I flew on a plane without going through security. It was amazing and no one died

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/30/i-flew-on-a-plane-without-going-through-security-it-was-amazing-and-no-one-died/

by MattRogish • 13 years ago

235 226 13 years ago

washingtonpost.com

ck23• 13 years ago

Isn't it pathetically sad what we've grown to accept?

Frog in a slowly heating pot indeed.

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.

dangerlibrary• 13 years ago

In general, frogs will jump out of slowly heating pots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

talmand4• 13 years ago

Bigger pot, less water as to bigger budget, less freedom.

HCIdivision17• 13 years ago

The page is actually fairly interesting. It seems to have started with a test where the frog failed to jump out because when it's brain was removed (reminding me of how frogs go deaf when their legs are cut off).

But it does seem that it's a matter of degrees (literally). If sufficiently slow - very slow - the frog may in fact not notice. But it is certainly very slow. It also seems a normal frog will also apparently get bored or restless, and will jump out, not from heat, but because frogs just jump around.

Overall, it seems like a hard thing to test for properly without inflicting some constraint on the frog to encourage it to stay and die.

DumySSone• 13 years ago

What if the pot contains wine? What then?

rogerbinns• 13 years ago

I wish the airlines would make it clearer to passengers the fees they are paying. If every passenger was reminded just after going through the TSA that $5 of their ticket actually went to the TSA for the procedure, I suspect there would be a lot more pressure for change.

jmspring2• 13 years ago

My last trip to London from SFO, according to the ticket fare breakdown, fees were more than 1/2 the ticket. Probably closer to 60%. I would love to see every line item.

Just over Christmas break, we flew from the Vancouver commuter terminal to Tofino. Aside from the delays due to weather, no TSA, super friendly staff, quick mostly comfy flight.

ck23• 13 years ago

This is actually an extremely good idea.

Make it a law or greatly encourage airlines to itemize the TSA inspection fee. Also list the prescreening fee for when they profile all your data before you even get to the airport.

What's crazy is people would be upset about the fee and not the procedure itself.

swalsh• 13 years ago

Its actually a good idea. If you take the charge off the ticket price, and put a cash register with the agent checking your id... i'd imagine people would react differently.

munificent• 13 years ago

By extension, I would love it if my tax forms clarified what fraction of my salary went to funding the NSA.

tehwebguy3• 13 years ago

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.

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.

codex7• 13 years ago

Since 9/11 there have been no highjacking attempts, true, but there have been multiple bombing attempts on aircraft by would be suicide bombers, and these bombers were able to evade the limited screening employed at the time. As bomb technology grows more sophisticated and easy to hide, screening has become more rigorous. That's what the TSA is focused on these days.

voyou• 13 years ago

"here have been multiple bombing attempts on aircraft by would be suicide bombers"

Yes, and they've all failed. That means we have at least enough security, and we should start thinking about scaling it back.

cortesoft2• 13 years ago

This might be true... but if all they are trying to do is bomb the plane, what makes a plane bomb that much worse than, say, a bus bomb? You can ride greyhound without going through rigorous screening, and yet no one has planted a bomb on a bus.

The excuse for the airplane security has been that they can use the plane as a missile. If this is no longer the case, than planes lose their special status as something that needs to be extra protected. If we feel safe getting on a bus without going through a metal detector, a plane should be no different.

Yes, people can do us harm at any time. They could shoot us, bomb us, stab us, burn us with acid, etc. We accept those risks every day, and almost all of us get through life without those things happening to us. That is because the number of people who want to do bad things to us isn't nearly as great as some would have us believe. We don't need more screening to protect us from very unlikely threats.

chrismcb9• 13 years ago

Huh? Much more rigorous? Other than using these stupid full body scanners, nothing much has changed since 9/11. Before 9/11 I walked through a metal detector, and occasionally got pulled aside for a frisking and a hand held metal detector waved over me... Today I bypass the full body scanner and get a frisking. The frisking is a bit more hands on, but thats about it. They use a sniffing machine to see if there is bomb residue on my clothes. But I don't see anything more sophisticated than that.

3JPLW• 13 years ago

I was listening to a radio show this past week (All Things Considered, I think) that recounted the history of airplane screenings. It was fascinating. Before screenings, hijackings were much more common and the airlines liked to negotiate themselves to keep things quiet (and, to their thinking, reduce passengers' fear). Hijackings were much more common, but generally dealt with quickly and quietly.

It wasn't until a hijacked plane threatened to hit a Tennessee nuclear power plant that their thinking changed. No longer was it just the plane that was a hostage, but potentially a much bigger area, allowing for much bigger demands ($2Mil, to be exact). [1]

The next year afterwards, though? Flying was up 15%. Turns out people liked not getting hijacked, and were willing to trade a (minimal) security check for that. Of course, the TSA is a much bigger beast today.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Airways_Flight_49

talmand4• 13 years ago

Would there be a connection to the more often they quietly paid to hush things up the more hijackings that would happen?

talmand4• 13 years ago

They were playing with fire not securing the cockpit since the beginning. Anyone who had slightest idea of how physics worked would automatically see them as a cheap form of guided missiles. Even back in the days of old-fashioned hijackings for political statements, a secured cabin could have possibly done some good.

But they were relying on statistics I suppose.

alexeisadeski34• 13 years ago

No, they weren't relying on statistics.

In the old days, a simple note or declarative statement to the effect that the terrorist had a bomb and would set it off would have been enough to get the pilots to open a locked and secured door.

We required the certitude that opening the door was worse than leaving the door locked and risking the chance that the terrorist may be telling the truth.

koenigdavidmj• 13 years ago

That, and there's one more benefit. Before 9/11 we were taught to deal with hijackers by letting them get what they want, because up until that point they usually freed their passengers at that point. Now, passengers have nothing to lose by fighting back, so the response is "do anything you have to to end the threat".

codex7• 13 years ago

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.

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.

Fortunately, while civilian memory is short, government institutional memory is long.

magicalist3• 13 years ago

And yet this combination was effective in limiting the number of casualties in the recent Volgograd train station bombing

It just shifted the site of the attack to a new bottleneck: where everyone is in line to go through the metal detector (which many people also have pointed out is a ripe target for an attack in the post-TSA US).

codex7• 13 years ago

That's the idea. There were more people waiting for trains inside the station than waiting in line at the metal detector. Russian officials claim that the barricades reduced casualties.

monksy• 13 years ago

Metal detectors are no big deal. They're quick and they preserve your privacy. Those body scanners are a freaking mess.

venomsnake• 13 years ago

That was one of the reasons given in Cracked by some former Ben Gurion head of security.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-reasons-tsa-sucks-a-security-e...

(yeah I know it is a cracked article, but this time it is different)

Crito3• 13 years ago

The American public, and detractors of the TSA in particular, have not forgotten 9/11.

Not all "security measures" are created equal. Reinforced cockpit doors and curb-stomping want-to-be hijackers are both effective security measures, as were metal detectors.

Those are not the security measures that critics of the TSA are criticizing.

EGreg2• 13 years ago

"Could that literature review be wrong? Sure."

"Is eliminating airport security politically untenable? Maybe"

"Would this increase hijacking? Probably."

LOL

EGreg2• 13 years ago

Is this much more libertarian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A

C1D• 13 years ago

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.

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.

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.

rayiner2• 13 years ago

Interesting point about hijackings.

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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking. Interesting to read the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#196....

smackfu2• 13 years ago

And before security checks, they were even more common. Criminals treated them almost like bank robberies for a while in the 60's and 70's. Hijack a plane, trade the passenger for a ransom, fly off to some third-world country and live on the ransom.

alexeisadeski34• 13 years ago

Security checks shouldn't have been the factor causing the change. Ransom payout avoidance and police tactics would have been the deciding factor.

In the old days, once didn't actually require a weapon to hijack a plane. Merely the claim of possessing a weapon was sufficient.

rgrieselhuber• 13 years ago

I'd still rather take my chances than put up with the BS that we encounter today.

rayiner2• 13 years ago

Maybe you would, but now that there's precedent for flying those planes into buildings instead of just demanding money I hope you can at least understand why lots of people would support those measures.

Segmentation• 13 years ago

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?

ravingraven• 13 years ago

You get screened normally when flying intra Schengen.

hatu• 13 years ago

It's pretty much the same. The security checks are a little bit more lax than TSA but no noticeable difference really. The airports in Finland and Denmark are generally pretty fast at getting people through security, maybe because of pretty low volume.

ojilles• 13 years ago

Depends on what you mean, but as one example, you don't have to take your shoes off in most EU airports, which is really really nice...

alexeisadeski34• 13 years ago

The most time consuming screening, my experience, is in the UK. Flight screening on the Continent is perhaps a touch quicker than in the States, but same ballpark.

chimeracoder• 13 years ago

It's sad that this headline (presumably) is not tautological.

First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US[0].

Second, the circumstances under which 9/11 happened would be impossible to repeat. Plane cockpits are all but impenetrable[1] - the only 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 not face the same fate as the other three planes, because the passengers knew what the hijackers were planning.)

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).

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: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194

[0] http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-...

[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 fire department almost an hour to cut through the door.

Crito3• 13 years ago

"[1] I believe I read another comment on here 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 fire department almost an hour to cut through the door."

I can't find a report of this ever happening, though I did find an article from December 2001 which pointed out potential danger to pilots behind locked doors. It also notes that the danger of an incident mid-flight can be reduced by having a flight attendant step into the cockpit whenever one of the pilots steps out.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-12-17/news/0112160265_...

(Edit: Lest my nitpicky comment be misunderstood, it also talks a little about how strong the reinforcements are; I think your point about cockpit doors being extremely solid can be reasonably taken as fact.)

Theodores2• 13 years ago

Well done for researching that.

With seatbelts and their introduction there were anecdotes about people crashing their cars into ponds, lakes etc. where their lives were saved because they were not wearing their seatbelts. I think it is human nature to want to repeat the one incident where the safety measures could have led to disaster.

Since you are so adept at research, can you find this one for me?

Recently a senior New Labour politician who was responsible for bringing in TSA style checks in the UK wise-cracked about how those that complained should be offered two lines at the airport, one with the body scanners, sniffer dogs, robocops etc. and another - to a different flight - where you could just walk straight on. He wondered which flight would be chosen to go on by those complaining types.

It bugs me now that I can't find the quote or remember whether it was Gordon Brown or some other politician.

ams61104• 13 years ago

Recently in Africa a suicidal pilot crashed a regional jet[1], killing all aboard, after sending the co-pilot back to check something in the cabin. Due to the locks nobody could re-enter the flight deck (might not have mattered, but who knows). "[The] cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder revealed, that the captain was alone on the flight deck, banging on the flight deck door could be heard on the cockpit voice recorder"

Passenger aircraft are supposed to NEVER operate with only one person on the flight deck, but rules are not always followed.

We don't know how many hijackings have been prevented by the locking doors. Are there any documented cases? We do know of a few cases where they have caused deaths, or at least prevented any chance to try to avert a disaster.

1: http://avherald.com/h?article=46c3abde&opt=0

FrankenPC4• 13 years ago

You forget about the subset of crazed American freedom-lovers that may be on any given plane. Hijackers would have to somehow get past people willing to die to stop them. It's just not a viable method anymore.

shawndumas• 13 years ago

I am not sure if you meant it that way but that came across as insulting.

peteretep• 13 years ago

How about the shoe bomber or underpants bomber? Neither was successful, but neither would have required access to the cockpit either

FrankenPC4• 13 years ago

Great point. Not sure this isn't a technology solution though that could be automated by fast computers with automated sensors.

cstejerean• 13 years ago

I think both of those are a great example of the fact that X-Ray + metal detectors provide sufficient protection in conjunction with alert passengers. Is the guy next to you trying to light his shoe or trying to set his pants on fire? Take him down.

More importantly, security is provided by catching would be terrorists before they even get anywhere near the airport. Because otherwise they can do a lot more damage at a crowded security checkpoint than they could with whatever explosives they managed to mix in their underwear. This is a job for intelligence agencies, not for the TSA.

bicknergseng• 13 years ago

Bomb sniffing dogs are more effective at a fraction of the cost.

But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane. The question is not "should we try to stop people from blowing things up?" The question is "what are reasonable and effective means to stop people from blowing things up?"

caycep2• 13 years ago

The Israelis liked to claim that both probably would have been spotted at the multiple checkpoints they put into Ben Gurion Airport. Being as both were so anxious they more or less sweated through the bombs they were carrying.

runarb• 13 years ago

Thus cockpits doors are not impenetrable if you could bring the necessary tools with you. If we did remove the security screening an attacker could come with 30 kg of professional cutting gear in his bag, and not even safes and concrete walls can withstand that for long.

ars_technician2• 13 years ago

Do you not think someone would spot them sawing the door open? Also keep in mind that pilots are FLYING THE AIRPLANE. They can just start to do maneuvers that would make it impossible for attackers to even stay at the cockpit door, let alone take it apart.

enraged_camel2• 13 years ago

Doesn't matter. By the time they cut through the door, the pilot would already have performed an emergency landing at a nearby airport. You're going to have a hard time cutting through the cockpit door when a SWAT officer is pressing your head against the floor.

lostlogin2• 13 years ago

Ever used professional cutting gear? There is no carry on bag I've ever seen that would fit the smallest petrol powered gear I've used. The blade alone is 300mm http://www.hirepool.co.nz/equipment-hire/s1/1/s3/61/FetchGro... However electric gear is smaller. If you can find a power point and a decent extension lead, run it to the pilot's door, avoid someone unplugging it, don't blow a fuse, don't get it too smokey to breath (bring respirator or get a passenger to assist by pouring water on the door - avoid the water/electrics issue as that can be dangerous. 1 minute of cutting can make so much dust/smoke you can't see your hand in front of your face). You'll be through that door in under an hour!

wahsd2• 13 years ago

Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded simpletons played right into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple.

Let's also remember what genius methods and techniques the "terrorists" used to hijack some planes....they "smuggled" some box cutters on the plane. .... The END ... FIN

I bet you if any one of you put a plastic craft blade, you know, the marker sized ones with the break away blades, in your carry on bag you would not be stopped or discovered; especially if you placed it with the blade on edge to the image.

Here's a tip though, never, NEVER ever will another plane be hijacked by anyone else using those means. Not only did the "authorities" finally secure the cockpits like it had been pleaded for years prior to 9/11, but I can guarantee you that anyone even attempting would be ripped apart by the limbs. I, for one, don't care if you were able to smuggle a middle-earth battle axe on the plane; you will be dead within seconds of pulling some shit.

That being said, I'm not quite certain if it has gotten any better, but just relatively recently it was still rather easy to access the runways and bays. Just saying, the phantoms we are fighting might get "genius" and pull of a "highly sophisticated plot" that my seven year old could plane and execute with just a tablet computer at their disposal.

dragonwriter3• 13 years ago

Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded simpletons played right into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple.

The transfer of existing security responsibilities from airlines to the federal government wasn't a make-work program, it was a measure to eliminate potential airline liability for future security failures.

It was about the economy, because reducing the airlines liability risk going forward was one of many steps taken to help the airline industry, but it wasn't primarily a "make-work" program.

greedo2• 13 years ago

Just a quick question. Why the scare quotes around terrorists? Are you disputing that that is what they were?

vidarh9• 13 years ago

Meanwhile, one of my pet peeves is that while they stop small sharp items, I can, and do, carry my 1.2 meter umbrella with a solid wood handle and thick steel ribs. It would take about 10 minutes to reshape it into a sturdy pike. To be clear, I don't think they should stop them, but I do think that if you aim to stop sharp items with the excuse that they might be used as weapons, stopping something that can actually easily be turned into a fairly dangerous weapons ought to be top of the list.

First time I was travelling with it, I went to check it in, and they looked at me as if I was stupid. Clearly no terrorist has tried to use a huge umbrella as a pike yet, so it's not yet a risk. If I was a terrorist, testing a suitable set of objects with enough sharpened metal pieces for whether or not they'd ask me to check them in would be trivial - any terrorists being stopped by their lack of ability to bring something sharp on are so dumb they'd be stopped by someone drawing a stop sign in crayons and insisting they're not allowed to pass.

So the terrorists are either really stupid, there aren't that many of them, or they, like you, are smart enough to realise that they'd better have some pretty horrible weapons to be able to survive a hijack attempt in a post-9/11 world.

In other words, it's not even about stopping sharp items, but about giving the appearance of stopping a suitable set of objects that will keep people concerned about terror threats.

What about liquids? Pretty much every trip I end up forgetting some bottle or other of liquids, generally a half litre bottler of some drink, often because the mother of my child keeps putting bottles in his bag that I don't notice until after security. Not once have they been noticed at the security checks.

So it's a show, as those who do want to get liquids past can just put them in their carry on and send it through with good odds of being able to walk straight on. If they cared, they'd do better. But they don't care, as this is not about stopping a viable plot, but about keeping up appearances.

Meanwhile my 4 year old was picked out for secondary screening when we flew to visit my mother for christmas, without setting off the metal detectors, and had to pass his shoes through and go through the new scanners, and get patted down; I was furious, but didn't want to upset or scare him or risk messing up his christmas by making a fuss about it; and when we'd gone through, I found a full drinks bottle in his bag that they'd missed.

twoodfin2• 13 years ago

Initially, the Bush administration and the GOP resisted the creation of a Federal airport security service. They were not at all excited about a big new (particularly unionized) government workforce. But the Democrats fought for it and won that political argument. Here's a contemporaneous news account that covers the basics: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87570

How did you end up remembering it differently?

yetanotherphd• 13 years ago

The idea that the Bush administration created the TSA just to create jobs is ridiculous. There are much cheaper ways to create jobs (e.g. fixing highways), and much as people like to deride George Bush's intelligence, there is no way his administration would have created the TSA for such a stupid reason.

laureny3• 13 years ago

First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US[0].

This is like saying that we're seeing fewer and fewer occurrences of tuberculosis, therefore TB vaccines are useless.

cheeseprocedure• 13 years ago

That comparison is valid only if you have data demonstrating that the TSA has successfully deterred/foiled aviation terror plots.

If you have that data (which I'd love to see), there are still powerful arguments that TSA funding would have been better spent in many other ways (better training budgets for security/investigative personnel, more "soft" layers at airports, fewer kneejerk infrastructure upgrades).

EdwardDiego• 13 years ago

First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US

That's funny, because I got searched more thoroughly leaving the USA than when I was flying to the USA.

WA• 13 years ago

Might be because the airplane is already over US territory. Thus, if you smuggle a bomb on board and the plane explodes, it might crash into a US city. Flights going to the States need to travel for quite a few hours before they reach US territory.

Schwolop• 13 years ago

It's not hugely complex to create interlocks such that the cabin occupancy is monitored and the locks are opened when the cabin has fewer than two occupants. I can't immediately think of a completely failsafe version, but I suspect with a bit of time this could be readily achieved.

snowwrestler6• 13 years ago

Yet another in a long line of "data wonky" articles that misuse statistical data to support a position that is emotionally attractive.

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.

There are two huge problems with this statement.

First, you cannot draw such a causal conclusion from statistical data alone.

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.

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.

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.

Does that sound stupid? I hope so, because it is. But that's exactly the type of argument that this article is making.

swalkergibson2• 13 years ago

This is a false equivalency. There are numerous, perfectly good reasons why you should store hashed passwords in a database.

Frisking Grandma is another story. Air marshals, metal detectors, and reinforced cockpit doors should be sufficient to halt the vast majority of terrorist attacks. As with any system, a determined adversary will absolutely get in. That is what makes the TSA theater.

aroman4• 13 years ago

This is a false equivalency. There are numerous, perfectly good reasons why you should store hashed passwords in a database.

That is precisely his point. The TSA is in place not only to stop terrorist attacks (this is the false equivalency the article's author relied on), but ALSO to defend against a myriad of security risks, one of which happens to be "Terrorism".

gohrt2• 13 years ago

It is absolutely true, that

IF an attacker has the ability to attack unprotected plains and the ability to attack unprotected trains,

AND the attacker is determined to attack,

AND the attacker and defender basically care the same about successful plane attacks vs train attacks,

THEN protecting the planes alone is useless, as it just shifts attacks to trains.

For example: I think we can agree that it is pointless to put a lock on your back door, if your front door is wide open.

In other words, given a budget of X, it is better spend it to raise MINIMUM(plane security, train security) then to raise MAXIMUM(plane security, train security), since the attacker will attack your minimum. This is just minimax AI theory.

VLM3• 13 years ago

"AND the attacker and defender basically care the same about successful plane attacks vs train attacks,"

Can't hijack a train and knock down a skyscraper with it. At least not very well. Every once in a while a drunk or nutcase takes a train for a joyride (I come from a long line of railroadmen, I hear stories aside from whats in the paper). Most of them screw up the E-brake system but if its a former employee then the worst case is the switches get thrown to derail the engine before the lunatic hits anything. Its very expensive but not much of a big deal.

natrius• 13 years ago

"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."

Since cockpits are now near-impossible to break into, why is a violent attack on an airplane worse than a violent attack in a movie theater? Probabilistically, the expected carnage in the latter case is higher.

snowwrestler6• 13 years ago

If you set off a small bomb in a movie theater you will kill a few people. A small bomb on an airliner will crash it, killing everyone aboard.

claudius• 13 years ago

First, you cannot draw such a causal conclusion from statistical data alone.

From what else but (suitable) statistical can you draw such a conclusion?

Does that sound stupid? I hope so, because it is.

Yes.

But that's exactly the type of argument that this article is making.

No. The argument says that the attacks on society as a whole will likely remain constant regardless of airport security because there are many other, unsecured attack vectors.

Going back to your analogy, airport security is like allowing only passphrase-secured SSH keys of 8192 bits (say), while at the same time running a telnet daemon which gives root immediately – the latter corresponding to all the unsecured roads, malls, trains, you-name-it.

That is, if we don’t want to specifically protect airports but human lives, we have to consider not only the security gain from increased security in one area, but also whether this reduces the effectivity of attacks overall. If we want to protect one whole server and not just the SSH daemon, we have to consider not only making the SSH daemon as secure as possible but also all the other software running on this server – at which point we notice that it cannot be possibly feasible to secure this thing 100%, because nobody likes going through metal detectors to be allowed to leave their house.

thaumasiotes3• 13 years ago

the goal of airport security is NOT to reduce terrorist casualties overall. It is to reduce violent attacks of any kind on airplanes, specifically.

OK, but this is an argument for throwing out airport security entirely. Is that what you meant to say?

If I owned an airline, sure, I'd be all about reducing airline passenger casualties by killing non-passengers somewhere else. But there's no public interest in redirecting attacks; the public interest is in reducing them.

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.
Does that sound stupid? I hope so, because it is. But that's exactly the type of argument that this article is making.

The phenomenon of a counterbalancing reaction occurring when you make some change to a system is pretty general. How much of the desired effect (reduced casualties, or reduced breaches) of the change you made comes through, vs how much is eliminated by the reaction (increased effort directed to bombing theaters, or sending out phishing attacks), is an empirical matter; the fact that phishing attacks don't rise to nearly the level that password-guessing attacks were at before we started using stronger passwords (incidentally, we have weak passwords now, have always had weak passwords, and it is not generally felt that password strength is where we need to improve our online security), has no implications for the likely reaction of attacks to airport security.

The "type" of the argument is fine; it's broad enough that it can work in one domain and fail in another.

ketralnis• 13 years ago

But there's no public interest in redirecting attacks; the public interest is in reducing them

I'm not sure that's true though. Airplanes can be used as powerful weapons. I'd rather leave the knife depot open than the nuclear power plant, even if the number of attacks remains constant.

snowwrestler6• 13 years ago

Utilitarianism is not the basis for U.S. public policy. If it was, we'd outlaw guns, smoking, soda, fried foods, and apply FAA-levels of scrutiny to automobiles.

The public wants to believe that when they get on an airplane, it will not crash for any reason. That is the problem that the TSA helps to address, along with the FAA, NTSB, and federal air marshals.

VLM3• 13 years ago

"the goal of airport security is"

to provide security theater. It would be a heck of a lot cheaper and more effective to just play rambo movies on the inflight entertainment system.

hrkristian• 13 years ago

Rambo screenings would likely have a better effect, myself and others often get so pumped up by action movies we're one wrong tone of voice from going postal. Hijackers wouldn't stand a chance in such an airplane.

kybernetikos• 13 years ago

Does that sound stupid? I hope so, because it is. But that's exactly the type of argument that this article is making.

Actually, it's not just making that argument, it's referencing studies to back it up: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/11/

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.

The analogy you give certainly does sound stupid, but nobody said that the effect was necessarily zero sum, what the sum is is in fact an empirical matter and the research was about precisely this question. Unlike passwords, it would not be all that surprising for it to be approximately zero sum in this case. Terrorists don't sit down and think 'how can I attack an airplane', they sit and think 'how can I cause maximum damage for minimum investment'. Against that kind of opponent, there's no point choosing one tactic and fortifying it beyond reason while leaving a million other options for someone pursuing a strategy of terror. The effective money is spent on identifying the criminals and countering them rather than cherry picking one or two specific techniques. You can see this in most historical counter terrorism efforts.

Very occasionally, it's effective to identify point fixes for things that are low hanging fruit for terrorists. Reinforced cockpit doors almost certainly were part of that. Almost everything else that's been done on air travel since? Not so much.

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.

That's the job of the personnel at the airports. However, we want to know whether the TSA is a program that should be funded, funded at the level it currently is, or given the powers it currently is. That is a question about the most effective way to reduce terrorist casualties overall (or arguably limited to US citizens anyway). It's no sleight of hand to be concerned about efficiency in the measures we take as a society to combat terrorism.

First, you cannot draw such a causal conclusion from statistical data alone.

It's not clear to me why you think that the burden of proof lies in that direction. We have a problem - terrorism. We take some expensive measures - over the top checks at airports. It's not "data wonky" to demand that the programs we've put in place are able to produce real evidence of effectiveness.

Aqueous3• 13 years ago

I mean, I think the point of all security is to reduce the total numbers of deaths from terrorist attacks overall, not just per means of transportation.

That said, the fact of the matter is that the article doesn't back up its claim that airport security doesn't reduce terrorist casualties overall. Instead it states some bizarre equivalence between the decline in the number of hijackings (-6.9) and the increase in the number of instances of other kinds of terrorism (+6.8). But clearly other forms of terrorism do not cause nearly as much death as plane hijackings do, which for each one numbers in the hundreds, so we could be talking about an integer factor decrease in the number of deaths from terrorist attacks - 4x, 5x, 6x - by merely replacing them with other, less destructive terrorism. After all, the relative destructiveness of a plane hijacking is WHY terrorists do it at all. Suddenly airport security seems to look a lot more effective and a lot more worth it. So obviously they didn't mention casualties at all, since it would undermine the point they are trying to make.

Everytime someone complains about security at the airport - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4

People are enjoying an incredible privilege being able to fly in the air.

vidarh9• 13 years ago

But clearly other forms of terrorism do not cause nearly as much death as plane hijackings do, which for each one numbers in the hundreds

[citation needed]

Some hijackings have caused deaths in the hundreds, namely 9/11 style suicide hijackings. However this is the exception. Even post-9/11.

According to the list of hijackings on Wikipedia, of the 21 notable hijackinged since 2000, all the non-9/11 hijackings resulted in 5 victims killed (one accidentally when storming the plane).

Note that post-9/11 there appears to have been a substantial increase in instances where the passengers have overpowered the hijackers, presumably out of fear of terrorists planning on killing them all.

But overall, even including the WTC deaths, plane hijackings does not appear to have caused more than a few tens of victims on average; exclude the WTC dead, and the number is small - most hijackings in fact appears to have ended without any deaths.

And few of the deaths that do happen appears to have been intended by the hijackers (many of the deaths have occurred due to crashes as a result of struggles, or when the planes get stormed by security forces).

chrismcb9• 13 years ago

I'm not sure what your first problem is. Are you implying that hijacking would NOT increase? Statistically speaking there have been more US hijackings before 9/11 than after. Couple that with "we are making it easier for bad guys to bring weapons on board" I think it is a reasonable assumption to say "it will PROBABLY increase hijacking" Didn't the author actually that that terrorists attacks ARE a zerosum game? (There was evidence, but the author admitted it was more anecdotal than proof) I don't think he was subtle here at all.

If we ONLY had passwords because of phishing attacks, then it wouldn't be stupid to get rid of them (based on your statement) But we have passwords for other reasons. We don't have TSA for other reasons (well some people think we do, that is to find drugs)

coldcode2• 13 years ago

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.

aroman4• 13 years ago

That's reductio ad absurdum if I've ever heard it.

That's like saying "all the army has done is ensure that someday an enemy will attack with weapons so devastating that the entire country will be destroyed in one foul swoop."

coldcode2• 13 years ago

The Israelis don't stick people in compact security lines for this exact reason. Easy targets.

btbuildem2• 13 years ago

Have you heard of nuclear weapons?

chrismcb9• 13 years ago

The army doesn't make people stand in long lines next to a barrel full of suspected explosives. And then make them take their shoes off and walk across a dirty floor, so someone else can stick their hand down the persons pants.

beat3• 13 years ago

In large organizations, the appearance of risk is much more important than the reality 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.

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 it doesn't work is basically impossible. Voters will demand that politicians do something about the threat of terrorism.

gohrt2• 13 years ago

If leaders wanted to improve security, and they knew how, they could do that, while simultaneously adding theatrics and populist talk to create the appearance of security.

beat3• 13 years ago

They did what seemed obvious. They created a security bureaucracy, and gave it a ton of resources and a free hand.

Now, they can't stop it without looking "soft on terror". This is how bureaucracy goes awry (see "War on Drugs" for another example).

nitrogen• 13 years ago

Then let's figure out a way to demand that political scientists do something about the demand to do something problem.

VLM3• 13 years ago

If you want theater, you give them theater, not a prison experience.

Lets try a Hollywood analogy. The execs tell the director to make a formulaic teen comedy. How long would a film director last if he replied, F those guys I'm making a documentary about the Soviet Gulag system and they're gonna like it because its for their own good.

The discussion is being carefully controlled by those in power to make sure that no one steps out of line and considers, maybe just for an instant, that possibly there could exist a form of expensive meaningless security theater that doesn't involve brutalizing the population.

No, they're subjecting us to the TSA for a reason that isn't security theater.

beat3• 13 years ago

I kind of agree. But I think it's accidental, not intentional.

Stupidity, not malice.

kyro• 13 years ago

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.

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.

hbags• 13 years ago

The PreCheck program isn't just a fee; it's a rather thorough background check. And being approved for it doesn't actually guarantee lower scrutiny, as PreCheck'd travelers remain eligible for the random high-security selection.

epoxyhockey• 13 years ago

Others have also mentioned that many times the PreCheck line is closed, forcing background-checked passengers to go through normal security lines anyway.

enraged_camel2• 13 years ago

>the random high-security selection.

a.k.a. the "sir we assure you that this is a completely random check" racial/gender/economic profiling

jacques_chester• 13 years ago

I travelled around the USA a bit earlier this year. At one point I was at a small regional airport in Florida where I was running late for my flight.

The TSA attendant, a Good Ol' Boy, asked "Do y'all have the Pre?"

I said I didn't know what it was. He cracked a grin and said "It don't matter, we don' got it anyhow". We then had a friendly chat about life in Australia before he waved me through.

btbuildem2• 13 years ago

It's obvious someone with an MBA is in charge of the charade..

jimsilverman• 13 years ago

"increasing airport security just leads terrorists to direct their assaults elsewhere"

so in other words, heightened airport security has worked.

liquidise• 13 years ago

Either that or armored cockpit doors have rendered the other practices entirely worthless.

minimax• 13 years ago

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.

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.

nickonline• 13 years ago

Not just a jumbo either, 30-40 at a single airport at one time with ~100people per plane (~4,000 total) vs 9 people on a single Cessna likely 2-3 times a day maximum

erbo• 13 years ago

The author laments "all the waste that one stupid government policy can generate." But there seems to be little hope that any of it will go away any time soon.

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."

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.

[0] See e.g. http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3149840

DanielBMarkham• 13 years ago

I grew up in the 70s. Back then, there was an entire generation that was smoking pot, although it was very recently deemed illegal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ronnier• 13 years ago

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.

joshuapants• 13 years ago

It's possible to have security without having what amounts to a sexual assault

chrismcb9• 13 years ago

Definitely irrational. The problem is the security precautions make you feel safer. But you aren't. In fact, if I was a terrorist and I had the choice of attacking a "secure" airplane versus and unsecure airplane. I'd attack the secure plane every single time... It would spread more terror.

linuxhansl• 13 years ago

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.

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.

911 cannot be repeated (as pointed out many times before). The TSA checks are a theater and everybody knows it.

pinaceae• 13 years ago

the core issue is that a lot of very young people are now starting to debate this shit that only remember 9/11.

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.

and we now have a lot of suicide bombers, see just the last two days on Volgograd.

have the Israelis scaled down their anti-bomb detection measures? no? then neither should the west.

i fly a lot, internationally. i do not mind the checkpoints. i mind dying pre-maturely in a fireball.

chrismcb9• 13 years ago

Do you drive? Walk across a street? Before 9/11 what were the odds that you would die pre-maturely in a fireball (an airplane fireball?) I don't know the number but it was so small to be virtually 0. You were much more likely to die in a myriad of other ways. Probably more likely to get shot to death at a movie theater. Yet that probably doesn't stop you from going to the movie theater... And yet you don't mind being treated like criminal at the airport.

nicomoto12• 13 years ago

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).

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.

(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)

ealexhudson• 13 years ago

Of course there are other tactical options.

All big jets have fly-by-wire systems that could easily be remotely commanded. There's no reason why hijackers should be given control of the aircraft; indeed at this point the planes themselves could probably be programmed to refuse to point at the ground in urban areas outside of a glide path.

That leaves them with the option of blowing up the aircraft at inconvenient places. That's a significantly tough and narrow plan of attack.

nicomoto12• 13 years ago

Being given control of the aircraft is secondary. You've condemned 200 odd people to death cause of one person on the flight. A small bomb, any thing to disrupt the flight will do that. (This is very easy as opposed to going to a theater or other urban crowded locations and staying alive long enough to take out that many people). The point being your only option is to lose everyone on the plane. Is that a casualty you're willing to accept. Security works by deterrence. If every time someone starts shooting in theaters and schools, the casualty is upwards of 200, its going to be a more viable option. Its a question of the cost of doing something vs the damage it causes. the inherent nature of flights (Since they fly), is that it takes relatively less effort to get one to crash. And it terms of preparation (in this ideal scenario as per this article), one guy just has to walk into a plane with items you get in your local store (propane maybe?). Im not an expert on this, but i just feel the effort required is just ridiculously easy if there is going to be no one to keep a tab on what you carry/have access to on a flight.

vxNsr2• 13 years ago

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.

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...)

mkent• 13 years ago

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:

- Typically they still want you there 30 mins early to check-in and load the baggage.

- 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.

- Being a smaller operation your pilot can be very young and inexperienced.

- These planes are very small and at times get uncomfortably hot in the summer.

- The majority of crashes around here are from similarly sized aircraft. Always an uncomfortable reminder of what can go wrong.

- 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.

- 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 :)

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.

lutorm• 13 years ago

You, too, can experience flying without security: Get a sport pilot license and a used airplane for $20k or so.

Of course, you'll be much more limited by weather than a transport-class aircraft.

MartinCron• 13 years ago

I took a small commuter plane from Seattle to Portland and it was the best time flying I've ever had. Free parking at Boeing field, free coffee in a quaint little terminal, walk right onto the plane, enjoy a short flight, and then walk right to the light rail station.

I guess I also need to point out that I didn't die on that trip. Not even once.

loomio• 13 years ago

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.

Aqueous3• 13 years ago

When people complain about the TSA, I'm reminded of this Louis CK bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4

Havoc• 13 years ago

Airport security is a sieve anyway. Shortly after 9/11 I carried 10 inch knife through security. Forgot I had it on me. Oops..

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.

cmarschner• 13 years ago

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.

macspoofing• 13 years ago

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!?!

squozzer• 13 years ago

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.

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.

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"?

RandallBrown• 13 years ago

People like to travel because the world has a lot more to offer than the very small subset that each of us live in.

hisham_hm• 13 years ago

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.

mh-• 13 years ago

6.3 fewer airplane hijackings in the years examined (a hijinking-heavy period chronicled [..])

hehe. hijinking-heavy.

ryguytilidie• 13 years ago

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...

hnriot• 13 years ago

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.

I'd rather take my shoes off and have 2+ jet engines than get in an 8-seater commuter plane.

chrismcb9• 13 years ago

The issue? Time and money, for nothing. It costs you times (even 20 minutes is a long time, especially when you consider it costs EVERY passenger at least 20 minutes) And money. Not only is your airline ticket higher, your taxes are being wasted. For nothing. Supposedly to keep people safer. But that isn't true, in fact there is evidence that more Americans die BECAUSE of TSA.

caycep2• 13 years ago

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).

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.

joshfraser• 13 years ago

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.

gesman• 13 years ago

Fear is easy sell.

And TSA is a big business.

'nuff said.

pantalaimon• 13 years ago

I can hop on a bus, ship or train without any security checks. Why are planes so radically different?

I flew on a plane without going through security. It was amazing and no one died

Related Stories