> I don't have hard data (the actual details are often considered confidential), but for the marketing claims of the various makers who all trumpet greater selectivity and the rejection of false positives. Which makes sense, as security is a huge, incredibly competitive industry, and these people are all competing for the world's paranoia dollars.
Putting aside the merit of the idea of that the government bidding process ends with purchase of the best product, it's worth noting that just like with the government agents, the manufacturer isn't actually liable to anyone who suffers when its machines produce a false positive. Insofar as the manufacturer has any incentive to improve in this regard, its incentive comes from the same people who are putting on this security theater.
> Because the TSA gained nothing wasting their time on this. [blah blah] What did the TSA, NYPD, FBI, and whoever else gain from this giant waste of time?
Not sure why you threw this in here but it's so wrong that it's kind of hard to know where to begin. First, the superficial and obvious: TSA and NYPD are paid overtime. They had MONEY to gain from this exercise. Their financial incentives are exactly opposed to those of the person they are detaining.
Less superficial, perhaps equally obvious: a bureaucracy does stuff because that's the stuff the bureaucracy does. It's a big, mindless machine whose prime directive is to continue to exist. Everyone understands that they need to be seen to be DOING SOMETHING, and there are plenty of true believers who think doing that something is the most important thing in the world. That's the reason for some much of the crud we deal with now.
You might have made the mistake of thinking we're dealing with fully rational actors here. Congratulations if you've never worked for a bureaucracy and you don't get any of this.
> Something triggered on a molecule or taggant that they couldn't easily exclude, so they tried to help him assist them in excluding it. He couldn't, so they had to exhaust all avenues.
So you're anti-government and cynical. Welcome to about 99% of the online community.
There are people who actually want to blow up planes. There have been a number of attempts. These machines detect the things that are found in bombs.
There are a lot of examples of "security theater" (moreso in the private industry, it should be noted, like the ridiculously useless badges and disaffected employees at most office buildings), but explosives material detectors most certainly are not. One day we'll walk down a Total Recall type hall and it will know who we are and everything on or about us, but until then we have some inconveniences.
And groan, good old Orwell makes a cliched showing. Yes, we all read 1984 in grade school. Pulling it out as a trope to anything the government does (even where entirely rational and related to an actual threat, and overwhelming painless and transparent) is boorish internet pundit behavior.
No, you don't get to label me that easily. (why do you want to?) I believe there is a differentiation to be made between good government and bad government. Security services CAN be made to work.
> And groan, good old Orwell makes a cliched showing. Yes, we all read 1984 in grade school.
I was responding to a specific statement of yours which was pretty spectacularly stupid. I'm not saying YOU are stupid, and I think maybe you can get a handle on why it's so creepy and classically Orwellian. Let's examine it:
> Something triggered on a molecule or taggant that they couldn't easily exclude, so they tried to help him assist them in excluding it. He couldn't, so they had to exhaust all avenues.
"They tried to help him assist them in excluding it." They tried to help him assist them. Are you getting it yet? They were just trying to help him! Against his will they detained him and tried to compel him to do something, but they were just trying to help. To help HIM! To help him ASSIST them, why wouldn't he want to assist them? It'd be awfully suspicious if he didn't want to assist them. Every good person likes to help and to assist, am I right?
They tried to force him to solve a problem that they created with their own machine and they weren't going to let him go about his business until he did it. For his own good. In what sense is your take on that - the wording, at least - not Orwellian?
> Pulling it out as a trope to anything the government does (even where entirely rational and related to an actual threat, and overwhelming painless and transparent) is boorish internet pundit behavior.
Since there wasn't an actual threat, and the process wasn't painless, and since I certainly wouldn't and haven't "pulled it out as a trope to anything the government does" it's hard to understand what the heck you're talking about.
Putting aside the merit of the idea of that the government bidding process ends with purchase of the best product, it's worth noting that just like with the government agents, the manufacturer isn't actually liable to anyone who suffers when its machines produce a false positive. Insofar as the manufacturer has any incentive to improve in this regard, its incentive comes from the same people who are putting on this security theater.
> Because the TSA gained nothing wasting their time on this. [blah blah] What did the TSA, NYPD, FBI, and whoever else gain from this giant waste of time?
Not sure why you threw this in here but it's so wrong that it's kind of hard to know where to begin. First, the superficial and obvious: TSA and NYPD are paid overtime. They had MONEY to gain from this exercise. Their financial incentives are exactly opposed to those of the person they are detaining.
Less superficial, perhaps equally obvious: a bureaucracy does stuff because that's the stuff the bureaucracy does. It's a big, mindless machine whose prime directive is to continue to exist. Everyone understands that they need to be seen to be DOING SOMETHING, and there are plenty of true believers who think doing that something is the most important thing in the world. That's the reason for some much of the crud we deal with now.
You might have made the mistake of thinking we're dealing with fully rational actors here. Congratulations if you've never worked for a bureaucracy and you don't get any of this.
> Something triggered on a molecule or taggant that they couldn't easily exclude, so they tried to help him assist them in excluding it. He couldn't, so they had to exhaust all avenues.
Orwell would be proud.