said for similar attacks on theaters/schools etc. A flight is also a moving threat that requires swift response, and it can strike (when used as a weapon) over quite a large area (In terms of targets it may choose). Now, if we as this article suggests remove all security to get on flights. As someone planning such an incident, i.e. pull out a gun or other random acts of terror; It would follow that getting on a flight to do such a thing would be the best move. You literally have access to 200+ people with no where to run in a confined area, with no security. The reason flights are given security vs other places such as theaters etc is not some random act. It is cause of the specific threats that are posed by hijacked flights/weapons on flights that are fundamentally different from other locations. (How fast would the cops get to someone who starts firing at people in any city with such high population density?, now compare that with what happens in a flight, you have no options, and once it starts you practically write off the people who are on the flight because you have no chance of saving them)

ealexhudson 13y ago
Of course there are other tactical options. All big jets have fly-by-wire systems that could easily be remotely commanded. There's no reason why hijackers should be given control of the aircraft; indeed at this point the planes themselves could probably be programmed to refuse to point at the ground in urban areas outside of a glide path. That leaves them with the option of blowing up the aircraft at inconvenient places. That's a significantly tough and narrow plan of attack.
- nicomoto1 13y ago
  Being given control of the aircraft is secondary. You've condemned 200 odd people to death cause of one person on the flight. A small bomb, any thing to disrupt the flight will do that. (This is very easy as opposed to going to a theater or other urban crowded locations and staying alive long enough to take out that many people). The point being your only option is to lose everyone on the plane. Is that a casualty you're willing to accept. Security works by deterrence. If every time someone starts shooting in theaters and schools, the casualty is upwards of 200, its going to be a more viable option. Its a question of the cost of doing something vs the damage it causes. the inherent nature of flights (Since they fly), is that it takes relatively less effort to get one to crash. And it terms of preparation (in this ideal scenario as per this article), one guy just has to walk into a plane with items you get in your local store (propane maybe?). Im not an expert on this, but i just feel the effort required is just ridiculously easy if there is going to be no one to keep a tab on what you carry/have access to on a flight.

vxNsr 13y ago

We could also implement Israeli style security, namely profiling (not racial but terrorist), when you go through Ben Gurion, you go from car to gate in about 30 min, and at no point do yo have to remove your shoes, or even remove your laptop from it's bag, no matter what type of bag it is. Now I'll grant you if you're coming from Ramallah and you're flying to Pakistan through Turkey and Dubai you should probably give yourself and extra hour or two, but as long as have no nefarious motives and tell the truth you will be on your way. But this is true regardless of the color of your skin or religious beliefs. I have a friend who was doing something like that and he's white, very clearly Jewish and religious. (Often those stories you hear of the 3 hour long interrogations are because the dude was/is an active participant on the rock throwing attacks and they have pictures of him that he is unaware of...)

mkent 13y ago

Living on an island in Canada I've taken these small commuter flights a number of times. Being able to hop on near the actual flight time is fantastic. Few points about these smaller flights: - Typically they still want you there 30 mins early to check-in and load the baggage. - The pilot to passenger ratio makes them very expensive. A 20 minute flight for me is costlier than a 5 hour one to a major hub. I rarely pay for these out of my own pocket. - Being a smaller operation your pilot can be very young and inexperienced. - These planes are very small and at times get uncomfortably hot in the summer. - The majority of crashes around here are from similarly sized aircraft. Always an uncomfortable reminder of what can go wrong. - Flying in any kind of adverse weather can honestly be pretty terrifying in a smaller plane. If your lucky they'll delay or cancel it altogether. - Sometimes your pilot will leave the window open and a wasp will fly in prior to take off. Sitting in the co-pilot seat in a cramped plane, it may be up to you to kill it :) Overall I prefer the smaller flights in the summer, but I'll take the slow security for the safety of the bigger plane in winter.

lutorm 13y ago

You, too, can experience flying without security: Get a sport pilot license and a used airplane for $20k or so. Of course, you'll be much more limited by weather than a transport-class aircraft.

MartinCron 13y ago
I took a small commuter plane from Seattle to Portland and it was the best time flying I've ever had. Free parking at Boeing field, free coffee in a quaint little terminal, walk right onto the plane, enjoy a short flight, and then walk right to the light rail station. I guess I also need to point out that I didn't die on that trip. Not even once.

squozzer 13y ago

I haven't flown since before 9/11, and I didn't like the airport experience too much then. I'm sure I'd like it less now. But I keep in mind that the airplane + TSA still saves a lot of time compared to trains, boats, buses, and cars for travel over a certain distance. The question I have for people is why they bother traveling so much nowadays. Maybe the experience of le rive gauche cannot be replicated over the internet -- but a lot of travel (especially business) seems to be a bit of showmanship itself. You know, show up and impress the client with a little face-to-face. Or let the striking factory workers know who's boss. Whatever. What makes me laugh even harder than the deaths of old habits such as flying hither and yon are people who distinguish between security and the illusion of security. Isn't security itself a feeling? And what makes jittery fliers feel safer than a bunch of goons rifling through one's possessions? Isn't that the essence of "stepping up security"?

RandallBrown 13y ago
People like to travel because the world has a lot more to offer than the very small subset that each of us live in.

loomio 13y ago

As an American living abroad, I still show up hours too early for flights. Old habits are hard to break! But seriously, it's just not like that in many other places round the world. Sure, we have security, but showing up more than an hour before your flight? I've been laughed at many times. Security theatre is a huge, huge waste of time and resources all around.

Aqueous 13y ago

When people complain about the TSA, I'm reminded of this Louis CK bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4

Havoc 13y ago

Airport security is a sieve anyway. Shortly after 9/11 I carried 10 inch knife through security. Forgot I had it on me. Oops.. In their defense: I tend to do well with these kinds of situations. Exuding a combination of "not criminal" and "don't mess with me" does wonders.

cmarschner 13y ago

This reminds me of the story of a former collegue of mine who worked as a consultant out of Oslo, Norway. 15/20 years ago the Oslo airport was still quite close to the city center, and for a while he had a client in Bergen, 400 km west. He was living a 5 minute bike ride from the airport. He would go there, enter the plane, and get to the office in less than an hour. He would be home for dinner every day. Environmental aspects aside I think this was what was deemed the future in the 60s... Then the airport was moved 50 km north of Oslo, then came the terrorists and all the security regulations.

macspoofing 13y ago

Woooo. You flew in a six-engine plane without TSA security checkpoints?! No way. Did you also know that for a few hundred bucks you can get a pilots license and fly it yourself!?!

hisham_hm 13y ago

The first time I felt a real chill with regard to the United States when when I saw padlocks for sale (here in Brazil, no less!) with some inscription to the effect of "TSA-friendly". You buy a lock to keep people away from peeking at your stuff, but you can no longer keep the government away. This felt like having the keys to your front door being forcefully changed into "FBI-friendly" keys.

mh- 13y ago

6.3 fewer airplane hijackings in the years examined (a hijinking-heavy period chronicled [..]) hehe. hijinking-heavy.

ryguytilidie 13y ago

I actually had a pretty weird situation happen last time I traveled. I was in the regular lane and the guy who checked my ticket and id read my ticket wrong and sent me through the TSA precheck line. Once in that line, there seemed to be a further mixup and I literally went through security without my bag or myself being scanned. It was pretty weird, but again, no one died, and it actually gave less of a chance for my stuff to get stolen and took less time. It's almost as though this is a superior system...

hnriot 13y ago

I don't get all the fuss. I fly often and it takes no more than 20 minutes in SFO to get through, even when there are long lines because they add more agents (thread pool!) - same in Boston, even when there's a major storm and the whole state are trying to leave at the same time, it's still really efficient. I don't really care about taking off my shoes and belt, I certainly don't find it humiliating. It's like when I hear people talk of the humiliation getting a physical. American's are the biggest consumers of porn and at the same time, the biggest prudes about ridiculous stuff. If I had to drop my shorts at the airport I might remember not to wear Spongebob ones to the airport, but short of that, it's hardly a big deal or worth blogging about. I'd rather take my shoes off and have 2+ jet engines than get in an 8-seater commuter plane.

chrismcb 13y ago
The issue? Time and money, for nothing. It costs you times (even 20 minutes is a long time, especially when you consider it costs EVERY passenger at least 20 minutes) And money. Not only is your airline ticket higher, your taxes are being wasted. For nothing. Supposedly to keep people safer. But that isn't true, in fact there is evidence that more Americans die BECAUSE of TSA.

caycep 13y ago

I remember reading a number of articles from Israeli security that make a mockery of everything the TSA does (which is basically what they, who have to secure airports and other public spaces in Israel against almost daily threats, never do). The TSA basically exists to make Michael Chertoff and Dick Cheney very, very rich. It would be interesting to see how much they raked in from this, compared with, say, Bo Xilai or Wen Jiabiao.

joshfraser 13y ago

I have also flown on a commercial flight w/o going through security. It was an incredible experience and I didn't worry for a moment about the intentions of the other passengers. I hope we come to our senses and say goodbye to the TSA.

gesman 13y ago

Fear is easy sell. And TSA is a big business. 'nuff said.

pantalaimon 13y ago

I can hop on a bus, ship or train without any security checks. Why are planes so radically different?