Hacker News Reader

Comment by zzzeek | Hacker News Reader

I know I'm throwing my karma down the toilet here but domestic-sourced airline terrorism has happened before. The TSA (edit: OK, whoever it was that scanned our bags and ran us through the metal detector, if it was not "the TSA") was unaware of 9/11 as well. Argue all you want that we should just tolerate the occasional 9/11-style (edit: or the random pipe bomb blowing out the side of the plane, cockpit doors can't protect against that) event as the price of freedom, but if there were no airline security, you can be sure events will occur.

View on HN

Have you ever been in line in a long TSA queue at a major airport? See anybody get scanned before getting in that line? With a coordinated attack across multiple airports, you could kill far more people just while they're standing in line to get their TSA gaterape procedure performed than you could by attacking while onboard an aircraft.

The aircraft attack vector has already been played out. Lets keep sane regulations in place (metal detectors, armored/locked cockpit doors), and move on to better problems to solve.

Terrorists have indeed already done this at Domodedevo airport in Moscow, Russia. By creating giant lines of people at security checkpoint (along with a scattering of federal employees), the TSA has created the perfect target.

Does it matter if you consider employing several vans running into the airport during holiday rush hours?

If dangerous is present at any moment in time, what do we do? How can we reduce searchable threats? Can we do a scan on entrance to and exit from airport lobby?

We live our lives. Danger will always be present. I could be hit by a car crossing the street from my office to the parking lot. I could be shot in the grocery store near my house.

Sometimes, there is nothing more that you can do. Accept the risk and move on.

Sure anyone could be hit by a car tomorrow. But why do we even bother to have education and laws? Why police officers and firefighters? Why EMT and doctors? Why don't we just let everyone die if there is nothing more that we could do?

If there is only a 40% of a chance that a driver given a ticket will drive safer, then there is a 40% more likely for any individual to survive while crossing the street so we continue to issue traffic ticket.

If kids are 40% more likely to avoid smoking by educating them, we will do it.

If there is a 40% chance you will be saved from a gun shot tomorrow because of more effective, stricter gun control, you probably would support it.

If there is a 10% chance a solider will live after a brain injury, the EMT and doctors will attempt to save his life.

If we all say "well let's fuck it because we will all die", why do we even bother to save life? Why EMT? Just fuck the injuries and let them die. That's your logic. That's the logic we get: survival of fitness.

So, let's accept out ultimate risk that we will all die and let's move on and forget about safety. Just because we can't have a 100% success rate.

While the TSA cargo and individual inspection is not very effective, it makes an attack with bomb a few percents harder. It might open up other avenues (e.g. massive shooting at the waiting line) but we can't lose a few percents because tomorrow when shit happens, and when your loved one is dead, you'd be joining the army and shoot those mother fucker out. And then you will come out and say "I wish I had those stupid TSA did their job".

If we moved every man, woman, and child on Earth to the Moon, there's at least a 40% chance they would survive a catastrophic meteor strike to the Earth.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

There's always a cost and in this case (TSA or moving to the Moon) it's a ridiculously high one to pay for marginal protection against an unlikely event.

So, in the case of TSA, convenience outweigh than 1% of safety because of 40% of increase in both convenience and pleasant experience.

The conclusion that an attack is unlikely to happen is based on what? Can we do a fair experiment to show what would the probability be like if we never implemented this TSA inspection vs after implementing this TSA inspection?

Should we conduct such experiment and watch an alert (or wait until another plan gets hijacked)?

Okay. I need a new solution. What is the solution? I don't need a "we will die let's move on solution" because this is not a solution. If this is were a solution, we don't need law enforcement.

Bingo. The fact that there isn't a viable threat is demonstrated (ok, not proven) by the fact that a large number of completely undefended obvious attack vectors pursuant to terrorist goals have not been abused over a very long time.

At some point the damage by TSA surpassed the expected damage from the alleged threat.

you could kill the most just by mass shooting in a shopping mall, who needs an airport line.

yet we caught at least two people trying to blow up airplanes in the last ten years (shoe bomber and underwear bomber), why is that? why don't they just shoot up a grade school or a supermarket? (I'm asking honestly here. why airplanes?)

Because airplanes are so highly leverageable from a single act into overreactionary freedom-stifling societal damage. One shoe bomber and now billions of traveler-hours are wasted shoeless at the checkpoints. Airplanes have so many eyes on them and every involved entity must overreact to prove We Are Doing Something.

Grade schools wouldn't have the same impact because the control is more localized. There's no federal Education Security Administration imposing gropefests everywhere in response to Newtown. Some schools and places will overreact, but a small proportion.

Or drive several vans with just gas and rush into the airport during holiday. You don't even need a bomb. Just leak the gas and light a match and boom.

I think you have made a good point that others are ignoring. Surely TSA scan is not very effective, but what the heck else do we do?

* intel is too powerful, stupid PRISM is hurting everyone's privacy

* TSA is destroying privacy

* I don't know what else to do

What else do we do? I am constantly afraid of someone hijacking my flight.

This is something I've wondered at: shopping malls/big box retailers on Black Friday are perfect targets for terrorists. The economic damage you could do to the US for comparatively little investment is pretty high if properly timed. And you'd inculcate significant fear of public spaces for years to come.

It's not as cinematic as 9/11, but if you're looking to hurt the US, it's a pretty good choice.

One thing I find terrorists pretty stupid is that they can literally do anything any average individual could do to harm hundreds of people but they choose to organize in the hardest fashion. I just don't understand their stupid mind!

Glad I don't - otherwise I would be a terrorist :( HOLY SHIT

It's a less effective tactic, though. More people are terrified by the thought of being blown out of the sky than they are of being blown out of a long, boring line.

Airline terrorism plays against people's innate fears, and is therefore more effective.

"Have you ever been in line in a long TSA queue at a major airport? See anybody get scanned before getting in that line?"

Let's not give them any ideas...

I think we're well passed giving them ideas; there's a FPS mission designed around the concept of the attack:

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

Too late. The Boston Marathon bombings should have made large crowds at airport security checks a critical priority to get rid of. But noooo.

You know what the answer is to 9/11-style events? Locking cockpit doors. And that's what they did after 9/11. Passengers now know what's at stake too. So, while bad things can happen, another 9/11 can't happen again (and as such, the TSA does nothing to prevent it anyway).

To further this point...we can either continue to incur the cost and overhead of reacting to every terrible event that happens and changing things to prevent that particular edge case, or we can accept that bad things sometimes happen to good people and simply keep calm and carry on.

I think we're ultimately better served by the latter approach.

Also there is one actually proven method to deterring terrorist events like 9/11.

Four planes were hi-jacked. Three of those did not know that the outcome was to crash the plane into a building. But one did, and (as far as we know) the people aboard prevented that.

If the American people would simply have been informed that terrorists didn't want to steal planes, but instead fly them into target then 9/11 would have turned out very differently. And we know this because we have proof.

Exactly.

The solution to this threat was dispelling the notion "getting hijacked means a short vacation to Cuba" and replacing it with "getting hijacked means that I get to kick a terrorist's face in".

This solution was implemented and successfully tested on the morning of 9/11/2001.

The TSA did not exist prior to 9/11/2001.

Elements of various intelligence community agencies were aware of a 9/11-style plot and were aware of the hijackers' existence within the United States. If these existing agencies had worked together and done their job, 9/11 might never have happened.

All without anyone removing their belts, frisking grandma, or having to stand like a perp in a county lock-up.

that is very interesting. were the people scanning the luggage and such beforehand just hired by individual airports?

I've no issue with restructuring TSA or whatnot, I just think that if people could get on airplanes the way they do buses, there'd be events. Not so much 9/11 style hijackings, more like the occasional pipe bomb or shooting.

Yes, prior to 9/11 airports would hire private companies to do their security checks. This was often why different airports would have different degrees of thoroughness; I recall a trip through Kansas City in the mid-90s where I was amazed (and annoyed) that I had to turn on my laptop, despite never having to do that for dozens of trips elsewhere.

Today they call that, "By design".

Good way to cover up the fact that there's no consistency in the organization.

What about the lines? People don't get felt up or forced through machines to wait in the lines to get felt up or forced through machines.

I fail to see how someone couldn't just bomb the lines with the exact same effect you're describing above.

I'd much rather prefer volunteering to use a private company's services freely without force or coercion, and risk dying randomly, then be harassed and embarrassed and risk dying randomly.

if the TSA were abolished I'm pretty sure the airlines/airports would still have security. I think a majority of US passengers wouldn't be comfortable getting on a plane where there were absolutely no security of any kind up front.

Too bad the government makes that choice. I'd assume that if people, or consumers of travelling via airplane, were as you say, cautious about travel, a free market alternative would be better than the TSA.

That said, you're right. But lines, inspections, and "lists", are largerly unnecessary. You have guards walking around, and a federal agent on each plane.

All that I'm saying, is that I'd rather not have to subsidise security for air travel. Let the market sort it out.

well that sounds more like a standard libertarian vs. socialized angle which is IMO a different issue.

I don't see how guards walking around could have much of an impact. if they aren't looking in my bag, I can have anything in there, and once in the confined environment of a plane, I can do a lot before any air marshal shuts it down.

Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror. Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.

> Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror.

The difference being? I'm sorry. Wasn't the Boston terrorist attack not on a plane? Didn't that kill people. In my opinion terror is an emotion, and people can feel that in a variety of situations depending on who they are. Killing a bunch of people, as an event, rarely happens.

So why do you want to force and coerce me? This isn't a libertarian v. socialist argument. It's a libertarian v. authoritarian argument. Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way?

No offense, but that's no way to live IMO. I'd much rather take the risk. I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us. But for now there's only one solution: That of political theatre.

Please don't get offended as I'm not attacking you, just bad policy. If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here. You can definitely make a point in that most people don't care either way, but I'd like to think that a majority of people who are interested in terrorism (lol NSA) from a philosophical see policy like this authoritarian at best, and evil and conspiratorial at worst.

> Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.

Source? Again, terror is a vague definition of an emotion which is dependent on internal characteristics and machinations of each individual who knows the word and feels emotion. I'd love to see their parameters for that word.

That said, I'm sorry if we disagree that air travel needs to be so tightly regulated. I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective. I can definitely do the same for my end, by directing you to this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/

Regulation can be a little bad for history. While 1970's regs sound pretty scary (I'll have to check that stat out myself), 2000 sounds better than now...

> Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way?

not really, no, this seems like you're responding to something else here.

> I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us.

how exactly, I'd pick one airport and you'd pick another ? I'm not sure that's very practical in many situations.

> If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here.

I know how they feel, the TSA is an offensive, incompetent and heavy handed group, combating a so called "issue" that in reality is not an issue at all. The HN community looks at issues in a statistical fashion - terrorist attacks kill extremely few people, so there's really no reason anyone should care about them, slipping in the shower is a much greater hazard. If only the rest of the world could think like they do, nobody would care about terrorism and it would just go away. I look forward to when that comes to fruition.

> I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective.

Well I'm not speaking from any authoritative background here but I'd guess that the average US traveler would prefer there be some level of airport screening (probably not at the crazy levels we have at the moment with the TSA) not for any sociological or philosophical viewpoint but probably more like a "hey can't someone sneak a bomb onto the plane here?" kind of standpoint - which sure is informed by the media and all that, and statistically is an insignificant threat, but there you go. (so perhaps the psychological perspective is the primary mechanism at play here).

You're right. It would be best if they just eased back on the implementation. I don't care if it's the TSA or the airports doing it really. If things get better that be good, if things get worse that would be bad in terms of my perspective on travelling to the US.

As things stand now, the only way I'm going into the US is from Montreal down into Vermont. Any other way seems to sketchy to me.

In my country of Canada, flying from place to place within the country only requires walking past guards that don't do anything to you at the gate, and metal detectors. I haven't flown to different countries, so I'm sure I'm being too idealistic and naive on this subject, especially in terms of actual policy.

You raise a good (and horrifying) point.

If your goal, as a terrorist organization, was to economically wound an industry while killing as many individuals as possible... you really couldn't ask for a better target than dozens (if not hundreds) of people standing around waiting to get through airport security.

Clearly, the solution is to have some pre-security security checks. /s

Sadly, you're suggestion will be mentioned if this happens I'm sure. But instead of a physical step before the gates, it will be a mental one. What place could you check people prior to them being physically checked before boarding?

When they think about using an airplane. When someone thinks about travelling, the TSA will locate and travel to them, and direct the citizen through their thought crime machine. If you refuse, then the TSA strip search you and inspect your orifices in public, which will also be the next step from private rooms. /s

Security is a feeling. Also, there are events and odds. The events and odds don't make me feel like policy is needed for me to feel safe travelling IMO. What happens happens. If someone tries to logically attempt to cast blame upon a party for something like a bombing for not preemptively stopping it, then I'll just point to the math surrounding the TSA. IT MAKES NO SENSE.

> but if there were no airline security, you can be sure events will occur.

Eh, concert ticket queues, malls, the line for the actual TSA.

Plenty of opportunities outside of airline related things, and I don't see anything about your local mall foodcourt getting hit. My person wasn't fondled the last time I got some Panda Express.

> The TSA was unaware of 9/11 as well.

Of course not- it wasn't formed until after the attacks.

This article was not about having no airline security. It was about how ridiculous the TSA body scanners/nude search/patdowns are. There is a difference.

the article was specifically about actual plots to attack airplanes: "No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US". And that since there's no evidence of any plots, therefore we don't need a TSA. This is a crappy argument because airplane attacks are known to have occurred in the past without warning. Attack the TSA on their corruptness/ineffectiveness/ineptitude fine, but not based on "nobody wants to attack airplanes anyway", the evidence suggests otherwise on that. If "no terrorist plots" truly means "airplanes are inherently safe from attack", then the logical conclusion is that no security whatsoever should be needed.

your argument is a strawman: "no evidence => no TSA / no aircraft-boarding security." that is clearly not a rebuttal of the argument that is presented, which is that the TSA has previously presented the existence of terrorist plots against aviation as a reason for sticking their hands down passengers' pants and performing nude scans of passengers. but the TSA's reasons have turned out to be false, so therefore we should not let the TSA stick their hands down passengers' pants nor perform nude scans of passengers

Re-reading of the article, I don't see where the TSA claims that known future terrorist plots are the rationale for their actions, though perhaps this is something that was claimed to which this article is referring. My understanding was that the TSA's rationale was based on actual events that have occurred, e.g. 9/11, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo...) which was the impetus for banning liquids through checkpoints, e.g. these are actual plots that were executed or discovered prior to execution. Using the facts of actual plots is a more compelling argument than claiming "we know of more plots" which turn out to not exist - I'm not seeing that claim being made here.

Events WILL occur, with or without security. And they will also occur at malls, schools, places of work, and sports stadiums. but the solution isn't to treat every customer as a criminal. Especially when it doesn't solve any problems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com