Vanity Fair On the TSA and Security Theater 256
OverTheGeicoE writes "Perhaps it's now officially cool to criticize the TSA. Vanity Fair has a story questioning the true value of TSA security. The story features Bruce Schneier, inventor of the term 'security theater' and contender for the Most Interesting Man in the World title, it would seem. With Schneier's mentoring, the author allegedly doctors a boarding pass to breach security at Reagan National Airport to do an interview with Schneier. 'To walk through an airport with Bruce Schneier is to see how much change a trillion dollars can wreak. So much inconvenience for so little benefit at such a staggering cost.'"
Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Informative)
Israels airport security has not been breached since the 70's
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/whats_so_great_about_israeli_security.html [slate.com]
"All passengers waiting to check in speak to a polyglot agent. The agents, most of whom are female, ask a series of questions, looking for nerves or inconsistent statements. While the vast majority of travelers pass the question and answer session and have a pretty easy time going through security"
This method requires competence on the part of the interrogator though, so in effect that leaves out TSA employees.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Interesting)
I have lived in Israel, and went through their vaunted security dozens of times. My own observations led me to suspect this was security theater of a different kind, and my suspicions were later verified by a friend who once worked as one of those security screeners. Their trained goal is to make the passengers think they can't pull one over on the security personnel, and it seems that's enough.
That being said, they do screen baggage very carefully.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Interesting)
I have lived in Israel, and went through their vaunted security dozens of times. My own observations led me to suspect this was security theater of a different kind, and my suspicions were later verified by a friend who once worked as one of those security screeners. Their trained goal is to make the passengers think they can't pull one over on the security personnel, and it seems that's enough.
That being said, they do screen baggage very carefully.
Part of security is intimidation. If you don't think you can breach the defenses and don't try - that's a win. But trying to use Israel as an example of 'how to do' airport security will fail for the simple reason that the Israelis are trying to protect only one large airport (Ben Gurion) - not hundreds of large ones and thousands of smaller ones. Some things just don't scale.
Further, Israeli security is openly racist -if you look Arabic, you're chances of getting most carefully screened is much higher than if you're Caucasian appearing. That wouldn't (so to speak) fly in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
So your point is?
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:4, Funny)
So you can't scale "intimidation"?
We could, but we'd have to import it from the Mexican drug cartels...
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Interesting)
It does strongly prejudice against people who are from and/or have traveled to particular countries
Exactly right. I'm as WASP as they come, and I was pulled aside at Ben Gurion when my passport showed entry visas for Egypt and Jordan. While the questions were very serious, at all times I felt like I was dealing with an intelligent, skilled professional whom I immediately respected. I have no such sense when I'm being barked at by some TSA goon.
Venezuela, then? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard good things about the Venezuelean security screeners (I think it was Venezualean, I heard about it second-hand) ... maybe it was just a single case, and not the way it's all done, but rather than the 'standard 3' we used to get asked (did you pack your own bag, etc.), they'd ask questions like 'What's the color of the inside of your suitcase?'
They were presenting at a conference, and the screener (coming in at customs), asked them to give the presentation to them. If it's someone claiming to be visiting as a tourist, you ask them what hotel they're staying at (and you can check the reservation), and what sites they plan on seeing.
I admit, it's possible to be prepared for all of these questions ... but when they're less predictable (giving the screener the ability to improvise), and it's not just yes/no questions, it's harder to plan for.
Re: (Score:3)
That might work on a woman. Most guys would have no idea. We don't care avout the colour of the outside of our suitcases, much less the inside of them.
The trick here is that they don't actually care what your answer is, it's about *how* you answer. If you're a guy and go "hell if I know" that's fine. If you do that and start getting all panicky, then that tweaks them to probe further. My sister used to work the Canadian side of the Canada-US border. They would employ the same technique. Ask a series of random questions, and if they got a funny feeling about the way someone was answering, they'd wave you over for secondary inspection.
Inefficient? (Score:2)
between 2 percent and 5 percent of travelers get singled out for additional screening. The exact selection criteria aren't publicly available, but ethnicity is probably a consideration [...] Secondary screening can involve hours of questioning. Agents have been known to click through all of a traveler's digital photographs. Body searches are common, and agents usually take luggage apart one item at a time.
This does not sound better. Just racist, inefficient, and highly subjective.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Insightful)
The risk of terrorism is simply not severe enough to warrant that level of investment in security. We will save more lives focusing on clean drinking water, renewable energy, and public health and welfare in general. It would be a lot cheaper too.
If the TSA is ineffective, don't be surprised. It's not intended to be effective. It's intended to be profitable for well connected individuals and corporations. It is quite plainly a fraud on the American people.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Interesting)
This method requires competence on the part of the interrogator though, so in effect that leaves out TSA employees.
And now that they're unionized, good luck with that. When was the last time we saw government voluntarily reduce its size and scope?
The only way this is going to be fixed is by wiping out the whole department. There's a primary coming up a candidate who would do that.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:4, Funny)
And now that they're unionized
What does ionization have to do with it?
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way this is going to be fixed is by wiping out the whole department. There's a primary coming up a candidate who would do that.
I and many of my friends have registered Republican this year, solely so we can vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. (I believe that is what you meant, and wanted to inform those who were unaware.) I also heard on NPR on the way home tonight that Newt Gingrich is basically out of money, and both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have "super-PACs" that are not in their control, which are generating attack ads that Newt will not be able to afford to overcome, so he's effectively out of the running. The gist of that story was that it's a two-way race now, between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul! That is amazing, I always thought he was "fringe", but now he's about to attract some government lead. Too bad, I like his ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Informative)
Israels airport security has not been breached since the 70's
You know what's wrong with Israeli airport security?
Besides the institutionalized racial/ethnic profiling, It doesn't scale up.
Ben Gurion airport handles ~12 million passengers per year
JFK International* in New York handles ~46.5 million passengers per year.
The number 1 airport in the world is Atlanta International and they handle ~89 million passengers per year.
There is no reasonable way to intensively screen 89 million passengers per year
*Adding Newark and LaGuardia gives you the biggest clusterfuck in the USA & #2 in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're telling me is that if you hire 5x the amount of personnel working at Ben Gurion you could not still match the amount of people at JFK? I thought that is exactly how you scale up operations?
Also what's the success failure rate of the screening/security at Ben Gurion vs JFK?
TSA is what, 0 out of X number of preventing/catching anything?
Re: (Score:3)
What part of security screening doesn't scale linearly? Do screening interviews take longer when you have to do more of them? Do you need an increasing number of interviewers for each passenger as the volume increases? Neither of those sound plausible, so what is it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How on earth did Atlanta beat out Newark, JFK, DFW etc? I've had plenty of connections through Miami and Newark (and once through Houston), but never, ever Atlanta.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the fact that Newark, JFK (and LGA) serve GREATLY overlapping populations... that's pretty much a divide by three right there...
then, the big US airlines: AA (hubs Chicago, which has Midway, and DFW, but that's east/west), United (also Chicago, and Denver east/west), and Delta (ATL). So its no surprise that Chicago is at least number two, but it has Midway. ATL is number one...
Re: (Score:2)
>Israels airport security has not been breached since the 70's
Or maybe they have but those very few times have not been reported. There was a discussion someplace (this forum or someplace else) that while their airport security is very good, it is not absolute. The myth goes on like Rolls Royce cars never break down (but spoke with a RR owner and he says his car needs maintenance all the time). Then your airports may be secure but everyplace else is not. So then you have to secure everything then the
Re: (Score:2)
So then you have to secure everything then the country becomes a prison and basically a non-economy.
Have you been paying attention lately? Google "ViPR train station bus station Tennessee highway" and see what you find. Then, turn to the financial section of your local newspaper and read about how our economy has been doing. Can you honestly tell me that the U.S. isn't already there (or at the very least, quickly heading that direction)?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"All passengers waiting to check in speak to a polyglot agent. The agents, most of whom are female, ask a series of questions, looking for nerves or inconsistent statements. While the vast majority of travelers pass the question and answer session and have a pretty easy time going through security"
If I was talking to a hot female Israeli polygamous agent, I'd be pretty flustered and would always get selected for secondary screening - what could I do to be assured of having a body cavity search?
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Informative)
First: Overall security seems better to me in Israel. But experience breeds progress. The U.S. has an abysmal terrorist rate. Should you increase that, the counter terrorists will become better as well. For various reasons i discourage walking that path.
Second: If you carry lot's of gadgets (like me), the check while leaving may take 1+ hours for doing the x-rays alone.
Third: The checks start a lot earlier than the airport.
Fourth: There are good security people and not so good, even in Israel. User experience may vary ;-). Security was more thorough 15 years ago. Seems more relaxed lately.
Fifth: Ask Israeli businessmen what they think about the security people. The don't like them more than their counterparts in the U.S. do.
Sixth: The terrorists already win, when flying becomes more of a burden. Life is a bitch :-(.
Re: (Score:3)
Or settlers coming into your town and torching your houses, cutting down your olive trees or crops, burning your places of worship, or putting up mobile homes on your crop land and claiming it is now part of some foreign country, and knowing that those who perpetrated these acts will never be punished in the same way as you would if you had done those acts.
This doesn't even include wondering if the military of a foreign g
Re: (Score:2)
"All passengers waiting to check in speak to a polyglot agent. The agents, most of whom are female, ask a series of questions, looking for nerves or inconsistent statements. While the vast majority of travelers pass the question and answer session and have a pretty easy time going through security"
I had heard about Israel's security reputation in terms of efficiency while not being too much of a pain in the ass (well, as long as you are not a palestinian I guess). I went there recently so I paid attention and that was certainly true. First of all there was nobody else going through security at that time, so that certainly helped. The guy was friendly but asked pointed questions like: "what's your wife's name?". And I noticed he was focused and paying close attention to my hands as I spoke.
Re: (Score:2)
"...check in speak to a polyglot agent."
None of them understands my Luxembourgish, so I just stick to it and I'm quite fast through the check.
Re: (Score:2)
Well considering CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in relation to the holy land foundation and front for the muslim brotherhood, and has worked hand in hand with the MAS, why anyone would listen to them is beyond me.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation desperately needed. All the cases I've seen of the ACLU stepping in involved racial, religious or other types of profiling that involved profiling for groups not for behavior.
I realize that the ACLU is this conservative bogeyman that's out to prevent the government from doing its job, but let's get serious shall we. There's absolutely no evidence that the sort of profiling that you're suggesting would do anything other than harass innocent civilians for not being white enough.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny. My father always thought of the ACLU as a liberal bogeyman out to prevent the government from doing its job. I was brought up to be objective and observant, and in the intervening years I've concluded that the ACLU is neither liberal nor conservative: they just want to cause trouble. At times the trouble makes sense, and at times it does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the GP meant that it was a bogeymen to the conservatives, not a bogeyman that was conservative? Or is that how you took it?
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
let alone the fact that there is only one entry point into Israel via air. you want to see people bitch about delays during flights...
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between profiling someone that's acting really weird at an airport and profiling someone by assuming that, for instance, they're Hispanic and therefore should have their immigration status checked anytime they come into contact with a police officer.
If there's reasonable suspicion I'm all for investigation. What I'm not all for, for instance, is assuming that every woman wearing a hijab is a potential terrorist and thus warrants investigation based on that fact alone.
Reasonable suspicion is a grey area, I admit, but that's what the courts are for. The courts have emphatically upheld that simply being of a certain minority is not a valid reason to suspect they are breaking the law. Despite what you may hear as of late, all Muslims are not terrorists.
Why do people never learn? Go read up on Manzanar and the Japanese Internment during World War II. That is the road profiling leads us down. They thought they were doing things in the best interests of the U.S. and its security, too...but it was still wrong, and we can all agree on that (I would hope).
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but they live directly adjacent to everybody who wants to kill them (and, in the immortal words of Tome Lehrer - "...and everybody hates the Jews"). We're separated from them by a ocean on each side.
Not that it matters; I haven't heard of security screenings preventing a bomb from getting aboard a US aircraft, and yet we've had several bombs on them since 2001. Luckily, the passengers now understand that the "sit quietly and we'll land in Cuba and be home in a couple days" paradigm for hijacking is no longer valid. If a passenger gets rowdy, you take him down or you might die. And, so far, it's working pretty well.
A simple metal detector and carry-on x-ray is all that is necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, the passengers now understand that the "sit quietly and we'll land in Cuba and be home in a couple days" paradigm for hijacking is no longer valid. If a passenger gets rowdy, you take him down or you might die.
Yeah, it's not like there's no precedence [wikipedia.org] for this sort of thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there is [wikipedia.org]. You have to remember that the incident you link to above was over in like 2 minutes before anyone could react, but the hijackings to Cuba were continual and on the TV over and over and over again, so the default "hijacking" scenario was the plane goes to Cuba and then everyone gets released.
It was common enough that it was considered a normal thing to put on the TV [orangecow.org] as a sketch comedy skit.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's not like there's no precedence for this sort of thing.
rant
/rant
And it's not like there's no precedents [reference.com] on slashdot for misusing precedence [reference.com]. How many times does someone have to point this out before people start using the correct word?
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:4, Insightful)
Luckily, the passengers now understand that the "sit quietly and we'll land in Cuba and be home in a couple days" paradigm for hijacking is no longer valid.
This and the locked/reinforced cockpit doors are all that is necessary to prevent 9/11 from happening again.
9/11 wasn't a bomb plot so all this attempt to stop everything possible is simply ridiculous.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:4, Informative)
I would add chemical sniffer to that list. It's another fairly cheap, non-invasive test that detects most of what a metal detector wouldn't. Actually between the two, the chemical sniffer is probably more valuable than the metal detector since metal detectors primarily detect things you could use to take over a plane (as you pointed out, there is a fat chance in hell that will ever happen again), where as the sniffer will detect things that could destroy a plane.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:4, Informative)
And it scales well to all three of their international airports.
TLV handles 12M visitors a year (11M of them are international).
If they can make it work at a large airport of that scale, surely a country with the resources of the USA could figure out how to scale it to all of our large airports. There's still plenty of opportunity for ex-TSA execs to get rich, it's just that they would run agent training companies instead of selling scanning machines of dubious effectiveness and safety.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:4, Funny)
the USA could figure out how to scale it to all of our large airports.
Simple. We outsource airport security to Israel.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that their airport security model is superior, and maybe it can scale to large airports in the USA, but if we have dozens of airports with more traffic than their busiest airport, scaling is very far from a simple task.
Source [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Although 12 million is certainly a large number, the US has many more travelers than that. In 2009, Atlanta's airport had something like 90M travelers use the airport. That means that one airport has more traffic than all of the airports combined in Israel.
I agree that their airport security model is superior, and maybe it can scale to large airports in the USA, but if we have dozens of airports with more traffic than their busiest airport, scaling is very far from a simple task.
Source [wikipedia.org]
It's not as though everyone comes through the same door or goes to the same gate - think horizontal versus vertical scalability.
Re: (Score:2)
You might eventually figure out how to scale the Israeli model to the US size .... but at what cost? How much do the Israelis pay per passenger? And what would it cost us?
Don't forget the most important question: is it worth it? Does the expenditure match the threat? (the answer is no, btw).
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Insightful)
You might eventually figure out how to scale the Israeli model to the US size .... but at what cost? How much do the Israelis pay per passenger? And what would it cost us?
Don't forget the most important question: is it worth it? Does the expenditure match the threat? (the answer is no, btw).
You might eventually figure out how to scale the Israeli model to the US size .... but at what cost? How much do the Israelis pay per passenger? And what would it cost us?
Don't forget the most important question: is it worth it? Does the expenditure match the threat? (the answer is no, btw).
You'll get no argument from me that it's not worth the effort, but if we are going to spend the money anyway, I'd rather that we spend it on something that works. I'd rather that we went back to the old days of metal detectors and random searches to help deter the casual criminal from doing something stupid. It's nearly impossible to deter a determined suicide terrorist, especially if he's willing to hide his explosives in a body cavity.
Even if passenger screening was 100% effective, there are still many many ways to sneak something past security. All you have to do a bribe one security employee at one small commercial airport anywhere in the country and you can bring in anything you want and transport it to any airport. And I'm sure you can find at least one employee willing to accept $10K to smuggle in some "drugs", especially if he's addicted to the drugs he thinks he's smuggling. He doens't need to know that the 2 kg of "cocaine" is really high explosives.
Or you hide it in a truckload of maintenance supplies. Or a caterer tucks it inside of a beverage cart. Or the bomber decides it's not worth the effort to smuggle his explosive on a plane and detonates his suitcased sized bomb in a crowded security checkpoint. Or, who knows how else they will do it - the problem with airport security is the same as computer security - the security is always reactionary and is only effective at stopping yesterday's attack there will always be new and novel ways to execute an attack. (and sometimes the security wastes time and effort to stop an attack that can't work anyway, like the ban on water to stop an improbable binary-explosive that would have to be cooked up in a lab on the airplane)
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you hide it in a truckload of maintenance supplies. Or a caterer tucks it inside of a beverage cart. Or the bomber decides it's not worth the effort to smuggle his explosive on a plane and detonates his suitcased sized bomb in a crowded security checkpoint.
All it would take is 10 terrorists with cheap explosives to blow up their bomb as they are first in line at the security checkpoint in 10 different busy airports all next year on September 11, and the US reaction will be sufficient to bankrupt all airlines and the goverment, crushing the USA for the cost of 10 suicide bombers. And if that doesn't work, repeat next year on the same date at baggage check-in. And the year after with car bombs out front. That will collapse the US airlines and US government together (most of the flights are "elective" as in luxury travel between locations they could have driven). Everyone I know but me who was scheduled to fly between Sept 11 and Sept 21 who couldn't fly just drove instead, including cross country. But I couldn't figure out how to drive from Dallas to Singapore on September 12, as per my ticket. There really is a delicate balance, and it wouldn't take much to bring down the house of cards. The absurd thing was the number of people who asked if I was scared to fly 2 weeks after 9/11. Uh, no. Probably the safest time to fly, and long before the TSA started screwing with passengers.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Informative)
It can and does happen. Haven't you been reading the new the past couple of years?
Dwight D. Eisenhower quote (Score:5, Insightful)
How to befuddle the TSA: (Score:5, Funny)
"I see your prohibition is against 'liquids'. Can I carry ice onboard?"
The agent didn't know. Asked his supervisor; she didn't know.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You think that's bad, try Peanut Butter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... (Score:2)
Don't laugh - I read on a frequent flyer forum several months ago that ice is not a problem, because it is not a liquid. The person posting on the forum claimed to regularly take frozen bottles of water through security. Whether this is a general policy, or only at that person's particular airport, I have no idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Try carrying medications requiring refrigeration but which should not be frozen. Use one of those sealed ice pack things to keep it cool during the drive to the airport and time spent in line. Chances are that the ice pack will start to melt, otherwise it would be too cold and maybe freeze the medication. Now, can that partially melted, medically necessary, ice and water mixture go through the checkpoint?
Since the TSA already allows nearly unlimited liquids to be carried on board if they are "prescription" (I once saw a guy take two 32oz bottles of prescription dandruff shampoo on board), I don't see how a medically neccessary ice pack would be a problem.
Indeed, they do allow it:
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/special_needs_memo.pdf [tsa.gov]
We are continuing to permit prescription liquid medications and other liquids needed by
persons with disabilities and medical conditions. This includes:
gels or frozen liquids needed to cool disability or medically related items used by
persons with disabilities or medical condition
Re: (Score:2)
Does Bruce Schneider always drink beer? (Score:2, Funny)
And if he does, does he prefer Dos Equis?
And the reason why, for better or worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Security theater, from this perspective, is an attempt to convey a message: “We are doing everything possible to protect you.” When 9/11 shattered the public’s confidence in flying, Slovic says, the handful of anti-terror measures that actually work—hardening the cockpit door, positive baggage matching, more-effective intelligence—would not have addressed the public’s dread, because the measures can’t really be seen. Relying on them would have been the equivalent of saying, “Have confidence in Uncle Sam,” when the problem was the very loss of confidence. So a certain amount of theater made sense.
After witnessing enough conversations about how TSA is worthless, or worse, yet another part of an effort to acclimate hapless Americans to living in a police state, I think it's valid to consider the reasons for even "appearances" of security, and I'm glad this article laid them out clearly. Even appearances can be a deterrent.
The other points in the article are also valid. I believe we need to ask ourselves the question that if at least some amount of "theater" is appropriate, what is that amount, and what would the damage been to the air transport sector if nothing (visible) had been done? Note I don't pretend to know the answer.
Some say that money might better have been spent "educating" people why such security measures don't work, so they won't be a afraid when they don't see it. That's a task far easier said than done. Alongside the constant drumbeat in some circles that the government is out to get them, it's important to understand there are actual legitimate reasons for things the TSA is doing, seen and unseen.
None of this means that our homeland security efforts should be exempt from criticism or thoughtful scrutiny, but it needs to be done against a backdrop of reason.
Interesting semi-related story:
Skies Are Now So Safe on U.S. Flights That Experts Turn Focus to 'Surface Threats' [wsj.com]
Re:And the reason why, for better or worse (Score:5, Insightful)
The skies aren't safe because of the TSA, it's because nobody really wants to blow up an airplane, jihadi style.
Think about it - the failure rate of the TSA is over 60% at some airports. If the so-called jihadis really want to blow up airplanes, they just need to send 10 people and they'll take out six airplanes, on average.
Or if you believe this liquid explosive nonsense, they can send 10 guys each with 3 oz shampoo bottles.
It may be because ordinary Americans solved the security problem over a field in Shanksville PA just an hour after the 9/11 plot became known.
Or maybe the secure cockpit doors had something to do with it.
Or maybe the 9/11 plot wasn't really carried out by jihadis.
Any of the above could be true, but what's clearly not true is that there currently exists a jihadi threat to airliners.
Re: (Score:3)
Ding ding ding ding ding!
Re:And the reason why, for better or worse (Score:5, Insightful)
if jihadis really wanted to cause terror blow themselves up in security lines. Forget the planes, they could take out passengers and the TSA
Re: (Score:3)
No kidding. They'd functionally stop all flights, and possible cause enough of an overreaction that people who've already gone through security can't go anywhere.
And, of course, there's the other fun attack: taking out the dozen or so bridges that almost all port traffic uses. Car bombs would do it.
The only thing that hijacking airplanes let you do is blow up buildings, and, uh, there are other ways to do that that are easier.
Luckily, al Quaeda is apparently gone, otherwise, I'd fully expect this to star
Re: (Score:3)
Any of us can think of many ways to kill a large number of people, if we're unconcerned with our own survival and unconcerned with which specific people we kill. It is noteworthy how rarely any such thing actually happens.
Re:And the reason why, for better or worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Blowing up US planes has been tried four times since 9/11. Each time it has failed because of intelligence, in-flight security or passenger action.
The TSA however been hasn't shown to be worth jack shit let alone a trillion dollars. They haven't stopped or prevented anything.
Passengers who responded in these situation got the full-blown hero treatment in the media. Every now and then the Flight 93 movies and documentaries are rebroadcast which further drives home the message.
IMHO the reason you don't see it much is that it doesn't work any more, not that terrorists don't want to do it. All it does is make heroes of ordinary people, which is not the result terrorists want.
Re:And the reason why, for better or worse (Score:5, Insightful)
> Alongside the constant drumbeat in some circles that the government is out to get them, it's important to understand there are actual legitimate reasons for things the TSA is doing, seen and unseen.
Name three.
Note that pumping billions into a crony corporation is not considered legitimate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll grant you the last two... But government jobs do nothing for the economy. They merely have different people spend the same money. Unless you figure out a sector where the government actually produces something that people are willing to pay for and generates a profit doing so (most candidates for that operate at a loss).
Re: (Score:3)
>> Relying on them would have been the equivalent of saying, âoeHave confidence in Uncle Sam,â when the problem was the very loss of confidence. So a certain amount of theater made sense.
> After witnessing enough conversations about how TSA is worthless, or worse, yet another part of an effort to acclimate hapless Americans to living in a police state, I think it's valid to consider the reasons for even "appearances" of security, and I'm glad this article laid them out clearly. Even appea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even appearances can be a deterrent.
Sure, but is that worth BILLIONS of dollars? That's what it comes down to - Is this money well spent?
Accident Waiting to Happen (Score:4, Interesting)
Security isn't very good at the White House either:
Citation:
Ozzy Osbourne, from the biography "I Am Ozzy"
Re: (Score:2)
He must have a very small missile.
Paranoid (Score:2)
I was feeling really paranoid [...] Ozzy Osbourne
Oh really ?!
I should have quit while I was ahead (Score:3)
Good article, but then...
I read the comments after it.
What was I thinking?
provide conceal carry? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand not liking guns, especially in public. However, responsible gun owners can prevent crimes before or during the act. In general, the police show up after the crime. If you could go back in time and give a gun to a teacher at Columbine, would you? I would. Obviously there is the potential for unintended consequences, but that applies to both sides - if everyone has a gun, it might cause more violence. If only criminals have guns, it might cause more crime. I don't think "ridiculous" is an
Re:provide conceal carry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Logic goes that if anyone is allowed conceal carry,...
No, the logic goes that people who are planning to shoot up a bunch of people are not going to be deterred by the fact that some place is a "gun-free" zone. As a matter of fact, that makes that place a better choice for shooting up a bunch of people because you know that no one else there will be armed. The argument is that these places should allow those who have been granted a concealed carry permit (a process that usually involves some evaluation of the mental state of the individual and whether or not they have a history of encounters with law enforcement) because then not everybody there would be solely a potential victim.
Of course, the big part of this argument comes from the stories very few people hear of where someone tried to shoot up a place where there were people carrying concealed weapons. Within six months of the first Virginia Tech shootings there were two or three similar attempts that did not make the news because the shooter only got off about six shots before someone with a concealed carry license pulled their weapon and shot him. The thing is, every time someone tries this in a "gun-free" zone, there are a lot of deaths, every time someone tries this where someone is legally concealed carrying there are at most three deaths (two victims and the perpetrator).
Re:provide conceal carry? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be the most ridiculous form of security but mentality of people of this country are all going nutzoid...
So, in other words, because the end results don't match your preconceived notions of how things *should* work, those who say, "This clearly isn't working; let's try something else." are "nutzoid"? As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away." I don't see what's so "nutzoid" about accepting the fact that the only person you can count on to "protect" you is you.
Think it through for a second. Murder is already illegal, so what
Re: (Score:2)
Why anyone would want to prevent law-biding citizens from carrying is beyond me.
It's not beyond me. Tyrants love to make weaponry illegal for the general populace. Look at Feudal Japan or Medieval Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
I read someplace that significant number of people
What constitutes significant? Compared to automobile deaths?
shot are friends and family either from "moments of rage"
Given how few people die from firearms each year, I can't imagine this being that many. Perhaps it is a significant proportion of accidental shootings. The statistics are clear here: guns save lives. Arguments to the contrary are based on emotion, hearsay, conjecture, and fearmongering.
I'd call the 30,000 people killed in 2001 in the US by firearms fairly significant. Source: http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/09/death-by-the-barrel.html [harvardmagazine.com]
Lots of other interesting statistics in that article as well. I'm not going to point-by-point argue with you because I'll never convince you that I'm right and you're wrong, but I feel that a lot of the reasons people want to own guns are based on "emotion, hearsay, conjecture, and fearmongering" just as anti-gun arguments are based on the same thing.
FWIW
You can't even make an argument against it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sad. So very sad.
Re:Oh man.. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, really, I've been badmouthing the TSA since before it was cool.
I also happen to be really into this band, but you wouldn't have heard of them.
Re: (Score:3)
You probably heard them when you were visiting your girlfriend in Canada.
Re:Oh man.. (Score:5, Funny)
I burn my tongue every time I eat pizza... I always eat it before it's cool.
Re:Oh man.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just by using a negative connotation to a concept is enough to get people to change their mind.
I have learned to turn on my BS alarm when people start using words that give an emotional response. And challenged them much further to prove their point. Sometimes they do have a point, but using wording in your argument to evoke an emotional response isn't a valid argument.
Fight fire with fire (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because the people who passed the PATRIOT Act weren't appealing to our emotions!
Re: (Score:3)
How did the Bush administrations get us involved in the war with Iraq.
When asked about WMD their response it is a "Slam Dunk". That really stopped all questions about WMD until the war went on and no major Weapons were found.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh man.. (Score:4, Interesting)
You are right. Words have power. To be able to talk about something, you need words for it. You could try describing what you mean, but the problem is you'll always be side-tracked.
If you start describing the ban on bringing coke-bottles onto planes, you'll end up discussing if that particular ban (the ban on fluids) makes sense or not. While perhaps interesting, this is a different discussion from the one about security theatre. By using the phrase, you can talk about the general concept: security-measures that are very visible, and frequently annoying, while having questionable impact on actual security, without getting into specifics about precisely *which* policies you consider to be security-theatre.
Similarily, if you want to discuss the problems of excess political correctness, you cannot do so by using a single (or multiple) examples of silly statements that you consider to be PC-nonsense, because doing so would have a near-unity chance of derailing into a discussion of your particular example as opposed to the general tendency.
Other examples ? racist (1871), sexist (1965), prude (1704), apatheist (new, not found a definitice source for first appearance), shill (1916), fundamentalist (1920), neocon (1979 neo-conservative, a decade later shortened)
Each of these words are useful, because they let you talk of a phenomenon (or an ideology or idea) as a whole, without needing to resort to explaining-by-example, which has a huge risk of turning into a discussion about the example instead of discussion about the phenomenon.
Security theatre is well-defined, the meaning of the term is clear, and it describes a tendency that it's useful to be able to talk-about. As such, there's no reason to be skeptical of the word just because it evoked an emotion in you. (I bet "shill" and "racist" also evokes an emotion, they are still useful words though)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope this is America they will just increase the penalty for this sort of thing and/or legislate it away.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
The terrorists have already won. FTFY. They have caused a state of irrational fear. They have changed the lives of every single American alive. They have cost us in the lives of American soldiers in a pointless war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have spent BILLIONS on these wars. They have caused us to spend BILLIONS of dollars in an largely ineffective program of trying to reassure people that they will be safe. While we may not be able to say that they have destroyed our economy, I think that it's a pretty safe bet that a good part of the reason for our current economic stress is either directly or indirectly related to this. One good example is the airline bailout following 9-11. Our Constitution has been gutted and people's rights have been trampled into the ground.
IMO, the real terrorists now are the war contractors, our elected officials and the fucking sheeple who put them there.
Re:40,000 Dead each year (Score:4, Insightful)
If this same funding had been applied to highway traffic safety, imagine the REAL number of lives that would have been saved.
If this same funding had been applied to highway traffic safety, then highway speeds would be a maximum of 35 mph, TSA employees would be touching the undercarriage of your car at every on-ramp, and people would want to fly everywhere, even for a downtown commute.
Re:40,000 Dead each year (Score:4, Informative)