Tell you what. Post an article that sings the praises of the TSA and I'll upvote it. Then we can have a discussion about bias.
It's not a report on TSA efficacy, but I didn't look for one; such a report is would not be worth much due to the difficulty of proving a negative: the TSA's objective is not to find 100% of contraband, but to prevent terrorist attacks. There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does that prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say.
EDIT: I submitted two more articles: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944165 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944163
Still no upvotes, though.
No, really, it's not. Of prevented terror attacks since 9/11, TSA has prevented exactly 0% of them. The shoe bomber was on the plane with the bomb when he was subdued by fellow passengers. The underwear bomber also made it onto the flight.
Only for 2011, but you can bet the TSA wouldn't let you forget if they actually caught a terrorist: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/the_tsa_proves...
Well, let me know if you actually get around to making the argument. In the meantime, consider the basic economics of an attack as laid out by someone else: If the other passengers on the flight realise that you're up to something, every single one of them has a clear motive to take you on in the fight to the death. Hi-jacking a plane has gotten orders of magnitude more difficult after 9/11.
> For example, how many plane bombings have their been since Lockerbie? None. Does that mean that we should stop inspecting luggage? Probably not.
Good thing, then, that the suggestion on the table is a return to pre-9/11 security, not abolishing it.
EDIT: pre-9/11 security, plus the few things we've realised actually makes sense - such as reinforced, locking cockpit doors.
EDIT: Witness new body cavity scanners on the horizon: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-fi...
Yes. It's important to remember that pre-9/11, the standard expectation was that in a hijacking, passengers would be hostages, not victims. As such, people were specifically instructed not to intervene. That's clearly out the window now.
I think "terrorists" of the "trying to kill us all" variety are trying to bring forward some kind of message or dispense some kind of "justice" under their belief system. To achieve any of that with violence requires there to be an intense, sustained effect on the public and a way to link it back to their concept of justice. The 9/11 attacks accomplished that, but the shoe bomber and underwear bombers wouldn't have if they had succeeded. Their explosive charges were too small and too incompetently assembled to cause the kind of mass panic that "terrorists" are after.
Instead, we have a different breed of terrorists: the "keeping you scared because it benefits them directly" terrorists. The TSA and Homeland Security. The true terrorists in this plot. Keeping people afraid of some vague, non-specific threat because it profits them and those they support.
In any case, that doesn't change the fact that it's incorrect to blame TSA for incidents on flights that TSA wasn't responsible for screening. The relevant factoid for the point the person upthread was trying to make would be how many such incidents have occurred on flights originating from a US airport.
>>> There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does that prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say.
It's not hard to say. The answer is "no, it does not prove that". Just as the fact that you weren't eaten by a magic dragon does not prove I have protected you from it all these years. Proofs don't work this way - if something didn't happen, you can not just tell "it's because at the same time something else was happening".
Now, on to bias. Having an opinion is not bias. An honest examination of the facts can lead to a conclusion that isn't neutral with respect to a given issue. Do you think the HN community is disregarding important facts in coming to it's anti-TSA position?
Also, yes, it's self-serving to want less waste of government money, and less hassle in flying, but only insofar as HN members are also members of the public. I don't think anyone here holds the position that we should reduce security for their personal convenience, on the theory that a successful terrorist attack would probably kill someone else.
So, by all means, post information that might challenge the opinion of the community. We might learn something. But also, let's keep forming opinions and defending them. That's the point of all this discussion, right?
This all makes the TSA pretty uncool, even for people like myself, who barely ever take the opportunity to fly.
Is that evidence good enough to say that the TSA is effective? Not really; terrorist attacks could have declined for other reasons.
The only way to be sure of the effectiveness of the TSA would be to keep relaxing TSA restrictions until a terrorist successfully attacks a plane, and then ratchet them back up to the minimum point necessary to prevent it again. Will they do that? No. So, the only alternative is to over-protect to some degree.
For example, should we still screen checked baggage for bombs? There have been no luggage bombings since Lockerbie, so maybe they're not necessary anymore. These checks are certainly expensive. I think the answer is obviously yes, because such an attack is "too damn easy."
However, it's terribly difficult to draw the line when things get less obvious, because the odds of an attack increase as the difficulty of such an attack decreases. How many plane bombings would there be if all you had to do was click on a link in a web browser? A hundred thousand (or the population of Gaza). Now what if it required an hour of work to be successful? Tens of thousands. A week? Hundreds. A month? Tens. When will it drop to zero? Hard to say.
"the only alternative is to over-protect to some degree"
You are still assuming that the TSA's airport checkpoint program is protecting us at all, which I would say is a dubious claim at best. Locking the cockpit doors on an airplane is a good measure. Putting an armed guard on certain high-value target flights is a reasonable measure, although I would be a bit concerned about a clever terrorist's ability to identify the guard and take his weapon. Screening luggage for bombs is reasonable, although I think an airport is just as good of a target for bombing as an airplane would be, so I am not sure how much good it does.
The checkpoints, however, are next to useless for security. There is an endless supply of things that can be turned into weapons on the other side of a security checkpoint, and you don't have to be an evil mastermind to find them. They even let you bring dangerous items through the checkpoint, like the 9-cell lithium-ion battery in my laptop (would you want to be on an airplane where someone punctured or ignited such a battery?) -- for that matter, the laptop itself, which has lots of sharp aluminum inside and which could be disassembled fair easily.
What the checkpoints do is to remind people that they are not in charge and that their rights mean nothing at the airport. I had this experience myself, twice. First, I was told that I could had to wait over 10 minutes to receive a pat-down after refusing to walk into a scanner, and that I would not be allowed to use the metal detector that just opened -- all the while, my luggage was left on the other side for anyone to steal. The second time, my teammate who traveled with me tried to take a video recording of the pat-down procedure, and the guard stopped (but did not allow me to put my arms down), claiming that it was necessary for security to not let a video be taken (but when I pointed out that there were literally dozens of people watching from the waiting area ten feet away, his eyes glazed over -- he was just reciting the line some superior had told him to recite). These are not measures that enhance security, but they certainly are a psychological attack; I doubt they are carefully planned attacks, but rather they are an intended consequence of giving people who have absolutely no training in security or threat mitigation the power to make decisions at a security checkpoint.
After a single bear wandering into town has drawn an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!” Lisa sees through his reasoning: “That’s specious reasoning, dad.” Homer, misunderstanding the word “specious”, thanks her for the compliment. Optimistically, she tries to explain the error in his argument: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer is confused: “Hmm; how does it work?” Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!” Homer: “Uh-huh.” Lisa: “… but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?” Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock…”
Extreme example, yes, but change is brought about by passion, not waiting for some grey blob of objectivity to decide you're right, and passion is rarely objective.
http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/225
I'm not sure if this is bias as simply, for those educated on the matter, the evidence is pretty decisive.
It's because we believe they fundamentally undermine the 4th amendment, and they are a market distortion forced upon us that results in a subpar consumer experience.
There's nothing wrong with being biased towards our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.