Hacker News Reader

The entire point of the phrase "security theater" is to emphasize that there is no observable difference in outcomes. Ordinary people understand this, and criminals (especially the kinds that seize airplanes) are usually at least as smart as laypeople. Evaluating the success of the TSA based on perceived deterrents is at best an unknown unknown, but the fact that we know those deterrents to be ineffective makes the null hypothesis (it's just not that common to hijack planes anymore, potentially for other reasons) much more likely.

> Look into news reports from the 60s and 70s, before serious security at airports. Hijackings were almost normal. Today they are almost non-existent.

I would wager that this has more to do with the FAA requiring the reinforced and locked cockpit doors, and almost nothing to do with the TSA. The hijackings of the 1960s and 1970s were not done as acts of terror -- they were frequently "statement" actions, done with the goal of making the plane land somewhere troublesome for the US (like Cuba).

> I also appreciate the security theater because it makes airports a generally drug-free environment.

Do we go to the same airports? I regularly see daydrinking, mixing alcohol with sleep medications, and all kinds of behavior that adults generally do when they're in a space where they know their actions don't have real consequences for them. I'll go as far as to say that I've seen more open drug use (and consequent poor behavior) in airports than I've ever seen in the Port Authority in NYC. And I rode interstate buses for years.

>> the reinforced and locked cockpit doors

Nope. Hijackings disappeared long before 9/11, when they started x-raying carry-ons in the 80s. No longer could just anyone bring an AK-47 on in a guitar case.

https://airport.nridigital.com/air_mar20/timeline_the_histor...

"As time went by, a series of skyjacking attempts – which in 1969 alone amounted to 40 in the US [ie one every week] – eventually led to the introduction of the first x-ray scanning machines for baggage in the 1970s. However, passengers themselves were only checked with an electronic magnetometer and later through metal detectors."

So that we're on the same page: the TSA was founded in 2001, as a response to 9/11. Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be any security at airports.

When people talk about the TSA's security theater, they typically mean:

1. Non-evidence-backed methodologies and screening requirements, such as the 3oz liquid limit and requiring passengers to remove their shoes (but only some of the time?)

2. Arbitrary "secondary screening" procedures and rampant pretextual justifications for screening selection (read: "looking too much like a terrorist")

3. Overdependence on questionably useful scanning technologies[1][2]. I chose millimeter wave scanners arbitrarily, but "backscatter" scanners have similar problems.

If x-raying luggage keeps people from bringing AK-47s onto airplanes, then we should continue to do that. But we can skip the rest of the theater and save some time and money in the process.

[1]: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/tsa-agent-slips-through-df...

[2]: https://www.propublica.org/article/sweating-bullets-body-sca...

The TSA today is a federal agency, bundled into DHS. Before that there were plenty of people doing screenings at airports that, today, we would describe as TSA. The fact that they were employed by local agencies rather than the feds doesn't change the fact that they searched everyone in basically the same manner as today. I had my bags x-rayed and walked through metal detectors every time I flew in the 80s and 90s.

> The fact that they were employed by local agencies rather than the feds doesn't change the fact that they searched everyone in basically the same manner as today. I had my bags x-rayed and walked through metal detectors every time I flew in the 80s and 90s.

I don't think I would consider today's screening techniques "basically the same" as those in the 1980s and 1990s. My understanding is that the liquid limit, shoe removal, and use of largely ineffective personal scanning machines are all post-9/11 changes. All of that is a significant departure from having your bags scanned and walking through a single metal detector.

(More generally, this raises the question: if things are "basically the same" in your opinion between now and the 1990s, why weren't we able to stop 9/11?)

> which in 1969 alone amounted to 40 in the US [ie one every week]

The US variant of the Gregorian calendar sounds wild!

Those people are human beings that need to get somewhere, too, and the bus is the cheapest way for them to do it. That's why they're there, and weeding them out with TSA isn't really the best solution IMO.

I think hijackings are over because everyone now knows that if you pull a knife or a gun on an airport, you will immediately get taken down by literally everyone on the flight. People before 9/11 didn't realize the downside risk of a hijacking was a suicide crash. It was just unthinkable. Now that we know, it will never happen again. TSA is not a factor.

You don't weed out the people, you weed out their drugs. The threat of being caught with drugs by a security guard means they don't bring their drugs with them onto the plane. Net result: fewer people currently on drugs sitting beside me while I try to sleep. I don't mind sleeping amongst a bunch of stranger on a plane or at an airport because I know they have at least been screened for basic weapons. Sleeping on an interstate bus or at a bus station is very different. See below. The knife in that killing would have been detected at any airport by even the laziest of TSA screeners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean

So by preventing people from taking drugs on planes you are preventing terrorism? You do realize some airports have explicit policies on not looking or caring about drugs? Eg https://www.flylax.com/lax-marijuana-policy

Also your example is from Canada where there is no TSA yet people don't do similar things on planes, it's not an ideal example.

>>Canada where there is no TSA

You really think that Canada doesn't have a TSA? They do. It is even called the CATSA, ie the CAnadian TSA. In fact, to comply pre-screening, CATSA is largely forced to mirror all US TSA rules. Literally the only difference between Canadian and American screening procedures is the colour of the uniforms.

https://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/en/about-us

Wow, they managed to reproduce the effectiveness of the TSA and lack of oversight in an entirely different legal system? That's impressive... Who do you have to petition to get off of their no fly list?

It's a common law country (except for Quebec, apparently) with a heritage very similar to the US. Economically & militarily it's perpetually coupled to the US. Canada isn't much different except that central government has a stronger role.

Yeah problem with tasking the TSA with busting people for carrying small amounts of drugs is because drugs are common and weapons are rare, and terrorists even rarer all they'll do then is look for drugs.

TSA doesn't give a shit about drugs - """anecdotal evidence repeated to a degree that makes it real data""" suggests that they put drugs through their fancy MS machines, inspect them visually in secondary screening, etc. and allow them to pass through. Being a presentable looking person might have something to do with it.

if they didnt bring their drugs kn the plane, the probably took them just before getting on, and are high by the time the airplane is taking off or once its at altitude.

'I know they have at least been screened for basic weapons.'

Bad assumption.

Flight crews, terminal restaurant workers and gift shop workers, and maintenance people who go through back gate get to avoid the theater. And even TSA walk around their own theater.

Who thinks bad people can't bribe or compel someone to carry a backpack around?

I agree completely about theater, but one note: I know a couple of people who have worked in airports (in food service), and all had to go through both a background check and normal security each day. I don’t believe for one moment that those measures are particularly effective, but airport service workers aren’t held to a different standard.

Anyone whose goal is to sneak a weapon through TSA would do a quick google and learn that they fail to catch weapons and contraband snuck through their checkpoints in their own tests about 95% of the time [1].

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-fin...

Everyone has seen those results, but have you looked into the nature of the devices they were using? These weren't handguns or swords. These were devices designed to mimic bombs, bombs built to best sneak past security checks.

> These were devices designed to mimic bombs, bombs built to best sneak past security checks.

If I was a terrorist looking to bring a bomb onto a plane, I would probably also build it to sneak past security checks. Isn't that the point?

That depends. TSA stops thousands of people from bringing firearms onto aircraft each year. Those are certainly not all terrorists, but it does indicate that, no matter the test results, the screening is necessary and at least somewhat effective.

https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/10/13/tsa-firea...

>> By October 3rd of this year, TSA officers had stopped 4,495 airline passengers from carrying firearms onto their flights, surpassing the previous record of 4,432 firearms caught at checkpoints in the full calendar year 2019

I don’t think anyone is arguing for totally 0 checks. People just want to not need to unpack their bags, empty their pockets, take off their shoes/belt, and to be able to carry a water bottle.

To be honest, there's not a single check when you take Amtrak and things actually work just fine there. Something about being up in the sky makes people scared enough to go through a metal detector, I suppose.

Trains are intrinsically resistant to hijacking - it's really difficult to get them to divert to Cuba, or to crash them into a high rise building, unless one was somehow built on their path.

I'd really like to understand the TSA's scenario, it looks like another massive and pointless waste of money added to what that the organization already does in airports.

I agree trains are hard to redirect but planes are too, after they reinforced cockpit doors post-9/11. In my opinion that’s literally the only useful thing that came out of 9/11 from an air security perspective.

This goes back to our conversation upstream: nobody is saying that there shouldn't be security at airports. You shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun onto a plane, and our security systems should be sufficient to handle that case.

The actual items under dispute are: (1) what is the TSA's domain (anti-terrorism? catching personal amounts of drugs? guns?), and (2) why should we put up with all of the theater that isn't making us any safer?

We put up with them in the US because we have to & we don't get a choice. You'll notice that DHS & all of its component parts aren't part of the political process. Politicians never discuss their elimination. They are accepted as a intrinsic of the federal government. Removing TSA is like suggesting we don't need Congress.

Call me a misguided optimist, but I think it’s premature to say that “we don’t have a choice” until we’ve exhausted all of our options.

Most Americans don’t even know the names of their representatives. Improving the public’s ability to petition its officials is something we should try before completely giving up.

Or they would try to board in states where having a license to carry gives you an "oh, I forgot" defense to trying to carry a firearm through security at the airport.

> I bet few here have ever spent much time on a bus. Not a short hop on a city bus, an overnight inter-state trip on a greyhound. I have a couple times and each time I would have PAID for a TSA-style check before boarding. It would weed out 99% of crazy/high people who make such journeys so miserable for everyone around them.

The high price of the flight is what weeds those folks out. People don't take an overnight Greyhound because they love sleeping with their neck at a 45 degree angle, or because they love watching the worst parts of New Jersey roll by in pitch darkness.

Some quick googling: a flight from LA to Chicago costs about 150$ one-way. A greyhound bust ticket for the same trip is 130$, plus paying for meals on a much longer journey.

You're not including opportunity cost: booking a flight means having a credit or debit card, having a method for getting to the airport, having documentation that gets you past security, and so forth. I suspect that these are disqualifying conditions for most people considering a $130 cross-country bus trip.

I just did a quick check on a few random dates, and I'm getting an average flight cost of about $500 one-way LAX to ORD, and $200 on a Greyhound. Not sure where you're getting your killer deal fares.

I travel regularly on long distance in Europe and have never encountered any problematic behaviour.

What you have there is an "America" problem, not a "Bus" problem.

I took a lot of Greyhound trips in the later 1970s. The police did patrol Greyhound stations--I had a memorable wait in Detroit of three hours or so, during which I saw someone hauled out in handcuffs about every half hour. I met quite a few people on the bus that I would not care to associate with, some who didn't really seem sane, but none I can think of who made life miserable.

There was a baby on one bus who cried all the daylight hours and at least third of the dark hours for about 1200 miles, and he or she did make it hard to sleep. But I don't think a TSA-style check would have screened out the baby.

[edit: duration of stop in Detroit]

"crazy" people wouldn't be prevented from boarding, I'd argue that even high people shouldn't be stopped as we cannot predict the behavior of a high person, and we cannot let TSA evaluate craziness.

Now show "A typical long trip by bus" in a country where public transport isn't culturally undermined.

I would also pay more if the entire flight contained only pre-screened, experienced, thoughtful, courteous travelers.

That is more or less what paying for business/first class gets you.

It is nullified if there is a coach class anywhere on the plane.

I can assure you, it's far more pleasant. Even if there is coach on the plane. They are waiting in a terminal, which sucks. I'm waiting until boarding begins in a real lounge with free booze and snacks.

It is not even close to the same. First class is expensive. No argument there. It isn't just a little better. It's an entirely different experience.