
Airport Security Is Killing Us - Umalu
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-security-is-killing-us
======
joonix
I opt-out of the x-ray scanner every single time, and so should you. It really
doesn't take much longer to go through the process. Show up 3 minutes earlier
if you have to. You're rushing to the gate, for what? To sit there longer?
Boarding with the crowds is stressful anyways. The most relaxed way to board
is at the very end -- there's no more line, I just walk right into the plane,
most people are seated, and just grab my seat. Why would you want to maximize
the time spent sitting, especially on a cramped plane? I understand the
situation is different if you really want your carry-on bag to stow above you.

If everyone opted out, the program would be scrapped. You can tell me about
how the scanners give harmless amounts of radiation, but I don't really care.
You have to stand for your principles. In this situation, a government
contractor forced more security theater upon a country, with the only benefit
of the entire charade going to their bottom line. Nobody is safer, an entire
mode of transport has a new bottleneck, a government agency has expanded and
is emboldened and now wants even broader jurisdiction, and as the article
states, people are driving more and dying.

If we don't stand up and push back now, things will only get worse. More
invasive, more annoying, more useless, more dangerous. And not an inch gained
against the stated purpose of deterring terrorist attacks.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> I understand the situation is different if you really want your carry-on bag
> to stow above you.

Or in the cabin. If you're the last to board, there's a very real possibility
that they may have to gate-check your bag, which adds additional wait time at
the end of your journey at best, and your bag arriving in Minnesota while
you're touching down in Dallas at worst.

~~~
epoxyhockey
_and your bag arriving in Minnesota while you're touching down in Dallas at
worst_

Is this even possible when gate checking? They literally walk your bag down
the stairs at the end of the gate and place it into the plane cargo hold.
EDIT: At the end of the flight, your bag is walked up the stairs back into the
jetway.

I personally love the gate check loophole. If you intentionally wait to board
last, you get a free bag check.

~~~
gjm11
I don't know whether exactly that is possible, but I have had the following
happen: my bag got gate-checked on an intra-US connecting flight, and my
carrier then wouldn't return it until I reached my final destination in
London.

Which meant that I didn't have it with me when my flight to London was
cancelled and I had to stay overnight in Chicago (too bad since it had my
washkit and a change of clothes in it) and that when the replacement flight
was also cancelled and I ended up going to London with a different carrier, my
bag didn't get home until a couple of days after I did.

I will not be flying with United Airlines again in a hurry.

~~~
ejdyksen
Next time just tell them you have medicine in that bag that you need in the
next 8 hours (which is why you tried to carry it on).

------
jpxxx
A quibble, because this whole fucking disgusting thing fills me with limitless
rage:

TSA agents do not perform 'pat-downs'. Pat-downs are very quick checks to see
if any obvious weapons are being concealed on someone's body. Police will do
these before putting a suspect into a police vehicle, for instance.

TSA employees do what are called 'custody searches', designed to find
contraband material on detainees. These are only performed under specific
scenarios, such as being incarcerated.

Custody searches in this context are forbidden by the fourth amendment, by the
way, regardless of what the TSA's legal team may claim.

~~~
tptacek
No they're not. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld an exemption for
searches in the context of airport security under the doctrine of
administrative searches, where the state's legitimate interest overrides the
cost (to individuals) of the search, and where no one person is singled out by
the searches.

Your argument doesn't even follow logically, as all the 4th Amendment requires
is that searches be "reasonable", and "reasonable" is obviously subjective.
It's a right practically tailor made for adjudication by the Supreme Court.

Given that bags have been subject to search for decades prior to "pat-down" or
"custody" searches, and that it's hard to think of a more invasive search than
one that allows officers to rifle through your personal luggage, I don't think
Constitutionality is the issue here. We should simply pass a federal law
restricting the TSA's ability to electronically strip search or invasively
grope passengers.

I'm just as disgusted by airport electronic strip searches as you are, but we
shouldn't using sure-loser arguments against them.

~~~
philwelch
It's also important to note that you consent to the search by choosing to
travel by air in the United States.

~~~
enjo
That's such a bad argument. I do no such thing. However, the reality of my
profession _requires_ me to fly. So I "consent" only under considerable
duress. The choice is literally "put food on the table" or submit to
incredibly intrusive security.

That's not consent, that's coercion.

~~~
jackpirate
_The choice is literally "put food on the table" or submit to incredibly
intrusive security._

No it's not. You can quit and get a new job. If you can't immediately find a
new job, you will be on unemployment and food stamps. You will _literally_
still have food on the table.

Edit: by quit I meant don't get on the plane, resulting in being fired

~~~
settrans
Where would you be eligible for unemployment after voluntarily quitting?

------
ry0ohki
Odds of dying from fireworks: 1 in 652,046

Odds of dying from lightning strike: 1 in 134,906

Odds of being legally executed: 1 in 111,179

Odds of dying from contact with bees/wasps: 1 in 79,842

Odds of being shot: 1 in 6,609

Odds of dying from a fall 1 in 163

Odds of dying in a terrorist attack: 1 in 3,500,000

Maybe we should switch the TSA to bee patrol.

(Source:
[http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Picture%20Library/News/web_graphics...](http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Picture%20Library/News/web_graphics/Injury_Facts_37.pdf))

~~~
swohns
The numbers themselves aren't the real takeaway, it's how preventable these
deaths are.

~~~
lostlogin
Exactly, and one can conclude that the dollars spent versus lives saved makes
the waste seem even greater. Converting the TSA to bee control as mentioned
above would lively save more lives (to take an extreme example).

~~~
flyinRyan
Especially when you consider that TSA is yet to catch a single terrorist in
their entire history.

------
F_J_H
The sad fact is, I think TSA type security is hear to stay, and won't lighten
up very much, regardless of the facts that question its efficacy.

Why? Picture this. Someone (likely a politician) crusades hard to have the TSA
dismantled, and is successful. No matter how much better the system that
replaces it is, there is always a chance that someone slips through and takes
down a plane, and 300+ people are killed.

In the throng of people screaming that "something needs to be done to stop
this from happening again", who wants to be "that guy" who lobbied to have the
TSA dismantled/replaced? Former TSA proponents will jump up and down and
scream _"See! This is why we can't have nice things!"_

I don't think anyone will touch it...

~~~
flyinRyan
Then you just stand up and point out that TSA never caught a single terrorist
in its entire history so there's no reason to believe it would have handled
this incident.

~~~
lutusp
> Then you just stand up and point out that TSA never caught a single
> terrorist ...

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise -- you're using flawed logic.
What would you think of an oncologist whose patients never contract serious,
life-threatening cancer? Is he ordering unnecessary tests and procedures on
people who aren't really sick, or is he catching all the cancers so early that
they're never life-threatening?

See the point? I'm certainly not arguing one way or another about the TSA,
just that your argument contains a very serious logical flaw. Maybe
terrorists, knowing about the TSA, won't take the risk of going near an
airport.

> ... so there's no reason to believe it would have handled this incident.

Flawed argument, flawed conclusion.

~~~
flyinRyan
>What would you think of an oncologist whose patients never contract serious,
life-threatening cancer?

Since the science tells us that his methods reduce the rate of cancer (all
metrics we can test to a degree), I'd think he's doing good work.

TSA, on the other hand, has been been called out by many actual security
professionals for having shit practices that don't actually work. They're
basically pulling a rain man scam and people like you are buying into it
because you think there's no way to prove it hasn't magically stopped
something we didn't even hear about. Actual professionals who don't have money
invested in one conclusion or the other are saying it isn't helping anything.

~~~
lutusp
> TSA, on the other hand, has been been called out by many actual security
> professionals for having shit practices that don't actually work.

Yes, that's true, but (a) those "professionals" have no better logical basis
than you do, and (b) this doesn't change the fact that you were using flawed
logic, my only reason for posting. The fact that there haven't been any
terrorist arrests at airports doesn't mean what you seem to think.

> They're basically pulling a rain man scam ...

This is counterproductive. It might be true, it might be false, but it doesn't
follow from the evidence. Again, I'm not taking a position on the TSA, only
the logic.

> Actual professionals who don't have money invested in one conclusion or the
> other are saying it isn't helping anything.

Name one who is using an argument more scientific than "they haven't caught
any terrorists!" And again, this is not about whether the claim is true, this
is about the basis for deciding whether it's true.

~~~
flyinRyan
Actually you're wrong. At least one security expert has written up pretty good
critiques of why the screening can't actually be doing anything.

Also, there are other ways terrorists could hurt us that would be much easier
to exploit than getting on a plane. Why has this never been tried? There is
just no reason to believe TSA is doing anything useful. The burden of proof
lies with them and their extraordinary claims that they're somehow keeping us
safe with their bullshit ineffective procedures.

------
DamnYuppie
"The attention paid to terrorism in the U.S. is considerably out of proportion
to the relative threat it presents."

I agree 100%! The formation of this organization was reactionary policy making
at its worst. The TSA is nothing more then a works program for people who are
barely qualified to do anything.

~~~
sageikosa
Yay! Terrorists have made America a less free place. Sort of makes you wonder
who's winning this "war"...

------
rplst8
Someone else did an analysis of airline travel and highway travel and came up
with a similar finding. Blow up one plane per month over the continental US
and flying would still be two orders of magnitude safer than driving or riding
in an automobile over your lifespan.

There's no proof that TSA is making things any safer either. No one will ever
pull another fast one on the passengers of a plane again. We all know that the
planes themselves are weapons, so I'm pretty sure most passengers will go down
fighting if terrorists try to take control of the cockpit.

This is precisely why it's called security theater.

~~~
Osiris
* We all know that the planes themselves are weapons *

Which is why I don't understand why pilots have to be screened. They are
flying a huge flying bomb. What will screening them for nail-clippers solve?
_(Side note: I did, in fact, have my nail clippers taken by the TSA once)_

~~~
dagw
_Which is why I don't understand why pilots have to be screened_

A person could be supportive of the cause without being willing to sacrifice
his life. If pilots could get into restricted areas un-screened they could
bring in bombs or weapons which they hand off to third parties. This would
also be a more efficient use of a limited resource (the hypothetical Taliban
sympathizer flying for a commercial airline).

------
seiji
What is the answer though? Can you imagine a politician running under a
"massively downsize the TSA" banner? Would any existing Washington elected
official take up the cause?

They can't even repeal the comically silly shoe removal procedure (unless
you're under 12 or over 75, because no terr'ist would ever foot kerplode those
demographic stereotypes).

~~~
Lewisham
Well, you _could_ imagine a politician taking up the cause if the Republican
party returned to its small government ideals, rather than "Small government,
except when it meets our special interests (which most definitely include
defense and scaremongering)"

Obama won't do it, because he's shown himself to keep whatever things from
Bush are convenient if unsavory, like Guantanamo (saying you're going to close
it and actually closing it are two different things).

~~~
MartinCron
I'm not going to argue with your main point, but I think that closing
Guantanamo has proven to be more difficult than merely _inconvenient_.

------
anu_gupta
Tangentially - the thing that most surprised me about this article was reading
that over 150,000 Americans have been murdered in less than a decade.

I find that number utterly staggering. Wikipedia says that the homicide rate
in the US is 4.2 per 100,000, which is more than 2.5 times the rate in Canada
and 3.5 times the rate in the UK.

~~~
grecy
America has the highest murder rate of the developed world, higher even than a
chunk of developing countries.

My quick glace showed America at 4.2, the next developed country is Finland at
2.2, so living in America you're 1.9 times more likely to be murdered than any
other developed country.

Of course, the vast majority of Developed countries have a murder rate less
than 1.0 per 100,000 people.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

~~~
tadfisher
The United States is very large, and the homicide rate varies wildly between
states and cities.

Where I live, Oregon, the homicide rate is 2.1 per 100,000 people, a little
bit better than Finland as a whole. Hawaii is at 1.2, New Hampshire and
Vermont are at 1.3, and Minnesota is at 1.4.

Contrast those with Louisiana at 11.2 per 100,000 people (!), Mississippi at
8.0, New Mexico at 7.5, and South Carolina at 6.8.

It's clear that the homicide rates in the US are aligned mostly along socio-
economic and racial lines, so it doesn't make sense to compare the whole
country against the more homogeneous states such as Finland, Norway, Germany,
and Japan.

[http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-
and-...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state)

~~~
grecy
I find it interesting when Americans don't want America as a whole to be
compared to other countries as a whole, because inevitably it makes for an
unfavorable comparison.

Of course looking at a country-wide statistic is an average across the whole
country - that's the entire point. I'm sure if you really wanted to, you could
find a part of Oregon where the homicide rate is 0.1, but that doesn't tell us
much about the bigger picture.

Is America one united country, or isn't it?

~~~
gyardley
America has a single federal government, yes. If you just want a ranking, you
can go ahead and use the national average.

However, America is ridiculously diverse culturally, and just using the
national average is useless for understanding anything about America.

Perhaps the Americans in the thread aren't trying to avoid an unfavorable
comparison - it's not like Americans aren't aware of the pros and cons of
their own country. Perhaps they're actually trying to teach you something
about their country and point out that relying on averages can be misleading.

~~~
grecy
> and just using the national average is useless for understanding anything
> about America.

I agree. We're talking about understanding America compared to other
countries, not things about America internally.

>it's not like Americans aren't aware of the pros and cons of their own
country

I completely disagree with that statement. How many times have you heard
someone say "Best country in the world" with no understanding of the outside
world? I'm continually shocked when meeting Americans that have absolutely no
idea their infrastructure, education, health care, leave entitlements and
general quality of life sucks compared to the developed world. They genuinely
think they are the best in the world because that has been driven into them
from day 1.

> relying on averages can be misleading.

Obviously looking at an average is exactly that. An average across the entire
population, not a deep dive into where is the highest and where is the lowest,
etc.

~~~
tadfisher
Those are strawman arguments. Meeting uninformed Americans is not evidence
that the entirety of the American populace is ignorant of their failings as a
developed nation.

For example, we are taught about slavery and the genocide of Native Americans
in primary school. We dedicate an entire month to Black History because we are
acutely aware of our status as one of the most institutionally racist
countries on the planet. We have impasses at the highest levels of government
over dealing with our failure to control healthcare costs, and that is
something that _many_ Americans are cognizant of. We are repeatedly informed
of our failure to create a stable market economy. I can go on.

Please leave your preconceptions at the door when having a serious discussion.

~~~
grecy
Nothing I said was an argument, I was only stating my opinion.

An opinion, it seems, that is not uncommon.

[http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2011/10/28/america-w...](http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2011/10/28/america-
worlds-number-one-think-again/)

> Please leave your preconceptions at the door when having a serious
> discussion.

Upon arriving in America in 2003, I had no preconceptions. I'm speaking from
my experiences living and working in the country.

~~~
tadfisher
I can tell you that your experience will be vastly different depending on
where you live and work. That's why it's hard to make meaningful statements
about America as a whole, such as "Americans think they are number 1" or
"You're more likely to get murdered if you move to America". Nobody throws a
dart on a map and moves to America the country, they move to California or
Virgina or Wisconsin.

Your supporting evidence cited a Fox News poll, which is probably the most
biased and self-selecting demographic I can think of. That's one of our well-
publicized failings, actually--the inherent biases of corporate media and the
echo chamber of politics.

~~~
pessimizer
>I can tell you that your experience will be vastly different depending on
where you live and work.

I'm not sure how this makes the US different from the countries it's being
compared to. They all have more and less dangerous regions. There are more and
less dangerous regions within a block's walk from me, but the average over
that area gives me a general basis of comparison with other areas.

I always feel that there's a racial subtext to this kind of defense of US
statistics (which I often hear in terms of education, crime, and health
outcomes.) It is, basically, that the parts of the US that the average
Scandinavian or Japanese citizen would ever be in have comparable rates of
terribleness to their own countries - just ignore the massive portion of the
US behind the curtain.

e.g. I am more likely to be killed when moving to an average Chicago from an
average Finland. Since Chicago is segregated, however, very few white people
would ever see an average Chicago - so an average Chicago can't be a
meaningful comparison.

~~~
tadfisher
> I always feel that there's a racial subtext to this kind of defense of US
> statistics (which I often hear in terms of education, crime, and health
> outcomes.)

There is, and that is a characteristic of the United States in general of
which most who live there are keenly aware. This is why they speak quickly
against comparisons of the United States as a whole against Scandinavian
countries or Japan. Those countries do not have the ethnic heterogeneity or
deep-seated institutional racism that the United States has experienced and
still experiences.

For example, my state sterilized violent criminals and the mentally disabled
until the 1980s, most of them being ethnic minorities. This would be
unthinkable in Sweden, for example.

We also have easy access to guns and a destabilized internal culture in
ethnically-heterogeneous areas, where community respect is a factor of how
much crime you have committed or how many people you have killed.

You are exactly right, however, in that living in an upper-class neighborhood
in Chicago would skew your perspective of crime in America.

~~~
grecy
>This is why they speak quickly against comparisons of the United States as a
whole against Scandinavian countries or Japan. Those countries do not have the
ethnic heterogeneity or deep-seated institutional racism that the United
States has experienced and still experiences.

America is not unique in that it faces challenges and obstacles to being
successful. Japan had two nuclear weapons used on it's citizens, half of
Western Europe has been invaded and occupied in the last 70 years, and
Australia has had the worst drought ever recorded. Those examples barely
scratch the surface.

Your line of reasoning that America is "unique" or somehow "different" because
of the challenges it continues to face is a perfect example of American
exceptionalism.

Facing challenges and obstacles is all part of the challenge of building a
successful country where the average person on the street has a high quality
of life. When compared against other first world countries, which have also
faced very large challenges to their success, America does not rank well. Stop
making excuses and finding reasons to excuse yourself from greater
comparisons.

~~~
tadfisher
I am not making excuses for my country, and I am not here to prove that
America is unique in that it has to face challenges. I am trying to say that
America is not one place or one people, or even one government, and that
comparing the entirety of a loose coalition of independent states to single
independent nations is disingenuous and ignores specific factors that other
developed nations simply don't have to deal with. Yes, all countries have
challenges, but all challenges are not the same. I listed a few in my previous
posts.

I don't appreciate your belligerent discourse, putting words in my mouth, or
typecasting me as a brainwashed patriot. I am well aware of America's problems
and I recognize that the United States as a whole is falling well behind in
many important metrics. You are not buying my argument that these metrics are
skewed greatly by historical and regional concerns that are outside the
control of the federal government, and that is your prerogative. But please do
not belittle me and accuse me of being ignorant of the world's problems.

~~~
pessimizer
I'm not sure why you think that other countries are in general by nature more
homogenous than the US. Most of the countries that outrank us have engaged in
massive internal orgies of slaughter over their differences.

>these metrics are skewed greatly by historical and regional concerns that are
outside the control of the federal government

These metrics aren't "skewed" by, they are determined by. That your concerns
(if I translate "ethnic heterogeneity" as "racism") are the reason for the bad
numbers is clear. The reason that they should be excluded is unclear.

Racism and easy access to guns are written into our constitution.

------
a_c_s
Am I the only one to have pleasant experience flying?

I usually travel 2-4 times a year by myself as a single male. I plan for
security (eg. I don't try to bring along liquids and wear shoes that are
easily removed) and haven't had to wait in a security line longer than 15
minutes in the US in 6+ years.

I have been pulled aside twice to be patted down by the TSA, neither of which
invasive nor did they get near my genitals. In contrast I have also been
patted down by airport security in Belgium (much more invasive, didn't touch
crotch) and been frisked twice by police in the USA (very invasive, definitely
did touch crotch). [I have no knowledge of the female experience of being
frisked - unfortunately I suspect a much higher level of both discomfort and
inappropriate groping]

I don't like that our security is based stupid rules instead of smart security
analysis, but the level of vitriol I see in the internet is totally
disproportionate to my experience. The worst part of flying for me is getting
stuck in the security line behind some person who still doesn't know full
bottles of water aren't allowed through security and then try to argue with
the TSA agents in an attempt to save $4 - and given that I still get through
the line often under 10 minutes, that is more of pet peeve than a real issue
worth complaining about.

~~~
bzbarsky
The issue is not the time it takes to clear security. The issue is whether it
makes you feel like shit to clear it.

If it doesn't make you feel like shit given how airport security works right
now, I respectfully submit your shit-meter is calibrated wrong.

But also, two points:

1) Your flying experience would be quite different with kids.

2) The flying experience varies very widely by airport. Often by terminal
within airport. Flying Virgin America out of BOS is a very different
proposition from flying Virgin America out of SFO, and also quite different
from flying United out of BOS.

~~~
a_c_s
I tried to make my situation clear so as to avoid making it seem like I was
commenting on other people's situations. Not everyone can easily avoid taking
liquids along for example, and I certainly don't want to imply that people in
other situations than mine 'invite' security hassles.

But part of what I'm trying to understand is why any of the current rules
"should" make me feel like shit to go through - taking a few things out of my
bag and removing my shoes are easy and quick. [Of course I sympathize with
people who have horror stories, but I don't think everyone posting on HN,
Slashdot and Reddit have personally been treated egregiously].

What is it I am missing? Is there a moral principle people of having to go
through security people are upset about? Or frustration that the TSA is a
large part security theatre? Or is it that so many people traveling do so in
configurations that get much more hassle than I do - traveling with children,
unavoidable liquids, medical devices, etc. ?

~~~
smsm42
For me, it is a feeling of being subjected to stupid and demeaning procedures
which exist only for show. When I pass, for example, Israeli security - which
may take more time, but does it in a completely different way - I do not feel
this, because I feel I understand what they are doing and why. TSA has no real
reason to grope my ass and my balls - they do it because somebody somewhere
decided they should, and his reasons probably were nothing but covering his
ass in case something happens.

------
tokenadult
Hear. Hear. 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. And I want
to be able to carry a Swiss Army knife in an airline carry-on bag. And I want
the terrorists to be attacked relentlessly where they live, so that they have
to hide in caves and ride on goats, while Americans and other people in
developed countries get to lead civilized, advanced lives in the Twenty-First
Century. Taliban delenda est.

AFTER EDIT: I wonder what aspect of this people disagree with. Do you still
want to have to take your shoes off in airports?

Further edit, to reply to the first kind reply:

 _I still don't think attacking terrorists relentlessly is ever beneficial._

I guess that's an empirical question of history and current events. What does
help people lead tolerant, civilized lives and be at peace with other people
who may have differing opinions? I read a biography of Joseph Stalin back in
the 1990s, after the Soviet archives became available to independent
researchers, and the striking thing about how Joseph Stalin developed his
influence in the Bolshevik movement was that he was a very active terrorist,
frequently directly involved in random bomb attacks. We should consider the
facts about Sri Lanka and Rwanda and other places to get a reality check on
the power of terrorism.

I think communism mostly collapsed (as it mostly has by now) with the help of
information flow into countries living under communist dictatorships that were
established in some cases by domestic terrorism and in some cases by armed
invasion from another country. The case of eastern and western Germany is
especially illustrative: it's just where the tanks stopped after the armistice
that ended the European phase of World War II that determined which parts of
Germany became the postwar Federal Republic of Germany (BRD) and which became
the German Democratic Republic (DDR). Several of the communist governments of
eastern Europe were turned out of power largely peacefully when Western mass
media made it all too apparent how different life was on the other side of the
Iron Curtain. But it took an entire human lifetime for communism to decline in
its influence on Europe.

So, yeah, if a peaceful process of information flow could bring Afghanistan
into the Twenty-First Century, I'm all for that. I don't see how any rational
person who knows well how other people live could want a whole country to be
living under Taliban rule. But the Taliban's method is not to let most people
in Afghanistan or Pakistan decide the issue freely. Their method is to give
girls and women no voice, all non-Muslims little or no voice, and any Muslim
who thinks that Islam is consistent with science and progress little or no
voice. They use violence and thuggery to get their way in the areas they
control. So, yes, if they are willing to send people onto airplanes to fly
from Europe to the United States with bombs in their shoes (as they have
been), I say let loose the drones, and let's keep the Taliban leaders hiding
in caves and unable to travel more rapidly than at goat speed until peaceful
news and education campaigns have enough time to win over so many of the
common people of the world that the Taliban can no longer gain influence even
through threats. Taliban delenda est. Peacefully or violently, the Taliban
must be destroyed.

~~~
anu_gupta
> I say let loose the drones

You do realise that what the drone attacks are doing is to further radicalise
people in Pakistan, don't you? A bit like what's happening in Gaza, what these
attacks do is remove a few visible figureheads, kill people who aren't
necessarily connected, and turn a good number of previously neutral or
inactive people into sympathisers or more active combatants.

The idea of a relentless attack strategy is, with respect, utterly absurd and
has about as much chance of real success as the War on Drugs. The rest of what
you say makes much more sense. Communication is the key. Relentlessly
communicate instead of relentlessly attack.

~~~
zanny
Being an invasive empire _doesn't_ make people like you? What an interesting
proposition. It might baffle a few dozen suits who run the military industrial
complex, before they go back to laughing while wiping their bums with $100
bills of taxpayer money.

Same way the pharmaceutical industry, for profit prison industry, and lumber
industry (last one is debated plenty) will continue to shove money into
politics to keep drugs illegal and prisons nicely packed full of pot smokers.
It is all about the money, not the morality. That went out the window decades
ago.

~~~
Zimahl
> lumber industry (last one is debated plenty)

The lumber industry? You're seriously comparing Big Pharma and for-profit
prison companies with the timber industry?

I'm not sure if you are talking about America in the 2010s, but the timber
industry is tanking. Maybe if you were talking about the 1970s I _might_
peripherally agree.

The timber industry is so bad right now that it is cheaper to buy 2x4s to burn
in your fireplace than firewood harvested from logging scraps.

~~~
dinedal
I think he included them because they were the original reason for suppressing
marijuana, not Big Pharma

~~~
zanny
I like how I put in parens that it is debated, and it gets debated :P

But yes, they were the original reason for the widespread propaganda spree
against pot, but today it is due to big pharma. And people on the internet
_always_ argue about it!

------
anigbrowl
_In fact, extremist Islamic terrorism [since 2001] resulted in just 200 to 400
deaths worldwide outside the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq—the same
number, Mueller noted in a 2011 report (PDF), as die in bathtubs in the U.S.
alone each year._

Indeed. But the problem is how to get the votes in Congress to support a
significant downsizing of the TSA. Were the President to do so unilaterally
(which he may well have the ability to do), he'd be accused of disregarding
Americans' safety and chances are that a good number of those accusations
would come from inside Congress since there's still plenty of political
capital to be made from opposing him.

As I've said before, there are three factors that support reducing the TSA's
budget (and powers) in the coming yeas: the withdrawal from Aghanistan, budget
cutting due to deficit management, and economic growth meaning that there will
be jobs available for the laid-off TSA employees. These point to a downsizing
of the TSA during 2015-16, after the 2014 midterm elections.

 _According to one estimate of direct and indirect costs borne by the U.S. as
a result of 9/11, the New York Times suggested the attacks themselves caused
$55 billion in “toll and physical damage,” while the economic impact was $123
billion. But costs related to increased homeland security and counterterrorism
spending, as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, totaled $3,105
billion._

This, on the other hand, is extremely disingenuous. The wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan have been major, major expenses (and major drivers of our national
debt, since we didn't raise any new revenue to pay for them). Mentioning them
last, as if they were some minor component of the TSA budget, reverses the
order of significance.

------
ChuckMcM
I think this is a pretty novel argument, basically the cure is worse than the
disease. Basically intrusive security measures make flying less desirable
which moves people to other forms of transportation (notably cars) where they
are more likely to die.

It doesn't help that people don't internalize risk well so its hard for folks
to see the merits of the argument but I applaud whomever came up with it.

------
mkhattab
I've always felt that airport security was always about testing the limits of
the complacency of the people and not really about security. I imagine some
person complaining during a security checkpoint, holding up the line, and some
lady yelling from behind in support of the government keeping "us" safe. It's
kind of pathetic and undignified.

------
cousin_it
> _In fact, extremist Islamic terrorism resulted in just 200 to 400 deaths
> worldwide outside the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq — the same number,
> Mueller noted in a 2011 report
> (<http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/CNApart.pdf>), as die in
> bathtubs in the U.S. alone each year._

Can anyone find a citation for the "200 to 400 deaths" claim? The NCTC report
(<http://www.nctc.gov/docs/2011_NCTC_Annual_Report_Final.pdf>) seems to give
much higher numbers, unless I'm missing something.

------
gsnedders
I don't see why there isn't more interest in high speed rail in the US: New
York and Boston/Washington DC could be less than two hours travel time apart,
which though it may well be an hour slower than a flight, has a lot less
overhead (no arriving two hours before departure, etc). The technology is
quickly reaching the point where San Francisco to Los Angeles may be equally
doable in around two hours, again an obvious gain if you have to arrive at the
airport that long before departure.

~~~
MordinSolus
Because it's still too expensive when compared to flying. Just look at the
cost of the high speed rail plan in California. Until the price of jet fuel is
much higher, economically, it makes more sense to fly.

I say let the high speed rails come naturally (because they will eventually):
don't try to force it.

~~~
gsnedders
Well, the plan for CA was several times the cost per mile of most high speed
track built in Europe: something was wrong with that, regardless of anything
else.

------
reneherse
While waiting this morning to get through security, I overheard a TSA agent
saying they were undergoing a downsizing at that airport (BDL, which is a
pretty small international airport in Connecticut) from 200 to 50 on staff. So
there's one "anecdata" point that the footprint of the TSA may already be
shrinking.

He also mentioned it was downsizing through attrition rather than layoffs,
which is probably an easier strategy for elected and appointed officials to
get behind.

~~~
clauretano
BDL just keeps getting worse. It's already hundreds of dollars less expensive
(during the holidays) and takes less time to fly into say Newark and take an
Amtrak to Connecticut.

~~~
throwaway1979
Do you mean "more" expensive?

~~~
tbrownaw
I read it as « It's faster and cheaper to use (other airport plus Amtrak)
instead of flying in to BDL. »

------
codex
Before we checked luggage for bombs, bombers took down entire aircraft by
checking in explosive laden bags. Before we checked passenger shoes, a bomber
attempted to detonate theirs. If we relax our security, how do we ensure these
things don't happen again?

~~~
flyinRyan
>Before we checked luggage for bombs, bombers took down entire aircraft by
checking in explosive laden bags

Not sure what you're talking about here. The reason 911 actually happened was
because no one on the plane expected anymore more than a bit of inconvenience
(flying to a different destination).

I'd say do nothing. There aren't enough people trying to do this sort of thing
to make it worth the effort or expense. Especially since they have to die
every time they do it.

------
jlnazario
I wonder about the deterring effect. How many attacks do not occur because
security is there. It's hard to measure, with a high risk to reward factor.

~~~
flyinRyan
Yea, that's what I tell people when they tell me this rock hasn't been
protecting me from tiger attacks. Maybe the rock isn't doing anything, but is
the risk of being mauled by a tiger worth testing this? Use your head people!

------
Domenic_S
The TSA has the same problem car alarms or home security systems have: there's
no way to prove how many events they've prevented.

~~~
krichman
Yep, imagine the horrors that would have fallen upon us if a terrist had
gotten through with some nail clippers.

Many security experts think it is trivial to get weaponry past them. They
aren't extensively trained, you know, they are cheap rental guards following a
procedure.

So in fact I would say the TSA has stopped nothing, the only prevention has
come from the FBI and CIA, locking the cockpit door, and putting air marshals
on the plane.

~~~
Domenic_S
> _So in fact I would say_

That's the point, right, that you aren't in a position to guess, and it's
slimy position to be put in. It's the same way ADT can sell millions of home
alarms every year - there's just no way to prove how many events a reactive
system stops.

------
bjhoops1
The probability of a tragedy occurring is almost completely irrelevant to the
common person (including my mother and wife). What does get people's attention
is the shock factor when that one-in-10-million event occurs. Which helps
explain the bewildering popularity of Nancy Grace...

------
16s
Guys with heavy beards... do you get more attention from the TSA? I heard that
any male (regardless of race/religion) with a heavy beard is checked more
closely. Has this been true for you or people you know with heavy beards?

~~~
ProNihilist
I'm a 6' male with a beard, used to have long hair too.

I always got selected for "randomized" searches when flying (in the UK). At UK
airports everyone goes through a metal detector. It would always beep when I
went through even if I took off my shoes and belt.

------
tocomment
Unless someone cares a whole awful lot nothing's going to get better its not.

------
at-fates-hands
"The attention paid to terrorism in the U.S. is considerably out of proportion
to the relative threat it presents."

W O W. My jaw completely dropped when I read this sentence.

Considering we've averted 40 terrorist plots since 2001 this is pretty scary
somebody would actually print such a statement. Keep in mind, those 40 are the
ones we actually know about as well.

I'll continue to put up with the minor headaches as long as we continue to
stop these plots before airplanes crash into skyscrapers or car bombs start
exploding in times square.

~~~
Symmetry
Did you read the entire article? The author rather explicitly showed that even
if all 40 of those incidents would have resulted in the loss of a plane we'd
still be better off going back to pre-9/11 security.

And the TSA doesn't have anything to do with car bombs in Times Square.

------
davemel37
There is an old Proverb, "Only Our Enemies Truly Know How Many Plots We
Foiled."

I hate TSA as much as the next guy, but their presence and efforts could have
deterred and foiled thousands of plots you and I would never hear about
because they don't even know about them.

Denying the reality of the potential danger airplanes can cause to major
population centers, like we saw on 9/11 is foolish. Airport Security May Suck.
But, It May Be Saving More Lives Than It's Killing Indirectly.

~~~
flyinRyan
Total load of bullshit. TSA has never caught a single would-be terrorist. Not
one. I'd submit that the FBI/CIA have also never stopped a terrorist plot that
we don't know about. The reason I'm confident in saying this is because of the
ones they _have_ told us about. Why would you tell the public about cases
where you pretty clearly entrapped someone if you had better examples?

------
indiecore
If you can avoid it* never travel through the united states.

*Edit

~~~
cryptoz
That's excellent advice to those who live elsewhere, but there are hundreds of
millions of people who cannot possibly follow your advice.

~~~
grecy
Luckily it's only ~4.5% of the world's population.

~~~
chollida1
Useless statistic for what we're measuring.

What percentage of flights actually have the US as part of their journey would
be a better measurement.

------
jeshan
This is so NOT relevant at HackerNews. Why do you guys think other 'hackers'
would be interested in such news? Can't they find newspapers on their own?

~~~
gnosis
From the HN Guidelines[1]:

 _"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate
for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to
its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there
is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that
you did."_

[1] - <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

