
Why It's Time to Break the Code of Silence at the Airport - eplanit
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130213133819-332179-why-it-s-time-to-break-the-code-of-silence-at-the-airport
======
cheald
I opt out every time that I fly, and I always request a public screening,
because I _want_ people to see me being patted down. It's amazing how many
people still aren't aware that they have the option. I've talked to a few
folks in line about it, and even convinced one guy to opt out after me. Set an
example and be obvious about it.

Funny story - on my last flight, the patdown resulted in an alert for some
banned residue on my clothing, so the TSA took me aside to a private cubicle,
re-ran the patdown, came up clean, and then left me to pack my stuff up and go
on my way. In this cubicle with me were two 5-gallon buckets filled with
confiscated lighters and pocket knives. Someone thought it was a good idea to
leave me to re-pack my luggage unsupervised in a room full of contraband with
no additional security checks. I didn't take anything or do anything untoward,
and I wanted to point it out to the agent who'd patted me down, but I'm sure
that would have just flagged me as suspicious and I would get to expend extra
time being thoroughly searched. If that doesn't tell you how hilariously bad
security is, I'm not sure what will.

~~~
lotso
You are allowed to take lighters on the plane. Not sure why you saw a bunch of
confiscated lighters.

~~~
cheald
No idea. It was clearly a bunch of Bic lighters, though.

------
pytrin
I recently moved to the U.S from Israel. If there's a country that knows about
Airport security, it's Israel, for obvious reasons.

Let me tell you this - most of the security procedures in U.S airports are
pointless and ridicules. Taking off your shoes and your belt. Holding your
hands in front of a screen. Pat downs. We have the technology to avoid this
(and have had it for the past 20+ years). If you've been to Israel, you know
it's a completely different procedure, and I can guarantee you it's way more
secure. They focus more on behavior profiling through multiple inspection
points and with a series of questions they ask you AS YOU WAIT IN LINE for
checking in your luggage. No fuss, no body strip checks, no taking off pieces
of clothing. X-ray screening is done by simply walking through the machine,
while your baggage passes a different machine.

Airport security in the U.S feels like the result of bureaucracy and procedure
for the sake of appearance.

EDIT: clarified what I meant by profiling.

~~~
nostromo
As an Israeli, you see the "easy" side of Israeli security.

As someone who has flown to Israel for work, I can tell you that if you're not
Israeli or Jewish, you don't get such a great experience. And according to one
of my Arab American coworkers, it can get much much worse than what I
experienced.

I just don't see how the profiling that takes place in Israel would ever work
in a multicultural society like the US.

~~~
endtime
Israel is very multicultural; there are over 1.5 million Arab Muslim Israelis,
and Israeli Jews include Americans, Europeans, Russians, Ethiopians, and
various flavors of Arab/mizrachi Jew.

~~~
jpatokal
Yup, and have you tried asking those Arab Muslim Israelis how they feel about
flying?

[http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/11/27/israeli-profiling-
airport...](http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/11/27/israeli-profiling-airport-
security-system-targets-arabs-muslims/)

FWIW, I had the rare pleasure of flying into Gaza airport shortly before its
runways were bombed by the IDF. It took me _4 hours_ to get through security
and back into Israel, and I'm a pointy hat short of a Viking (blond hair, blue
eyes, the works). Can you imagine the treatment an ordinary Palestinian gets?

------
grecy
> Besides, American airport security is the "gold standard," isn't it?

Depressingly, this is the same logic that keeps Americans from improving
anything. Because they're constantly told they live in the best country in the
world(TM), Americans are apathetic when it comes to making things better
(healthcare, education, poverty rates, incarceration rates, living standards,
etc.), because they think it's already "the best".

~~~
iends
Generalizations like these are exciting. Let me try too...

I've yet to meet an American who didn't think at least one one of these, if
not all, were completely broken.

Source: I live in America.

~~~
grecy
Not that it's a great source of truth, but this one says a massive majority of
Americans still believe they live in the best country in the world:

[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/fox-news-poll-
america-w...](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/fox-news-poll-america-
weaker-greatest-country-world-voters-say/)

> I've yet to meet an American who didn't think at least one one of these, if
> not all, were completely broken.

More importantly, what are any of those people doing about fixing the things
that are broken?

~~~
B-Con
There's a difference between having the best X and living in the best country.
A lot of nations have fantastic X but would widely not be considered anywhere
close to the best place to live. In theory you could rank at #10 in all things
desirable and still be the all-round "best" place.

The US is a good country and the citizens are indeed well off. We're not
trending in a good direction on average and a lot of things need to be fixed,
but it's still a very good place to live.

~~~
grecy
> but it's still a very good place to live.

Spend some time looking at the statistics [1] and you'll see that in almost
all key areas, America ranks dead-last among developed countries, and is often
more comparable to developing countries than developed ones.

Compared to undeveloped countries, you are right, America is a very good place
to live for the average Joe on the street. Compared to developed countries, it
is not.

[1] <http://www.oecd.org/statistics/>

~~~
iends
I don't really see America ranking dead last among developed countries. I see
it average in almost every statistic. Perhaps average in everything actually
makes for a great country?

Can you be more specific with your assertions? Linking to a huge dump of
statistics and making claims about them is a bit disingenuous. What makes it
not good for an 'average joe' compared to developed countries?

~~~
grecy
Have a look at murder rates, poverty rates, heart disease rates, obesity rates

------
JDGM
The author gives three very persuasive reasons for NOT "breaking the code of
silence", with no explicit rebuttals to them.

Perhaps the implied point is that by calling people to arms to speak up, the
peer pressure (reason #2) will crumble, and those who do speak up will not be
labeled crazy (reason #1). As for "you'll miss your plane" (reason #3), I'm
not sure his solution, but I assume it would be something along the lines of
"they can't make _everyone_ miss their plane".

A decent article, but its conclusion paragraph "The next time a TSA agent asks
you to do something you're uncomfortable with, say something. [...]" is bad
advice. We need to speak up, but not at the moment of the offense when we have
least credibility - it must be from outside the queue, where we have a
stronger position.

------
fjorder
The TSA's budget is just a tad short of half that of NASA's. Cutting back on
the little-old-lady-molesting budget and giving the cash to space-explorers
seems like a no-brainer to me. However, I'm not an American.

~~~
pmorici
Not to call out your comment specifically but I've always been curious why
when people advocate against government spending on one thing they always feel
the need to say it would have been better spent on something else as apposed
to just not spending it at all. The general argument seems esp. perverse in
light of the fact that the US Government is so far in the hole in terms of
both total debt and yearly deficit.

~~~
fjorder
It's a way to point out how wasteful spending on the TSA has become. People
lack intuition for numbers on the scale we are talking about. Does $8.71
billion seem huge compared to $8.70 billion? (I'd sure like to be making $0.01
Billion a year!) By suggesting something specific be done with the funds one
can give some impression of the potential that is being wasted.

For the record, I'm not disputing the fact that airport security is ncessary.
I'm just arguing that it's only good in moderation. The TSA is both too
intrusive for the security they provide and extremely wasteful. Back-scatter
X-ray machines are a great example of this. The first models used were not
adequately tested and proved to be easily defeated. The solution? Replace
them, at tremendous expense, with a new generation of machines that have also
not been adequately tested. At the same time, x-ray back-scatter vans are
being rolled out on a truly alarming scale. It's a cash bonanza for _someone_!

------
Taylorious
Isn't Hacker News suppose to be about tech stuff? Why is this political stuff
making it to the top? I realize a lot of people here fly a lot and so anything
TSA related is relevant to them, but there are other places on the internet to
discuss these political issues.

As a side note, some of the posters rabid hatred for the TSA is borderline
concerning. These people are normal folks with a crappy job doing what their
bosses and the US government tells them to do. They aren't heartless demons
whose sole existence is to make your air-travel uncomfortable. Every time a
TSA post comes up (which seems like once or twice a month) I am shocked by the
type of comments people leave here when they refer the the TSA and their
employees. Frankly I expect a lot more from comments here than in other places
on the web.

~~~
nitrogen
If everyone's excuse for doing evil things is "it's just a job," "not my
department," or "above my pay grade," then those evil things will continue.
Everyone is responsible to make an ethical decision with regard to the jobs
they will accept, and the assertion from the HN posters to which you refer
appears to be that those taking a TSA job have made a questionable ethical
decision in doing so.

As for why it's on HN, many here have dealt with being treated like an
outsider or an inferior, and have a heightened awareness of such issues.
There's a long tradition of geeks taking up non-geek causes because they would
want the same (that is, non-geeks taking up geek causes).

------
mikec3k
The TSA needs to go. The security theater we have to go through every time we
fly does NOTHING to make us safer. It's all just a big show.

~~~
rhizome
Too many people are making too much money from it. Good luck.

------
tlrobinson
The most disturbing thing about this article is this fact:

 _"But in a recent poll, one-third of Americans said they would be in favor of
cavity searches to board a plane. No, you didn’t read that wrong. Cavity
searches."_

What the hell, people?

~~~
cheald
I suspect there's an implied "of other people" there. Or maybe they think that
the backscatters have an ultrasound in them somewhere.

Latex up the butt would be a great way to get people pissed enough to do
something.

~~~
T-hawk
Yup, "of other people".

Remember that the median number of flights taken by an American in a year is
zero.

Millions of armchair patriots are perfectly happy to sacrifice someone else's
convenience for the edifying notion that we're beatin' them terr'ists. The war
on terror they see is a far-off unreal spectator sport, not daily personal
violations of human and constitutional rights.

------
run4yourlives
Curious: Does anyone have any sort of information that the TSA has even
prevented a single terrorist attack?

As in: Terrorist was going to board a plane, and the security that we all go
through stopped him/her.

You get some surprising results if you google it... just wondering if any of
you have any futher knowledge.

Spoiler: The answer seems to be "No".

~~~
mrcrassic
I met a TSA airport agent a few months ago and, naturally, asked him exactly
this. Apparently, the TSA purposely does not release accurate statistics as a
security measure and that he and his colleagues have definitely stopped a lot
of potential, but minor, scenarios from happening.

I could be wrong and uneducated about this, of course.

~~~
bproctor
I worked for the TSA for about 6 months a few years ago. They convince
employees that catching a knife from some traveler who forgot to put it in
their checked baggage is a huge win and that somehow we saved the day yet
again. Happened on a daily basis.

Our biggest catch while I was there: one day we caught a guy with a sword. The
guy obviously didn't know what he was doing, apologetic, and confused. Of
course, our managers talked it up as a big win for TSA security. Can you
imagine a terrorist trying to take over a plane with a sword?

------
jbarham
FWIW one thing I really appreciate about living in Australia is the complete
absence of security hassles when flying vs. the US.

I've flown domestically within Australia half a dozen times in the past couple
of years and I don't think I've been asked even once for ID.

Obviously they screen your carry-on luggage and you walk through the X-ray
machine, but it's reasonable and relaxed security compared to the US.

It's fine for non-travellers to go through security and meet friends or family
right at the gate as soon as they get off the plane. Very civilized.

~~~
nmcveity
The only time I've been through a body scanner is in Australia. Just recently
returned to the US through Melbourne airport where I had a 'wtf' moment when I
saw the scanner. I was selected (about 25% of the people went through it, I'd
guess) and when I said I'd rather have a pat down - as I do in the US - they
told me that if I refuse, I would be escorted out of the airport and banned
from returning for 24 hours.

I argued for a little bit but eventually had no choice, not really being able
to miss the flight.

The old system with metal detectors and xray screening of luggage was more
civilised, imo.

Things have really changed, ... When I was a child I used to fly from
Devonport (a small city) to Melbourne a lot. In those days, you didn't even go
through security to get onto the plane in Devonport - they put you through
security after you disembarked in Melbourne!

------
lotso
Luckily I haven't been groped by any TSA agents, but I did have one experience
that was very annoying.

I went through the scanner and my bags did as well, but I forgot to empty my
water bottle. In the past, TSA agents have asked if they could empty it for me
and rescan it. This time the TSA agent said I would either have to throw it
away or leave the gate and reenter the whole security line.

I'll admit that I should have dumped my water, but I was bewildered by how
aggressively the TSA agent told me my options. This may sound like whining,
but I've never had anyone talk to me like that. I asked if there was anyone
else I could talk to and she said no. Not wanting to create a scene, or be
taken away by the TSA to be questioned, I left the gate and reentered the
security line.

I started talking to the person next to me in the security line and explained
the situation, and for some reason, the TSA agent came over and basically
yelled at me to empty my water bottle. I hadn't even gotten to the trashcan to
empty my water bottle. And it is entirely unnecessary for a TSA agent to scold
a passenger. At this point, I felt relatively shaken up by the whole ordeal.
In the grand scheme of things, it wasn't a huge deal, but, man, I really hated
being basically yelled at in front of everyone and having the TSA agent go out
of her way to yell at me in line again.

I should have filed a complaint, but it seemed pointless to do.

~~~
driverdan
I had the opposite experience once. I forgot to empty my bottle and the TSA
agent apologetically said I'd have to throw it away or re-enter. I was
frustrated and asked if she could just empty it for me. She said no, it was
against the regulations. In a frustrated tone I told her how I thought that
was ridiculous but was never rude or disrespectful. I even made it clear that
I understood her position and that she had to follow the rules. I decided to
throw it away. As I put my belt and shoes back on she handed it back to me on
the sly, empty. I was very thankful knowing that she had gone out of her way
to help at the risk of being reprimanded.

------
tokenadult
I remember a more innocent time almost three decades ago when my work involved
frequent flying, such that I have been to most major airports in the United
States repeatedly and have logged weeks above 30,000 feet of altitude. I have
a photograph from those days showing me seated at the controls of a commercial
airliner, which the crew of the airliner took after I boarded a flight early
in the boarding process. In those days a business traveler could sit down to
pose for a snapshot inside the aircraft cockpit, with the crew having no
concerns about a person who was not an airline employee being there. That's
the carefree ease of flying in the United States I remember from the beginning
of my adulthood.

1329 days ago I wrote here on HN, in reponse to one of the recurring
complaints about airport security procedures, "Hear. Hear. I was just on
flights out of town over the weekend, and it occurred to me that the
terrorists have won by making air travel so inconvenient and annoying for
every American who ever flies domestically. 'Maybe Secure Flight is a good use
of our money; maybe it isn't. But let's have debates like that in the open, as
part of the budget process, where it belongs.' This is the general answer for
review of current security procedures: we should check whether they are
worthwhile for the amount of improved security they promise to provide."

334 days ago another participant, who came to the United States from another
country, wrote,

 _It's also the only place that made me take my shoes off before the metal
detector, which I found quite humiliating_

This appears to have been one of the calculations of the terrorist group that
put up the shoe bomber

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_shoe_bomb_plot>

to trying his failed attempt to blow up an airplane with a bomb hidden in his
shoe. Some of the co-religionists of some of those terrorists consider it
extremely degrading to be bare-footed in certain situations deemed to be
"holy" situations (I know this from having been warned about how I oriented my
feet in flip-flop sandals once when I was overseas in 1984), and thus they
have probably been glad to humiliate Americans as Americans have reacted to
the failed shoe bomb plot. My proposal is that United States airport security
give up on requesting passengers to remove shoes. Yeah, maybe have chemical
sensing devices with air intakes at floor level to screen for bombs on shoes,
but let us all wear our shoes onto airplanes and throughout the insides of
airports. The screening procedures at present appear to be an overreaction to
the actual risk of a shoe bomb destroying a passenger airplane, especially in
view of other countries not having the same screening procedure for airline
passengers.

I've summed up my reaction to the past incidents of terrorism directed at
Americans overseas or civilians in the United States in a more recent Hacker
News comment: "It's important for all of us to remember the basic issue here.
The basic issue is whether people in free countries, like most readers of
Hacker News, are going to be able to enjoy the right of free speech throughout
their country, on any subject, or whether any American or Dutch person or
other person accustomed to free speech who happens to be within reach of
attack by a crazy foreign person has to prepare for war just to continue to
exercise free speech. On my part, I'm going to continue to comment on public
policy based on verifiable facts and reason and logic, even if that seems
offensive. I am not going to shrink from saying that people in backward,
poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet have no
right to kill and destroy just because someone in a free country laughs or
scorns at their delusions. The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings
and killing diplomats are declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that
they are anything other than blights on humankind."

Allow me to reemphasize this point. The many participants on HN who criticize
Transportation Security Agency "security theater" as a meaningless reduction
in the freedom of people who travel to the United States are right on the
basic point. If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because
of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. You and I should be
able to speak our minds and express our opinions in the manner of all people
in free countries--sometimes agreeing with one another, sometimes disagreeing,
but always letting the other guy have his say. To engage in self-censorship
because of fear of violent thugs is to be defeated by the thugs.

We should also be able to fly freely about the country with no more than
strictly necessary security precautions. I want to be able to walk into an
airport with my shoes on and walk calmly to an arrival gate to greet arriving
passengers there. I used to do that. And I want to be able to carry a Swiss
Army knife in an airline carry-on bag. Grandmothers and mothers and children
should surely be able to board an airliner unmolested in a free country like
the United States.

That said, I remember when conditions changed in the United States. I stood on
top of the former World Trade Center in New York City twice while traveling
with foreign visitors to the United States during my earlier frequent flyer
days. Because I remember the peace and freedom I long enjoyed here to welcome
visitors to the United States from around the world, I want the leaders and
active participants in terrorist networks to identified through constant
surveillance and intelligence, and I want terrorists to be attacked
relentlessly where they live, so that they have to hide in caves while people
all over the world who renounce their goals get to lead civilized, peaceful
lives in the Twenty-First Century. Taliban delenda est. Al Qaeda delenda est.

AFTER EDIT: Thanks for the several interesting comments. I think it is
important to acknowledge that, yes, the United States government as a matter
of official policy has engaged in assassination of foreign government leaders,
and plotted the assassination of others, as well as committed and plotted
break-ins in foreign embassies (but not random bomb attacks on foreign
embassies, to the best of my recollection). I think the United States has been
chastened by some of the results of those earlier policies. The movie _Argo_
has been watched by many Americans, and it frankly acknowledges the
assassination of an elected prime minister in Iran by the CIA back before I
was born. I think now the United States is much more interested in information
openness as a means to make sure that countries all around the world trade
peacefully rather than waging war one one another, and I think that is the
only long-term way to defeat terrorist networks. The current armed warfare
strategy of drone attacks on specific terrorist leaders rather than mass
bombing attacks on cities (as in World War II) is a step forward in war-
fighting effectiveness and an improvement in reducing civilian casualties.

Yes, the United States is still second only to France as a country destination
for foreign tourists (and rather more of the tourists to France can drive cars
or ride trains to France than can many visitors to the United States). So as
obnoxious as current TSA security procedures are to me and to many, they are
not so obnoxious that people have stopped visiting the United States for fun.

Oh, yes, and my "half-Asian" children look very Central Asian, as one might
expect, and my oldest son with his full black beard looks like someone from
the latest news story about Al Qaeda. I'm not sure what his experience has
been traveling around the country for his study and work. He barely remembers
the old days before the TSA. Certainly we should also make sure not to harass
citizens or visitors who happen to have the wrong name or the wrong pattern of
physical appearance, but identify threats on the basis of more relevant
information. Another top-level comment in this thread says that Israel
succeeds in doing that for the most part.

~~~
chimeracoder
> If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of
> terrorists, the terrorists have already won

As a dark-skinned man who oftentimes sports a beard, I'm treated like a
terrorist _every single time_ I walk through security. To them, I'm a second-
class citizen - no question about it.

I avoid flying like the plague; I'd gladly take a 12 hour train ride over a 2
hour flight _just_ to avoid this treatment.

It's been 12 years, and I still haven't gotten used to the degradation. I hope
I never do.

> Because I remember the peace and freedom I long enjoyed here to welcome
> visitors to the United States from around the world, I want the leaders and
> active participants in terrorist networks to identified through constant
> surveillance and intelligence, and I want terrorists to be attacked
> relentlessly where they live, so that they have to hide in caves while
> people all over the world who renounce their goals get to lead civilized,
> peaceful lives in the Twenty-First Century.

There's a certain degree of irony in that statement; the Beirut bombing, the
(first) World Trade Center bombing attack, and 9/11 were, at least in large
part, a response to the destruction that the US has been wreaking on foreign
soil for years.

> The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings and killing diplomats are
> declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that they are anything other
> than blights on humankind

This same line of reasoning could be applied to the US - we're a little bit
better at disguising it, but we've been responsible for terrorism abroad (and
domestically!) for _decades_.

~~~
Aloha
I'm a white guy (as white as wonder bread and twinkies, only thing missing is
the blond hair, and blue eyes) but with an very common first and last name and
a Persian middle name.

For 5 years every time I flew, I was subjected to 'random' extra inspection,
and was unable to check in online. When I questioned this, I was absolutely
assured it was random, and there was nothing I could do about it. I don't plan
on living the rest of my life in fear of the unknown, planes crash, people
die, these things happen, its statistically less likely to die from terrorism
then it is from a normal plane crash, consider that.

I feel your pain, and its absolutely not right, and I hope in my lifetime, we
come to our senses or I fear it may eventually result in a revolution.

~~~
gph
> its statistically less likely to die from terrorism then it is from a normal
> plane crash, consider that.

From a purely passenger point of view this might be true, but if you include
the total deaths from WTC/Pentagon I bet it comes out in a wash. Normal plane
crashes do not occur that frequently in the US, I doubt the total deaths from
commercial flights is much higher than ~3000

~~~
dalke
Depending on the window that you use, you've lost that bet.

Using the numbers from
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_airliners_in_the_United_States)
and including the fatalities on the ground:

985 fatalities in the 1980s, 1277 in the 1990s, and (excluding 9/11) 512 in
the 2000s. This adds up to 2774.

I started to include the pre-1980 numbers, but it became too tedious. From
what I got so far, there have been 3606 commercial aviation related fatalities
since 1970, and over 4656 fatalities total in US-located commercial aviation
history.

Pan Am Flight 830 had 1 fatality due to a terrorist bomb, which I put in the
non-9/11 column. I put EgyptAir Flight 990 as a suicide+murder (or accident)
and not due to terrorism.

However, this excludes accidents from US carriers not in the US (Pan Am 1736
in Tenerife; 583 fatalities in 1977), and includes accidents from non-US
carriers which took place in the US (Air Canada 797; 23 fatalities in 1983). I
did it this way because you qualified it as "in the US."

Just under 3,000 fatalities occurred due to 9/11. The full statistical
analysis would decrease the chance of death slightly to remove the 19
hijackers and observe that the same person could not be on all flights at the
same time, reducing the count by about 150. These minor details don't affect
the overall analysis.

The worldwide numbers are listed at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incident...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents)
. From 2002 to 2011 there were 11,068 aviation fatalities. This likely
includes fatalities on the ground because it lists 4,140 fatalities for all of
2001, which is about 3000+(11068/10). I don't know how many of those other
fatalities are due to terrorism.

Worldwide then, if you pick any period of three or more years, you are more
likely to die by a plane accident than by terrorist attack. In the US, if you
look at the last 40 years of flights, you are still more likely to die by
accident than by terrorist attack.

For the usual sense of scale for these matters, there were 32,367 automobile
deaths in the US in 2011, or 1.10 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled. Airlines have about 1 death for each 2,000 million miles traveled.
(Neither of these statistics include non-traveler fatalities.)

~~~
gph
> In the US, if you look at the last 40 years of flights, you are still more
> likely to die by accident than by terrorist attack.

Alright so not a complete wash, but fairly close. I might go so far as to say
the difference between ~4000-5000 vs ~3000 out of ~250-300 million is
statistically insignificant. I know using the total U.S. population in this
instance isn't fantastic statistical analysis, but there isn't a great metric
to use for a comparison between the total number of passengers on U.S. flights
and the population exposed to 9/11 type terrorist fatalities. The best sources
for total airline passengers include both U.S. and international to U.S.
passenger total (~800 million[1]), and while it's unlikely someone in Montana
is going to be killed in a 9/11 type terrorist attack it's still a
possibility.

Anyway you put some effort in and clearly there is a slightly higher chance of
dying from a normal plane crash than a terrorism induced one. So I'll admit
you win this bet.

However if I want to argue the point (which I'm bored and do), I might say
that looking at the trend in the data we might find those numbers evening out.
We should expect air traffic control and safety to improve as newer
technologies are implemented, people are trained better, etc. We can already
see fewer deaths after the 1990's and I'd expect it to remain at that lower
threshold. Now the terrorism number is harder to comment on, because
presumably with all the extra safety measure another 9/11 won't happen. And
even without the TSA around, it's still rather unlikely an event of that
magnitude would occur again. I don't doubt the next hijacked airplanes that go
close to an urban area will be intercepted and shot down. But for
(my)arguments sake lets say without the extra security measures we could
expect the same rate of terrorism related deaths, though perhaps not all in
the same event. Given all of that, my statement about it all coming out in a
wash will be true within the next couple decades :D

(Yes, I know all of that is nonsense speculative crap, but I already typed it
all out so I'm just going to hit the reply button anyway.)

[1][http://www.travelpulse.com/dot-reports-17-percent-
increase-i...](http://www.travelpulse.com/dot-reports-17-percent-increase-in-
us-airline-passengers.html)

~~~
bad_user
Dude, a comparison with plane accidents does injustice to how irrational the
fear of terrorism is.

In the US alone, over 40,000 people die _each year_ of flu. In 2011 about
32,000 people died in car accidents, which is actually good because that
number is down from over 40,000 per year in the last decade (but it's probably
due to the raised gas prices, it isn't like car travelling got all of a sudden
safer). About 600,000 people per year die of heart disease, another 600,000
die of cancer, another 130,000 die of respiratory diseases, another 120,000
die of stroke ... many of them are old people and I don't have any stats now,
but I bet the number of young people dying from such chronic diseases are on
the rise and in the tens of thousands at least.

Compared to such numbers, the number of deaths related to terrorism that
occurred in the first world countries in the last 50 years is completely
insignificant and saying that these measures are the reason for why no more
terrorist attacks happened is complete bullshit ... the only reason for why
you don't see any more 9/11 scenarios is because existing terrorist networks
have been drained of resources and that's it.

What TSA does to you on the other hand is just _security theatre_. I have a
cousin that boarded on a flight from Romania to Spain with a pack of old-
fashioned razor blades in his backpack. Razor blades are not allowed, mind
you, but he forgot them there and they somehow passed through the airport's
scanner and airport personnel is really not that careful. If the invasive
procedures in the US would actually work, if they prevented _anything_ , then
where are the 9/11 events from Europe?

And if the US is a more popular target for terrorists, then maybe, just maybe,
the right solution would be to improve your foreign policies and abstain from
invading countries like Irak based on assumptions ;-)

------
trout
I tend to vote against this type of security by opting out of the scanners. If
even one quarter of the passengers opted out they would need to reexamine
their security - one that would likely not include the expensive scanners or
intrusive pat down tests. I just get to the airport 10 minutes earlier. They
do seem to intentionally penalize you with delay, and often question why
you're opting out.

~~~
logn
Yeah they asked me why I opted out. I said "I don't trust the government".
Then I imagined a CIA robot zooming in on me. I clarified: "I don't trust the
government with medical x-ray procedures"

------
berlinbrown
My comment:

Simple solution and nobody ever wants to talk about it. Sure it is more
towards the long game but perfectly valid. The TSA budget is $8 billion, we
should quit funding all of these crazy government programs. With a federal
government budget of 1 trillion dollars, of course they are going to abuse
their power. Iraq war, don't fund it. Afghanistan war, don't fund it. Drone
operations, don't fund them. TSA, Department of Homeland Security, don't fund
them. 3m

~~~
erichocean
For that, we'd first need to be able to work up a new Federal budget, pass it
in the House and Senate, and have it signed by the President.

It's been four years since we've even been able to do that much; I'm not
holding out hope that anything, anywhere, will have its budget cut in real (or
nominal) terms.

------
lsc
> "I wasn't even afforded the privacy of a screen."

this is... interesting. I mean, I know this is very different for me because
of the cultural expectations of me as a male, but personally? I'd /much/
rather have an authority figure violate me in public than in private. In
public, they are restrained by witnesses; in private? well, who knows what
they will do? and if I complain of what they do in private, well, it's my word
against that of an authority figure. In public, there are witnesses.

------
trotsky
_Often, air travelers either have to pay for a new ticket at an expensive
"walk-up" fare_

Wait, what? While I'm sure it can't be 100%, I've missed dozens of flights
over the years and never once was it ever suggested that I might have to pay a
dime to the airline. Usually it's the next flight on the same route unless its
full or a long way off.

imho you don't speak up against the TSA because it's designed to be a
dominating experience. you don't speak up in prison either.

------
ctdonath
4th Amendment. Use it.

(To wit: the US government is forbidden from searching people without a
warrant signed by a judge for that particular person and situation. Creeping
judicial decisions have in effect destroyed that restriction.)

~~~
jaredmcateer
While it's well within your right to refuse a search, it's within the private
airline/airport rights to refuse you access to a secure area if you refuse to
be "properly" screened and they can just turn you around at that point to find
another means of transportation to your destination.

~~~
ctdonath
The private airline/airport has no say. The government, a la TSA, is the one
who will not just refuse, but jail, you for opposing the unwarranted search.

~~~
jrockway
Has this actually happened, or do the low-level agents use this as an empty
threat?

~~~
ctdonath
Not sure what you mean as "empty threat".

If you try to get on an airplane with airline permission but without TSA
search ("no thank you, I don't want to walk thru the metal detector, I don't
want a pat down, I don't want to go in the weird radiation booth, I'm just
going to get on the plane now"), they WILL arrest you. If you refuse the
search and attempt to leave, they _might_ not arrest you, but they _will_
threaten criminal charges and very well may follow through on them.

Not empty threats by low-level agents. Systemic policy. Try it and show me I'm
wrong.

The one exception is airplanes carrying 9 or fewer people: those are not
subject to governmental interference (a la TSA). Many small airlines feature
such planes precisely as a way to avoid unwarranted* search. If you find one
offering airfare anywhere close to major airline prices (or the price of just
driving to destination), let me know - seems they run about $1000/hr. I'd be
surprised if TSA _wasn't_ trying hard to get jurisdiction over those too.

(* - by "unwarranted" I mean "without adjudicated written approval by a court
in response to presentable evidence regarding particular persons, items,
locations, and circumstances"; the common "because one in a billion passengers
might try to crash a plane" is inadequate.)

~~~
jrockway
Nobody disputes that you must be searched to get on a plane. The question is
whether or not anyone is in jail for coming to the airport, getting in line,
being selected for an extra search, and saying "you know what, fuck this, I'm
going home".

The FUD is that "yes, you will go to jail forever if you do that", but I don't
think that has any basis in reality.

------
robomartin
The problem isn't TSA. The problem is that we and the world have not delivered
a sufficiently severe set of consequences for engaging in terrorism.

If you have small children you've seen this at work a million times. It could
be about not touching a hot pot or not abusing the cat. Sometimes you can
repeat your "don't do <x>" a million times and it simply does not register.
Kids are wired that way, and, I suspect, most of us remain wired that way for
some time.

When does the behavior stop? When they touch the hot pot and get burned or
when they mess with the cat too much and they are attacked. Just to clarify,
none of these things happened to my kids because (a) I got lucky and they tend
to listen and, (b) we don't own a cat.

The point is that TSA and a bunch of other measures none of us like (Patriot
act anyone?) were a reaction to an absolute failure to communicate, in no
uncertain terms, that terrorism has severe and dire consequences. Almost
unimaginable consequences that not one person on this planet would want to
provoke.

We are not a "hot pot" or a "cat" in the eyes of any of these people. We are a
country and a people to be messed with because the consequences just don't
hurt enough. And so is much, if not all of the West and Europe. This is a
problem when you have an ideology and people who are living 800 years behind
the rest of the planet. No? Ha! Go ask their women, their homosexuals and
anyone who dares express such vile things as wanting women to be educated.
Maybe 800 years is too small of a number, maybe it's more like 1,500 years.

What consequences am I talking about? No point in going into it. The
opportunity was lost over a decade ago. I am not sure I am smart enough to
even begin to imagine what could be done today.

You have to turn the environments within which would-be terrorists are cooked-
up into environments where not one person would even consider the idea of
terrorism due to a clear understanding of the consequences.

Do that. Accomplish that. And you can shutdown the TSA, Homeland Security, the
Patriot Act and all else that is making our lives miserable and expensive.

Yes. They won. Why would anyone doubt that? Look at all you've given up in the
name of security. Sad.

~~~
darkarmani
> The point is that TSA and a bunch of other measures none of us like (Patriot
> act anyone?) were a reaction to an absolute failure to communicate, in no
> uncertain terms, that terrorism has severe and dire consequences. Almost
> unimaginable consequences that not one person on this planet would want to
> provoke.

So you think it is possible to have absolute security?

The TSA and Patriot Act are similar to irrational escalation or commitment
bias ala "throw bad money after good money." We've already suffered a massive
loss of life and money, but we'll throw all of this money at the problem that
has passed and take away a number of liberties.

The downside of an open society is the ability to be harmed. Giving up that
openness doesn't seem like much of a trade for the margin security it
provides.

~~~
robomartin
> So you think it is possible to have absolute security?

Really. Where did I say that?

Sometimes it is really interesting how people read what they want out of what
someone else wrote.

I actually got an email from someone pissed because he saw me advocating for
nuking the entire middle east in my post. That is simply fucking amazing. I
don't have any other way to say it. Why do "consequences" always have to mean
such extremes.

For clarification, what I meant by "severe consequences" was ideas like utter
and absolute isolation from the rest of the world for fifty years or some such
thing. In exchange for being allowed back into the world of the civilized
these societies would have to make a real effort to come into this century.
Yes, that means respect women, human rights, promote education and other
things. Not a perfect solution by any measure. I am far from a
political/international-relations/cultural dynamics expert. I just know when
something is really, really fucked up. And the Middle East (known as Asia in
other parts of the world) is really, really fucked up.

The TSA, Homeland Security and the Patriot Act would not need to exist if the
Middle East was locked-down solid until their leaders, clergy, etc. accepted
the fact that they are being assholes to their own people and the world and
let go. Enough already.

------
mbesto
_There's no evidence that patting down passengers like Burton has made air
travel any safer._

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here. How on earth do you actually
prove prevention techniques?

------
jstalin
Very few break the silence because the far majority of human beings will
submit to authority without question, if the conditions are right. It's well
documented that they will even do so to the point of hurting or even killing
someone else.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment>

------
paliderek
I have restarted the petition to abolish the TSA here:

<http://wh.gov/dUK1>

or here:

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-tsa-
favor-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-tsa-favor-
airport-security-measures-which-clearly-do-not-violate-rights-those-being-
screened/fxSVWy3N)

------
methodover
An opt out is not a protest.

It's not.

The TSA doesn't keep records of opt out rates. The random folks waiting in
line around you probably don't recognize that you're opting out as a form of
protest.

The only thing opting out accomplishes is letting a TSA agent rub his or her
hands all over you.

IMO, the opt out is a genius maneuver by the TSA: They give passengers who
have privacy concerns a sense that they're protesting, without them actually
having protested.

------
aaronh
if you don't want to be treated like cattle stop accepting it. opt-out every
time. every time i have, they have asked if i wanted a private screening, and
in fact the personnel that performed the "pat down" was always very
professional. i never wanted a private screen since i'm pretty comfortable in
public, and if they were going to do anything embarrassing to me or
themselves, I do want it out and public so everybody can see how their fellow
citizen is being treated. let's disregard that this pat down is also demeaning
and pointless. but at least you can just say no to the automatic total recall
porno scanning. i don't give a fuck who hears me opt out, or if it interrupts
the line (which it doesn't), or their jobs (tiniest violin playing). the first
time i did they even seemed to make a show by calling it out, but i think it's
probably just because they have to yell for the pat-down dude to come over and
do it.

------
geuis
__I was originally writing this as a response to conroe64 below, but it
deserves to be its own comment.

Yes, the days before 911 _were_ the good old days.

I have an older brother that didn't live with us. During the holidays, he
would fly in and we'd go pick him up at the airport. On many separate
occasions, the family would all wait at the exit gate for family and friends
to get off. Can you even remember the experience of having a hundred people
all patiently waiting for their loved ones to get off the plane, or being one
of those people to exit the plane and to have all of your loved ones waiting
for you right there?

One time when my brother was leaving for home, we were able to go with him on
the plane and I got to sit in the pilot's seat. Soooo many buttons. For some
reason, I still remember there being a little button with a Christmas tree on
it. No idea what it was for.

So to your other points: modern airport security would have done NOTHING to
prevent 9/11. Those guys didn't carry guns or large knives on board. They
didn't hijack planes with water bottles and belts. They had fucking box
cutters. You can't kill everyone on board with a box cutter. At worst, you can
severely injure a couple of people, and by that point the passengers rise up
and strangle your ass.

What allowed those planes to be hijacked is that pre-9/11 the _universal_
experience of being hijacked was to do what the hijackers said. That was what
we were all told, because up until then that's what happened. Hijackings were
a way to make political statements, not necessarily to kill the passengers.
You might end up in Cuba, or held on the tarmac for ransom or something.

What would have stopped 9/11 is if the public had a different mindset, being
"take these assholes down at any cost". That's the mindset we have today.

There were a few fatalities back then. The Lockerbie Scotland incident was a
bombing. It wasn't even a hijacking. The perpetrators were hanging out in
Libya. In fact, that bombing _was sponsored by Gaddafi_. We didn't invade
Libya in revenge for that.

The fact is, 9/11 happened. It was horrible. It brought to light that some
changes were definitely needed in airport security, but it also brought to
light that the passive reaction to hijackings was something that needed to
change. The reason this is all fucked up is that we had a lame-duck president
and government who over-reacted. If they had handled the incident responsibly,
rather than initiating 2 wars that led to no capture of Bin Laden (remember,
it was under Obama that the fucker got taken out), then we would be in a very
different world today.

The TSA is a left-over remnant from a horrible event that happened 12 years
ago. It was an over-reaction due to the climate of uncertainty and fear that
existed at the time. Like all snakes set loose in an environment with no
natural predators, it has gone on to swallow multiple government departments
and their budgets and gotten so fat and dangerous no one is willing to fight
it.

Its time to stop this bullshit, dismantle the TSA, set the various government
agencies back on their own that it absorbed, start arresting these high-school
dropout alpha fucks the TSA hires when they molest people and children, and
put something rational and sensible in place.

Do we need airport security? Yes. Do we need this bullshit TSA theater we have
now? No.

The next time you're flying and you're mistreated, make a scene. Ask the 10
people around you to record the interaction. You will likely miss your flight.
Accept that. Its unlikely you'll be arrested as long as you don't hit anyone,
you'll just be escorted from the airport or made to catch a later flight. Be
rational and stand up for yourself like a human being with dignity.

We _NEED_ everyone to start doing this, to make this into an issue. Stop being
passive. Its an inconvenience now, but its the first step in making it better.
Years down the line, you'll be proud of what you did. And you and your kids
won't have to deal with this shit anymore.

I know I will.

~~~
erichocean
_but it also brought to light that the passive reaction to hijackings was
something that needed to change_

That is actually the _only_ thing that absolutely _needed_ to change to
prevent another 9/11.

Some of the other stuff is also a good idea, but the only actual effective
solution is to stop being passive in the face of hijackers and fend for
yourself.

~~~
geuis
Couldn't agree more. I remember the first time I flew in 1998. I was more
scared of the takeoff than actually going through security.

------
conroe64
So many people here are acting like nothing happened to justify the existence
of the TSA. Yet, there were two buildings destroyed in the one of the most
iconic cities in the world, the pentagon was damaged, and the Whitehouse was
almost also destroyed, with more than 3000 civilians killed, and all of this
can be directly attributed to the lack of airport security.

Yes, the TSA does a questionable job, but the constant whining and calls to
demolish it without the acknowledge of the need for changes from the "good old
days" before 9/11 is not only sophomoric but downright dangerous.

~~~
chill1
You neglected to mention that since 9/11, it would be almost impossible to do
now what the hijackers did then. If that were attempted now, a whole plane
load of vigilantes would rise up against the hijackers.

~~~
readme
Sure, sure... And you know this how? A gut feeling? Remember, there were
multiple planes on 9/11, and this did not succeed or happen in any of those
situations.

I like that you are so sure about this, with no data or anything.

~~~
logn
Remember the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania or near there? News spread to
the passengers and they overcame the hijackers.

~~~
readme
Is that really why it crashed? If so, that's awesome news. I thought it was
shot down.

------
draggnar
it's a jobs program

------
Kiro
I'm always surprised at the amount of interest TSA receives on HN. Can someone
explain why this is such a hot topic?

