
No More Fear - olefoo
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/12/29/My-Country
======
code_duck
My conclusion about all of this is that the government _wants_ people to be
afraid. These are not real attempts to detect threats to flights. If anything,
they're most interested in finding drugs and smuggled valuables. And this is
not 'security theater'. The intent is to get everyone used to invasive,
police-state style behavior.

~~~
michaelbuckbee
I don't think it's so much that the government wants people to be afraid as it
is CYA for the people in charge. Politicians want to claim that they've made
things safer and none of them are brave enough to say: "Lets take things down
a notch because they're ineffective."

It's similar to the state of "tough on crime" policies like 3 strikes and
mandatory minimum sentences - even when proven ineffective no one wants to
reverse the statutes for fear of being seen as weak on crime.

~~~
jdp23
There certainly are people and organizations inside and outside the government
who want people to be afraid. Martha Stout's "The Paranoia Switch"* looks at
politicians who exploit this reaction and how the media contributed to the
environment after 9/11. And the "surveillance-industrial" complex makes their
money (and keeps their power) based on fear.

* good summary/review at [http://www.sott.net/articles/show/142725-Limbic-Warfare-and-...](http://www.sott.net/articles/show/142725-Limbic-Warfare-and-Martha-Stout-s-Paranoia-Switch-)

------
JimboOmega
I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current
security theater is a waste of effort at best. I seem to read articles like
this or articles advocating "Israelification" about once a week.

The thing that bothers me most is TSA has congressional oversight, but its
actions are not laws. So who do we complain to? Some bureaucratic process
decides we can't wear shoes, bring water bottles, or (the latest new rule)
can't bring more than 16 oz. of printer cartridges through a checkpoint.

There's no debate, partisan or otherwise; there's no angry constituents.
Instead it is the TSA who decides these things, and no congressman can be
anti-TSA, because that's tantamount to being anti-security.

I'm also pretty sure TSA is part of the executive branch - so do we complain
to Obama, then...?

~~~
LiveTheDream
> I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current
> security theater is a waste of effort at best.

How large is the group of people who think it _isn't_ wasted effort?

I recently had a conversation with a group of well-traveled, well-educated
people who honestly believed that the new scanners and pat-downs are okay
because they are designed for our own safety. The 4th Amendment was never a
concern to them. When I brought it up, the answer was essentially that the end
justified the means. Ben Franklin's famous words[1] did not convince them
otherwise.

How are you (general) educating people about their rights?

[1] <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html>

~~~
billmcneale
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I have the utmost respect for Ben Franklin, but this quote is not his best
work. You might not be realizing it, but you are giving up liberty every day
in exchange of something you find more valuable. Examples include signing up
for credit, giving your address or social security in exchange of discounts,
using a card at your grocery store or local mall, etc...

There is really nothing wrong with giving up some liberty just as long as 1)
you're clear on what you're getting in exchange and 2) you agree that the deal
is fair.

~~~
evizaer
Convenience is not safety. Your point is not directly relevant to the Franklin
quote.

------
zdw
Also recommended reading are Bruce Schneier's book "Beyond Fear" which
provides a great mental framework for thinking about security (mainly IRL, but
with applications in computing)

<http://www.schneier.com/book-beyondfear.html>

and his blog:

<http://www.schneier.com/>

------
michaelty
I'd like to go back to a country where I can keep my shoes on before I go on a
plane.

~~~
enjalot
I had a hole in my sock the last time I flew :(

------
blatherard
Kevin Drum made a point that stuck with me in defense of TSA procedures (which
I am otherwise inclined to find odious.)

That is that the political and cultural environment is such right now that if
a plane goes down due to terrorism, the country is going to go crazy and clamp
down really hard on civil liberties in a truly damaging way. So we should
prefer measures that, while intrusive, are generally pretty limited.

He argues that it is all well and good to say that "planes will go down but
that's a small price to pay", but when it actually happens, life will be worse
for everyone.

The idealist in me is disappointed to consider this argument, but it seems
pretty realistic.

It's towards the end of this blog post <http://motherjones.com/kevin-
drum/2010/11/my-tsa-anti-rant>

~~~
jdp23
There's a flaw in Kevin's argument: the odious measures don't actually reduce
the chance of a plane going around to terrorism. In fact by diverting
resources from more effective security measures (e.g. focusing on cargo) they
actually _increase_ the chance.

~~~
blatherard
If you take a look at his article, he makes a few basic arguments that at
least some of the measures are targeted at keeping explosives off of planes
and seem reasonably sensible.

For example, take the shoe check. Richard Reid came pretty close to blowing up
a plane, but for a flight delay (see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)> ). He kind of
prominently proved out an approach, and since the goal of the TSA is pretty
obviously not having a plane blow up, they instituted a visible countermeasure
to that approach.

So: I don't agree that every measure instituted by the TSA is completely
ineffectual, at least in theory.

That being said, you do raise a good point about the allocation of resources.
I have to admit having much less sense of what is and isn't being done on the
cargo side, if only because I only experience air travel as a passenger.

Do you know much more about cargo security? What measures would you institute?

~~~
jdp23
Bruce Schneier's got a pithy hard-to-argue with summary: "Cargo that is loaded
on to passenger planes should be subjected to the same level of security as
passenger luggage. Cargo that is loaded onto cargo planes should be treated no
differently from cargo loaded into ships, trains, trucks, and the trunks of
cars."

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/10/cargo_security...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/10/cargo_security.html)

------
jdp23
That's the kind of country I want to live in too.

With the wave of opposition to the TSA and legislative battles over the
Internet Wiretapping bill, COICA, and the Patriot Act renewal, 2011 will go a
long way to determining what kind of country we'll be. So articles like this
are a great opportunity to ask yourself ...

Are you going to get involved and help?

~~~
bingaman
Give me some examples of how I can get involved and help.

~~~
jdp23
Great suggestion. Here's a few ideas off the top of my head

\- probably the most important: talk with your friends and family about the
issues and try to get them beyond their fears.

\- if you've got a few $ to spare, contributed to groups like EPIC (who's
leading the lawsuit against the TSA scanners), EFF, BORDC, and ACLU.

\- call your congressperson's office and let them know that these are
important issues to the country, you expect them to take an active role, and
it will be affecting how you vote in 2012.

\- specifically on the TSA, adjust your habits to reduce (or even better
eliminate) flying. when you do fly, take educational material with you to the
airport, talk with people next to you in line, and opt out of the scanners.

\- and track what's going on; there are likely to be some intense activism
campaigns once Congress gets back into session, and plenty of opportunities to
get involved online or off

------
julian37
"Plus, don’t let a plane take off if someone has checked in luggage but isn’t
on board"

I'm pretty sure that is already the case, at least for international flights.
I've been on numerous planes that got delayed because a passenger didn't show
up and the airline had to unload their luggage.

------
forgotAgain
Let's just face the fact that we've become a country of wusses. From the
social stigma given to those riding a bicycle without a helmet to the demand
for cradle to grave protection by the government: we are not our forefathers.

~~~
j_baker
> Let's just face the fact that we've become a country of wusses.

All the things that are wrong with our nation and the best phrase to describe
the situation is "wusses"? Are we still in High School?

------
nphase
Quick aside: Look at how many hijackings occurred before 2001, especially in
the 70s and 80s:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijack...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings)

Before 9/11, it was just another risk of flying. Now...

------
tutufunk
Air nazism is a disincentive against air travel, which are necessary given the
current environmental situation.

~~~
jdp23
Air Nazism doesn't help security. It's a huge waste of money. And as you say
it's a disincentive against air travel.

Why is it necessary?

~~~
alanh
Parent is arguing that TSA means fewer flights, which means less shit being
burnt in the atmosphere; that this is a net benefit for the planet.

