Hitchens: The truth about airplane security measures

http://www.slate.com/id/2239935/

by drewr • 17 years ago

105 77 17 years ago

slate.com

jbyers• 17 years ago

Hitchens would be much more readable if he cut the overwrought (and parenthesized) banter by a third.

blhack3• 17 years ago

I don't think his goal is to be "readable".

kordless• 17 years ago

Looks like someone had to stand in a line at the airport over the break.

michael_dorfman• 17 years ago

I think he nailed it right here:

In my boyhood, there were signs on English buses that declared, in bold letters, "No Spitting." At a tender age, I was able to work out that most people don't need to be told this, while those who do feel a desire to expectorate on public transport will require more discouragement than a mere sign. But I'd be wasting my time pointing this out to our majestic and sleepless protectors, who now boldly propose to prevent airline passengers from getting out of their seats for the last hour of any flight. Abdulmutallab made his bid in the last hour of his flight, after all. Yes, that ought to do it.

ghshephard6• 17 years ago

Note - the rule about people standing up wasn't done to prevent Mad Bombers from doing so. It was to quickly identify which people _might_ be a mad bomber to the Air Marshals and Airline Staff.

Remember this rule had to be put in place quickly (And also note, for a limited period of one week) - while we tried to figure out if another attack was imminent. Think about how stupid we'd all be feeling if someone else had run _the exact same attack_ - we may not be able to defend against the unknown. But at least we can avoid handing out the freebies.

drewr• 17 years ago

As I understand it, the terrorist was the only one in the NWA indident who did not stand up. He sat there while others got out of their seats to try and stop him. How does the policy address this scenario?

ekanes• 17 years ago

Trying to find terrorists based on whether or not they are standing up makes no sense at all. If you actually tried to "run" that scenario, you'd be tackling a lot of people who just couldn't hold their pee anymore.

blhack3• 17 years ago

I feel like the way the TSA is responding to all of this should be familiar to anybody that has ever worked in IT.

It's a lot like the people who refuse to use OSS software (with some exceptions like redhat) because it doesn't come with a service contract; when something goes wrong, there is nothing to point at and go "See! We did everything we should have to prevent this!"

The TSA doesn't want to look like a bunch of idiots if something like this happens again because they did nothing to prevent it.

With this, they're doing something and people, on some level, like it or are at least comforted by it.

gvb• 17 years ago

The technical term is "Security Theater" coined by Bruce Schneier for his book Beyond Fear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

rdtsc3• 17 years ago

Nevermind that they still have not justified their existence by stopping at least one bomb from going through. Rules, directives will long number and dashes between them, expensive x-ray detectors, is just the theatre, they still have not done their job, at least once in all these years.

Some will say "well their very existence prevented any terrorist from even trying to get a bomb through" which is just as valid as "their very exitence prevented pink elephants from Mars from landing and stomping us all to death."

> The TSA doesn't want to look like a bunch of idiots if something like this happens again because they did nothing to prevent it. With this, they're doing something and people, on some level, like it or are at least comforted by it.

In general terrorism and security theatre is about managing perceptions. They are two sides of the same coin. Terrorists are not in the business of killing as many people as possible they are in the business of scaring as many people as possible. Likewise the reponse of the government -- TSA is not in the business of making traveling safe, they are in the business of _seeming_ to make traveling safe.

They provide the comfort of the witch doctor that tries to cure cancer by shaking a rattle. Sadly people seem to buy it so far. As long as everyone buys it, they will keep hanging around, feeling everyone up (with a back of their hand of course), puffing air up womens skirts, making mothers drink their milk and push disabled out of their wheelchairs. Nobody minds that much, so that will continue and intensify as time goes on.

elai• 17 years ago

Are you sure about not stopping one bomb? Their service is like the electric company (and IT), you don't notice it until it stops working.

ams6110• 17 years ago

No, it's not the same. One is plausible, the other is not.

akamaka• 17 years ago

I'm getting really sick of these articles about how stupid airline security is. This type of complaining is in the same vein as end-users bitching about how the IT department locks down their computers and forces them to change their passwords. We're not the experts here, and more importantly, we're not the one who have to clean up the mess after a terrorist attack.

The fact is that we have had a history of ignoring early warning signs, and that when we have taken action, we have been succesful. Terrorists make mistakes, and when we ignore them (like the Bojinka plot), it has directly led to disaster (9/11). On the other hand, since lugagge scanning has improved, we rarely see bombings like Lockerby or Air India any longer.

I think the end-user vs. IT department analogy is one anyone who agreed with this article should ponder on. When a low-level employee causes a security breach, he's not the one who has to deal with the effects. The experts have to come in and fix the problem, andm management has to bear the responsibility.

Similarly, in the event of an airline catasrophe, it's the emergency services who have to pick through the wreckage andook for bodies; the airlines and their employees who suffer financially. Pilots and flight attendants who know they are at highest risk, due to the ime the spend in the air. And leaders of countries, who can have their entire presidency redefined in a single day.

I'd rather hear their opinions than those of a professional troll lime Hitchens.

benmathes• 17 years ago

It's not just the societal commentators that are calling our airline security a load of bull. Notable experts are saying the same thing: http://www.schneier.com/essays-airline.html

blhack3• 17 years ago

Not so fast...

Some of the people criticizing the TSA (like Bruce Schneier) are absolutely experts on security.

You're also right, the analogy of IT vs the users is a valid one. In this case, the IT department has told the users that they are no longer allowed to browse the web between the hours of 3:30 and 3:38 because it was during this time that somebody downloaded and installed a virus.

Instead of actually addressing the root of the problem (our users can download and install viruses), the IT department has put a band-aid over it so that they can say that it has been fixed.

dugmartin• 17 years ago

Not that I'm disagreeing with you but I wonder what the TSA could do to address the root of the problem?

sabat• 17 years ago

Good point about Schneier, although with a caveat: he's actually an expert in cryptography, and he has opinions about more generalized subjects in security. Quite often he's right, but I don't consider him to be an actual "security expert" in any general sense. I don't think it's actually possible; "security" is a blanket term.

Bruce is dead-on right in this case. Fighting the previous war won't prevent the next one.

gfodor• 17 years ago

Why should I care what Bruce Schneier, an expert on computer security, thinks about airline security?

Should I care what the head of the TSA has to say about RockYou's password data theft, too?

CWuestefeld4• 17 years ago

Except:

A. I don't think anyone has seen a reason to believe that the TSA really are experts. For example, everyone I know has some experience in accidentally carrying contraband onto an airplane, and has seen countless ways to do so intentionally based on gaping holes in the processes.

B. We don't live in a Platonic republic, governed by experts. Our government is of, by, and for the people. Even in instances when we the people have decided to delegate some authority to an expert, it's still inherently the responsibility of that expert to prove to us that they're doing the right thing. TSA has failed dismally at that.

barmstrong5• 17 years ago

You're right about accidentally bringing on contraband.

I actually do it intentionally in the sense that if I know my sunblock is more than 3oz and I don't want to throw it out, I just hope they don't find it. I get it on the plane about 50% of the time.

jsm386• 17 years ago

I don't think the analogy holds. As Bruce Schneier has pointed out in recent days, it is not that we're complaining about locking down systems in ways that make sense.

I've started to call the bizarre new TSA rules "magical thinking": if we somehow protect against the specific tactic of the previous terrorist, we make ourselves safe from the next terrorist. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/me_and_the_chr...

Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.

As to the current 'articles about how stupid airline security is' I'll quote again:

And what sort of magical thinking is behind the rumored TSA rule about keeping passengers seated during the last hour of flight? Do we really think the terrorist won't think of blowing up their improvised explosive devices during the first hour of flight?

Only one carry on? No electronics for the first hour of flight? I wish that, just once, some terrorist would try something that you can only foil by upgrading the passengers to first class and giving them free drinks.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_exp...

Joel Johnson at Gizmodo has a good argument about all of this: http://gizmodo.com/5435675/president-obama-its-time-to-fire-...

gaius• 17 years ago

Well hang on a second, we absolutely are the people who have to deal with the aftermath as we are the flying public. I'd say I personally am more highly motivated on real airline security than some dude at a desk in Washington or throwing bags in the airport who might not even have a passport. I am the target. If you're with me on the plane, you are too.

Question for you, what's the airline with best security record in the world? El Al, who have been under constant terrorist threat for 40 years. Yet no-one mocks them for their boneheaded ideas (e.g. let's confiscate everyone's liquids based on volume alone and toss them all into a big bin right near the checkpoint) because they really do know what they're doing. No bullshit, no security theatre, just a track record.

TSA and Homeland Security are amateurs. Both the shoebomber and now the pantsbomber (both of whom were utterly incompetent themselves) breezed through all their security measures. Ordinary passengers dealt with it, the old fashioned way. There's a lesson there.

abhay2• 17 years ago

The sad reality is that we've more or less given our government emergency powers to issue such ludicrous directives to the airlines and for what? Some semblance of security? I guess Ma and Pa Kettle feel more safe on the airlines on their one round-trip flight they take every two years to see the grand kiddies but for those of us who fly more than that, it's a pain in ass and we're smart enough to realize where the holes are in security. I've heard plenty of instances of people bringing things that they didn't expect they could through security by mistake.

Our representatives in government aren't going to revoke these powers any time soon unless we ask them to.

lutorm2• 17 years ago

I'm with you, but people asked for it. Until Americans come to terms with the fact that the world is a dangerous place, this will continue. Every lawsuit that pins liability on someone else for someone's actions that they should have realized could have an adverse outcome reinforces this mentality.

It seems the only deaths Americans are willing to accept as part of life are car crashes. All other causes are unacceptable and should be sued or enforced out of existence, even if they constitute a small fraction of that number.

stevenbedrick• 17 years ago

Agreed 100%, but you forgot one more category of deaths that Americans seem more than happy to live with: deaths from preventable or easily (and cheaply!) treatable medical conditions, as well as deaths from medical errors (one commonly-cited IOM report places the total annual number of preventable deaths due to medical error in the same ballpark as the number of people killed in traffic accidents).

ynniv3• 17 years ago

The sooner people realize that there is no such thing* as extremist terrorism, the better. (* statistically speaking) The only success of modern terrorism has been the media terrorizing us into spending money on expensive, needless security equipment, government programs (TSA, DHS), and baseless wars abroad. Obviously the reward structure is complicated as the media does not make these devices, run these programs, or wage these wars, but none of these expenses would be plausible without the constant yelling that emanates from every media device I encounter.

I mean, think about this: the poor terrorists-that-we-call-terrorists blow themselves up ... and we don't even listen to their message. (Which is usually "hey, leave us alone pls, kthnxboom") Then some yokel gets his 15 minutes to tell us how we need to spend billions on something he's getting kickbacks for. Who here is using terror more effectively?

Once the public has realized that there is (statistically) no root-cause terrorism, we can have appropriately relaxed security once again. And more money.

mnemonicsloth2• 17 years ago

We don't even listen to their message (which is usually "hey, leave us alone pls, kthnxboom")

People do not blow up buildings, crash airliners, and wreck passenger trains because they want to be left alone. They do these things because they want to be feared, or barring that, paid attention to.

latortuga• 17 years ago

Or potentially because Islam calls for killing of infidels. Apostasy is punishable by death in Islam. I suppose this is a subset of being feared (believe or you deserve to die) but I think it's worth highlighting.

narag• 17 years ago

Are you intentionally misunderstanding? It's very clear what the person you're responding to meant. Of course the message is delivered in a way that begs attention. But the message is "leave us alone."

nir• 17 years ago

Interesting interview with Bruce Schneier here: http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/bruc...

FTA: "A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy our country's way of life; it's only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage."

ghshephard6• 17 years ago

The TSA leadership consists of bright, passionate, dedicated individuals. I doubt any of us, given the information and resources at their command, could make significantly better decisions than they have.

I read Bruce Schneir's interview with Kip Hawley back in 2007, and came away with the belief that we have a team in place that has some significant knowledge of managing aviation security:

http://www.schneier.com/interview-hawley.html

As for what happened on Christmas, Bruce concisely describes a fairly common mantra about aviation security:

"Basically, there are three broad ways of defending airplanes: preventing bad people from getting on them (ID checks), preventing bad objects from getting on them (passenger screening, baggage screening), and preventing bad things from happening on them (reinforcing the cockpit door, sky marshals)."

And, with the exception of not getting millimeter-wave/back-scatter technology in place for full body scanning (which would have trivially caught the Christmas underwear bomber - and the lack of this technology at security checkpoints is perhaps the one real-failure of the TSA), I think the TSA has done an admirable job.

Note - one thing most people don't understand, is that by creating a rule which states "You must sit down in the last hour of flight" - the goal isn't to prevent mad-bombers from standing up, it's to make it very clear which ones the mad bombers are for the Sky Marshals and Airline crew - it's for a week, and the rule (hopefully) is given a pass for those who clearly need to go to the washroom, need a blanket, etc...

krschultz2• 17 years ago

Don't let facts dilute a good populist and/or libertarian rant against "dumb" government.

Is nobody noticing this guy got on a plane in another country? Why the mindless hammering on the American TSA?

CWuestefeld4• 17 years ago

I don't see anyone raising a fuss about the attempted attack itself. The fuss is all about the TSA's silly response to it.

kelnos5• 17 years ago

Somewhat morbidly entertainingly, with the "no standing up in the last hour of flight" rule, the underwear bomber might have been successful, given that either a) no one would have gotten up to try to subdue him, or b) the first person who got up to try to subdue him would have been subdued by another as a potential terrorist.

karzeem• 17 years ago

I think people are rightly responding more to the stupidity of the new security measures than their ineffectiveness. Those are slightly different.

We can debate the usefulness of a security measure, but the real problem is that the TSA is acting as if this was some kind of unknown attack vector. What have we learned that we didn't know before? Did we not know that people could hide explosives in their underwear, or in their body, or, to take just one more example, in prosthetic limbs? Is this news to anyone? So why the new rules?

Since these are all long-known methods of attacking an airplane, it makes no sense for the TSA to wait until an actual attack to implement "preventative" measures. Either implement the measures long beforehand or decide they're not useful and never implement them. What they're doing is like waiting for your hard drive to crash before you make backups.

ghshephard6• 17 years ago

El Al is frequently tossed out as an example of great security, but, really, they aren't that impressive:

o They have a grand total of 37 airplanes in their fleet.

o They engage in aggressive racial profiling.

o Their passenger pattern typically consists of people flying to and from Israel. It's pretty straightforward to identify the aberration in that crowd.

o By simply using the filter of "You are likely among the racial/ethnic/cultural target-crowd that is likely to be a terrorist" and then applying selective screening, you pretty much eliminate a fairly major vector for attack.

Admittedly, one of the reasons why profiling takes place at El Al, is that is because it works for that particular target. The United States, even if it were willing to engage in profiling, has a much broader set of attackers - you'd end up finding everyone included in your profile.

But, because the United States doesn't have the same straightforward problem of identifying who the _attackers_ are, they need to engage in "defense in depth" that El Al has the luxury of not requiring. Ergo - no large volumes of liquids (Note - the bottle size maximum is likely related to the highly oxygen reactive properties of the target liquids - you can't really combine them into one large bomb after the security checkpoint - and the small bottles aren't large enough to do _too_ much damage. A few people might be killed, or seriously injured - but it's unlikely you could bring a plane down within the restrictions of the TSA liquid size)

Shoes, likewise, with their metal inserts and large and easily concealed compartments, need to be scanned in the X-Ray machine.

Here are some simple steps that would dramatically increase security:

o Eliminate Carry On Luggage. This would be an issue on long flights for the work crowd though, as well as people carrying food/supplies for babies, anything valuable that they don't want to check, and people with medical requirements. Some Canadian Ports of entry were effectively doing that this week though.

o Full Body Scans with Back-Scatter/Millimeter Wave scans. This is way overdue, and the number one tactical failure of the TSA. Start your stopwatch - within 48 months 100% of inbound international passengers will be subject to some type of Full Body Scan or Pat Down. It will be interesting to see if the same thing will occur domestically.

o Full Pat-Down for all passengers - They actually did this at YVR a couple days ago. Slowed things down a little, but that's because they didn't have enough staff to do it quickly. They need to get over their tendency not to search sensitive areas if they want to ensure it's done with 100% effectivness.

o Bomb Sniffers/Dogs - I'm surprised nobody has automated this more effectively yet.

Note that any _one_ of these last three would have caught the Christmas Underwear Bomber - in fact, would likely have dissuaded him, and a large class of attackers, in the first place.

krschultz2• 17 years ago

Your last four points illustrate the real problem. We have the technology (scans) and the techniques (pat-downs and dogs) to make us safe. We do not have the will to implement them.

Either it costs too much or people don't want to give up their liberty (though really, the pat-down is the only one that should offend people).

Like too many things, this is a political problem and not a technical one.

barrkel• 17 years ago

Really? Full body scans, basically a technological stripsearch, wherein you and your children are examined in detail by some guy in some room somewhere, does not hold potential for offence?

abhay2• 17 years ago

I have always wondered why there aren't more visible chemical 'sniffers' in all airports as I've seen at NY's Penn & Grand Central Stations. They're not really in the way and there are specific security protocols in place if one of them go off. iRobot is already producing bomb sniffing bots for the military and I doubt it'd be too hard for the technology to be adapted for airport checkpoints.

warfangle• 17 years ago

Ah, is that what those things that are labeled as EPA air quality stations are?

kelnos5• 17 years ago

My problem with these (except the last one) is that they are invasive. Sorry, but I'm not willing to be treated as a potential criminal quite to that degree when all I want to do is travel from point A to point B.

As others have pointed out, the mm-wave scans amount to strip searches. A full pat-down just has too many associations with a criminal arrest. Eliminating carry-on luggage is probably more under the "inconvenience" category, but it is, as you somewhat note, an inconvenience that would be a significant problem for a lot of people.

Bomb sniffers -- especially if they're machines that are used passively -- sound like a good idea. Better scanning equipment that doesn't violate my privacy, but is able to do an adequate scan of both me and my belongings, without the need to take off my shoes or remove things (laptop, bag of liquids, etc.) from my luggage, or to limit the quantity of liquids I can carry... we need all these things.

With the amount of money supposedly being thrown at "making us safer" on airplanes, why have these scanners not been invented and mass-produced yet? It's been over 8 years since 9/11, and, technology-wise, we just have a few poorly-deployed pieces of technology (the air-puffer things, whatever they do, and the mm-wave scanners that have been a PR nightmare) and no actual universally-deployed solutions. I've been seeing signs at airports for a while now claiming that they're "working on" a solution that will let us keep our shoes on... but this solution hasn't materialized. Gimme a break...

ghshephard6• 17 years ago

Okay, I'm curious. How do you defend an airplane from someone with PETN stiched into their underwear carrying a liquid detonator in their (small) shampoo bottle without a Body Scan or Pat Down?

This attacker screwed up and got tackled before the detonator was able to set off the PETN - the next one will likely be smart enough to set off a bomb in the bathroom.

I actually am very interested in hearing what alternative approaches there are out there.

mrduncan• 17 years ago

I thought that the following comment (second from the top) on the story was interesting and bared partially repeating below. I'm not saying that the TSA should be issued automatic rifles, just that it's thought provoking:

After that, it was a third metal detector (not x-ray this time) and finally a full on frisk by another representative of the national military. Let me tell you, this was not a friendly pat, pat like what TSA gives you. This was a full on search like I was an enemy prisoner that they were concerned had a knife hidden somewhere on me.

After all of that, they stuck me in a windowless room with all of the other passengers until our flight was ready to board (About 1/2 an hour). There were no shops, no bathrooms, and only one room with men and women with automatic rifles posted at the exits.

What it gave me the impression of was people who had had issues with hijacking and terrorism before and REALLY didn't want it to happen again. People who didn't give a shit if I was inconvenienced or annoyed because they knew that it would be far more of an inconvenience for me if some asshole blew the plane up over the ocean somewhere.

brown9-2• 17 years ago

For many years after the explosion of the TWA plane over Long Island (a disaster that was later found to have nothing at all to do with international religious nihilism), you could not board an aircraft without being asked whether you had packed your own bags and had them under your control at all times.

Is this true? TWA Flight 800 crashed in 1996. Weren't screeners asking passengers if they packed their own luggage before this?

I believe Hitchens is also wrong on the second point here:

These two questions are the very ones to which a would-be hijacker or bomber would honestly and logically have to answer "yes." But answering "yes" to both was a condition of being allowed on the plane! Eventually, that heroic piece of stupidity was dropped as well.

My understanding was always that this question was designed to weed out any cases where a second party might have covertly sneaked explosives into your luggage without your knowledge.

kelnos5• 17 years ago

Yes, my understanding is that it makes the person stop and think for a moment, "oh, hmm, wait a sec... I did leave my bag alone when I went to the bathroom." Of course, my assumption is that most people would still answer "yes" to the question anyway, to avoid being inconvenienced by a search.

webwright• 17 years ago

Reality: With a few hot water bottles strapped around me, I could get staggering amounts of liquid onto a plane. I would theorize that VERY few people have both the skills and the desire to actually suicide bomb (or even hijack) a plane... Otherwise, why isn't it happening more often?

Planes running into buildings are pretty spectacular, but even if we removed ALL security measures, airport security would be WAY down on the list of things that result in needless death.

There are infinite cheap/free ways to terrorize people if you're willing to die. There is no way to be secure from it short of spending gazillions on preventative measures.

Being terrorized by lunatics will always be a cost of being hated. We should stop spending significant money on it, consider it a painful cost of being free/prosperous, and focus on not being so worthy of hate.

meelash• 17 years ago

I was nodding my head throughout most of this article until I got to this:

"the pledged supporters of a wicked theocratic ideology. These people will kill themselves to attack hotels, weddings, buses, subways, cinemas, and trains. They consider Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, homosexuals, and dissident Muslims (to give only the main instances) to be divinely mandated slaughter victims."

This kind of insane toeing of the official line of good vs. evil is exactly the counter-productive foolishness that allows the security services to carry on with their ridiculous "responses" to these events.

Putting our heads into the sand about the actions WE have taken and supported in the past 100 years that have motivated these attacks does no one more disservice than ourselves. Just a few weeks back there was an extremely revealing article with statistics on the number of Muslim civilians directly killed by American forces in the past 30 years and vice versa.

Even when these attackers ARE explicitly motivated by religion, it is on the basis of worldwide injustices of our government that that religious motivation is invoked. It is never a question of killing because that is all Americans are good for, as is often implied in pieces like this.

alabut• 17 years ago

I'm glad to see that someone else noticed the last paragraph. It totally hijacks the rest of the article by conflating his excellent rant against security pantomime theater with his proposed solution of doing nothing, mixed in with a bit of racism.

"We had better get used to being the civilians who are under a relentless and planned assault."

Seriously? After bitching about the ineffectiveness of the TSA, the best idea for a replacement is to raise our hands and say "oh well, shit happens and planes go boom"?

barmstrong5• 17 years ago

Perhaps a bit off topic, but I'm curious what others think about the idea of privatizing airport security and getting rid of the TSA.

In other words, let each airline compete (and innovate) with it's own security solutions, and spend it's own money to implement them. This would essentially bring the power of the free market to bear on the problem. A terrorist getting onto United (for example) with a bomb would be a huge PR problem and a mark against the airline not the TSA, causing them to lose business and competitors to scramble to learn/capitalize on it.

As it stands if you have a complaint against how the TSA is handling things, there isn't much you can do. But if airlines provided their own security, passengers could "vote with their dollars" on who was finding the right mix of effective security vs. inconvenience to honest passengers, and the best solution would be rewarded economically.

Btw, I realize this would probably never happen given the political climate, but I also can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work better than the TSA. Thoughts?

fuzzmeister• 17 years ago

Considering it would take the deaths of around 300 people for an airline's security to be proven insufficient (and thus not a good place to spend money), I'm not sure if that's an ethical idea. Personally, in such a situation, I would always go with the most safety-focused airline, no matter the inconvenience.

borism• 17 years ago

All airlines are safety focused, those who are not don't survive for long. Unsafety is very very expensive in this industry.

Putting a burden of airport security on airlines will be a final nail on their collective coffin though.

Besides, many airports (at least here in Europe) already have private contractors doing airport security. So what? It doesn't matter who does the job, they simply implement the policies regulators impose.

Now having private entities producing ad hoc security policies with primary goal of maximizing returns - that's what I call a Disaster.

barmstrong5• 17 years ago

You could say the same thing about the TSA (how will we know when they are ineffective?). So I'm not sure this is a valid reason.

Also, just wanted to point out it doesn't require deaths to judge the effectiveness of the TSA (or this solution) as shown with the "close call" over Christmas.

Hitchens: The truth about airplane security measures

Related Stories