Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Oh, well if they're equal, then that means this is a perfectly proportional and appropriate response.



That only holds if being sexually molested and having naked pictures of yourself taken is weighted at zero.

Furthermore, this statistic in no way indicates that these screenings reduce the risk of dying in a terrorist attack. 1 plus 1 does not equal 0. You've allegedly doubled your risk of dying, not reduced it.


The second paragraph is almost verbatim to the statement I was about to say in response to the OP.

Blacklists do not work. Antivirus software checks for a hundred thousand individual known problems, yet viruses and malware continue to evolve and bypass the blacklist. So do explosives hiding in containers that the TSA doesn't expect to find explosives in.


Well, you're right to question what the reduction in risk these scanners produce, but your first point is way off. The cost of terrorist attacks is hardly limited to death. Those planes and buildings aren't free. Not that cancer treatments are, either, but if you weigh in the psychological damage to the public (you know, why they call it "terrorism"), terrorist attacks are far more costly.


The real cost of terrorism is having to deal with all the people talking about "the real cost of terrorism", and instituting retarded policies like these scanners/molestation sessions.

Planes and buildings are cheap as shit in comparison.


1 unsuccessful underwear bomber => $500 million in contracts for scanners.

There's your cost of terrorism right there.


A "terrorist" would just find another way to terrorize.. duh. Real terrorism is a drama, as orchestrated by our overlords, to polarize the public in attempt to deprive them of their liberty. That is all.


Judging by the other replies, I guess you should put explicit sarcasm tags around your comment.


Yes. And then it still won't be very funny. It's too similar to something an actual TSA flack would say.


If it weren't similar at all it wouldn't be funny either. It's a hard balance to set.


I don't even know the name of that fallacy, but it ought to have one.

(Yes I know parent is sarcastic.)


Something like `false proportionality'?


Only if:

• the scan completely offsets the risk of terror death. I suspect not; someday someone will tell the TSA and/or terrorists about drug mules.

• the economic cost of the scanning infrastructure/training/delays etc. is equal or less than the economic cost of the terror deaths offset.


as if they are delivering total immunity from terrorist attacks in exchange.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: