Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 267 posts

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

#51

Post by mikeash »

two2two wrote: post #29

TSA is the number one reason why I don't fly and drive instead. From my POV most of the world's industries have progressed positively, but not air travel. I took a train a couple of years ago and it was a beautiful example of old merging with new. Walking through an antique of a train station, iPhone in hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant. At that point I realized that air travel is by f…

I like the idea of an "at your own risk" option, but it'll never happen. Since 9/11, a large part of the purpose of airport security is to protect uninvolved people on the ground (or at least in tall buildings), not just passengers. We can certainly debate whether that's necessary or useful (I'd argue that we could do far less than we currently do), but I don't think you'll ever get the public to agree to allowing airline flights with no security screening, even if you can convince everyone to take a libertarian approach to it.

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

#52

Post by reacweb »

TSA is not a very important issue, but politicians love to discuss about this kind of issues where they can show their talent without hurting their sponsors. It is a good way to distract public from the more important issues (economy, unemployment, privacy, ...).

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

#53

Post by ecopoesis »

avn2109 wrote: post #28
rhino369 wrote: 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…

All those problems you mention are real, but they're not the main problem. The real problem with the TSA is that it's explicitly unconstitutional, since the 4th amendment explicitly prohibits search and seizure without a warrant. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon…

Buying a plane ticket implies a consent to search.

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

#54

Post by Dayshine »

avn2109 wrote: post #28
rhino369 wrote: 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…

All those problems you mention are real, but they're not the main problem. The real problem with the TSA is that it's explicitly unconstitutional, since the 4th amendment explicitly prohibits search and seizure without a warrant. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon…

Huh?

Surely an organisation (i.e. an airline, an airport) can enforce searches as part of the conditions of travel.

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

#55

Post by rhino369 »

Retric wrote: post #9
rhino369 wrote: 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…

I am not convinced you need more security for aircraft than a bus. As long as there is a solid wall between pilots and passengers, the worst a passenger could do would be to take down an aircraft which is much harder than you might assume.

>As long as there is a solid wall between pilots and passengers, the worst a passenger could do would be to take down an aircraft which is much harder than you might assume.

This is a pretty bad worst case scenario! That really only prevents a kamikaze scenario. Most terrorism against airplanes has been either blowing it up or hijacking for hostages.

Blowing up an airplane is a solved problem. It's been done many times.

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

#56

Post by ssmoot »

pc86 wrote: post #43
two2two wrote: post #29

TSA is the number one reason why I don't fly and drive instead. From my POV most of the world's industries have progressed positively, but not air travel. I took a train a couple of years ago and it was a beautiful example of old merging with new. Walking through an antique of a train station, iPhone in hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant. At that point I realized that air travel is by f…

The problem is that it's not "at your own risk," it's "at your own risk and the risk of anything that might happen to be underneath you at any point on the journey, or within range of your fuel tanks." Not that I'm a fan of the TSA by any stretch, but that's a pretty grievous misunderstanding of the root issue.

My wife drove up to a private jet this morning. Got on. Took off. No TSA.

Holding the "pleebs" to a higher standard than the rich is unconscionable IMO.

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

#57

Post by pc86 »

Domenic_S wrote: post #26

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.

Based on my numerous but infrequent interactions with front-line TSA staff, the qualifications seem to include "passing familiarity with the English language" and "a confusing mix of hostility and apathy."

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

#58

Post by lisper »

rhino369 wrote: post #32
lisper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 invo…

> If you could just walk onto a plane with a gun, people would do it again.

No, they wouldn't. In the 70's the unwritten rule was: you hijack the plane, land it, make your demands, get your TV time, and then you surrender (or get away) but no one gets hurt. It is only because of that unwritten rule that you could get away with it because everyone assumed that the best route to survival was to cooperate with the hijacker.

All that changed on 9-11. Cooperating is no longer seen as a viable option, and so if you try to hijack a plane you can expect the passengers and crew to put up a fight. At best you can bring down the plane. But you won't get your TV time, which is what most hajackers really want.

Actually, you don't even need to look at the track record on airplanes. The TSA, by making everyone stand in line, is creating a nice soft target just outside the security zone. Any terrorist who wanted to make the headlines would set off a bomb in the TSA line at O'Hare. It would be trivial. The fact that no one has tried it is more evidence that our fear of terrorism is a vastly bigger problem than actual terrorism.

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

#59

Post by CheckHook »

avn2109 wrote: post #28
rhino369 wrote: 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…

All those problems you mention are real, but they're not the main problem. The real problem with the TSA is that it's explicitly unconstitutional, since the 4th amendment explicitly prohibits search and seizure without a warrant. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon…

It's not like the TSA is stopping people on the street, it's an agreement, if you want to enter the airport then volunteer for the search.

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

#60

Post by pc86 »

ssmoot wrote: post #56
pc86 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that it's not "at your own risk," it's "at your own risk and the risk of anything that might happen to be underneath you at any point on the journey, or within range of your fuel tanks." Not that I'm a fan of the TSA by any stretch, but that's a pretty grievous misunderstanding of the root issue.

My wife drove up to a private jet this morning. Got on. Took off. No TSA. Holding the "pleebs" to a higher standard than the rich is unconscionable IMO.

1. GA is not limited to the rich. Once you're at about the median US income (or 1/3 of what an SV developer makes, give or take), it is within reach. Slightly more than that and it's starts approaching "affordable," especially as a hobby and not a means of transportation.

2. Money buys you things. By definition people with more money will not be burdened by the same things as those with less.

Post reply on HN