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

TSA: Fail

gmancasefile.blogspot.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 121 posts

Re: TSA: Fail

#41

Post by wmblaettler »

joelmichael wrote: post #31

Does he really think potential terrorists or criminals are going to hijack a plane using toothbrushes or popsicle sticks? The purpose of the TSA is to screen all passengers for real threats like guns, blades, and most of all, bombs. He says there was no outcry over the backscatters. That's just out of touch; it was all over the Internet and even major news media back around November of 2010. Liberals and conservative…

You are really missing the point. All of this is security theater. It will not catch people who want to exploit weaknesses. The 9/11 hijackers used boxcutters, not much different than a shiv as he describes.

The problem with "outcry" in the US is that it is short lived and most people have short attention spans. Now that the media "furor" has died down, things will progress forward as the powers-that-be wish.

I just flew round trip, BWI-SJO, was directed toward a backscatter machine and opted out. I was treated rather rudely at BWI and had to stand around until a 'male assist' or whatever they called the person that had to pat me down. The whole ordeal made me feel guilty of something when I had done nothing wrong.

I oppose backscatters on multiple fronts. Health, invasion of privacy, corrupt contracts, general ineffectiveness, etc.

Re: TSA: Fail

#42

Post by nitrogen »

joelmichael wrote: post #31

Does he really think potential terrorists or criminals are going to hijack a plane using toothbrushes or popsicle sticks? The purpose of the TSA is to screen all passengers for real threats like guns, blades, and most of all, bombs. He says there was no outcry over the backscatters. That's just out of touch; it was all over the Internet and even major news media back around November of 2010. Liberals and conservative…

...my plane...

Are you a pilot? If so, I'd like to hear more about the subject of the TSA from your perspective.

If not, consider that those of us who might prefer to travel with a slightly higher risk for significantly greater convenience have just as much right to call a plane "ours."

Re: TSA: Fail

#43

Post by twoodfin »

jasonkolb wrote: post #35
ot wrote: post #23

I don't really buy the argument "TSA has never [...] foiled a terrorist plot or stopped an attack on an airliner.": it could be argued that the TSA measures act as an effective deterrent. A stronger argument could be to show that in none of the countries that do not adopt TSA-like measures there have been any terrorist attempts, let alone successful. How easy would it be to board in, say, Mexico or Canada, and hijack…

As he said in the article, if they HAD stopped someone, that someone would have been charged with a crime. Where are the charges?

That's a fairly naive argument. My local bank discourages potential robbers with armed guards, alarms, and a locked vault. Just because they've never charged anyone with bank robbery doesn't mean those measures didn't prevent potential robbers from deciding to become actual robbers.

It's really not any better than the argument that of course the TSA keeps away terrorists and tigers because there haven't been any hijackings or tiger maulings on airplanes since they took over.

Re: TSA: Fail

#44

Post by tmhedberg »

joelmichael wrote: post #31

Does he really think potential terrorists or criminals are going to hijack a plane using toothbrushes or popsicle sticks? The purpose of the TSA is to screen all passengers for real threats like guns, blades, and most of all, bombs. He says there was no outcry over the backscatters. That's just out of touch; it was all over the Internet and even major news media back around November of 2010. Liberals and conservative…

This kept backscatters from being deployed for the most part; have you ever seen one?

I don't fly very frequently, but my understanding is that nearly all airports in the US now have them. Is this incorrect?

Nobody likes waiting in line or taking off their shoes. But I'd much rather do that than let people get onto my plane with explosives. Forget patriotism, it's a matter of your own personal safety.

The problem with the TSA's procedures has little to do with the minor inconvenience of taking off your shoes. It's about the bigger picture: the extreme reaction to an infinitesimal threat. Even daily activities like driving involve a far greater risk to your well-being than the threat of airline terrorism. If we're not suffering from crippling fear of the mundane but far more significant threats we face in our everyday lives, why do we allow this one far-fetched threat to literally terrorize us into giving up our basic rights and sacrificing billions of public dollars for the "privilege" of participating in air transit? The spectacular violence of a single event 11 years in the past has sent us into a downward spiral in which fear is increasingly winning out over logic and rationality.

There have been no successful terrorist attacks on US flights in the decade since 9/11. And none of the failed attempts were foiled by the TSA; they were foiled by the foolish incompetence of the attackers and the permanently heightened vigilance of the public. For every carry-on item that the TSA can prohibit, "the terrorists" can come up with 100 more that aren't even checked for in the screening process. It's a hopeless losing battle. Like the author says, the holes in the screening process simply cannot be closed unless everyone is required to fly naked and handcuffed.

In short, your personal safety when on board an airplane is not significantly improved by the ridiculous security theater that surrounds the boarding process. So why bother with it at all? Why inconvenience millions of innocent travelers, trample on their rights, and throw piles of money down the toilet just so that people can feel that "something is being done"?

Re: TSA: Fail

#45

Post by twoodfin »

ot wrote: post #23

I don't really buy the argument "TSA has never [...] foiled a terrorist plot or stopped an attack on an airliner.": it could be argued that the TSA measures act as an effective deterrent. A stronger argument could be to show that in none of the countries that do not adopt TSA-like measures there have been any terrorist attempts, let alone successful. How easy would it be to board in, say, Mexico or Canada, and hijack…

> How easy would it be to board in, say, Mexico or Canada, and hijack the flight to the US?

Arguably harder than it would have been before 9/11, as the U.S. has insisted on security standards for flights destined for American airports. That's why you frequently have to go through an additional gate security check at a European airport when flying to the U.S.

Re: TSA: Fail

#46

Post by willyt »

twoodfin wrote: post #45
ot wrote: post #23

I don't really buy the argument "TSA has never [...] foiled a terrorist plot or stopped an attack on an airliner.": it could be argued that the TSA measures act as an effective deterrent. A stronger argument could be to show that in none of the countries that do not adopt TSA-like measures there have been any terrorist attempts, let alone successful. How easy would it be to board in, say, Mexico or Canada, and hijack…

> How easy would it be to board in, say, Mexico or Canada, and hijack the flight to the US? Arguably harder than it would have been before 9/11, as the U.S. has insisted on security standards for flights destined for American airports. That's why you frequently have to go through an additional gate security check at a European airport when flying to the U.S.

Well just hijack a regional Canadian/Mexican/Whatever flight then.

Re: TSA: Fail

#47

Post by javajosh »

joelmichael wrote: post #31

Does he really think potential terrorists or criminals are going to hijack a plane using toothbrushes or popsicle sticks? The purpose of the TSA is to screen all passengers for real threats like guns, blades, and most of all, bombs. He says there was no outcry over the backscatters. That's just out of touch; it was all over the Internet and even major news media back around November of 2010. Liberals and conservative…

> Does he really think potential terrorists or criminals are going to hijack a plane using toothbrushes or popsicle sticks?

Yes. Actually there's an interesting connection with a recent HN article about how space missions are being severely hampered by an irrational aversion to the risk of loss of human life. In the same way, someone with a sharpened stick holding it at the throat of an innocent woman could very well lead to the hijacking of a plane because the people in the situation may very well consider doing "anything" to save that one life. Hollywood, and all that.

> Nobody likes waiting in line or taking off their shoes.

This is one reason why you may deserve some downvoting - this is a classic straw-man argument, and minimizes the true root of the problem: we have a vast, faceless beauracracy that seriously messes with millions of Americans (and foreigners!) for no good purpose. This is a serious problem, and minimizing it like this won't earn you any influence.

P.S. I disagree with the parent comment, and yet I upvoted it because it is cogently argued, if wrong.

Re: TSA: Fail

#48

Post by glesica »

afterburner wrote: post #25

"I am stunned, quite frankly, that the same people who fought against the Patriot Act because it was invasive and violated privacy rights have not howled about this invasion of personal privacy rights." Say what? I see the same people railing against both, all the time.

I think he's referring to politicians more than private citizens. A portion of the Democratic party, after voting for the PATRIOT Act, spent the last 4-6 years of Bush's time in office speaking out against it. But TSA has generally maintained strong support.

I'm not 100% sure that this is all true, but it is my own impression and, I suspect, the author's as well.

Re: TSA: Fail

#50

Post by glesica »

ot wrote: post #23

I don't really buy the argument "TSA has never [...] foiled a terrorist plot or stopped an attack on an airliner.": it could be argued that the TSA measures act as an effective deterrent. A stronger argument could be to show that in none of the countries that do not adopt TSA-like measures there have been any terrorist attempts, let alone successful. How easy would it be to board in, say, Mexico or Canada, and hijack…

On the other hand, there have been numerous attempted terrorist attacks on planes in the United States. All of them have been foiled without assistance from TSA, even the ones that weren't stopped until the would-be terrorist was on the airplane.

This isn't proof that TSA hasn't stopped any attacks. You could be correct that fear of the TSA has stopped terrorists from trying, or trying as often. However, given that there have been actual attempts and TSA has failed to foil any of them, it seems doubtful.

Post reply on HN