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

The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 120 posts

Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation

#61

Post by mahyarm »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #23

Why do people accept this reality when talking about the TSA, but not other government agencies? All government agencies are like this, especially the Federal ones.

The TSA is a pet issue of the upper-middle class because they annoy and harass them frequently and they are an easy and relatively safe way to push back against a police style authority. They're a figurehead of what was lost after 9/11.

The TSA is also an obvious waste. They aren't that much different before hand although, their function were covered by a hodgepodge of regulations usually dictated by the FAA and private airport security employed at airports US wide.

The upper-middle class tends to set the agenda for the media in general. They're also the archetype of what are depicted in TV shows and so on. Why the recent school shooting became a national outrage is probably because they were a middle class school. The death toll also added to it.

Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation

#62

Post by codex »

mseebach wrote: post #56
codex wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Blowing up a plane by embedding a bomb in a body cavity is still plenty easy post 9/11. The terrorist need only head into the restroom and detonate the bomb under the cover of privacy. Bomb making technology and the willingness to be martyred in a plane attack have increased since 9/11. This is the type of attack that full body scanners attempt to prevent.

EDIT: Witness new body cavity scanners on the horizon: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-fi...

Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation

#63

Post by ScottBurson »

mseebach wrote: post #56
codex wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> Hi-jacking a plane has gotten orders of magnitude more difficult after 9/11.

Yes. It's important to remember that pre-9/11, the standard expectation was that in a hijacking, passengers would be hostages, not victims. As such, people were specifically instructed not to intervene. That's clearly out the window now.

Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation

#64

Post by aqme28 »

codex wrote: post #39
betterunix wrote: post #28

Earlier 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…

That is 100% not evidence of benefit at all.

After a single bear wandering into town has drawn an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!” Lisa sees through his reasoning: “That’s specious reasoning, dad.” Homer, misunderstanding the word “specious”, thanks her for the compliment. Optimistically, she tries to explain the error in his argument: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer is confused: “Hmm; how does it work?” Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!” Homer: “Uh-huh.” Lisa: “… but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?” Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock…”

Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation

#65

Post by mikeash »

cdooh wrote: post #22
mikeash wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Security is already highly compromised, and apparently isn't too necessary.

I'd rather have a public entity than a private entity with poor oversight

I was merely addressing the idea that privatization would compromise security, not making any commentary on the general preferability of the two.

Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation

#67

Post by mseebach »

codex wrote: post #62
mseebach wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Blowing up a plane by embedding a bomb in a body cavity is still plenty easy post 9/11. The terrorist need only head into the restroom and detonate the bomb under the cover of privacy. Bomb making technology and the willingness to be martyred in a plane attack have increased since 9/11. This is the type of attack that full body scanners attempt to prevent. EDIT: Witness new body cavity scanners on the horizon: http:/…

No, millimeter-wave scanners do not penetrate the skin, so they're ineffective against that type of attack.

Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation

#68

Post by drzaiusapelord »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #3

See 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.

This is why these hit pieces are completely unfair to the TSA. Just about every organization becomes self-preserving as its primary function. Government and non-profit are the most obvious but the bureaucracy of for-profit companies and even individual divisions inside of those companies follow the same rules.

I was just looking over the recent Android handsets via tmobile and was shocked at the nightmare of tacked-on apps and other carrier garbage on them. All these divisions in t-mobile are trying to justify their existence by dropping various apps on the handsets like music managers, music stores, t-mobile tv, AV, security, etc etc. No one wants or needs these and the few that do will find them in the play store.

Look at well run companies like Apple or Google. The iphone and the Nexus have none of this junk. I imagine their corporate culture is a lot less bureaucratic than that of a carrier like tmobile.

>in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself.

I like to think Apple and Google are the former and carriers in the latter.

Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation

#69

Post by forgotAgain »

jasonkolb wrote: post #54

Now why isn't this sort of thing talked about during campaigns?

Because campaigns are run for the good of the candidate, not the good of the country or the people. If the campaign thought that promising to fix the TSA would be a net positive to attaining their goal of winning the election then they would do so.

The same analysis explains why very few important issues are discussed, and why even then, they are spoken of in a series of talking points previously gauged to insure a net positive result.

Re: The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation

#70

Post by codex »

aqme28 wrote: post #64
codex wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is 100% not evidence of benefit at all. After a single bear wandering into town has drawn an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!” Lisa sees through his reasoning: “That’s specious reasoning, dad.” Homer, misunderstanding the word “specious”, thanks her for the compliment. Optimistically, she trie…

Did you read the second paragraph, where I make this same point?
Post reply on HN