
I flew on a plane without going through security. It was amazing and no one died - MattRogish
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/30/i-flew-on-a-plane-without-going-through-security-it-was-amazing-and-no-one-died/
======
chimeracoder
It's sad that this headline (presumably) is not tautological.

First, the TSA itself has admitted that there is no evidence of terrorist
plots against aviation in the US[0].

Second, the circumstances under which 9/11 happened would be impossible to
repeat. Plane cockpits are all but impenetrable[1] - the _only_ reason that
some of the 9/11 hijackers were successful was that the standard protocol for
dealing with hijackers assumed that hijackers wanted to take the plane hostage
for ransom, not use the plane as a weapon. This protocol was fixed almost
immediately. (Note that United Airlines Flight 93 did _not_ face the same fate
as the other three planes, because the passengers knew what the hijackers were
planning.)

Since it's impossible to take control of the cockpit as a hijacker these days,
even if someone managed to bring a gun on board a flight, the most damage they
could do is kill all the passengers (leaving the pilots unharmed). That is
truly a horrible scenario, but that makes flying no more risky than going to
the movies or going to school (eg. Newtown, Arapahoe, Boulder).

Of course, one "logical" conclusion is therefore to establish TSA-style
security at every school, cinema, mall, etc... in which case we have turned
the country into a police state, and we should expect the same crime rates as
within federal prisons:
[http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194](http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=194)

[0] [http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-
admits-...](http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-in-
leaked-doc-no-evidence-of-terrorist-plots-against-aviation-in-us/)

[1] I believe I read another comment on Hacker News a while back in which the
pilot had a heart attack after the cockpit had been locked from the inside,
but before leaving the gate, and it still took the _fire department_ almost an
hour to cut through the door.

~~~
wahsd
Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration
could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects
of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded simpletons played right
into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple.

Let's also remember what genius methods and techniques the "terrorists" used
to hijack some planes....they "smuggled" some box cutters on the plane. ....
The END ... FIN

I bet you if any one of you put a plastic craft blade, you know, the marker
sized ones with the break away blades, in your carry on bag you would not be
stopped or discovered; especially if you placed it with the blade on edge to
the image.

Here's a tip though, never, NEVER ever will another plane be hijacked by
anyone else using those means. Not only did the "authorities" finally secure
the cockpits like it had been pleaded for years prior to 9/11, but I can
guarantee you that anyone even attempting would be ripped apart by the limbs.
I, for one, don't care if you were able to smuggle a middle-earth battle axe
on the plane; you will be dead within seconds of pulling some shit.

That being said, I'm not quite certain if it has gotten any better, but just
relatively recently it was still rather easy to access the runways and bays.
Just saying, the phantoms we are fighting might get "genius" and pull of a
"highly sophisticated plot" that my seven year old could plane and execute
with just a tablet computer at their disposal.

~~~
twoodfin
_Let 's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush
administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy
and the effects of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded
simpletons played right into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple._

Initially, the Bush administration and the GOP resisted the creation of a
Federal airport security service. They were not at all excited about a big new
(particularly unionized) government workforce. But the Democrats fought for it
and won that political argument. Here's a contemporaneous news account that
covers the basics:
[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87570](http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87570)

How did you end up remembering it differently?

~~~
anigbrowl
The GOP had majorities in both the House and Senate, and the linked article
mentions begins by mentioning the unanimous passage of the bill in the Senate.
The law in question was the Aviation Security Act. When it passed in the
house, 136 Democrats voted against it (partly due to concerns about
unionization eligibility), but only 2 Republicans and 1 independent did. So I
don't think it's fair to say 'the GOP resisted the creation' of the TSA. As
for the administration, transportation secretary Mineta wanted to federalize
airport security from the outset.

[http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll425.xml](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll425.xml)

~~~
twoodfin
_The GOP had majorities in both the House and Senate..._

No, they didn't. By then, Senator Jim Jeffords had become an independent,
caucusing with the Democrats and giving them a one-vote majority control of
the chamber. Also, FWIW, Norm Mineta was the token Democrat in the Bush
cabinet.

And of course everyone voted for the bill once it was clear it would pass. Who
wanted to be against enhanced airline security?

I'm not saying the GOP put up the fight of the century on the TSA, far from
it. But it's a mischaracterization of history to say that Bush demanded a
dramatic expansion of the Federal workforce as some kind of economic
smokescreen. If that were so, you'd expect to find accounts of Democrats at
least raising token opposition to this brilliant political stratagem.

------
snowwrestler
Yet another in a long line of "data wonky" articles that misuse statistical
data to support a position that is emotionally attractive.

> Would this increase hijacking? Probably. But there's no reason to believe it
> would increase casualties from terrorist attacks overall. That's because
> increasing airport security just leads terrorists to direct their assaults
> elsewhere.

There are two huge problems with this statement.

First, you cannot draw such a causal conclusion from statistical data alone.

Second, it's pulling a subtle slight of hand--the goal of airport security is
NOT to reduce terrorist casualties overall. It is to reduce violent attacks of
any kind on airplanes, specifically.

At the base of this argument is an implication that terrorist attacks are
zero-sum: reduce them in one place, get an equivalent more in another. But
that's not how security works.

Look at it in digital terms--it would be like saying that we don't need to
bother with strong passwords, because all those did was drive up the number of
phishing attacks. Maybe we could just get of passwords, since the total number
of intrusions would not go up. And besides, just think of all that wasted
effort to create, hash, store, remember, and manage passwords.

Does that sound stupid? I hope so, because it is. But that's exactly the type
of argument that this article is making.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> the goal of airport security is NOT to reduce terrorist casualties overall.
> It is to reduce violent attacks of any kind on airplanes, specifically.

OK, but this is an argument for throwing out airport security entirely. Is
that what you meant to say?

If I owned an airline, sure, I'd be all about reducing airline passenger
casualties by killing non-passengers somewhere else. But there's no public
interest in redirecting attacks; the public interest is in _reducing_ them.

> Look at it in digital terms--it would be like saying that we don't need to
> bother with strong passwords, because all those did was drive up the number
> of phishing attacks.

> Does that sound stupid? I hope so, because it is. But that's exactly the
> type of argument that this article is making.

The phenomenon of a counterbalancing reaction occurring when you make some
change to a system is pretty general. How much of the desired effect (reduced
casualties, or reduced breaches) of the change you made _comes through_ , vs
how much is eliminated by the reaction (increased effort directed to bombing
theaters, or sending out phishing attacks), is an empirical matter; the fact
that phishing attacks don't rise to nearly the level that password-guessing
attacks were at before we started using stronger passwords (incidentally, we
have weak passwords now, have always had weak passwords, and it is not
generally felt that password strength is where we need to improve our online
security), has no implications for the likely reaction of attacks to airport
security.

The "type" of the argument is fine; it's broad enough that it can work in one
domain and fail in another.

~~~
ketralnis
> But there's no public interest in redirecting attacks; the public interest
> is in reducing them

I'm not sure that's true though. Airplanes can be used as powerful weapons.
I'd rather leave the knife depot open than the nuclear power plant, even if
the number of attacks remains constant.

~~~
Guvante
As the article says, using an airplane as a weapon is nearly impossible.

You cannot get to the pilots anymore using the plans used last time, so thus
the exigent danger you are speaking of is gone.

------
ck2
Isn't it pathetically sad what we've grown to accept?

Frog in a slowly heating pot indeed.

Now that we've accepted the horrors of the TSA, they are working on getting us
to accept the horrors of the NSA, slowly but surely, until we reach the point
that the average person defends every smartphone being hacked and tracked.

~~~
rogerbinns
I wish the airlines would make it clearer to passengers the fees they are
paying. If every passenger was reminded just after going through the TSA that
$5 of their ticket actually went to the TSA for the procedure, I suspect there
would be a lot more pressure for change.

~~~
munificent
By extension, I would love it if my tax forms clarified what fraction of my
salary went to funding the NSA.

~~~
ck2
In theory it would be possible to make a website where you just type in your
taxes paid and then it shows a pie chart of where each percent went.

~~~
lostlogin
It probably wouldn't be too different to this would it? Divvy up your tax
bill. Note it's 2010.
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spendin...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg)

------
tehwebguy
The article misses the most important point! By reinforcing the cockpit doors
and locking them from the inside we made it so that a plane can no longer be
hijacked.

Even if a bomb is brought on board we would never give control of a plan to
hijackers since we now know it may be used as a giant missile, not just an
escape vehicle.

~~~
codex
Since 9/11 there have been no highjacking attempts, true, but there have been
multiple bombing attempts on aircraft by would be suicide bombers, and these
bombers were able to evade the limited screening employed at the time. As bomb
technology grows more sophisticated and easy to hide, screening has become
more rigorous. That's what the TSA is focused on these days.

~~~
cortesoft
This might be true... but if all they are trying to do is bomb the plane, what
makes a plane bomb that much worse than, say, a bus bomb? You can ride
greyhound without going through rigorous screening, and yet no one has planted
a bomb on a bus.

The excuse for the airplane security has been that they can use the plane as a
missile. If this is no longer the case, than planes lose their special status
as something that needs to be extra protected. If we feel safe getting on a
bus without going through a metal detector, a plane should be no different.

Yes, people can do us harm at any time. They could shoot us, bomb us, stab us,
burn us with acid, etc. We accept those risks every day, and almost all of us
get through life without those things happening to us. That is because the
number of people who want to do bad things to us isn't nearly as great as some
would have us believe. We don't need more screening to protect us from very
unlikely threats.

~~~
bunderbunder
> no one has planted a bomb on a bus

What about the one that happened yesterday?

[http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/killed-
blast-s...](http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/killed-blast-
station-russias-south-21359943)

~~~
cortesoft
Ok, I was clearly wrong about no one bombing a bus. However, my main point is
still true; there are countless places where there are lots of people in
confined spaces that are vulnerable to a bomb. We are always vulnerable to
harm from someone who wants to hurt us, and there is very little we can do to
make us invulnerable to random violence. Thankfully, the risk of dying from
random violence is extremely low, near the bottom of the list of things that
can kill us. We waste a lot of resources and time trying to prevent someone
from harming us on an airplane when it is no more or less vulnerable than
anywhere else.

~~~
bunderbunder
Fair enough. But factual issues aside, stating that nobody attacks ground-
based transit systems weakens that point rather than strengthening it.

If you want to argue that near-complete security is infeasible, you're
probably better served by acknowledging that attacks on something as pervasive
and porous as a bus system are a real possibility. So that's why I thought it
was necessary to challenge you on that point.

------
kyro
What I find particularly evil about the TSA is their Pre program that lets you
bypass security lines for $85. Mind you, you'll only be granted that sort of
privilege after an approval process that requires you submit the non-
refundable fee along with an application. So paying $85 doesn't even guarantee
you a spot.

It's as if after implementing all this theater, imposing myriads of
restrictions, that they realized it was all ineffective, and now they're
reframing the entire situation by acting as if they're catering to customers
by offering a program that reverts things to how they were a little over a
decade ago, but now for a fee.

~~~
hbags
The PreCheck program isn't just a fee; it's a rather thorough background
check. And being approved for it doesn't actually guarantee lower scrutiny, as
PreCheck'd travelers remain eligible for the random high-security selection.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>the random high-security selection.

a.k.a. the "sir we assure you that this is a completely random check"
racial/gender/economic profiling

~~~
EpicEng
Strange then that I, a 30 year old, upper middle class, white male, have been
randomly chosen multiple times

------
erbo
The author laments "all the _waste_ that one stupid government policy can
generate." But there seems to be little hope that any of it will go away any
time soon.

Why? Because of a statement I've seen attributed to Karl Denninger[0]: "One
man's waste, fraud, abuse, scam, and theft is another man's paycheck."

If there were no need for TSA-compliant messenger bags, Timbuk2 would likely
see a drop in revenues. If there were no TSA, a whole bunch of people employed
as TSA agents would be out of work. I'd expect everyone making money off the
current system of security theater to fight tooth and nail to preserve the
money they're making.

[0] See e.g. [http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-
www?singlepost=3149840](http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-
www?singlepost=3149840)

------
minimax
He is chalking up a lot of things that existed before 9/11 to the TSA. 15
years ago we all still had to stand in line to go through metal detectors to
get into the terminal. Also how can you compare loading time on a 9 passenger
Cessna 402 to something like a 737-300 that can hold 120 people? That's silly.
It takes more time to board larger planes than smaller ones and that has
nothing to do with security.

I go through the TSA screening several times a month, and while I don't
appreciate the invasion of privacy, it isn't really that big of a pain in the
ass to stand in line for a few minutes and put all your bags through the
scanner.

~~~
nickonline
Not just a jumbo either, 30-40 at a single airport at one time with ~100people
per plane (~4,000 total) vs 9 people on a single Cessna likely 2-3 times a day
maximum

------
DanielBMarkham
I grew up in the 70s. Back then, there was an entire generation that was
smoking pot, although it was very recently deemed illegal.

It was a weird time. Most young people either smoked pot or knew somebody who
did. There wasn't much odd about them, although we were told that smoking pot
was terrible. On the street, however, it was fairly obvious that this was an
overreaction. To hear some folks talk, there was little difference between
heroin and pot. That was obviously not true.

It took 50 years for common sense to get back into the system, and even now,
when the change is starting, it might be another 10 or 20 years to fully
reverse pot laws. I'm not a pot user, but I find this slowness-to-adapt to
common sense amazing.

Unfortunately, the system isn't just glacial in fixing bad laws -- it's fairly
quick to add new bad laws as we go along. TSA is the case in point. Just like
the pot laws, we're constantly told that there is a terrible danger out there
that we need protection from, even though it's blatantly obvious that this is
an overreaction and power grab. Nobody seems to be driving the bus.

So I guess we'll go through 50 years of increasing TSA "supervision" of travel
until we see some kind of sanity? And how many TSAs will we have by then? It's
depressing to think about.

------
codex
Russian train stations employ metal detectors and barricades. Just as the TSA
has been ridiculed in the United States, these were similarly derided in
Russia.

And yet this combination was effective in limiting the number of casualties in
the recent Volgograd train station bombing. I suspect the amount of Russian
editorializing over these security procedures will soon decrease.

Fortunately, while civilian memory is short, government institutional memory
is long.

~~~
magicalist
> _And yet this combination was effective in limiting the number of casualties
> in the recent Volgograd train station bombing_

It just shifted the site of the attack to a new bottleneck: where everyone is
in line to go through the metal detector (which many people also have pointed
out is a ripe target for an attack in the post-TSA US).

~~~
codex
That's the idea. There were more people waiting for trains inside the station
than waiting in line at the metal detector. Russian officials claim that the
barricades reduced casualties.

~~~
magicalist
Well, I don't know the layout of the stations, nor do I have any real
knowledge of explosives, so I can't really comment on if they actually helped
(more than any normal wall or objects in a room), but if you look at the
numbers, 14 and 17 fatalities (with about three times that injured) is near
the high end of suicide bombings where the bomb is carried on a person.

Suicide bombings in the middle east over the last 10 years, in comparison,
have about a 1:3 ratio of bomber to victims. That's a mean, but the outliers
tend to barely break 20. So it's difficult to believe that number was reduced
by a large amount.

------
coldcode
All the TSA has done is ensure that someday a suicide bomber will blow up the
security line, and destroy the travel industry at the same time. There is no
backup plan once that happens other than picking people up at home in armored
vans.

~~~
aroman
That's reductio ad absurdum if I've ever heard it.

That's like saying "all the army has done is ensure that someday an enemy will
attack with weapons so devastating that the entire country will be destroyed
in one foul swoop."

~~~
btbuildem
Have you heard of nuclear weapons?

~~~
aroman
Are you suggesting that we abolish defensive armies because nuclear weapons
exist?

------
mkent
Living on an island in Canada I've taken these small commuter flights a number
of times. Being able to hop on near the actual flight time is fantastic. Few
points about these smaller flights:

\- Typically they still want you there 30 mins early to check-in and load the
baggage.

\- The pilot to passenger ratio makes them very expensive. A 20 minute flight
for me is costlier than a 5 hour one to a major hub. I rarely pay for these
out of my own pocket.

\- Being a smaller operation your pilot can be very young and inexperienced.

\- These planes are very small and at times get uncomfortably hot in the
summer.

\- The majority of crashes around here are from similarly sized aircraft.
Always an uncomfortable reminder of what can go wrong.

\- Flying in any kind of adverse weather can honestly be pretty terrifying in
a smaller plane. If your lucky they'll delay or cancel it altogether.

\- Sometimes your pilot will leave the window open and a wasp will fly in
prior to take off. Sitting in the co-pilot seat in a cramped plane, it may be
up to you to kill it :)

Overall I prefer the smaller flights in the summer, but I'll take the slow
security for the safety of the bigger plane in winter.

------
C1D
I don't want to sound like a nutcase conspiracy theorist but to be quite
honestly if the government had always wanted an excuse to violate basic human
rights, 9/11 was probably the best thing that happened for them.

After 9/11, they were able to convince us that we NEED to be felt up by
strangers at the airport and that we NEED to invade a country and that ITS
OKAY to just kill thousands and thousands of civilians "by accident" all in
the name of National Security and when some civilians try and kick out these
strangers that invaded their country and killed their family, they're the nut
jobs, they're the bad people, they're the real terrorists.

I honestly think the US is a bigger terrorist that Osama ever was. Now, after
9/11 people we're living our normal lives normally; while in Afganistan,
families everyday are terrorized, scared, afraid that this might be their last
day. Today might be the day their father doesn't come back. Today might be the
last day they see each other.

------
rayiner
Interesting point about hijackings.

Airplane hijackings are actually much more common than most people think. From
1988-1997, there were about 18 airplane hijackings per year, down from the
peak of 82 in 1969:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking).
Interesting to read the history:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#196...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#1960s).

~~~
smackfu
And before security checks, they were even more common. Criminals treated them
almost like bank robberies for a while in the 60's and 70's. Hijack a plane,
trade the passenger for a ransom, fly off to some third-world country and live
on the ransom.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
Security checks shouldn't have been the factor causing the change. Ransom
payout avoidance and police tactics would have been the deciding factor.

In the old days, once didn't actually require a weapon to hijack a plane.
Merely the claim of possessing a weapon was sufficient.

~~~
smackfu
But if you add security checks, now you don't believe they possess a weapon.
Like if someone on a plane today claimed they had a gun, they would be
arrested, but not believed.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
They'd claim to have a bomb not a gun. And yes they were believed after
security checks were implemented.

------
nicomoto1
I think what most people are forgetting is the reason for such measures on
flights. An hijacked flight is very different from other hijaking/terrorist
situations. It leaves you with almost no options except maybe to shoot it
down. There is absolutely no other tactical moves that can be made. The same
cannot be said for similar attacks on theaters/schools etc. A flight is also a
moving threat that requires swift response, and it can strike (when used as a
weapon) over quite a large area (In terms of targets it may choose).

Now, if we as this article suggests remove all security to get on flights. As
someone planning such an incident, i.e. pull out a gun or other random acts of
terror; It would follow that getting on a flight to do such a thing would be
the best move. You literally have access to 200+ people with no where to run
in a confined area, with no security. The reason flights are given security vs
other places such as theaters etc is not some random act. It is cause of the
specific threats that are posed by hijacked flights/weapons on flights that
are fundamentally different from other locations.

(How fast would the cops get to someone who starts firing at people in any
city with such high population density?, now compare that with what happens in
a flight, you have no options, and once it starts you practically write off
the people who are on the flight because you have no chance of saving them)

~~~
ealexhudson
Of course there are other tactical options.

All big jets have fly-by-wire systems that could easily be remotely commanded.
There's no reason why hijackers should be given control of the aircraft;
indeed at this point the planes themselves could probably be programmed to
refuse to point at the ground in urban areas outside of a glide path.

That leaves them with the option of blowing up the aircraft at inconvenient
places. That's a significantly tough and narrow plan of attack.

~~~
nicomoto1
Being given control of the aircraft is secondary. You've condemned 200 odd
people to death cause of one person on the flight. A small bomb, any thing to
disrupt the flight will do that. (This is very easy as opposed to going to a
theater or other urban crowded locations and staying alive long enough to take
out that many people). The point being your only option is to lose everyone on
the plane. Is that a casualty you're willing to accept. Security works by
deterrence. If every time someone starts shooting in theaters and schools, the
casualty is upwards of 200, its going to be a more viable option. Its a
question of the cost of doing something vs the damage it causes. the inherent
nature of flights (Since they fly), is that it takes relatively less effort to
get one to crash. And it terms of preparation (in this ideal scenario as per
this article), one guy just has to walk into a plane with items you get in
your local store (propane maybe?). Im not an expert on this, but i just feel
the effort required is just ridiculously easy if there is going to be no one
to keep a tab on what you carry/have access to on a flight.

------
pinaceae
the core issue is that a lot of very young people are now starting to debate
this shit that only remember 9/11.

we just had the 25 year anniversary of Lockerbie. that bomb not only killed
all on board the plane, but a lot of people on the ground. no need to hijack.

and we now have a lot of suicide bombers, see just the last two days on
Volgograd.

have the Israelis scaled down their anti-bomb detection measures? no? then
neither should the west.

i fly a lot, internationally. i do not mind the checkpoints. i mind dying pre-
maturely in a fireball.

~~~
chrismcb
Do you drive? Walk across a street? Before 9/11 what were the odds that you
would die pre-maturely in a fireball (an airplane fireball?) I don't know the
number but it was so small to be virtually 0. You were much more likely to die
in a myriad of other ways. Probably more likely to get shot to death at a
movie theater. Yet that probably doesn't stop you from going to the movie
theater... And yet you don't mind being treated like criminal at the airport.

------
loomio
As an American living abroad, I still show up hours too early for flights. Old
habits are hard to break! But seriously, it's just not like that in many other
places round the world. Sure, we have security, but showing up more than an
hour before your flight? I've been laughed at many times. Security theatre is
a huge, huge waste of time and resources all around.

------
hnriot
I don't get all the fuss. I fly often and it takes no more than 20 minutes in
SFO to get through, even when there are long lines because they add more
agents (thread pool!) - same in Boston, even when there's a major storm and
the whole state are trying to leave at the same time, it's still really
efficient. I don't really care about taking off my shoes and belt, I certainly
don't find it humiliating. It's like when I hear people talk of the
humiliation getting a physical. American's are the biggest consumers of porn
and at the same time, the biggest prudes about ridiculous stuff. If I had to
drop my shorts at the airport I might remember not to wear Spongebob ones to
the airport, but short of that, it's hardly a big deal or worth blogging
about.

I'd rather take my shoes off and have 2+ jet engines than get in an 8-seater
commuter plane.

~~~
chrismcb
The issue? Time and money, for nothing. It costs you times (even 20 minutes is
a long time, especially when you consider it costs EVERY passenger at least 20
minutes) And money. Not only is your airline ticket higher, your taxes are
being wasted. For nothing. Supposedly to keep people safer. But that isn't
true, in fact there is evidence that more Americans die BECAUSE of TSA.

------
beat
In large organizations, the _appearance_ of risk is much more important than
the _reality_ of risk. Big organizations (like governments) will do things
that actually increase risk, so long as the things look on the surface like
they will reduce risk.

Saying that TSA security doesn't reduce terrorism risk is a reasonable
argument (although I think it's wrong; consider the possibility of gun-toting
yahoos wanting to be "safe" with "self-defense" and blowing a hole in the
fuselage because they saw a suspicious brown person). But politically, saying
to give up TSA security because _it doesn 't work_ is basically impossible.
Voters will _demand_ that politicians _do something_ about the threat of
terrorism.

~~~
VLM
If you want theater, you give them theater, not a prison experience.

Lets try a Hollywood analogy. The execs tell the director to make a formulaic
teen comedy. How long would a film director last if he replied, F those guys
I'm making a documentary about the Soviet Gulag system and they're gonna like
it because its for their own good.

The discussion is being carefully controlled by those in power to make sure
that no one steps out of line and considers, maybe just for an instant, that
possibly there could exist a form of expensive meaningless security theater
that doesn't involve brutalizing the population.

No, they're subjecting us to the TSA for a reason that isn't security theater.

~~~
beat
I kind of agree. But I think it's accidental, not intentional.

Stupidity, not malice.

------
caycep
I remember reading a number of articles from Israeli security that make a
mockery of everything the TSA does (which is basically what they, who have to
secure airports and other public spaces in Israel against almost daily
threats, never do).

The TSA basically exists to make Michael Chertoff and Dick Cheney very, very
rich. It would be interesting to see how much they raked in from this,
compared with, say, Bo Xilai or Wen Jiabiao.

------
vxNsr
We could also implement Israeli style security, namely profiling (not racial
but terrorist), when you go through Ben Gurion, you go from car to gate in
about 30 min, and at no point do yo have to remove your shoes, or even remove
your laptop from it's bag, no matter what type of bag it is.

Now I'll grant you if you're coming from Ramallah and you're flying to
Pakistan through Turkey and Dubai you should probably give yourself and extra
hour or two, but as long as have no nefarious motives and tell the truth you
will be on your way. But this is true regardless of the color of your skin or
religious beliefs. I have a friend who was doing something like that and he's
white, very clearly Jewish and religious. (Often those stories you hear of the
3 hour long interrogations are because the dude was/is an active participant
on the rock throwing attacks and they have pictures of him that he is unaware
of...)

------
cmarschner
This reminds me of the story of a former collegue of mine who worked as a
consultant out of Oslo, Norway. 15/20 years ago the Oslo airport was still
quite close to the city center, and for a while he had a client in Bergen, 400
km west. He was living a 5 minute bike ride from the airport. He would go
there, enter the plane, and get to the office in less than an hour. He would
be home for dinner every day. Environmental aspects aside I think this was
what was deemed the future in the 60s... Then the airport was moved 50 km
north of Oslo, then came the terrorists and all the security regulations.

------
ryguytilidie
I actually had a pretty weird situation happen last time I traveled. I was in
the regular lane and the guy who checked my ticket and id read my ticket wrong
and sent me through the TSA precheck line. Once in that line, there seemed to
be a further mixup and I literally went through security without my bag or
myself being scanned. It was pretty weird, but again, no one died, and it
actually gave less of a chance for my stuff to get stolen and took less time.
It's almost as though this is a superior system...

------
linuxhansl
Personally I would prefer flying without any security checks. I am going to
die one day; statistical chances are high that will not be due to a terrorist
attack.

In fact I flew from South Africa to Europe 4 or 5 years back (in a large
Airbus). No metal detector, no scanners, no taking-shoes-or-belt-of, just the
quick scan of the carry on. Took 2 minutes, and I did not feel unsafe in any
way.

911 cannot be repeated (as pointed out many times before). The TSA checks are
a theater and everybody knows it.

------
EGreg
Is this much more libertarian:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A)

------
hisham_hm
The first time I felt a real chill with regard to the United States when when
I saw padlocks for sale (here in Brazil, no less!) with some inscription to
the effect of "TSA-friendly". You buy a lock to keep people away from peeking
at your stuff, but you can no longer keep the government away. This felt like
having the keys to your front door being forcefully changed into "FBI-
friendly" keys.

------
jimsilverman
"increasing airport security just leads terrorists to direct their assaults
elsewhere"

so in other words, heightened airport security has worked.

~~~
liquidise
Either that or armored cockpit doors have rendered the other practices
entirely worthless.

------
mh-
_6.3 fewer airplane hijackings in the years examined (a hijinking-heavy period
chronicled [..])_

hehe. hijinking-heavy.

------
Havoc
Airport security is a sieve anyway. Shortly after 9/11 I carried 10 inch knife
through security. Forgot I had it on me. Oops..

In their defense: I tend to do well with these kinds of situations. Exuding a
combination of "not criminal" and "don't mess with me" does wonders.

------
squozzer
I haven't flown since before 9/11, and I didn't like the airport experience
too much then. I'm sure I'd like it less now. But I keep in mind that the
airplane + TSA still saves a lot of time compared to trains, boats, buses, and
cars for travel over a certain distance.

The question I have for people is why they bother traveling so much nowadays.
Maybe the experience of le rive gauche cannot be replicated over the internet
-- but a lot of travel (especially business) seems to be a bit of showmanship
itself. You know, show up and impress the client with a little face-to-face.
Or let the striking factory workers know who's boss. Whatever.

What makes me laugh even harder than the deaths of old habits such as flying
hither and yon are people who distinguish between security and the illusion of
security. Isn't security itself a feeling? And what makes jittery fliers feel
safer than a bunch of goons rifling through one's possessions? Isn't that the
essence of "stepping up security"?

~~~
RandallBrown
People like to travel because the world has a lot more to offer than the very
small subset that each of us live in.

------
joshfraser
I have also flown on a commercial flight w/o going through security. It was an
incredible experience and I didn't worry for a moment about the intentions of
the other passengers. I hope we come to our senses and say goodbye to the TSA.

------
ronnier
I always feel like the oddball, but I don't mind the current state of our
airport security. Given the option of two flights, one with security and the
other without, I'm taking the flight with security precautions... Irrational
or not.

~~~
joshuapants
It's possible to have security without having what amounts to a sexual assault

------
Aqueous
When people complain about the TSA, I'm reminded of this Louis CK bit:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4)

------
Segmentation
Are flights between European countries, say Denmark and Finland, as easy as
the OP's experience? Or has post-911 NSA influenced the majority of modern
civilization into encumbrance?

~~~
hatu
It's pretty much the same. The security checks are a little bit more lax than
TSA but no noticeable difference really. The airports in Finland and Denmark
are generally pretty fast at getting people through security, maybe because of
pretty low volume.

------
lutorm
You, too, can experience flying without security: Get a sport pilot license
and a used airplane for $20k or so.

Of course, you'll be much more limited by weather than a transport-class
aircraft.

~~~
MartinCron
I took a small commuter plane from Seattle to Portland and it was the best
time flying I've ever had. Free parking at Boeing field, free coffee in a
quaint little terminal, walk right onto the plane, enjoy a short flight, and
then walk right to the light rail station.

I guess I also need to point out that I didn't die on that trip. Not even
once.

------
macspoofing
Woooo. You flew in a six-engine plane without TSA security checkpoints?! No
way. Did you also know that for a few hundred bucks you can get a pilots
license and fly it yourself!?!

------
EGreg
"Could that literature review be wrong? Sure."

"Is eliminating airport security politically untenable? Maybe"

"Would this increase hijacking? Probably."

LOL

------
pantalaimon
I can hop on a bus, ship or train without any security checks. Why are planes
so radically different?

------
gesman
Fear is easy sell.

And TSA is a big business.

'nuff said.

