Live data from Hacker News

The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

vox.com

31–40 of 267 posts

Re: The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

#31
post #27

> Airports should kick out the TSA I'm not American and haven't been there for a long time so forgive my ignorance. TSA is an agency of DHS so I believed that its presence in airports was mandated by the government. Can airports really replace it with anybody they like? If this is the case, why they didn't do it before? Only because TSA is for free and airports have to pay private security companies?

[deleted]

Re: The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

#32
post #12
post #4

It's easy to say that TSA sucks (it does), but it's hard to propose a workable alternative. Well alternative 1, stop making us take off our shoes and taking out our laptops, its clear from pre-check that it's not really necessary. You need some security. That was clear before 9-11. Airports had security and it was pretty similar to how TSA does it right now. You put your bags on an Xray machine, show your ID, and wal…

> it's hard to propose a workable alternative No, actually, it's really easy. > You need some security. That was clear before 9-11. No, it was not clear then, and it is not clear now. There are two salient facts: 1. When tested, the TSA misses 90% or so of the weapons people try to smuggle past them 2. Notwithstanding #1, there have been zero successful terrorist attack on aircraft in the U.S. since 9-11. So it is fa…

I'd be interested to see how they got the 95% failure rate. If the TSA was sneaking in actual bombs that could bring down airplanes, that is a horrific. But if they were testing someone bringing in a nail clipper with a 1 inch blade tucked into it, a plastic gun, a disassembled "bomb" with no explosive residue, etc, then it's not that bad.

The fact that there have been attempts to blow up airplanes, and they all involved using explosives designed to get around TSA procedure suggests it works or terrorists think it works. The shoe bomber had to put a tiny bomb into his shoe without electronics. The underwear bomber had to build a crude bomb on board the plane.

If there was no security, they'd walk on with a prebuilt bomb and take out a flight.

In the 60's and 70's there was a goldenage of hijacking airplanes. If you could just walk onto a plane with a gun, people would do it again.

Maybe you think that risk is low enough per flight to not matter. Objectively it's still less risky than driving to the airport. But like you allude to, the people aren't going to buy that argument. "Just accept that al Qaeda or Isis will bring down a 747 or two each year, it's still safer than a roadtrip" will get you punted out of office in record time.

Re: The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

#33
post #27

> Airports should kick out the TSA I'm not American and haven't been there for a long time so forgive my ignorance. TSA is an agency of DHS so I believed that its presence in airports was mandated by the government. Can airports really replace it with anybody they like? If this is the case, why they didn't do it before? Only because TSA is for free and airports have to pay private security companies?

Airports can replace the TSA with private contracts. SFO farmed security out to a company called Covenant. They still have to follow TSA policies and aren't necessarily an improvement from a passenger standpoint. I.e., you're still getting yelled at by otherwise-unemployable nitwits on a power trip.

Re: The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

#34
post #12
post #4

It's easy to say that TSA sucks (it does), but it's hard to propose a workable alternative. Well alternative 1, stop making us take off our shoes and taking out our laptops, its clear from pre-check that it's not really necessary. You need some security. That was clear before 9-11. Airports had security and it was pretty similar to how TSA does it right now. You put your bags on an Xray machine, show your ID, and wal…

> it's hard to propose a workable alternative No, actually, it's really easy. > You need some security. That was clear before 9-11. No, it was not clear then, and it is not clear now. There are two salient facts: 1. When tested, the TSA misses 90% or so of the weapons people try to smuggle past them 2. Notwithstanding #1, there have been zero successful terrorist attack on aircraft in the U.S. since 9-11. So it is fa…

> 2. Notwithstanding #1, there have been zero successful terrorist attack on aircraft in the U.S. since 9-11.

How much is due to the TSA, as opposed to civilian and military intelligence work at home and abroad and simple measures such as having air marshals and preventing any access to the cockpit during flight?

Re: The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

#35

I wonder how autonomous driving will affect shorter flight commutes. I'll probably never take a car from Philadelphia to LA, but I might prefer to travel by car from Philadelphia to Chicago if I know that I can sleep throughout the car ride (as well as leave whenever is most convenient). When you take into account driving to the airport, checking bags, security, flight delays, baggage claim, and rental cars/driving t…

I wonder why so many people immediately jump to thinking about a car as an alternative to short distance air travel. Would people in the US never even consider a fast train system as a good option between Philadelphia and Chicago? (If it were built, of course. But self-driving cars need to be built too. But I guess they're easier; I'm just dreaming)

Re: The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

#36

In terms of $$, by far the biggest cost is in the wasted time of the millions of people who are subjected to this. It's obviously in the billions.

I saw in a different thread some back of the napkin math that he number of people-hours wasted by the TSA adds up to something like 500 lifetimes each year.

Terrorists would seriously have to step up their game to kill more than 500 people each year in the US, especially with passengers no longer operating under the "hijack just means a free trip to Cuba" assumption and actually fighting back.

Re: The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

#37
post #19

I wonder how autonomous driving will affect shorter flight commutes. I'll probably never take a car from Philadelphia to LA, but I might prefer to travel by car from Philadelphia to Chicago if I know that I can sleep throughout the car ride (as well as leave whenever is most convenient). When you take into account driving to the airport, checking bags, security, flight delays, baggage claim, and rental cars/driving t…

Seat width, leg room, baggage limits, noise levels, air temperature, Internet connectivity(cell data vs airplane wifi) and the fact that you're exposed to numerous strangers at risk to your health are all factors that make an individual autonomous car more attractive than an airplane. Airlines will need to do a lot of adapting if they don't want to lose the market for shorter distance travel.

Also once you have fully autonomous with no human oversight vehicles there is no reason they even have to look like a car internally any more, it could be a single bed next to a sit up chair and a table, you could sleep properly while you drive along or sit and work, that would sound pretty pleasant, work for a few hours while it drives, pull over for something to eat then get your head down and wake up at your destination.

Re: The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

#38

The TSA is a jobs program with a bit of "throw government contracts to your buddies" mixed in. Same with the military to an extent. A TSA Screener job is about the closest we'll get to Basic Income: stand around in an airport occasionally groping people for $13-18/hr, plus awesome Federal benefits. Qualifications: essentially none.

> The TSA is a jobs program with a bit of "throw government contracts to your buddies" mixed in.

The TSA is not a jobs program, especially for screening, etc.; those jobs directly replaced private sector jobs. The function was nationalized to move potential liability from the airlines (who contracted with the organizations operating airports, who contracted with private security firms) when they complained about the potential liability for security failure in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Re: The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

#39
post #35

I wonder how autonomous driving will affect shorter flight commutes. I'll probably never take a car from Philadelphia to LA, but I might prefer to travel by car from Philadelphia to Chicago if I know that I can sleep throughout the car ride (as well as leave whenever is most convenient). When you take into account driving to the airport, checking bags, security, flight delays, baggage claim, and rental cars/driving t…

I wonder why so many people immediately jump to thinking about a car as an alternative to short distance air travel. Would people in the US never even consider a fast train system as a good option between Philadelphia and Chicago? (If it were built, of course. But self-driving cars need to be built too. But I guess they're easier; I'm just dreaming)

Good point. I'd love if we had high speed rails in the US. I'd take it over a car everyday.

Re: The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

#40

I wonder how autonomous driving will affect shorter flight commutes. I'll probably never take a car from Philadelphia to LA, but I might prefer to travel by car from Philadelphia to Chicago if I know that I can sleep throughout the car ride (as well as leave whenever is most convenient). When you take into account driving to the airport, checking bags, security, flight delays, baggage claim, and rental cars/driving t…

This is already happening for me when I travel between SF and LA. There's a bunch of bus routes that offer WiFi and operate through the night.

Why would I fly when I could get on a bus at midnight and then wake up in LA at 7AM? When flying, sometimes my time spent in security is literally longer than my time in air. And that's not even taking cost into account, you can do $40-50 round trip on Greyhound vs. ~$140 for a flight.

Post reply on HN