Some civil liberties group should start specializing in exotic travel apparel, including odd watches, intriguing earrings, suspicious-looking belt-buckles, and so on.
This insanity has to stop. Has anybody seen the progaganda the agency puts out? The idea that TSA is now using little stacks of toe-nail clippers and such as proof of how great a job they are doing should be ringing alarm bells somewhere.
I'm no fan of the TSA, but how can you be "pretty sure" when terrorism acts are extremely infrequent events with unpredictable results?
It's perfectly possible that the way the TSA works (e.g. knowing that you'll go through body scanners or thorough patdowns) has deterred potentially nasty attacks. Luckily we'll never know.
Everyone who criticizes the TSA (and with reason) should also think about what they would do if they were given the task of trying to prevent Black Swan events with minimal disruption to the 99.9999 percent of normal travelers.
It's an extremely hard problem. Most people who talk about it simply don't have enough knowledge of statistics, or the psychology of deterrence.
Given that the entire principle of asymmetric warfware, of which "terrorism" is an element, is based on attacking the enemy where they are weakest, the TSA effectively serves no function. If the enemy reinforces security at one location, attack another. It's a fact that you can't protect all locations all the time. There will always be weak spots.
Right now the weak spot is you usually have thousands of people hanging around outside the security gates waiting to get screened. Maybe they should have a pre-screening area for screening people who want to go into the screening line to make sure they're not going to do any terrorism!
If the TSA was disbanded, and instead a Keyser Söze-style response was instituted, where every week a random plane was blown up, the number of casualties would still be vastly lower than the number of people killed in vehicular accidents in the United States alone. Even with this absurd "lottery", air travel would still be safer than most other forms of transportation.
The thing is, air travel is largely safe even with infrequent and devastating incidents.
Reasonable security measures should obviously be employed, but the things they're looking for are not the real dangers.
For instance, if nail clippers pose a threat to the plane, then surely any of a hundred items in the aircraft itself are just as dangerous.
There are thousands of ways to bring down an aircraft and the TSA tests for, at best, a few dozen. It's like fencing off the drive-way of a high-security facility and leaving the rest open.
Motivated individuals will find a way around your security theatre. Meanwhile millions of travellers just trying to go about their business will be terrorized by the absurd TSA screening procedures that make almost anything seem suspicious and criminal.
"Why are you bringing an unusual amount of baby formula?" Arrest that lady with a baby who has an allergic reaction to other kinds of formula!
The FBI, by contrast, has uncovered and disrupted actual attacks because they use an entirely different approach. They try to discover the plan long before it ever reaches the airport.
That's what you should do to eliminate these 0.00001% type events.
Given that the entire principle of asymmetric warfware, of which "terrorism" is an element, is based on attacking the enemy where they are weakest, the TSA effectively serves no function. If the enemy reinforces security at one location, attack another. It's a fact that you can't protect all locations all the time. There will always be weak spots.
Right now the weak spot is you usually have thousands of people hanging around outside the security gates waiting to get screened. Maybe they should have a pre-screening area for screening people who want to go into the screening line to make sure they're not going to do any terrorism!
The thing is, an attack in a queue could happen anywhere, not just an airport. But the effects are highly localized. Part of what makes plane bombs extra-scary is that they could go off anywhere, so not only does the plane blow up, but it falls out of the sky and lands on people. That's more terrifying than a bomb explosion in a fixed location, plus it impacts all other travel arteries, giving the travel network in question the equivalent of a heart attack. A bomb in the air causes a lot more problems than one on the ground.
So of course it serves a function, however badly it does so. They overstepped in this case, but I don't have that much sympathy for the artist. He knew quite well that what he was doing looked like a dry run for a bombing; I'll warrant he just didn't expect to actually get arrested.
Like I said to another commenter, actual prevention and the appearance of prevention are different problems. They are not mutually exclusive.
Reducing the public perception of risk is not the same as reducing the actual number of casualties (otherwise people would stop driving). Most people do not behave as Bayesian rationalists, and policy must take this into account.
By the way, the HN feature of delaying the option to respond as a thread grows (presumably to prevent flame wars) is not a good idea. It stifles interesting and civilized exchanges like this one, and flame wars happen regardless; people just start new comments or edit their existing ones.
Edit: to the commenter below, you argue a false dichotomy that has nothing to do with my comment. Besides, that would be similar to asking the public about the next chess move for Kasparov; most people are not qualified to answer. There are reasons not every public policy decision is a votable proposition.
>Like I said to another commenter, actual prevention and the appearance of prevention are different problems.
That's not the government's job, though. It is not the role of the government to make people feel safe. It is not, in fact, the role of government to make people feel anything in particular, be it safe, happy, calm, or sexually aroused.
It can be argued that the government should -actually- keep people safe, but it is very hard to defend the position that we need to have the Feeling Police, which is a few neural folds away from being the Thought Police.
edit: If you'd like to ask "then, who should make people feel safe?", my answer is "psychotherapists".
I hear this argument a lot, but how do you think most people would respond if asked outright "do you want to increase the size of the federal government, and spend around 8 billion a year on making air travel more annoying and humiliating, while doing nothing to actually make things safer in order that people will feel safer?"
> you argue a false dichotomy that has nothing to do with my comment
I'm not really sure what dichotomy you think I'm arguing. I'm not saying we can only do one of (a) make people safer and (b) make people feel safer, I'm saying that only one of those is a good use of public resources.
> Besides, that would be similar to asking the public about the next chess move for Kasparov; most people are not qualified to answer.
If you're asking people what should be done to make them safer, that is outside their area of expertise, and I'm happy with not asking them about that (they'd probably answer stupid things like a Transport Security Administration or more scanners, or fewer liquids on planes or racially segregated flights, with only English being allowed to be spoken).
If on the other hand the question is 'how much are you prepared to pay to feel safer (while not actually being safer)', that is definitely within the competence (and right) of the public to decide.
To decide that people's money should be spent 'for their own good' on making them feeling safer and not even being prepared to ask them if that is true is arrogant, patronising and the opposite of safeguarding freedom.
Even with this absurd "lottery", air travel would still be safer than most other forms of transportation.
I believe that actually depends on the metric you use. I think it was something along the lines of, compared to car/bus/train/etc it is the safest per mile, but not very safe per trip.
Right, what I'm saying is you should be careful and explicit about your metric and why it is your metric. Otherwise it's just the same old "lies, damned lies, and statistics".
> Everyone who criticizes the TSA (and with reason) should also think about what they would do if they were given the task of trying to prevent Black Swan events with minimal disruption to the 99.9999 percent of normal travelers.
I'm deeply annoyed by your implication that we haven't. I'm not aware of any TSA critic who hasn't thought of a different approach that they'd prefer to see. Sometimes that preferred approach is "cut way back on airport security and let airplanes get blown up sometimes", which is still a completely valid opinion.
You're absolutely right that it's a hard problem. However, the problem can trivially be solved better than the TSA is solving it. There's a big difference between a problem that's hard to solve extremely well (as this is) and a problem that's hard to solve better than it's currently being solved (which this is not, at least not in the US).
As an analogy, it's a hard problem to achieve six-nines reliability with a network service, but we can still observe that holding nightly chants outside the datacenter to appeal to the gods of uptime for their blessing is a bad approach.
Bruce Schneier has observed that only two things have been done to improve air travel security since 9/11: locking and reinforcing cockpit doors, and convincing the passengers to fight back against hijackers. I agree with him completely. None of the other measures taken have helped at all.
I can easily do better than the TSA. Easily. For example, ditch the liquid restrictions. Done. We're no less safe than before, and a huge hassle and cost has been removed. Improvement!
For a more comprehensive approach, you'd probably want to cut down on the invasive screening of every passenger. Ditch the body scanners, which provide very little benefit but huge costs. Go back to the metal detectors and regular X-ray machines for baggage. Then take the money you save from this and put it into behavioral profiling, to detect nefarious people rather than nefarious items, and intelligence, to find terrorists before they get anywhere near the airport.
The TSA has not actively stopped any terrorist attacks, we know this. More so, we know that the TSA has failed to stop several terrorist attacks which have only been foiled through other means. The shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Christmas Day Detroit attack. The TSA was powerless to stop these attacks. Instead, what has worked has been police work (both in the US and abroad) and passenger vigilance. It's possible that the TSA has deterred some attacks, but given how easy it is to get a bomb on an airplane despite the TSA it raises the question of whether it's worth the expense, the hassle, and the degradation of our civil liberties.
The problem isn't trying to protect against black swan events, it's convincing people that they are protecting them, especially those in congress writing the checks and the idiots who believe if you aren't reporting your suspicious travel mates, you are as bad as the terrorists.
An Israeli-style defense is far more likely to catch the black swan events, but it requires much more training for agents. We'd rather build an obscene list of everything you can't do and pay cloned storm troopers to go down each item on it.
It's not either/or. Actual protection and the appearance of protection are separate problems, which is one of the reasons it is such a complex issue.
Also, Israel and the US are not easy to compare. The types of threats, population sizes, and public opinion are so different that it probably would not make sense to go for the Israel approach in the US. That said, Israel is a testbed for approaches that the US sometimes adopts.
>It's perfectly possible that the way the TSA works (e.g. knowing that you'll go through body scanners or thorough patdowns) has deterred potentially nasty attacks. Luckily we'll never know.
You can't justify national policy by saying "it's immeasurable, it could work!" That is like proving the existence of god by saying "we haven't not seen him, he could be there!"
>Everyone who criticizes the TSA (and with reason) should also think about what they would do if they were given the task of trying to prevent Black Swan events with minimal disruption to the 99.9999 percent of normal travelers.
A key feature of black swan events is that you'll never be able to predict them. It seems like this fact is behind 99% of the criticisms you hear about the TSA. Perhaps we should stop chasing the boogeyman and start figuring out how to deal with him when he comes.
> Everyone who criticizes the TSA (and with reason) should also think about what they would do if they were given the task of trying to prevent Black Swan events with minimal disruption to the 99.9999 percent of normal travelers.
First, I'd consider if it was worth it.
It seems to me that by the time you get to the point where a group has come up with the desire, the plan, and the execution of a terrorist attack, then stopping them at the airport is too late. Sure, it might work, but they could just target something easier.
I'd spend all these resources beefing up our intelligence agencies and go back to pre-9/11 air travel.
That's if the end goal is decreasing deaths from terrorist attacks. Ideally, I'd prefer to live free and unconstrained and accept a slightly higher chance of dying in a terrorist attack.
Paranoid passengers dogpile people who aren't terrorists the moment they do anything even vaguely unusual. Now imagine what would happen if this guy actually got on the flight. How long would it be before they turned the plane around?
> Everyone who criticizes the TSA (and with reason) should also think about what they would do if they were given the task of trying to prevent Black Swan events with minimal disruption to the 99.9999 percent of normal travelers.
I was thinking they should probably reinforce and lock the cockpit doors. That would eliminate all attacks that are more deadly than hitting a high school football game or even a crowded mall.
If they ever do that, they can get rid of all of the nudity scanning devices and we'll be back to the same amount of danger as walking around in public.
>Everyone who criticizes the TSA (and with reason) should also think about what they would do if they were given the task of trying to prevent Black Swan events with minimal disruption to the 99.9999 percent of normal travelers.
I suggest you look up a guy named Bruce Schneier. He's my go-to authority on these sorts of things.
It's sad that this isn't terribly surprising at this point.
HN friends, please, please, make sure you opt out of the body scanners. If for nothing else, I can assure you the dude that's feeling your junk is far more embarrassed than you are and if he has to do it often enough, maybe he'll quit.
Last time I flew, I got a new guy. It was his first time and one of the veteran BT's had to coach him through it. He seemed mortified and I think that might have been his last day on the job.
Maybe it's just the airport I was flying out of (LGA), but I noticed that the TSA signs explaining the millimeter-wave scanners no longer say that you can opt-out of them. Where it used to say (IIRC) in smaller print at the bottom that you could opt-out and get a manual pat down in a private space if you so chose, there was now boilerplate text about how there were no health and safety risks associate with getting scanned by the machine, and that it wouldn't produce a photo-realistic image of me.
Once I opted-out by walking to the metal detector and (after being told to go into the other line for the L3 ProVision unit) asking for a pat-down, the agents handled it as usual (a bunch of awkward shouts for a "male assist at station 3", an embarrassed guy walking over and asking if I knew how this process worked and had done it before, and then a pretty perfunctory pat-down) - but if I didn't a priori know that I had that right, it wasn't listed on any of the many signs in the security scanning area.
I thought it was the backscatter ones that people objected to. The millimeter-wave ones are much less intrusive and there's no concern about health risks.
I took a plane trip a couple days ago, and I had a new guy too.
Unfortunately he was coached to move his hand along my inner leg until he 'felt resistance' which to him meant banging his hand, hard, against my testicles. It hurt.
I'm not sure if I'll continue to opt out. If it's a choice between being seen without clothing and possibly being punched in the nuts, I think I'll choose the former.
Or replaced by someone else with decency, and then another, and then another, and then ... The training costs add up, for one, potentially leading to change.
Let's supposed eventually that position is filled by "someone with no decency." Then passengers getting screened become more and more annoyed and outraged, complaints rise, and potentially leading to change.
Now, that change might be to no longer have opt-out. But in either case, the possible course of events is likely not as simple as what you outlined.
Every time they have to hire a new screener, they have to spend money on training. If the job of screener is well-known to be unpleasant, they'll have to start paying the screeners a higher salary to compensate them. If passengers routinely opt for the time-consuming manual patdown instead of submitting to the pornoscanner, they'll have to hire more screeners to cope with the demand. Each of these things make the screening process more expensive. If we make it expensive enough perhaps they'll stop doing it. There doesn't seem to be any other way to get rid of it.
Just to play devil's advocate, TSA could also put pressure on airlines to build the cost of the screenings into the price of air travel. Travelers could wind up paying for it (beyond taxes).
Ever look at the itemized list of costs on your air ticket? There is a "9/11 Security Fee," and I'm guessing the airlines don't have much input into its amount.
Airlines have also historically been the beneficiary of government subsidies and patronage, which could be withdrawn.
While I agree that they'll be reluctant to raise prices, the damage of being represented as the airline that refused to "contribute to public safety" would be worse.
One possibility people seem to be overlooking is that this outcome -- getting arrested and having the case discussed in the press -- is exactly what the artist wanted.
One of the greatest purposes of art is to hold up a mirror to society, and McGann has done that very well here.
If that was his intent, I applaud it, and will be happy to chip in to his defense fund if one of his friends will start a collection.
Absolutely agree with what probably happened. Everything I've read about this mentions wires and fuses. As bad as the TSA is, it seems entirely more probable that an artist wanted to make a point, by using items that draw attention, without actually being illegal. If this is just some guy with an eccentric watch, I hope they backtrack and let him go. But if it's someone trying to incite a reaction, then you can't really complain about being arrested.
You've got to look at four probabilities:
X, probability someone wears a geeky watch with exposed toggles and electronics;
Y, probability someone wears military-style clothing;
Z, probability someone wears oversized shoes;
W, probability someone is a terrorist.
I'm betting X * Y * Z is still much larger than W.
You forgot to add investigation; that would be really easy checking his website and seeing that he has been an artist for many years and that he always dress wierd.
And lets not forget that they could have easily break his shoes and see if he was actually hiding something inside those.
Who is going to tell you how it went from 2 or 3? The TSA? That would be certainly unbiased.
The fact is that he was arrested for having a wierd outfit. If somebody believes that this guy who has been an artist for many years, flies a lot and registered his domain in 1995 is a actually a terrorist they are delusional and shouldn't be in charge of any kind of law enforcement.
> "The fact is that he was arrested for having a wierd [sic] outfit."
It's not possible to know that yet. It may never be possible, if the TSA withholds certain information, or that information never becomes part of the public record.
Oh yeah, is actually possible that they voluntarily omitted crucial information in their report that would make them look as the heroes they really are. /s
Because you can believe everything you read online, right? It wouldn't be hard to fake that?
I tend to think there is more to this as well, including plenty of Gestapo ass-hattery from the police and the TSA. I just wonder if part of the art project included being arrested. We may be witnessing a piece of performance art.
Honestly I don't think they were in the wrong for stopping the guy. Arrest was probably too much, but when you are wearing a watch that looks like a bomb detonator, you should definitely be stopped and questioned.
Unfortunately every member of the TSA cannot be an expert in this man's artwork to understand what he actually had in his posession. Suspicious watches (and protruding wires!) are one of the things they are trained to look for as all of the 9/11 hijackers had digital casio wrist watches. So yeah, honestly I think confiscating the watch and stopping him was a good move. Maybe even denying him his flight would be sane.
What does it take for you guys to agree that someone shouldn't get on a plane, a backpack full of c4!? The idea is to stop the disaster before it happens, and at this point all we have are vague clues. Not to mention the fact that for economic reasons, each TSA officer is going to be a layman who probably isn't well versed in electronics.
Combine this with the fact that it looked like he "hid" it under his coat... This guy needs to use some discretion when flying, I'm sorry!
As much as I disagree with the erosion of our civil liberties, wearing a watch that looks like a bomb detonator onto a plane is not a smart move. Sure, us HNers would know the difference between art and a real device. The general public does not, and we cannot expect them all to gain our same level of competence with electronics.
Finally, the TSA stopped someone that was actually suspicious.
I don't think many people complained that this guy received extra scrutiny. If something looks/seems suspicious it's acceptable to apply a higher level of scrutiny in determining the actual risk. The article acknowledges this, and says it's pretty reasonable that they stopped him, talked to him, and would have been reasonable if they had asked him to mail the device to himself.
What's totally unreasonable in any context is the fact that this guy was CHARGED WITH A CRIME, and is now sitting in jail on $150,000 bail. He will have to go through a lengthy trial process and potentially serve jail-time. Unless the facts are contrary to what the article presents (which is possible), this is totally unreasonable.
Mainly, because a terrorist would not walk by the TSA with a gun, bomb, knife, or whatever now. Unless they were just an idiot. Most terrorism is organized. So they would have a plan. They send people in advance to take pictures of the airport and find other entrances. There are ways into the secure areas of airports if you look.
That's why at an airport every employee has the task of challenging people. Every single employee is always watching for suspicious behavior.
So if it is a terrorist attack, the TSA is not going to see a bomb. They might see a tiny hint of something to come, but no one is going to walk by the TSA with a WMD. They are more sophisticated than this and have other ways of getting them in.
I don't see why not. That's the wrong place to draw the line.
If there is no penalty for trying to board a plane while with lookalike dangerous items, then there is nothing to deter one from "probing" the screening for weaknesses, and the system is worthless.
No, what it means is that Sgt. Nelson knows how to work with bombs. It doesn't make him a subject matter expert on terrorism or art. Just bombs. And as charged, yes, the subject of the article did have materials needed to make bombs minus the explosives.
Everyone who has a timer/watch/cellphone does, which is the point of why this is so ridiculous. If you arrest everyone who has all the materials necessary to make a bomb minus the explosives, everyone would be arrested.
This is what I brought up in the last thread. IEDs are IEDs because they can be made from almost anything.
Now it does take skills which most people don't have; but this isn't about skills it is about physical kit, and purely in terms of the physical stuff needed I'm almost certain you could buy it all at the airport in the "secure" part (e.g. travel clock).
The idea that knowing how to blow stuff up qualifies you to profile folks as potential terrorists or that being consulted for a TV show qualifies you for anything.
If anyone is interested they dropped the "fake bomb" charge since they couldn't prove intent and she took a deal with "disorderly conduct" because it was hard to defend against (since it just requires other people to be upset by your actions with or without intent). She got 50 hours community service and had to apologise for her "crime."
Odd that he wasnt able to explain his way out of it. That's what makes it such a nightmare. Getting pulled aside and questioned is one thing, actually getting arrested seems like Idiocracy is coming true.
I personally ALWAYS put my jacket on top of my items when at the airport. As I go through security, I take off my belt, remove my wallet, cell phone and other devices from my pockets and put them in the trey to go through the x-ray machine. Then I put my jacket on top of them. Is it because I’m a terrorist? No. I just don’t want my wallet and cell phone being out in the open as they emerge from the x-ray machine. Like most people, I’m always a little nervous that if I get stuck at the metal detector, someone could grab my wallet and slip away with it. Hence, I don’t want it to be so plainly obvious.
Does anyone consider that showing up at the airport with a watch that looks like a bomb is a good idea? We all know that in the current climate that the TSA is prone to overreact.
It's not right that this is the case, but like it or not, it is.
In case people haven't noticed - the USA has long ago stopped being a free and democratic country. They can put you in prison for any reason, without trial,for any amount of time. This is a country,where journalists writing about some events(latest trial of an alleged "terrorist" - a guy who spent 10 years in Guantanamo without trial and now is fighting to regain freedom) is banned,under the threat of being accused of endangering national security, an accusation that could earn a journalist several years in prison.
How is this different from countries like Russia, which can send anyone to prison for anything?
I find it amusing that "but he's an artist" is being said as though it might possibly influence the powers that be. The TSA, police, judges, etc. have little tolerance for anything that doesn't conform to the ordinary and expected - including art. In earlier times in the USA anyone who questioned the political-economic system was accused of being Communist; excuses didn't work then either. With authoritarianism and polarization now on the rise in the USA, things are even worse. "Different"="bad".
Absolutely. His intent was to provoke "in the name of art" and it cost him. Idiots like this just help to validate the roles these TSA take up. A slap on the wrist and a 'go away now' wouldn't stop other idiots from attempting the same thing.
At least they caught the guy - imagine how he'd try to paint the TSA as useless if he was allowed on through.
1) If he wanted to provoke in the name of art, then it didn't cost him, he managed to achieve his objectives.
2) Being able to smuggle a watch through security at an airport wouldn't be grounds for much celebration.
3) What kind of bears have horns?
4) We don't know the full details (the official story could be wildly exaggerated), but if the TSA over-reacted then it doesn't really matter what the intentions of the artist were. If the artist was just a dude with a strange watch or if he was trying to show us the limits of our freedoms, our freedoms are still limited.
But why is there a need to poke the "bear" anyways? You obviously see that the TSA is something to be feared, why should it be feared by those who mean no harm? Food for thought.
Very good article. I think that, historically, security overreaction tends to increase as the stakes increase. From what I've read there was a lot of domestic overreaction during WW1 and WW2.
The fact that weapons are so much more effective and disguisable these days leads me to believe that, sadly, this sort of thing is only going to get worse. I can't imagine what the reactions will be when people are as concerned about biological weapons as they are about explosives.
> From what I've read there was a lot of domestic overreaction during WW1 and WW2.
Yes, there was. The unfortunate difference between then and now is that then there was a clear end to the hostilities. The "war on terror" has no such clear end. Doesn't matter that Bin Laden was killed, doesn't matter that there hasn't been a successful terror attack in more than 10 years (and that nearly all the unsuccessful ones probably wouldn't have existed if not for the assistance of undercover FBI agents). When will it end? You can always claim that there are still more "radicals" out there who want to kill us, and that further fear is justified.
Another difference is that the government generally tried to keep things orderly and calm. Not to say that government didn't engage in overreaction as well (e.g. internment camps) but the overall theme appeared to be one of reassurance.
Modern government seems to thrive on making people as afraid as possible, perpetuating the cycle instead of damping it.
I used the title I did to avoid confusion, assuming someone already submitted a news story on the subject. I wanted to make it clear this was about the story, but not a blogspammy retelling of it.
I don't mind the edit, but I don't know that it was needed.
And this is why we can't have nice things... What is it with TSA and their lack of will to cooperate and listen to people? They just act like a bunch of mindless enforcers these days and have zero regard for common sense.
I hypothesize that the point of all these obtrusive measures in the name of security is not really to prevent terrorism. Instead it is so that when the inevitable happens, wherever and however, the masses will not riot. They will instead think back to all conspicuous things that the TSA was doing all those years and think, well, I guess they were trying their hardest to stop it.
Maybe they should hire people who actually know what a bomb is? Instead you have employees that probably can't even solve an algebraic equation despite getting a high school diploma. This isn't meant as a blanket statement about all TSA personnel, but a little expertise in the area wouldn't hurt.
You all cry foul when tsa does their job. Out in the civilian world you would never understand why this man was stopped but in the military world i would yave done the exact same thing. You only cry foul when nothing happens but when thousands of people die you point the finger and say why didnt we look at this. This guy had hallowed shoes a watch witch could use as a time bomb and clothes to apply medical treatment if he got shot. Why didnt the tsa stop this guy and arrest him than do a back ground check. The tsa did a good job and found someone oddly suspicious. Get out of your security blanket and realise peiole want you dead and they will disguise themselves in any way possible to kill you. They will also do dry runs to see if tsa is doing their job before they bring in real explosives. Liberties have to be sacrificed at times in order to prevent your children and loved ones from dying it is impossible to protect with pure one hundred percent freedom of movement with zero checks and balances. This guy would red flag every single checkpoint in a military zone and guess what they know military checks this so instead they are making their way into the civilian world coming for your family, friends and loved ones. Eceryone will stop crying foul when their loved ones die
> Out in the civilian world you would never understand why this man was stopped but in the military world i would yave done the exact same thing.
The airlines exist in the civilian world, so there are civilian expectations.
> They will also do dry runs to see if tsa is doing their job before they bring in real explosives.
What is their job? Security theater?
> Liberties have to be sacrificed at times
You assume we will get our liberties back at some point. If the TSA expires, I would agree with you, but it looks like they've taken our liberties from here forward.
Whether we like it or not terrorists have shown a deep attraction to use airplanes as instruments of terror. And therefore we're going to have higher levels of security on air travel than we like. And that that security is likely to be managed by people who are newly recruited and poorly to middling in terms of compensation. I'm not sure if this outcome was fair but what is apparent is that he triggered multiple events. Watch, boots, shirt etc. It legitimately has the feeling of a "dry run" - enough at least to warrant being scrutinized. Not sure why he ends up in jail though.
Why is that "therefore" in there? Even if we let terrorists blow up one airliner every year, air travel would still be the safest mode of transport available. In addition, the security we have now is atrocious in terms of its effectiveness, so we could have security that's makes us safer while being substantially less obtrusive.
I don't understand why people ever defend the TSA at all. They not only make the experience of air travel fairly horrible, but they don't even keep us safe! I could understand defending them if you were afraid and they kept the bad guys away, but they don't even do that.
> Whether we like it or not terrorists have shown a deep attraction to use airplanes as instruments of terror.
American society is currently going through a raving paranoia phase. This is not about terrorists, it is about the public getting off on wallowing in fear. Hence the TSA, Department of Homeland Security, Amber Alerts, escalating the War on Drugs, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, zero tolerance everything, transparent backpacks and metal detectors for schoolchildren, hysterical panics about the supposed dangers of immunizations of all things, and so forth.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Bin Laden's genius was to realize this and trick us into defeating ourselves in detail. Fortunately for us he chose something relatively harmless like the 9-11 attacks. Imagine if he had arranged for Al Qaeda to be caught sneaking iodide and omega-3 fats into every major baby food factory. We'd now be defiantly raising a generation of retards to show those ragheads who's boss.
This insanity has to stop. Has anybody seen the progaganda the agency puts out? The idea that TSA is now using little stacks of toe-nail clippers and such as proof of how great a job they are doing should be ringing alarm bells somewhere.