The aircraft attack vector has already been played out. Lets keep sane regulations in place (metal detectors, armored/locked cockpit doors), and move on to better problems to solve.
If dangerous is present at any moment in time, what do we do? How can we reduce searchable threats? Can we do a scan on entrance to and exit from airport lobby?
Sometimes, there is nothing more that you can do. Accept the risk and move on.
If there is only a 40% of a chance that a driver given a ticket will drive safer, then there is a 40% more likely for any individual to survive while crossing the street so we continue to issue traffic ticket.
If kids are 40% more likely to avoid smoking by educating them, we will do it.
If there is a 40% chance you will be saved from a gun shot tomorrow because of more effective, stricter gun control, you probably would support it.
If there is a 10% chance a solider will live after a brain injury, the EMT and doctors will attempt to save his life.
If we all say "well let's fuck it because we will all die", why do we even bother to save life? Why EMT? Just fuck the injuries and let them die. That's your logic. That's the logic we get: survival of fitness.
So, let's accept out ultimate risk that we will all die and let's move on and forget about safety. Just because we can't have a 100% success rate.
While the TSA cargo and individual inspection is not very effective, it makes an attack with bomb a few percents harder. It might open up other avenues (e.g. massive shooting at the waiting line) but we can't lose a few percents because tomorrow when shit happens, and when your loved one is dead, you'd be joining the army and shoot those mother fucker out. And then you will come out and say "I wish I had those stupid TSA did their job".
That doesn't make it a good idea.
There's always a cost and in this case (TSA or moving to the Moon) it's a ridiculously high one to pay for marginal protection against an unlikely event.
The conclusion that an attack is unlikely to happen is based on what? Can we do a fair experiment to show what would the probability be like if we never implemented this TSA inspection vs after implementing this TSA inspection?
Should we conduct such experiment and watch an alert (or wait until another plan gets hijacked)?
Okay. I need a new solution. What is the solution? I don't need a "we will die let's move on solution" because this is not a solution. If this is were a solution, we don't need law enforcement.
At some point the damage by TSA surpassed the expected damage from the alleged threat.
Airline terrorism plays against people's innate fears, and is therefore more effective.
yet we caught at least two people trying to blow up airplanes in the last ten years (shoe bomber and underwear bomber), why is that? why don't they just shoot up a grade school or a supermarket? (I'm asking honestly here. why airplanes?)
Grade schools wouldn't have the same impact because the control is more localized. There's no federal Education Security Administration imposing gropefests everywhere in response to Newtown. Some schools and places will overreact, but a small proportion.
It's not as cinematic as 9/11, but if you're looking to hurt the US, it's a pretty good choice.
Glad I don't - otherwise I would be a terrorist :( HOLY SHIT
I think you have made a good point that others are ignoring. Surely TSA scan is not very effective, but what the heck else do we do?
* intel is too powerful, stupid PRISM is hurting everyone's privacy
* TSA is destroying privacy
* I don't know what else to do
What else do we do? I am constantly afraid of someone hijacking my flight.
Let's not give them any ideas...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call_...
I think we're ultimately better served by the latter approach.
Four planes were hi-jacked. Three of those did not know that the outcome was to crash the plane into a building. But one did, and (as far as we know) the people aboard prevented that.
If the American people would simply have been informed that terrorists didn't want to steal planes, but instead fly them into target then 9/11 would have turned out very differently. And we know this because we have proof.
The solution to this threat was dispelling the notion "getting hijacked means a short vacation to Cuba" and replacing it with "getting hijacked means that I get to kick a terrorist's face in".
This solution was implemented and successfully tested on the morning of 9/11/2001.
Elements of various intelligence community agencies were aware of a 9/11-style plot and were aware of the hijackers' existence within the United States. If these existing agencies had worked together and done their job, 9/11 might never have happened.
All without anyone removing their belts, frisking grandma, or having to stand like a perp in a county lock-up.
I've no issue with restructuring TSA or whatnot, I just think that if people could get on airplanes the way they do buses, there'd be events. Not so much 9/11 style hijackings, more like the occasional pipe bomb or shooting.
Good way to cover up the fact that there's no consistency in the organization.
I fail to see how someone couldn't just bomb the lines with the exact same effect you're describing above.
I'd much rather prefer volunteering to use a private company's services freely without force or coercion, and risk dying randomly, then be harassed and embarrassed and risk dying randomly.
If your goal, as a terrorist organization, was to economically wound an industry while killing as many individuals as possible... you really couldn't ask for a better target than dozens (if not hundreds) of people standing around waiting to get through airport security.
Clearly, the solution is to have some pre-security security checks. /s
When they think about using an airplane. When someone thinks about travelling, the TSA will locate and travel to them, and direct the citizen through their thought crime machine. If you refuse, then the TSA strip search you and inspect your orifices in public, which will also be the next step from private rooms. /s
Security is a feeling. Also, there are events and odds. The events and odds don't make me feel like policy is needed for me to feel safe travelling IMO. What happens happens. If someone tries to logically attempt to cast blame upon a party for something like a bombing for not preemptively stopping it, then I'll just point to the math surrounding the TSA. IT MAKES NO SENSE.
That said, you're right. But lines, inspections, and "lists", are largerly unnecessary. You have guards walking around, and a federal agent on each plane.
All that I'm saying, is that I'd rather not have to subsidise security for air travel. Let the market sort it out.
I don't see how guards walking around could have much of an impact. if they aren't looking in my bag, I can have anything in there, and once in the confined environment of a plane, I can do a lot before any air marshal shuts it down.
Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror. Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.
The difference being? I'm sorry. Wasn't the Boston terrorist attack not on a plane? Didn't that kill people. In my opinion terror is an emotion, and people can feel that in a variety of situations depending on who they are. Killing a bunch of people, as an event, rarely happens.
So why do you want to force and coerce me? This isn't a libertarian v. socialist argument. It's a libertarian v. authoritarian argument. Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way?
No offense, but that's no way to live IMO. I'd much rather take the risk. I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us. But for now there's only one solution: That of political theatre.
Please don't get offended as I'm not attacking you, just bad policy. If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here. You can definitely make a point in that most people don't care either way, but I'd like to think that a majority of people who are interested in terrorism (lol NSA) from a philosophical see policy like this authoritarian at best, and evil and conspiratorial at worst.
> Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.
Source? Again, terror is a vague definition of an emotion which is dependent on internal characteristics and machinations of each individual who knows the word and feels emotion. I'd love to see their parameters for that word.
That said, I'm sorry if we disagree that air travel needs to be so tightly regulated. I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective. I can definitely do the same for my end, by directing you to this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/
Regulation can be a little bad for history. While 1970's regs sound pretty scary (I'll have to check that stat out myself), 2000 sounds better than now...
not really, no, this seems like you're responding to something else here.
> I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us.
how exactly, I'd pick one airport and you'd pick another ? I'm not sure that's very practical in many situations.
> If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here.
I know how they feel, the TSA is an offensive, incompetent and heavy handed group, combating a so called "issue" that in reality is not an issue at all. The HN community looks at issues in a statistical fashion - terrorist attacks kill extremely few people, so there's really no reason anyone should care about them, slipping in the shower is a much greater hazard. If only the rest of the world could think like they do, nobody would care about terrorism and it would just go away. I look forward to when that comes to fruition.
> I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective.
Well I'm not speaking from any authoritative background here but I'd guess that the average US traveler would prefer there be some level of airport screening (probably not at the crazy levels we have at the moment with the TSA) not for any sociological or philosophical viewpoint but probably more like a "hey can't someone sneak a bomb onto the plane here?" kind of standpoint - which sure is informed by the media and all that, and statistically is an insignificant threat, but there you go. (so perhaps the psychological perspective is the primary mechanism at play here).
As things stand now, the only way I'm going into the US is from Montreal down into Vermont. Any other way seems to sketchy to me.
In my country of Canada, flying from place to place within the country only requires walking past guards that don't do anything to you at the gate, and metal detectors. I haven't flown to different countries, so I'm sure I'm being too idealistic and naive on this subject, especially in terms of actual policy.
Eh, concert ticket queues, malls, the line for the actual TSA.
Plenty of opportunities outside of airline related things, and I don't see anything about your local mall foodcourt getting hit. My person wasn't fondled the last time I got some Panda Express.
Of course not- it wasn't formed until after the attacks.