It's sad that this headline (presumably) is not tautological.<p>First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US[0].<p>Second, the circumstances under which 9/11 happened would be impossible to repeat. Plane cockpits are all but impenetrable[1] - the <i>only</i> reason that some of the 9/11 hijackers were successful was that the standard protocol for dealing with hijackers assumed that hijackers wanted to take the plane hostage for ransom, not use the plane as a weapon. This protocol was fixed almost immediately. (Note that United Airlines Flight 93 did <i>not</i> face the same fate as the other three planes, because the passengers knew what the hijackers were planning.)<p>Since it's impossible to take control of the cockpit as a hijacker these days, even if someone managed to bring a gun on board a flight, the most damage they could do is kill all the passengers (leaving the pilots unharmed). That is truly a horrible scenario, but that makes flying no more risky than going to the movies or going to school (eg. Newtown, Arapahoe, Boulder).<p>Of course, one "logical" conclusion is therefore to establish TSA-style security at every school, cinema, mall, etc... in which case we have turned the country into a police state, and we should expect the same crime rates as within federal prisons: <a href="http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194" rel="nofollow">http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194</a><p>[0] <a href="http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-in-leaked-doc-no-evidence-of-terrorist-plots-against-aviation-in-us/" rel="nofollow">http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-...</a><p>[1] I believe I read another comment on Hacker News a while back in which the pilot had a heart attack after the cockpit had been locked from the inside, but before leaving the gate, and it still took the <i>fire department</i> almost an hour to cut through the door.
Yet another in a long line of "data wonky" articles that misuse statistical data to support a position that is emotionally attractive.<p>> Would this increase hijacking? Probably. But there's no reason to believe it would increase casualties from terrorist attacks overall. That's because increasing airport security just leads terrorists to direct their assaults elsewhere.<p>There are two huge problems with this statement.<p>First, you cannot draw such a causal conclusion from statistical data alone.<p>Second, it's pulling a subtle slight of hand--the goal of airport security is NOT to reduce terrorist casualties overall. It is to reduce violent attacks of any kind on airplanes, specifically.<p>At the base of this argument is an implication that terrorist attacks are zero-sum: reduce them in one place, get an equivalent more in another. But that's not how security works.<p>Look at it in digital terms--it would be like saying that we don't need to bother with strong passwords, because all those did was drive up the number of phishing attacks. Maybe we could just get of passwords, since the total number of intrusions would not go up. And besides, just think of all that wasted effort to create, hash, store, remember, and manage passwords.<p>Does that sound stupid? I hope so, because it is. But that's exactly the type of argument that this article is making.
Isn't it pathetically sad what we've grown to accept?<p>Frog in a slowly heating pot indeed.<p>Now that we've accepted the horrors of the TSA, they are working on getting us to accept the horrors of the NSA, slowly but surely, until we reach the point that the average person defends every smartphone being hacked and tracked.
The article misses the most important point! By reinforcing the cockpit doors and locking them from the inside we made it so that a plane can no longer be hijacked.<p>Even if a bomb is brought on board we would never give control of a plan to hijackers since we now know it may be used as a giant missile, not just an escape vehicle.
What I find particularly evil about the TSA is their Pre program that lets you bypass security lines for $85. Mind you, you'll only be granted that sort of privilege after an approval process that requires you submit the non-refundable fee along with an application. So paying $85 doesn't even guarantee you a spot.<p>It's as if after implementing all this theater, imposing myriads of restrictions, that they realized it was all ineffective, and now they're reframing the entire situation by acting as if they're catering to customers by offering a program that reverts things to how they were a little over a decade ago, but now for a fee.
The author laments "all the <i>waste</i> that one stupid government policy can generate." But there seems to be little hope that any of it will go away any time soon.<p>Why? Because of a statement I've seen attributed to Karl Denninger[0]: "One man's waste, fraud, abuse, scam, and theft is another man's paycheck."<p>If there were no need for TSA-compliant messenger bags, Timbuk2 would likely see a drop in revenues. If there were no TSA, a whole bunch of people employed as TSA agents would be out of work. I'd expect everyone making money off the current system of security theater to fight tooth and nail to preserve the money they're making.<p>[0] See e.g. <a href="http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3149840" rel="nofollow">http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3149840</a>
He is chalking up a lot of things that existed before 9/11 to the TSA. 15 years ago we all still had to stand in line to go through metal detectors to get into the terminal. Also how can you compare loading time on a 9 passenger Cessna 402 to something like a 737-300 that can hold 120 people? That's silly. It takes more time to board larger planes than smaller ones and that has nothing to do with security.<p>I go through the TSA screening several times a month, and while I don't appreciate the invasion of privacy, it isn't really that big of a pain in the ass to stand in line for a few minutes and put all your bags through the scanner.
I grew up in the 70s. Back then, there was an entire generation that was smoking pot, although it was very recently deemed illegal.<p>It was a weird time. Most young people either smoked pot or knew somebody who did. There wasn't much odd about them, although we were told that smoking pot was terrible. On the street, however, it was fairly obvious that this was an overreaction. To hear some folks talk, there was little difference between heroin and pot. That was obviously not true.<p>It took 50 years for common sense to get back into the system, and even now, when the change is starting, it might be another 10 or 20 years to fully reverse pot laws. I'm not a pot user, but I find this slowness-to-adapt to common sense amazing.<p>Unfortunately, the system isn't just glacial in fixing bad laws -- it's fairly quick to add new bad laws as we go along. TSA is the case in point. Just like the pot laws, we're constantly told that there is a terrible danger out there that we need protection from, even though it's blatantly obvious that this is an overreaction and power grab. Nobody seems to be driving the bus.<p>So I guess we'll go through 50 years of increasing TSA "supervision" of travel until we see some kind of sanity? And how many TSAs will we have by then? It's depressing to think about.
Russian train stations employ metal detectors and barricades. Just as the TSA has been ridiculed in the United States, these were similarly derided in Russia.<p>And yet this combination was effective in limiting the number of casualties in the recent Volgograd train station bombing. I suspect the amount of Russian editorializing over these security procedures will soon decrease.<p>Fortunately, while civilian memory is short, government institutional memory is long.
All the TSA has done is ensure that someday a suicide bomber will blow up the security line, and destroy the travel industry at the same time. There is no backup plan once that happens other than picking people up at home in armored vans.
Living on an island in Canada I've taken these small commuter flights a number of times. Being able to hop on near the actual flight time is fantastic. Few points about these smaller flights:<p>- Typically they still want you there 30 mins early to check-in and load the baggage.<p>- The pilot to passenger ratio makes them very expensive. A 20 minute flight for me is costlier than a 5 hour one to a major hub. I rarely pay for these out of my own pocket.<p>- Being a smaller operation your pilot can be very young and inexperienced.<p>- These planes are very small and at times get uncomfortably hot in the summer.<p>- The majority of crashes around here are from similarly sized aircraft. Always an uncomfortable reminder of what can go wrong.<p>- Flying in any kind of adverse weather can honestly be pretty terrifying in a smaller plane. If your lucky they'll delay or cancel it altogether.<p>- Sometimes your pilot will leave the window open and a wasp will fly in prior to take off. Sitting in the co-pilot seat in a cramped plane, it may be up to you to kill it :)<p>Overall I prefer the smaller flights in the summer, but I'll take the slow security for the safety of the bigger plane in winter.
I don't want to sound like a nutcase conspiracy theorist but to be quite honestly if the government had always wanted an excuse to violate basic human rights, 9/11 was probably the best thing that happened for them.<p>After 9/11, they were able to convince us that we NEED to be felt up by strangers at the airport and that we NEED to invade a country and that ITS OKAY to just kill thousands and thousands of civilians "by accident" all in the name of National Security and when some civilians try and kick out these strangers that invaded their country and killed their family, they're the nut jobs, they're the bad people, they're the real terrorists.<p>I honestly think the US is a bigger terrorist that Osama ever was. Now, after 9/11 people we're living our normal lives normally; while in Afganistan, families everyday are terrorized, scared, afraid that this might be their last day. Today might be the day their father doesn't come back. Today might be the last day they see each other.
Interesting point about hijackings.<p>Airplane hijackings are actually much more common than most people think. From 1988-1997, there were about 18 airplane hijackings per year, down from the peak of 82 in 1969: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking</a>. Interesting to read the history: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#1960s" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#196...</a>.
I think what most people are forgetting is the reason for such measures on flights. An hijacked flight is very different from other hijaking/terrorist situations. It leaves you with almost no options except maybe to shoot it down. There is absolutely no other tactical moves that can be made. The same cannot be said for similar attacks on theaters/schools etc. A flight is also a moving threat that requires swift response, and it can strike (when used as a weapon) over quite a large area (In terms of targets it may choose).<p>Now, if we as this article suggests remove all security to get on flights. As someone planning such an incident, i.e. pull out a gun or other random acts of terror; It would follow that getting on a flight to do such a thing would be the best move. You literally have access to 200+ people with no where to run in a confined area, with no security. The reason flights are given security vs other places such as theaters etc is not some random act. It is cause of the specific threats that are posed by hijacked flights/weapons on flights that are fundamentally different from other locations.<p>(How fast would the cops get to someone who starts firing at people in any city with such high population density?, now compare that with what happens in a flight, you have no options, and once it starts you practically write off the people who are on the flight because you have no chance of saving them)
the core issue is that a lot of very young people are now starting to debate this shit that only remember 9/11.<p>we just had the 25 year anniversary of Lockerbie. that bomb not only killed all on board the plane, but a lot of people on the ground. no need to hijack.<p>and we now have a lot of suicide bombers, see just the last two days on Volgograd.<p>have the Israelis scaled down their anti-bomb detection measures? no? then neither should the west.<p>i fly a lot, internationally. i do not mind the checkpoints. i mind dying pre-maturely in a fireball.
As an American living abroad, I still show up hours too early for flights. Old habits are hard to break! But seriously, it's just not like that in many other places round the world. Sure, we have security, but showing up more than an hour before your flight? I've been laughed at many times. Security theatre is a huge, huge waste of time and resources all around.
I don't get all the fuss. I fly often and it takes no more than 20 minutes in SFO to get through, even when there are long lines because they add more agents (thread pool!) - same in Boston, even when there's a major storm and the whole state are trying to leave at the same time, it's still really efficient. I don't really care about taking off my shoes and belt, I certainly don't find it humiliating. It's like when I hear people talk of the humiliation getting a physical. American's are the biggest consumers of porn and at the same time, the biggest prudes about ridiculous stuff. If I had to drop my shorts at the airport I might remember not to wear Spongebob ones to the airport, but short of that, it's hardly a big deal or worth blogging about.<p>I'd rather take my shoes off and have 2+ jet engines than get in an 8-seater commuter plane.
In large organizations, the <i>appearance</i> of risk is much more important than the <i>reality</i> of risk. Big organizations (like governments) will do things that actually increase risk, so long as the things look on the surface like they will reduce risk.<p>Saying that TSA security doesn't reduce terrorism risk is a reasonable argument (although I think it's wrong; consider the possibility of gun-toting yahoos wanting to be "safe" with "self-defense" and blowing a hole in the fuselage because they saw a suspicious brown person). But politically, saying to give up TSA security because <i>it doesn't work</i> is basically impossible. Voters will <i>demand</i> that politicians <i>do something</i> about the threat of terrorism.
I remember reading a number of articles from Israeli security that make a mockery of everything the TSA does (which is basically what they, who have to secure airports and other public spaces in Israel against almost daily threats, never do).<p>The TSA basically exists to make Michael Chertoff and Dick Cheney very, very rich. It would be interesting to see how much they raked in from this, compared with, say, Bo Xilai or Wen Jiabiao.
We could also implement Israeli style security, namely profiling (not racial but terrorist), when you go through Ben Gurion, you go from car to gate in about 30 min, and at no point do yo have to remove your shoes, or even remove your laptop from it's bag, no matter what type of bag it is.<p>Now I'll grant you if you're coming from Ramallah and you're flying to Pakistan through Turkey and Dubai you should probably give yourself and extra hour or two, but as long as have no nefarious motives and tell the truth you will be on your way. But this is true regardless of the color of your skin or religious beliefs. I have a friend who was doing something like that and he's white, very clearly Jewish and religious. (Often those stories you hear of the 3 hour long interrogations are because the dude was/is an active participant on the rock throwing attacks and they have pictures of him that he is unaware of...)
This reminds me of the story of a former collegue of mine who worked as a consultant out of Oslo, Norway.
15/20 years ago the Oslo airport was still quite close to the city center, and for a while he had a client in Bergen, 400 km west.
He was living a 5 minute bike ride from the airport. He would go there, enter the plane, and get to the office in less than an hour. He would be home for dinner every day.
Environmental aspects aside I think this was what was deemed the future in the 60s...
Then the airport was moved 50 km north of Oslo, then came the terrorists and all the security regulations.
I actually had a pretty weird situation happen last time I traveled. I was in the regular lane and the guy who checked my ticket and id read my ticket wrong and sent me through the TSA precheck line. Once in that line, there seemed to be a further mixup and I literally went through security without my bag or myself being scanned. It was pretty weird, but again, no one died, and it actually gave less of a chance for my stuff to get stolen and took less time. It's almost as though this is a superior system...
Personally I would prefer flying without any security checks.
I am going to die one day; statistical chances are high that will not be due to a terrorist attack.<p>In fact I flew from South Africa to Europe 4 or 5 years back (in a large Airbus). No metal detector, no scanners, no taking-shoes-or-belt-of, just the quick scan of the carry on. Took 2 minutes, and I did not feel unsafe in any way.<p>911 cannot be repeated (as pointed out many times before). The TSA checks are a theater and everybody knows it.
Is this much more libertarian: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A</a>
The first time I felt a real chill with regard to the United States when when I saw padlocks for sale (here in Brazil, no less!) with some inscription to the effect of "TSA-friendly". You buy a lock to keep people away from peeking at your stuff, but you can no longer keep the government away. This felt like having the keys to your front door being forcefully changed into "FBI-friendly" keys.
"increasing airport security just leads terrorists to direct their assaults elsewhere"<p>so in other words, heightened airport security has worked.
Airport security is a sieve anyway. Shortly after 9/11 I carried 10 inch knife through security. Forgot I had it on me. Oops..<p>In their defense: I tend to do well with these kinds of situations. Exuding a combination of "not criminal" and "don't mess with me" does wonders.
I haven't flown since before 9/11, and I didn't like the airport experience too much then. I'm sure I'd like it less now. But I keep in mind that the airplane + TSA still saves a lot of time compared to trains, boats, buses, and cars for travel over a certain distance.<p>The question I have for people is why they bother traveling so much nowadays. Maybe the experience of le rive gauche cannot be replicated over the internet -- but a lot of travel (especially business) seems to be a bit of showmanship itself. You know, show up and impress the client with a little face-to-face. Or let the striking factory workers know who's boss. Whatever.<p>What makes me laugh even harder than the deaths of old habits such as flying hither and yon are people who distinguish between security and the illusion of security. Isn't security itself a feeling? And what makes jittery fliers feel safer than a bunch of goons rifling through one's possessions? Isn't that the essence of "stepping up security"?
I have also flown on a commercial flight w/o going through security. It was an incredible experience and I didn't worry for a moment about the intentions of the other passengers. I hope we come to our senses and say goodbye to the TSA.
I always feel like the oddball, but I don't mind the current state of our airport security. Given the option of two flights, one with security and the other without, I'm taking the flight with security precautions... Irrational or not.
When people complain about the TSA, I'm reminded of this Louis CK bit:<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4</a>
Are flights between European countries, say Denmark and Finland, as easy as the OP's experience? Or has post-911 NSA influenced the majority of modern civilization into encumbrance?
You, too, can experience flying without security: Get a sport pilot license and a used airplane for $20k or so.<p>Of course, you'll be much more limited by weather than a transport-class aircraft.
Woooo. You flew in a six-engine plane without TSA security checkpoints?! No way. Did you also know that for a few hundred bucks you can get a pilots license and fly it yourself!?!
"Could that literature review be wrong? Sure."<p>"Is eliminating airport security politically untenable? Maybe"<p>"Would this increase hijacking? Probably."<p>LOL