Important to note that the TSA has largely been ineffective: "In a 2016 survey by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General (IG), the TSA missed 95 percent of the weapons and assorted contraband carried into commercial aircraft cabins by undercover investigators"
And think of it this way.. they went from zero to over 50k employees in two years.
You don't get that by hiring the best and the brightest but by lowering the bar so far that as long as you're semi-literate and don't have a record of violent crimes, you're hired.
I've flown ~100k miles each of the last few years and they're getting more arbitrary and few can point at the actual rules they're enforcing.
And it's worth noting that they are agents and not officers which places them closer to bureaucrats than law enforcement.
Even if we were just erecting pure security theater, it'd be great if we could not build a refuge for pervasive sexual harassment or psychological abuse at the same time.
Ineffective at preventing hijackings of airplanes, but that is assuming that the purpose of the TSA's airport security measures is to prevent hijackings. More likely it was originally intended to reassure the public that flying is safe by presenting conspicuous screening processes, and considering that it remains politically impossible to wind it down, I think it was very successful. Consider this: a few years ago the TSA leadership suggested that it would probably be OK to allow small knives through the checkpoints, and not only was the idea killed by Congress, I even heard my otherwise intelligent aunt express how terrifying the idea sounded to her.
The basic purpose of the TSA is to prevent a collapse of the air travel market, and now it seems that a few related business interests are also part of that picture. What is or is not allowed through the checkpoints is as much determined by what the public is afraid of as by what will work well for airport businesses and airlines. The shoe rule is slowly but surely going away (it does not apply to anyone who participates in the various pre-screening programs that have been developed; I am guessing it will be gone in general a few years from now), but the equally pointless liquid rule remains in place for everyone. The only difference is that one of those rules boosts sales for airport businesses while the other only makes the lines to get through the checkpoints longer and discourages flying. The proposal to have all laptops go into checked bags was killed almost as soon as it was thought up, even though there was some legitimate concern about attacks strategies involving laptops (it seems to be more realistic than the liquids plot), simply because airlines said it would have too negative an impact on their ticket sales (especially for business class seats, which are the most profitable per square foot of cabin floor space).
What makes you think the TSA has a net positive effect on the air travel industry? TSA is dehumanizing and makes me hate traveling. It's insulting and humiliating to be forced to wait in line and perform useless rituals.
> one of those rules boosts sales for airport businesses
This is pub talk, essentially the broken window fallacy. Making travel unpleasant is unlikely to have helped the airline industry.
There is really no doubt that airport businesses saw their sales increase after the liquids rule went into effect. The rule had little impact on the public's willingness to fly and does not really increase the line lengths at the checkpoints, but it does create a captive market of thirsty travelers surrounded by shops selling water bottles.
It is also a fact that after the 9/11 attacks the airline industry nearly collapsed because people were afraid to fly; the TSA was created for the sole purpose of calming those fears, which restored confidence in flying (and therefore increase ticket sales). You may not be afraid but a lot of people do believe that the checkpoints are keeping them safe while they fly, and a large fraction would probably think twice about flying if the checkpoints were reduced in scope (or eliminated entirely).
> It is also a fact that after the 9/11 attacks the airline industry nearly collapsed because people were afraid to fly;
This is meaningless without mentioning time ranges. The TSA was created one month after 9/11, so there was no opportunity for any alternative course to ever take place.
Why didn't the airline industry "collapse" in other countries lacking the TSA? And what does "collapse" mean, exactly?
> the TSA was created for the sole purpose of calming those fears, which restored confidence in flying
And the PATRIOT act is for patriots. It is not worth mentioning that GW Bush said we're going to do X because of Y.
Are you old enough to remember what it was like to fly pre-9/11?
If anything the TSA made things more difficult for airports who were hemorrhaging revenue despite whatever magic safety rays you feel the TSA was projecting into the populace. (What are the properties of these safety rays and why even years after they began eminating did we still see airlines in bankruptcy, flights canceled, and dependence on federal loans? If in fact they were meant to increase passenger counts they didn't seem to do a good job, and just look like an unexpected added cost to contend with along with declining income -- some lost income directly due to security measures like preventing non-travelers from giving business to any shops beyond the security checkpoint. Liquids weren't even banned for years, after a slew of attempted liquid explosion attempts, almost like the TSA is an entirely reactive force ever since its creation.) On the more tangible side of things the airports had to pay the costs of the new security measures, which weren't trivial -- e.g. just the explosives detection systems for checked baggage cost billions to be rolled out. How much for the body scanners some years later?
>"It is also a fact that after the 9/11 attacks the airline industry nearly collapsed because people were afraid to fly"
No that it is not a "fact." The airline industry in the US was already experiencing financial problems prior to 9/11. There was also a bad recession at that time which translates to lower demand for seats. Additionally all flights were grounded for 2 days after 9/11 resulting in huge financial losses for the airlines. The combination of these things resulted in large layoffs by the airlines, potentially sending the airlines into a death spiral. The industry was then stabilized by a 15 billion aid package from congress. A near collapse was not caused by people being afraid to fly.
I think people here are reading you as defending the TSA, when all you're really saying is that a lot of the public support it, notwithstanding the inconveniences it causes them.
If your premise that the purpose of the TSA is to prevent collapse of the air travel market then why can't this service be handled privately by the airlines?
There was airport security before September 11, 2001. The planes were hijacked with relatively mundane items. The reason the hijacks succeeded was not because of the weapons that got past security. It was because up until that point, the standard operating procedure was to cooperate with hijackers. By the time anybody realised that they were not "normal" hijackings, it was too late.
The one change that actually made this problem go away was adding a secure door to the flight deck. A box cutter isn’t going to be a threat to pilots behind that door.
I saw a guy in front of me at the airport get stopped for a water bottle after the scan. They said "you can't have anything on this list"... at which point he pulled a box cutter out of his carry on and asked "do you need this too"...
They've still managed to find 100% of the bottles of water I've forgotten about and 100% of the water bottles with trace amounts of water still in them.
I assume that’s because they see them all day long so they are pretty good at spotting them in an X-ray. They don’t see weapons or actually threatening objects very often, or ever except for training.
Many major airports (and many minor ones it seems) offer a way to refill empty bottles after the 'security' check. That's not really the point of my comment though.
If your bottle is empty it can be as big as you want. If you have anything with liquid in it (or semi liquids like toothpaste) the container must have a capacity of less than 100ml.
There are exceptions for medications and baby food.
Flew through France with a refillable bottle no problem. Where about a is it an issue? Want to make sure my expensive bottle isn’t donated to security.
So, this statistic is a little bit incomplete. It's relatively easy for clever operators to sneak contraband past TSA, but the TSA does confiscate a lot of potentially edgy stuff from travelers' carry-ons: thousands of firearms (including loaded), knives hidden in deodorant, many pounds of black powder.
So while it is easy to beat, the TSA screens do succeed at enforcing the most obvious violations to current regulations. Whether the signal (things that seem like they reasonably should be confiscated) to noise (toothpaste, water, nail clippers, pocketknives) is acceptable, I don't know.
....but, the goal isn't catching violations of regulations. It's stopping actors with bad intent.
There was no epidemic of "plane knife fights" or "accidental pistol discharge in planes". Catching incidental weapons that weren't going to be used for harm is basically zero value.
All of the value comes from stopping people with bad intent from having weapons. If 95% of them can get through, then that's a very bad system.
In other words, I don't think you've correctly identified signal vs noise.
I disagree. The TSA has no mandate to determine intent - the organization was created to stop those with bad intent (and others) by enforcing regulations on all travelers. Maybe that isn't a good approach, and the high level goal is misaligned with the TSA's goal, but it is the current approach.
There was no epidemic of plane hijacking, either.
I have no data on the intent of people taking loaded firearms or black powder on planes (or knives in teddy bears,
Saying that 95% of people with bad intent can get through is unsupported by the statistic OP linked.
My point here is not that the TSA is great (I personally think it is pretty useless), but to suggest that single statistic is insufficient to demonstrate that the TSA is useless - you also need something indicating probably nothing bad would have happened had the TSA not confiscated all the currently banned stuff.
There absolutely was an epidemic of hijackings, in the 1970s. Then new laws were put in place banning weapons from planes.
That's the system that was in place up until 9/11, and it was run by private airport security. The TSA was a response to that.
But it wasn't the only conceivable response. Changes to private security screening rules would have been another option. The TSA isn't just there in a vacuum. And if people who try to sneak items past it can succeed, then its mandate isn't very effective.
Part of why another 9/11 hasn't happened is that terrrorists know that people know that hijackings can be very deadly. So people wouldn't be so passive anymore. The 9/11 hijacking was done with box cutters. That feat couldn't be repeated again, even with box cutters on the plane.
If we fill out the statistic by saying that the TSA has a high success rate in confiscating items from people who aren't trying to hide them, but a 4% success rate in getting them from people who are trying to hide them, that works out to an overall failure rate of 96%.
We only care about trying to take these things from people who are hiding them. Inconveniencing innocent travelers is a cost of the TSA, not a benefit.
But loads of the stuff the TSA confiscates is hidden - it's probably just hidden because the TSA is really annoying, and people want to take their e.g. pistol to their destination.
No sane person would pack a handgun in carry-on baggage on purpose (the potential hassle if discovered is just too big). When stuff like that happens, it's usually either because people aren't aware or forgot that they're not supposed to do it - might sound strange, but it really happens - or it was a mistake while packing.
By hidden, I wasn't referring to guns just left in bags. The TSA calls it "artful concealment" - stuff like guns taped to steel plates (for X-ray shadow) or knives stuck in the bottom of deodorant. Maybe those people just forgot it, but that's a pretty weird thing to do at any time.
I don't see how sane plays into it - either they are sane and accidentally have a gun in their bag, or they are insane. How can you filter by sanity?
Point is, probably most of the people with guns, swords, etc are not malicious, but I haven't seen any statistics on that, only this 95% cited over and over again.
How often does that happen, though? I can't even recall last time I heard of a case of someone deliberately trying to conceal a gun or a knife in luggage.
And our best estimate of their rate of taking hidden stuff is 4%. The fact that they catch a lot of stuff doesn't mean they're getting more than 4% of stuff.
I suspect the better deterrent, and the reason we haven’t seen another attack remotely similar to 9/11, is that the terrorists know we won’t fall for that again. There would be a whole airplane full of people willing to take down a would-be terrorist.
The TSA is just a pacifier for people who buy that they’re effective.
Yes that attack was viable for less than 1 hour. On flight 93 the passenger revolt began at 9:57AM, and the the first plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:01AM
> After the hijackers took control of the plane, several passengers and flight attendants learned from phone calls that suicide attacks had already been made by hijacked airliners on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. Many of the passengers then attempted to regain control of the aircraft from the hijackers. During the struggle, the plane crashed into a field near a reclaimed strip mine in Stonycreek Township
And if that hadn’t worked, before the crash the military was already authorized to shoot down that flight. So the system adapted quickly.
This might be a stupid question, but, airplanes are computerized, can they be programmed such-that they simply won't fly into buildings, cities, restricted airspace, etc..
I think that would set a dangerous precedent. Systems mess up in all kinds of strange ways. The human pilot needs the final say, especially in an emergency situation.
No. Computers aren't magic in that way, and we leave those types of decisions up to pilot's for a reason.
With any advanced system, we use automation to decrease the complexity of a task by which to act as a throughput modifier by decreasing barrier to entry for safe pperatiom.
If you start throwing in computers which fight the operator at every step, you'll start seeing people (1) move away from the system, (2) subvert the system, (3) start trying to make a buck off of selling systems they claim will fix everything, while not really dealing with the issue.
Plus, computer vision just isn't there yet.you're talking about giving a machine the ability to integrate a whole lotus different streams of data and reliably making a decision to veto the pilot's instructions.
Air plane auto-pilots keep the plane on a specified course; they don't do obstacle avoidance. Planes aren't even programmed to avoid mountains, let alone buildings.
So, you'll put locations of all things that plane is not supposed to fly into on the plane? Also you will program it to automatically fly around? #whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
I'd argue a better deterrent is knowing that there /might/ be an air marshal on the plane AND/OR the unknown security screening done on my checked luggage after it leaves my hands. The TSA are a terrible experience for anyone that encounters them, often giving a poor impression of the US to many first timers, and they are bad at their job! Yet we're not looking to take another approach? It's frankly...pathetic.
With all do respect, that's not the best deterrent. The best deterrent is the door.
Anyone who knows anything about the Germanwings crash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525) knows this. The pilot used an axe on the door for minutes while knowing he was going to die. He didn't get in. Everyone died.
The risks of hijacking are slim to none, unless you're going to hack the plane. If you're going to hack the plane you just need a laptop.
The TSA is a federal jobs program. A nice joke I heard is to disband the TSA and have them be the workers building the wall. Sure it would be useless, but at least it wouldn't inconvenience law abiding citizens just trying to go about their day, treating them like criminals.
While it might just make me feel better about all the times they made me remove my laptop from my bag, or take off my shoes, I would almost rather see them given real skills so they can be a useful part of humanity.
If you’re talking hijacking sure, i still think someone claiming “i have a bomb” will get commands through the door without it ever opening if they’re smart enough about it. The door is a good defence from immediate physical harm for sure, and probably the best change the industry has made in a long time, but i still think the security through stated obscurity element of the TSA could be improved to socially influence those considering any act against an air crew.
> The door while having an impact doesn’t really change much.
What do you mean? Without access to the controls of the plane, they hijackers cannot accomplish their goal of using the plane as a big bomb. They are deterred because it costs a large amount of operational resources to only fail the mission. If they wanted to simply kill people, they have simpler means (much cheaper means) to hit soft targets.
Not only that, the complex, involved missions involve more people which raises the risk of failure, of being caught ahead of time, and of unwinding the clues up the stack. If they are going to take those risks, they want a certain chance of success * size of outcome.
I said this below, but just to throw it here anyway: while that's been true up until now, i'm expecting that to change. Using the plane as a bomb has historically required cockpit access, i expect in the future we'll see a similar attack without cockpit access...just because people will get creative and find a way, if they really want it.
You mean that one made it to it’s target and the other didn’t? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point because it doest really feel like a discussion, rather an interview?
Like, sure, if that’s success then ok...again I’m just saying i think there are alternative ways to improve security, and while a locking door is one of them, the TSA is probably another great place to look for improvements. It feels like the US airport security situation is stuck in the world of “look busy and sound strict, people will behave and respect the security of planes”, but really it’s just a giant pain in the ass for most people and meanwhile mostly ineffective at stopping actual risks from passing through to the aircraft.
Real question: do you work for the TSA or airport security in some way?
Yeah, it's certainly a big success to use the plane as a bomb. I'm really just trying to say, and obviously doing a bad job at it, that i don't think access to the cockpit is required to achieve this. So far that hasn't been demonstrated, but the fact that the cockpits were so accessible in the past obviously meant that people didn't need to worry about it. I predict in the future we'll see similar attacks carried out, despite not getting access to the cockpit. It'll require creativity, but it just seems like a matter of time to me.
It seems like the Intelligencia is leveraging the TSA to collect as much information as possible on all US Citizens that use an airport while the TSA pretends to keep Americans safe.
You have to admit it does make good "Theater for the Masses" when you see them stripping down an 80 year old in a wheelchair or dragging an 8 year old off to the side for additional screening.
This is what happens when "The People" lose control of the Government.
> This is what happens when "The People" lose control of the Government.
That seems doubtful. Nearly everyone agrees that TSA checkpoints are irritating and slow, how many would actually vote to abolish them? Even just returning back to pre-9/11 security?
I think we have exactly the government most of us want. That's the uncomfortable truth. If the majority of voting citizens wanted the TSA gone, it would be.
> I think we have exactly the government most of us want.
We have a President who was the second highest vote getter, and a Senate where the majority party was elected with a minority of the votes (counting across the most recent elections for each seat.)
So, no, we don't have “the government most of us want”, independent of the TSA.
> If the majority of voting citizens wanted the TSA gone, it would be.
Look, if the majority of the voting public wants a particular Presidential candidate elected, at the time of voting, that still relies on them not having an unfavorable geographic distribution to work out.
A policy that is more distant from a single candidate election, and which must compete in any voting decision with other policy preferences for importance and which requires action by both the President and the Congress to effectuate is far from guaranteed.
That is the exception proving the rule. Aside from the Connecticut Compromise, agreed to at a time in our history when very few citizens could even vote, the United States remains fairly responsive to popular opinion. Politicians have to get votes, and if abolishing TSA was popular enough to swing votes, we'd have politicians falling all over themselves to make sure everyone knew they were the right guy for that.
But... it's not. The TSA and the rest of our various police forces stick around because while a few loud people complain about the threat to liberty, the vast majority of people quietly vote for more safety.
> But... it's not. The TSA and the rest of our various police forces stick around because while a few loud people complain about the threat to liberty, the vast majority of people quietly vote for more safety.
Or they don't want to see the impact of nearly 100,000 government mandated jobs lost. It's an assumption to think "the vast majority" are looking to the TSA for safety.
It's like adultery, still a crime in many states, including a felony in a few (and in others, is a crime only a female can commit). Despite no prosecutions in decades, it's still on the books, not because it should be, but because no politician wants the backlash of "non-family-friendly" that'd come with "decriminalization".
You do know that expression uses “prove” in the (otherwise uncommon in modern English) sense of “test”, not the (more common in modern English) sense of “establish the truth of”, right?
And which of the multiple examples I cited is supposed to be the singular exception? (And, certainly a Senate that is minoritarian but for conditions of either supermajoritarian popular alignment or fortuitous geographical alignment of the majority isn't an rare exception, it's a fundamental and conscious design feature.)
The United States isn't a majoritarian government by design, and very commonly does not (and certainly does not now) have the government most voting citizens want. It's even less the case that it is majoritarian on any single issue; there are many issues you can find where there is a durable majority opinion not reflected in government policy. (In part because it's not the sole issue and multiple issues compete in electing representatives, in part because candidates manipulate voters with false positions which they find reasons to blame other people for having fail, but in large part again because even a majority voting solely on one issue, for politicians honestly pursuing the voters' preferred position, doesn't guarantee winning control of either House of Congress or the Presidency, much less winning all three or winning both Houses of Congress with a veto proof majority, and so does not guarantee ability to legislate the desired goal.)
We live in a representative democracy with indirect control for voting citizens, the granularity you suggest is possible when voting is only possible when there is a direct democracy.
If there is serious, broad outrage about an issue that lasts through an election, then change may come for that issue under our current system. As is, stuff that most of the voting public objects to happens daily, but these actions are shielded by our current system.
The “let the market decide” solution is to make the airlines strictly liable for what happens with their planes and let them and their insurers figure out the best security strategy.
> It seems like the Intelligencia is leveraging the TSA to collect as much information as possible on all US Citizens that use an airport while the TSA pretends to keep Americans safe.
What information does the TSA collect?
I can't think of anything the airlines don't already collect when you buy your ticket.
Not to say this would actually change, but absent the TSA, airlines could mostly get along fine collecting zero personal information. It's not really relevant to the service -- all they need to know is that you have a valid ticket. I suppose a name is helpful to have attached to a checked bag, in case of misrouting, but even that could just be done by your ticket/reservation number.
There's no inherent reason your identity is more relevant for a plane ride than it is for taking the bus.
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/366998-the-tsa...