3 ms·

Bomb sniffing dogs are more effective at a fraction of the cost. But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane.

Bomb sniffing dogs are more effective at a fraction of the cost. But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane. The question is not "should we try to stop people from blowing things up?" The question is "what are reasonable and effective means to stop people from blowing things up?"

laureny 13y ago
> But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane. Unless we have measures to prevent them from getting on the plane in the first place, and since no bombs have been going off on a plane for quite a while, isn't that a sign that the security measures are working?
- greedo 13y ago
  You can't point to this as a success of the security measures. First, it implies that there are a significant number of bombers who are either captured or deterred. If the first was true, both the Bush admin and the Obama admin would be touting it as a success. If these "numerous" bombers are being deterred, you can't point to the security measures as the deterrent. It might be the NSA, CIA, or other organizations (US and other) that would be disrupting their plans. Otherwise it's back to the magic rock that keeps tigers away.
  - laureny 13y ago
    > You can't point to this as a success of the security measures. First, it implies that there are a significant number of bombers who are either captured or deterred. If the first was true, both the Bush admin and the Obama admin would be touting it as a success. If these "numerous" bombers are being deterred, you can't point to the security measures as the deterrent. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you are making a claim without backing it up.
    - girvo 13y ago
      Because while intuitively it makes "sense", there is no evidence to show that the possible correlation is instead direct causation.
- baddox 13y ago
  If the TSA killed every 1000th passenger, and no bombs went off on planes, would that be a sign that this measure is working?
wahsd 13y ago
Sorry to break it to you, but bomb sniffing dogs are not really all that great at sniffing all means and methods for creating and delivering "bombs". And dogs don't make corporate and political parasites billions of dollars. How do you expect the exploiting class to live without tapping into citizen tax supported corporate welfare profits?
madeofpalk 13y ago
Wasnt there a story on HN two weeks ago about the innacuracy of sniffer dogs?
chrismcb 13y ago
To me this is the prime reason that the TSA is useless. There are a half dozen ways to get explosives and other stuff THROUGH TSA checkpoints, not to mention the other dozen exit points into the airport. Anyone determined enough, will get through. About the only person they have a chance in stopping is a random lay person who just decided this morning. And they don't even seem to be able to stop that person. But looking at all the other risks in life, I'll take my chances.

laureny 13y ago

> But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane. Unless we have measures to prevent them from getting on the plane in the first place, and since no bombs have been going off on a plane for quite a while, isn't that a sign that the security measures are working?

greedo 13y ago
You can't point to this as a success of the security measures. First, it implies that there are a significant number of bombers who are either captured or deterred. If the first was true, both the Bush admin and the Obama admin would be touting it as a success. If these "numerous" bombers are being deterred, you can't point to the security measures as the deterrent. It might be the NSA, CIA, or other organizations (US and other) that would be disrupting their plans. Otherwise it's back to the magic rock that keeps tigers away.
- laureny 13y ago
  > You can't point to this as a success of the security measures. First, it implies that there are a significant number of bombers who are either captured or deterred. If the first was true, both the Bush admin and the Obama admin would be touting it as a success. If these "numerous" bombers are being deterred, you can't point to the security measures as the deterrent. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you are making a claim without backing it up.
  - girvo 13y ago
    Because while intuitively it makes "sense", there is no evidence to show that the possible correlation is instead direct causation.
baddox 13y ago
If the TSA killed every 1000th passenger, and no bombs went off on planes, would that be a sign that this measure is working?

wahsd 13y ago

Sorry to break it to you, but bomb sniffing dogs are not really all that great at sniffing all means and methods for creating and delivering "bombs". And dogs don't make corporate and political parasites billions of dollars. How do you expect the exploiting class to live without tapping into citizen tax supported corporate welfare profits?

madeofpalk 13y ago

Wasnt there a story on HN two weeks ago about the innacuracy of sniffer dogs?

chrismcb 13y ago

To me this is the prime reason that the TSA is useless. There are a half dozen ways to get explosives and other stuff THROUGH TSA checkpoints, not to mention the other dozen exit points into the airport. Anyone determined enough, will get through. About the only person they have a chance in stopping is a random lay person who just decided this morning. And they don't even seem to be able to stop that person. But looking at all the other risks in life, I'll take my chances.