This is true of almost every government entity.
This is true of almost every entity.
The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation
51–60 of 120 posts
Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation
#52HN has quite an anti-TSA bias. The TSA has problems, but so does every large organization. I suspect HN'ers glare at the TSA because they travel frequently, and it would benefit them disproportionately to cut down on travel time and inconvenience. This is like the trucking lobby arguing for fewer restrictions on driver safety--the perspective is not exactly objective.
The Economist had a debate about the TSA and it was overwhelming opposed to the TSA.
http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/225
I'm not sure if this is bias as simply, for those educated on the matter, the evidence is pretty decisive.
Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation
#53See Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bur... In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
also, John Gall's Systemantics - First Principles - : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics
'Once a system is set up to solve some problem, the system itself is new entity which engenders new problems relating the development, operations, and maintenance of that system'
Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation
#54Now why isn't this sort of thing talked about during campaigns?
Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation
#55While the TSA is messed up and all that, Americans shouldn't be too quick to turn to private companies. Private companies would be profit focused, this means that any way to minimise costs will be taken which may compromise security. I give you Blackwater in Iraq as a good example
You trust a private corporation to strap you to a flying hunk of metal, but not to ensure your safety? Sounds logical..
It's perfectly logical. The power to search and detain me isn't one I'd like private corporations to have.
Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does that prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say. No, really, it's not. Of prevented terror attacks since 9/11, TSA has prevented exactly 0% of them. The shoe bomber was on the plane with the bomb when he was subdued by fellow passengers. The underwear bomber also made it o…
One could make the counter argument that some terrorists are discouraged by the difficulty and no longer try. For example, how many plane bombings have their been since Lockerbie? None. Does that mean that we should stop inspecting luggage? Probably not.
> One could make the counter argument that some terrorists are discouraged by the difficulty and no longer try.
Well, let me know if you actually get around to making the argument. In the meantime, consider the basic economics of an attack as laid out by someone else: If the other passengers on the flight realise that you're up to something, every single one of them has a clear motive to take you on in the fight to the death. Hi-jacking a plane has gotten orders of magnitude more difficult after 9/11.
> For example, how many plane bombings have their been since Lockerbie? None. Does that mean that we should stop inspecting luggage? Probably not.
Good thing, then, that the suggestion on the table is a return to pre-9/11 security, not abolishing it.
EDIT: pre-9/11 security, plus the few things we've realised actually makes sense - such as reinforced, locking cockpit doors.
Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that there is no objective evidence that the TSA's airport security checkpoints benefit anyone; there is more evidence that the checkpoints actually put us in danger. There is also the matter of having my tax dollars poured into such a dubious program while simultaneously being siphoned away from non-secretive programs that benefit everyone.
Actually, there is some evidence of benefit: there has not been a successful terrorist attack on a US commercial aircraft since the TSA was formed. Is that evidence good enough to say that the TSA is effective? Not really; terrorist attacks could have declined for other reasons. The only way to be sure of the effectiveness of the TSA would be to keep relaxing TSA restrictions until a terrorist successfully attacks a…
I would be more worried about someone bombing the security line at a major airport than about bombing a plane. I would also worry about the access to glass in an airport -- ask any prisoner if you are wondering why.
"the only alternative is to over-protect to some degree"
You are still assuming that the TSA's airport checkpoint program is protecting us at all, which I would say is a dubious claim at best. Locking the cockpit doors on an airplane is a good measure. Putting an armed guard on certain high-value target flights is a reasonable measure, although I would be a bit concerned about a clever terrorist's ability to identify the guard and take his weapon. Screening luggage for bombs is reasonable, although I think an airport is just as good of a target for bombing as an airplane would be, so I am not sure how much good it does.
The checkpoints, however, are next to useless for security. There is an endless supply of things that can be turned into weapons on the other side of a security checkpoint, and you don't have to be an evil mastermind to find them. They even let you bring dangerous items through the checkpoint, like the 9-cell lithium-ion battery in my laptop (would you want to be on an airplane where someone punctured or ignited such a battery?) -- for that matter, the laptop itself, which has lots of sharp aluminum inside and which could be disassembled fair easily.
What the checkpoints do is to remind people that they are not in charge and that their rights mean nothing at the airport. I had this experience myself, twice. First, I was told that I could had to wait over 10 minutes to receive a pat-down after refusing to walk into a scanner, and that I would not be allowed to use the metal detector that just opened -- all the while, my luggage was left on the other side for anyone to steal. The second time, my teammate who traveled with me tried to take a video recording of the pat-down procedure, and the guard stopped (but did not allow me to put my arms down), claiming that it was necessary for security to not let a video be taken (but when I pointed out that there were literally dozens of people watching from the waiting area ten feet away, his eyes glazed over -- he was just reciting the line some superior had told him to recite). These are not measures that enhance security, but they certainly are a psychological attack; I doubt they are carefully planned attacks, but rather they are an intended consequence of giving people who have absolutely no training in security or threat mitigation the power to make decisions at a security checkpoint.
Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation
#58HN has quite an anti-TSA bias. The TSA has problems, but so does every large organization. I suspect HN'ers glare at the TSA because they travel frequently, and it would benefit them disproportionately to cut down on travel time and inconvenience. This is like the trucking lobby arguing for fewer restrictions on driver safety--the perspective is not exactly objective.
The Economist had a debate about the TSA and it was overwhelming opposed to the TSA. http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/225 I'm not sure if this is bias as simply, for those educated on the matter, the evidence is pretty decisive.
Well, readers of the Economist are likely better aquatinted with the TSA than the average person. They are also significantly better educated, and better equipped for rejecting the essentially emotional arguments in favour of, and accepting the logical arguments against.
Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation
#59I flew yesterday and found a rifle bullet+cartridge on the "secure" side of the TSA checkpoint. Yet somehow the gift-wrapped paperbacks in my checked luggage were deemed suspicious and unwrapped. Useless fools.
You know, it's not entirely unreasonable that someone could package a bomb to look like a gift-wrapped paperback. So if their technology can't distinguish your book from a potential explosive via X-rays alone, it may have to get opened. Explosives detection results in false alarms, unfortunately, but as far as I know most countries do it and it rarely results in such inconvenience to passengers.
The rifle cartridge is obviously on their contraband list, so it should have been caught. Someone probably brought it through accidentally. .22 LR?