Hacker News Reader

Comment by SamReidHughes | Hacker News Reader

> It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety.

Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. That's the whole point. Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly -- because by all reports, people that are more "terrorist-looking" do get screened more thoroughly and frequently find themselves subject to "random" inspection.

View on HN

>Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks.

Perhaps you'd be interested in purchasing one of my patented elephant whistles. I haven't heard of a single customer who's been the victim of an elephant attack while carrying one. Keep yourself and your loved ones safe for a very low price!

We have already seen attacks that were stopped because of airline security. One example is Richard Reid, who had to resort to an unusual apparatus in order to get his bomb onto the plane. This resulted in the failure of his attack, which otherwise would have had most likely succeeded.

He boarded in Paris... so the TSA had very little to do with it... He went through the "normal pre TSA" security... so you are actually disproving your own point...

Yet toddlers and grandmothers are still getting enhanced screenings.. Behavioral and intelligence-based screening is far more effective than random screening. And enhanced screenings didn't stop the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber. Had they simply ran the underwear bomber's name through, they would have found that his father reported his risk to the U.S. embassy. They have advance notice of every passenger. Why not use that as a means to determine enhanced screening priority? The 9-11 guys were in expired visas-- even a basic check at the airport would have caught that.

The point is that the government is so worried about offending certain people that they instead subject everyone through theoretically similar treatment, thus reducing the odds of actually catching bad guys.

The only time El Al was hijacked was back in 1968, despite being the flag carrier for one of the most threat-filled countries in the world.

They certainly don't employ the Keystone Cops of the TSA and follow some politically correct screening criteria.

You also never hear of El Al screeners stealing iPads from passenger bags or wheelchair bound old ladies getting strip searched.

If you don't have random screening, then people who would pass the other screenings won't have to deal with an element of uncertainty to their plans. This is enough to deter some attacks. People like McVeigh, who would get past behavioral or intelligence-based screenings, would not want to plan an attack that relied on not being selected for a random screening, even if it's a small chance.

McVeigh was never screened by anyone. He used a car bomb... What security process stops a car bomb!?

I think in Iraq they use closely placed concrete barriers forcing cars to swerve, and they stick marines behind them. Maybe we should do that in front of all the buildings... everywhere.

The underwear bomber boarded in Amsterdam... TSA had nothing to do with it.

Seriously the TSA is bullshit, as it only applies to americans... I assume because the 9/11 attacks originated in the U.S.

> Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly

I think the parent was saying just that. However, due to the TSA's "political correctness", they also pick other people who don't fit the profile and then subject them to the same level of obnoxious screening. (The idea being that it makes them look a little less prejudiced)

At least, that's how I interpreted what the parent said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ1a0ymGCKA

Reply on news.ycombinator.com